FutureRockHall.com

Influence and innovation. Period.

I mean, I'd love for a quality barrier to be put in place, but to do so pretty much throws the Hall's worth out the window. Maybe you could put restrictions/penalties against 'worthy' artists who've recorded alot of 'shit' compared to the amount of 'good' they've recorded, such as making Metallica et al. wait around a few years or whatever, but that'd be difficult to control.

Posted by Liam on Friday, 04.25.08 @ 14:00pm

Wow - a whole dedicated posting room for this subject. OZ must have decided on setting this up after we littered up the Tom Jones room with our smoke and beer cans. He should conflate all that stuff there in Sir Tom's place and all the other places it has come up and lay it all here; initiate the brawl again!!

Have at you William and Liam!

Posted by shawn on Friday, 04.25.08 @ 14:24pm

Several Rock Hall voters have told me that they vote based on an atist's body of work/catalog of music too.

Posted by David on Friday, 04.25.08 @ 20:07pm

I think that the identifiability of an artist's work should be a factor in selection. How identifiable with the rock-listening public (especially in the USA, since rock is an American creation) is the artist's work?

Posted by Hazel Phillips on Friday, 04.25.08 @ 21:20pm

"Identifiabilty" is a dangerous factor there, Hazel. I would agree in some cases that it should contibute. However, much caution is advised; I can, unfortunately, identify many Styx, REO Speedwagon, Bon Jovi and even a couple Mr. Mister songs and I wouldn't let those bands use the restroom at the Rock Hall.

But I think I know the point you make.
It must be said that no artist/band should be disqualified because of a lack of identifiability.
As William and Liam have pointed out many times, there is a stockpile of worthy and important artists that the soiled masses that make up the common public have no knowledge of.
Pearls before swine. Radio play is not a pedigree.

Posted by shawn on Friday, 04.25.08 @ 22:33pm

No, but radio play and sales are also not the antithesis of a pedigree either. To me the whole "soiled masses" card that tends to get played strikes me as little more than an attempt to dehumanize and rationalize disrespect towards someone who disagrees with them. Rock 'n' roll was originally largely made for the teenage audience... not exactly the height of the sophisticated society, and it continues to be the music of the blue collar worker, the common man. And one of the reasons it continues to evolve as widely and steadily as it does is because it continues to remain popular with the common public. Yes, there are a lot of great acts who were not properly recognized or respected in their time, but it could be bad promotional campaigns, legal issues, or whatever. It's not always the fault of the "sheeple."

Rock and Roll is the music of the people. You cannot extol that as a virtue and yet whine when you're in the minority regarding an artist. It's just the way it goes sometimes. It doesn't lessen the merit of the artist you want to see get in, but it doesn't increase the merit either.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 02:49am

What the mainstream thinks and what musicians think has been widely different for at least 20 years now. The mainstream is absolutely rotten to the core at the moment, and the current innovation and influence is pretty much all taking place in the indie and underground scenes.

I really don't care what "the people" think, because "the people" listen to Bon Jovi and The Red Hot Chili Peppers. Most people just want mindless, unchallenging entertainment in their music, not art.

And again, I don't think sales or popularity should be taken into account at all, because they give only a tiny indication of influence and no indication of innovation.

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 06:15am

Shawn - Why do you always lump Bon Jovi with random where are they now/leftover artists from the 70's and 80s?

Bon Jovi is able to sell out a stadium today and have been relevant for 25 years.

Several artists like King Crimson to Cocteau Twins cannot say that.

Most people visiting the Rock Hall would say "Who is this?" and "I don't know any of their songs" to the strict criteria for artists you, Liam, William and Casper want.

By the way - I am not a Bon Jovi fanatic. I am realistic.

Posted by David on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 09:10am

Sales may not be relevant when deciding who SHOULD be in the Hall, but there is no question that there IS a huge overlap between the top sellers and the Hall of Famers. That's just a fact.

So it's ridiculous to not include that third "I" (along with Innovation and Influence) with the criteria -- that would be Impact.

Posted by mel on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 11:23am

I see what you're saying, but I honestly couldn't give a crap about that argument, David. 25 years is NOTHING in the long-run. You think anyone's gonna be listening to Livin' On A Prayer in a century or more?

Depends on your view of "relevant," really. Literally no one cites Bon Jovi as influence, so musically, no, they aren't relevant at all.

Bon Jovi is different to King Crimson and Cocteau Twins in that they have absolutely zero innovation (whereas the latter have masses each) and marginal influence (again, the latter have masses).

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 12:45pm

"What the mainstream thinks and what musicians think has been widely different for at least 20 years now. The mainstream is absolutely rotten to the core at the moment, and the current innovation and influence is pretty much all taking place in the indie and underground scenes."

That statement is almost a paradox in itself (note I said almost), as the indie and underground scenes traditionally don't have the means to be widespread enough to actually be influential in a wide enough circle. As for the first sentence in that statement, I repeat: rock and roll is the music of the people. Not just the musicians, but the people. Those who keep rock 'n' roll as a popular format of music should not be shunned just because their popularity was their chief means of perpetuating the livelihood of rock 'n' roll. Rock 'n' roll is first and foremost a form of entertainment.

And I wouldn't use the 25 vs. 100 years argument. I've met people who couldn't name a single Beatle. It doesn't mean they're "unwashed," it just means that nothing, not even the Beatles, are forever. Fame may be the fourth triumph and the one defeats Death, but Time is the fifth, and defeats Fame.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 13:42pm

"That statement is almost a paradox in itself (note I said almost), as the indie and underground scenes traditionally don't have the means to be widespread enough to actually be influential in a wide enough circle."

Well, how do you explain The Velvet Undeground? Big Star? Early R.E.M.? Gang of Four? My Bloody Valentine? Sonic Youth? Frank Zappa/The Mothers of Invention? The Kinks? Cocteau Twins?

I mean, that statement kind of stinks of Eau d'ignorance, because if you can't see the amount of innovation and influence that has (and still is) been going on in the underground scenes, then, well....you're ignorant.

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 14:03pm

The Velvet Underground had a big name behind them: Andy Warhol. The Kinks first came at a time when labels were scrambling for anything British, and they'd make the efforts to get them widely distributed. Frank Zappa relied a lot on his touring as well as his genius.

The 80's kind of marked the end of the traditional age, or at least the beginning of the end, because '81 is when Billboard started publishing their Album Rock charts, thus giving a lot of 80's rockers national exposure even if they initially only had enough strength in a regioin to scrape the lower reaches of the Album Rock charts.

And of course, with every rule, there are exceptions and anomalies. They don't disprove the rule outright.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 14:13pm

So, basically, what you're saying is that you've missed about 40 years of influential underground scenes, is that it?

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 14:18pm

No, but since I'm not even 30 years old, let alone 40, it's nice to see that people here don't use age as a high horse from which to preach. It's not ignorance just because I disagree with you.

Though I will admit, my experience with the underground and indie label scene when I did college radio *DID* leave a bad taste in my mouth. And my ears. So I'm at least willing to admit I may have a bias there.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 14:28pm

I just think that you've got some silly notion in your head that popularity = influence, when nothing of the sort is true.

Because in fact, right now, pretty much all the influence (and innovation, although, that's another matter) is going on in the underground.

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 14:36pm

Not exactly. I think popularity is a part of Impact, Impact in turn can lend itself to influence (though not always). Influence and innovation also don't always equal impact. They're all important, imo. I'm just sick of people who think anything mainstream is inherently evil and Billboard is the means by which we measure how much a band has sold out.

To put it succinctly, review Tom Hanks' speech for the Dave Clark Five. He echoed everything my heart screamed as to why the DC5 belong in the Hall of Fame. And a lot of what's missing from music today.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 14:46pm

Popularity has very little to do with influence and absolutely nothing to do with innovation. Again, you can't take popualrity as an indication of influence because you can't assume that X% of the consumers are musicians.

'00s mainstream = pile of crap.

Seriously, you need to find some '00s indie stuff and see what you've been missing. Start with The New Pornographers, The Decemberists, Arcade Fire and The Go! Team.

ps: I don't agree with the DC5's induction. They have no innovation and relatively small influence, and you could even do better as far as '60s pop acts who aren't in yet (The Hollies and The Zombies being the most obvious to me).

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 15:01pm

I tried '00s indie back when I worked in college radio. It just didn't touch me at all. Music without a soul, almost. Lyrically, it's like Seinfeld: it's about nothing! Or if it is about something, it's on a soapbox and is intent on bashing the listener over the head until they listen to their message. That's not to say there wasn't some of it that I liked. I did find some pretty cool stuff, but it really was the minority. Indie music is innovative at times, but it often lacks heart and soul. But on the other hand, mainstream is music without its head. Never the twain shall meet, it seems.

The DC5 belong in. Innovation is not a deal-breaker for me. Neither is influence. Nor impact. A band can lack one of the three and even be weak in another and still merit induction if they can make up for it in the third. The DC5 proved that good rock'n'roll didn't require being rebellious. I would put the Hollies and the Moody Blues in as well, and maybe even the Zombies (though the hit singles were pretty much the limit to their stuff. Their album stuff and B-sides really don't argue well for them), but the DC5 deserve the induction they got. Their songs are cannonballs: smooth to the touch with no rough edges, but powerful, both in propulsion and in the explosive energy contained therein.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 15:20pm

What a load of bullsh*t that first paragraph is. Way to go off on one at an entire crowd of music that you have only the slightest knowledge of. Indie music has no soul? Right, so you can't have heard of The Arcade Fire, then. Empty lyrics? You need to try Patrick Wolf. It's overzealous at the listener? Pick up a Go! Team record.

Your opinion of The DC5 does not mean crap about how much they deserve in. Read this:

"Criteria include the influence and significance of the artist's contributions to the development and perpetuation of rock and roll."

Nothing, I repeat, nothing in there even suggests that anyone's opinion should be taken as measurement. You like them, I don't. Why should your view be taken over absolutely anyone else's?

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 15:36pm

"What a load of bullsh*t that first paragraph is. Way to go off on one at an entire crowd of music that you have only the slightest knowledge of. Indie music has no soul? Right, so you can't have heard of The Arcade Fire, then. Empty lyrics? You need to try Patrick Wolf. It's overzealous at the listener? Pick up a Go! Team record."

At least from that paragraph, I can derive that you don't work in sales. lol. Simply put, if what I have sampled does nothing for me, why on Earth would I be compelled to try now? It's really no guarantee that the Arcade Fire, Patrick Wolf or Go! Team will succeed where the Red Telephone, New Wet Kojak, Matthew Good Band, Royal 7, Death By Chocolate, Revolting Cocks, etc. failed. And I do try to tune in the local college rock station every now and then. Unfortunately, little has changed. Catchy stuff, and some nice innovations, but it still doesn't move me. Three good indie-label bands don't justify an entire group any more than three bad ones condemn it.

"'Criteria include the influence and significance of the artist's contributions to the development and perpetuation of rock and roll.'

Well, I would argue that popularity goes a bit of a ways in contributing to the perpetuation of rock and roll.

"Nothing, I repeat, nothing in there even suggests that anyone's opinion should be taken as measurement. You like them, I don't. Why should your view be taken over absolutely anyone else's?"

I never said mine should. I just stated what I see in the DC5. Do you think your opinion should be taken over absolutely anyone else's?

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 15:52pm

I've heard The Red Telephone, and they suck, and when I first heard Revolting Cocks I thought the guy who was playing it was joking. You must be looking in the wrong places.

You need to look at the indie acts that are going/about to go mainstream and/or major label; that's where the big talents are. Seriously, try pitchforkmedia.com for some recommendations. That site can be pretty condescending at times, but they tend to get the scores right.


"Well, I would argue that popularity goes a bit of a ways in contributing to the perpetuation of rock and roll."

Explain exactly how.

"Do you think your opinion should be taken over absolutely anyone else's?"

No, I think we should be objective in these matters.

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 16:09pm

I think I agree with Phillip a bit on this. I have listened to college radio/indie music and it just never grabbed a hold of me. As for mainstream there is music I like and some that I don't. As for the influence part I look at it this way...someone who listens to a certain type of music and then ends up playing in a band becomes influenced by their favorite music they listened to? Eh?

Posted by dano on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 16:22pm

"You need to look at the indie acts that are going/about to go mainstream and/or major label; that's where the big talents are. Seriously, try pitchforkmedia.com for some recommendations. That site can be pretty condescending at times, but they tend to get the scores right."

Next time I'm on a computer with sound, I may check it out. Meanwhile, the acts you suggest... what/who do they sound like, what are their lyrics about, can you tell that the lead singer is smiling when s/he sings... these are all questions that you could answer when trying to extol the virtues of a band instead of claiming the shortcomings of others. Just a friendly suggestion.

"'Well, I would argue that popularity goes a bit of a ways in contributing to the perpetuation of rock and roll.'

Explain exactly how."

If it's popular, it's selling (maybe not as much because of file-sharing services, but it still is if nothing else when airplay generates income). If it's selling, the record labels will want to get in on some the action and scout for more rock acts. We often call them wannabes and knockoffs, but they ARE rock acts nonetheless. When more rock acts are getting record deals, they keep putting out more rock music. More rock music being put out... rock 'n' roll is being perpetuated. Also, and a shorter route, if it's popular, that gives incentive to that band to keep putting out that kind of music, thus helping to perpetuate rock 'n' roll.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 16:22pm

Dano, working in radio, I find that there's something decent in EVERY genre... even modern mainstream country, though I may have to look a little extra hard there. ;)

"As for the influence part I look at it this way...someone who listens to a certain type of music and then ends up playing in a band becomes influenced by their favorite music they listened to? Eh?"

The problem with that line of logic is that for every one that ends up playing in a band, there are how many people who grow up to do other occupations? And of those that do form bands... not every band makes it, even in the local scene, a lot bands just don't go anywhere. It's just a funnel with a very narrow point of exit.

Also, just because a musician likes an artist, you won't always be able to discern influence from the sound of their band. If I start a band and claimed Paul Revere & the Raiders as an influence, but my band's music has more overtones of the Grass Roots, people aren't going to be as likely to take me seriously if I say the Raiders were more influential than the Grass Roots.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 16:31pm

But every band that makes it big...wouldn't you say that there were bands before them that influenced them to play. Wether they sound like them or not. And even if a band doesn't make it big but is still around playing..someone..somewhere inluenced them..right?

Posted by dano on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 16:39pm

Yes and no. I know one guy who works in the industry who says he just doesn't take Billy Joel seriously whenever Joel speaks because he just wears his influences on his sleeve. But I think people look more to the music to see where the influences can actually be found. The proof should be in the pudding.

As for those who don't make it big... yeah they were influenced, but if a band only influences small potatoes bands that never get exposure beyond a ten-mile radius of the small potatoes bands' lead singers' mothers' basements (still with me?), that really doesn't speak to that influencing band's merit as much as a band that influences other bands who in turn also make it big.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 16:48pm

"Shawn - Why do you always lump Bon Jovi with random 'where are they now/leftover' artists from the 70's and 80s?" - David

Because David, they are the Bran Flakes of rock music: bland, unimaginative gruel and they give me loose bowel movements.

Nice to read a chap who thinks more along my line of thought Philip. Liam has much knowledge, as does Willaim but I feel that they're devotion to the Church of I&I is a little cultish.

I agree with you - while sales/airplay alone is certainly not a safe way to evaluate worth, it IS ONE of the ways (as you say = impact) that an artist can aid in the perpetuation of an entertainment medium.

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 17:51pm

"but I feel that they're devotion to the Church of I&I is a little cultish."-shawn

But I'm not Rastafarian.

"I agree with you - while sales/airplay alone is certainly not a safe way to evaluate worth, it IS ONE of the ways (as you say = impact) that an artist can aid in the perpetuation of an entertainment medium."-shawn

I'd like to ask once more how it can matter in tandem with something else but not by itself? Wouldn't that make the something else the actual important thing?

Posted by William on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 18:59pm

"As for those who don't make it big... yeah they were influenced, but if a band only influences small potatoes bands that never get exposure beyond a ten-mile radius of the small potatoes bands' lead singers' mothers' basements (still with me?), that really doesn't speak to that influencing band's merit as much as a band that influences other bands who in turn also make it big."-Philip

But that begs the question: What's your idea of "small potatoes" bands? It it 100,000 units? 1 million? I don't think anyone said that every no-name garage band should be taken into account. In fact I think I've said just the opposite on more than one occasion. On the whole, though, there's a lot of middle ground between garage acts self-releasing albums burnt on Office Depot blank discs and mega-successful arena acts. You don't have to go triple-platinum to carve out a successful career in music. Yo La Tengo's been kicking around for 24 years and 13 albums. I'd call them successful, but I wouldn't say they "made it big," because that's inherently limiting. Lots of has-beens "made it big."

And yeah, there's the odd band that not only failed to make it big, but crumbled entirely. There's thousands of them, but out of those thousands, at least a few with something original tend to be found by adventurous souls who then say to themselves "Wow, I've never heard anything like this before." Some of these new followers will be successful, and a few might even "make it big" (Kurt Cobain was a huge Vaselines fan). So if you can be successful without being huge, be influential and innovative with doing either, and make it big without being anything, in what was does success measure importance?

Posted by William on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 19:15pm

Well, first I feel I must disappoint Shawn a little. I would put Bon Jovi in. Hair metal WAS the dominant face of rock 'n' roll before Nirvana came and laid waste to anything that stood in its path (just generalizing the timeline here). And I feel it should be acknowledged. More that that, though, as a True Son of The Midwest (I think Billy Joel called us "Children of the Corn" lol), I love hair metal. I know, I know, gag and curse all you want. It's a genetic thing amongst us true Midwesterners. We loves us some hair metal... even the Black, hardcore rap fans from this area love to dance to "Unskinny Bop."

William, I was addressing Dano with the remark, and I didn't get the impression that he was excluding every garage band. So yeah, I meant them... those who only get to release one album, and that one only sells about 500 units, if they're lucky, and never get any airplay except for the specially designated shows on the college rock station dedicated to local talent. Still kinda new, so I'm just trying to feel everyone out here. Give me time and I won't have to be uber-literal anymore.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 22:00pm

Phillip your right. I was basically adressing every band out there. But the ones that get most of the airplay or tour a lot I would say influence other "to be" bands. Some kid sitting at home listening to whatever song on the radio/tv decides man this is cool stuff I wanna play. I am a hair metal fan by far but I do enjoy other music (but I don't think I have the same taste as William does). But I don't agree that in order to influence or be innovative your pretty much have to be an underground/indie band.

Posted by dano on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 23:32pm

Philip, I forgive you your sin of bad taste by loving Bon Jovi and hair metal. You and Dameon shall be fast friends now, esp if your love of spande rock includes his fav whipping boys, Def Lepard.
You and I still share a core philosophy that there are more doors into a rock hall than those with Innovation or Influence nameplates.

Wiiliam, to answer your question (again but this time in another stubborn form...):
"I'd like to ask once more how (can sales/airplay) matter in tandem with something else but not by itself? Wouldn't that make the something else the actual important thing?" -W

I did not mean that it HAD to be in tandem with I or I - could be, but not a prerequisite. Philip put it perfectly in his 4-26 @ 15:20 post:

"Innovation is not a deal-breaker... Neither is influence. Nor impact. A band can lack one of the three and even be weak in another and still merit induction if they can make up for it in the third."

Exactly.

Emblematic of this approach would probably be the case for the Doobie Brothers, whom I believe belong in the Hall.
Innovative? Not so much. They commanded their own nice fusion of R&B, hard rock, country, blues, bluegrass, boogie woogie, but probably innovated nothing.
Influencial? I have no idea - I have not found nor assembled a litany (how many, btw, would not elicit a scoff of "Is that all ya got?"?), though I can only assume they did influence many a musician.

But their claim to the Hall lies in their simple Impact on the development and perpetuation of rock music because of their popularity, airplay, sales and ubiquity for about a 10 year period from 1972-1982. I could list their numbers and all their great hit singles, but you'll just tell me that has nothing to do with I or I --- yea, and so what?
Here's my stance on artists that charted and sold like the Doobies did,in that time, - before the crap of the 00's, they made an IMPACT and did perpetuate rock - they must then be given the SUCK test - as in, did they? If they sucked by general consensus, they are probably right out.

There are very few eceptions to this law - those acts that sucked but trump that with unfortunate sheer force of presence. I am thinking of KISS, possibly Journey.

Note that in no way does this detract from the merits and cases for the Replacements, Brian Enos and Nick Drakes of the rock wilderness. They stand true and tall by much different measure.

Posted by shawn on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 23:58pm

Thanks Shawn. Just remember, though, if you take a trip to the Midwest better have a Poison CD handy as camouflage. *just in case* (and I loved "Hysteria" and "Adrenalize" growing up. lol)

I think there's a fourth pillar too... actually being a rock 'n' roll group. That's something else the DC5 and the Doobies (at least in their earlier stuff) had. Which does bring us to the question of defining it... I like to think of it in the same way a Supreme Court justice once described something else: "I can't define it, but I know it when I [encounter] it." For those who clucked at Madonna's induction because she wasn't rock 'n' roll even though she had influence and impact in spades, the DC5 were someone who should have been in because other than Mellencamp and arguably the Ventures, the DC5 were the act on this year's ballot that you would look at and say, "Yes, THEIR style was in fact rock 'n' roll." (I know, some disagree, just how I feel about it).

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 00:27am

If being rock and roll was actually criteria you couldn't make any inductions past 1972. You either take the name totally literally or not at all.

I'll say it again: I think "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" was a stupid choice for a name and only chosen as tourist bait.

A better choice? "Contemporary Music Hall of Fame" or "Modern Music Hall of Fame."

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 02:20am

"Hair metal WAS the dominant face of rock 'n' roll before Nirvana came and laid waste to anything that stood in its path (just generalizing the timeline here)." - Philip

Only from a sales and popularity aspect. As far as influence goes, hair-metal is expendable, and as for innovation, well, I won't even go there (parce qu'il n'y a rien). Musically, I'd give the post-punk/alternative rise as being dominant, especially in the long-run.

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 02:26am

Hey guys, I'd really love an explanation of this 'sales--->impact' crappage that I'm sure I won't agree with. Exactly what is the 'impact' supposed to be (on)?

Because in all honestly, this justs sounds like some lame excuse at getting the fav'rites in the Hall. Am I right?

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 02:34am

"You either take the name totally literally or not at all."

And if I refuse to be confined by just those two choices? There's an ocean of possibility between those two ends... an ocean big enough for a fleet of yellow submarines.

"Only from a sales and popularity aspect."

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was referring to. Chiefly because it's the most tangible and measurable standard. Not always the best, but oh well.

"Hey guys, I'd really love an explanation of this 'sales--->impact' crappage that I'm sure I won't agree with. Exactly what is the 'impact' supposed to be (on)?"

Sales translating into impact is pretty much along the same wavelength that I offered as far as sales and popularity aiding in the perpetuation of rock'n'roll. And I'm referring to Impact on popular culture, how many ears are being reached, because rock'n'roll was and is primarily a form of pop culture, and it's not a term of shame.

"Because in all honestly, this justs sounds like some lame excuse at getting the fav'rites in the Hall. Am I right?"

Not by a long shot, though you could argue that's what the current members of the nominating board are doing. There are bands that I don't care for that I believe deserve induction (RHCP, Dave Matthews Band, the Miracles, etc.) and there are artists I like that I don't think should ever be inducted (Jay And The Americans, Vogues, Village People, etc.).

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 03:15am

"And if I refuse to be confined by just those two choices? There's an ocean of possibility between those two ends... an ocean big enough for a fleet of yellow submarines."

No, because rock and roll is specific to the '40s and '50s genre of music. Your thinking of rock specifically, but 'rock' and 'rock and roll' are not synonymous. Pretty much no artists post '72 can be consiidered rock and roll.

"Sales translating into impact is pretty much along the same wavelength that I offered as far as sales and popularity aiding in the perpetuation of rock'n'roll. And I'm referring to Impact on popular culture, how many ears are being reached, because rock'n'roll was and is primarily a form of pop culture, and it's not a term of shame."

The ONLY way of "perpetuating rock and roll" is by innovating sounds and influencing musicians. Rock and roll in itself isn't around anymore, and rock isn't primarily a form of pop culture now.

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 03:35am

Well, we could argue until eternity and not agree on the definition of rock 'n' roll. I like what Billy Joel said... it's still rock 'n' roll to me. As to the only other points:

"The ONLY way of 'perpetuating rock and roll' is by innovating sounds and influencing musicians."

I would disagree. You can perpetuate it by continuing to play the music of the 50's and 60's, just as you can perpetuate a story by the continued retelling of it. It wouldn't *evolve*, but perpetuating isn't necessarily the same as evolving. The point is to keep it in the hearts and minds of listeners, which can be done through innovation of new sounds, influencing others to become musicians, or through continuing in your own successful style.

"rock isn't primarily a form of pop culture now."

WTF is that even supposed to mean? If you're referring to pop vs. indie, then you misunderstood what I meant, and I apologize... I simply mean rock was and is primarily form of entertainment, which is the foundation of what constitutes "pop culture."

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 03:57am

"You can perpetuate it by continuing to play the music of the 50's and 60's, just as you can perpetuate a story by the continued retelling of it."

You're talking about influencing and following without realising. As a musician, you're being influenced by whatever '60s act you care to play the music of, and therefore it's said '60s act that is doing the perpetuating. If you were to influence other musicians, then yes, you yourself would be perpetuating rock.

"I simply mean rock was and is primarily form of entertainment, which is the foundation of what constitutes "pop culture.""

I knew what you meant, just that you're forgetting that rock (at least part of it) has been a form of art for some time now, and most will tell you that it has been since Dylan's Blonde on Blonde. My Bloody Valentine, Brian Eno, The Velvet Underground and thousands of others didn't (and don't) make music primarily as a form of entertainment.

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 04:07am

lol so now we disagree on the definition of "perpetuating" but that's fine. I simply disagree with how you define it.

"I knew what you meant, just that you're forgetting that rock (at least part of it) has been a form of art for some time now, and most will tell you that it has been since Dylan's Blonde on Blonde. My Bloody Valentine, Brian Eno, The Velvet Underground and thousands of others didn't (and don't) make music primarily as a form of entertainment."

Forgive me for being blunt, but that doesn't mean squat. What matters is how the end user is using it. They may be creating rock music for the purpose of creating art, but as long as people are using for entertainment, it's entertainment. Even if their idea of entertainment is stimulation through indulgence in the arts. It's still entertainment. And no artist can escape it.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 04:20am

To be frank, "entertainment" isn't what the Hall should be looking at, because it isn't measurable.

I was talking about the MAKING of rock and pop, not how they are viewed by consumers. Rock and pop were initially made as forms of entertainment, and not taken seriously by critics. It has since become an actual form of art. Whether you, me or the next guy "enjoys" this doesn't actually make a blind bit of difference. Of course, not everyone actually makes artwork, else we wouldn't have to endure sub-mediocre tripe like Bon Jovi or Def Leppard.

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 04:37am

Entertainment is measurable. That's how Billboard, Arbitron, Nielsen, etc. work. You may not be able to measure the amount of joy and pleasure you give people, but that's another matter. And entertainment should matter because being entertaining is one way that something gets heard enough times to influence others. Hearing it once and making an impact is possible, but not likely. That's not to say something can't be art AND entertainment. There's plenty of evidence to prove that it can, but when you rule out the entertainment value, you pretty much make it a convention for performance art types of music. Would you put Yoko Ono in the Hall? Or Penderecki? Phillip Glass? Because that's where the "art is the ultimate end-all be-all" argument leads. You need to acknowledge art AND entertainment in healthy proportions to get the artists that we hail as worthy of induction into the Hall. The two pieces need each other.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 04:53am

"Entertainment is measurable. That's how Billboard, Arbitron, Nielsen, etc. work."

You misspelled "popularity." How do you know every person that bought a #1 album enjoyed it? Never heard of the Rallying To The Winner effect? What about Metallica's St. Anger? That went #1, and yet pretty much everyone I know told me it sucked.

"And entertainment should matter because being entertaining is one way that something gets heard enough times to influence others."

Again, you misspelled "popularity." Being popular does not mean you will be influential to musicians. I'd be surprised if yu could scrape more than 10 artists influenced by Bon Jovi, and they are popular. Same for Britney Spears, Cher, Lionel Richie etc.

If you want to measure influence, measure it directly. Don't be lazy by letting sales be an indication.

"Would you put Yoko Ono in the Hall? Or Penderecki? Phillip Glass? Because that's where the "art is the ultimate end-all be-all" argument leads."

Yes, I'd induct Penderecki, what with all the relevance he has within contemporary music and all. I'm choking on all this sarcasm!

You could make a case for the other two, especially Ono.

"You need to acknowledge art AND entertainment in healthy proportions to get the artists that we hail as worthy of induction into the Hall."

Who's "we"? Why do we have to acknowledge "entertainment" (you mean sales)? I mean, assuming you do mean sales, there's already an organisation that recognizes it: it's called Billboard.

And supposing that you do mean entertainment, how do we measure that? I've already shown how sales can't show what is entertaining, but why should the opinions of one million idiots be taken over that of fifty well-informed music lovers?

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 05:15am

The problem with the Rock And Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony is that it has become a TV show with time constraints and performances. They should go back to just inducting artists and giving induction speeches, with no performances except for the all-star jam at the end, like they used to do the late 80s. They inducted a lot more artists per year back then:

1986 - 16 inducted
1987 - 23 inducted - BEST YEAR EVER!
1988 - 09 inducted
1989 - 09 inducted

1990 - 16 inducted
1991 - 11 inducted
1992 - 12 inducted
1993 - 11 inducted
1994 - 10 inducted
1995 - 09 inducted
1996 - 09 inducted
1997 - 10 inducted
1998 - 08 inducted
1999 - 10 inducted

2000 - 14 inducted
2001 - 11 inducted
2002 - 08 inducted
2003 - 09 inductes
2004 - 08 inducted
2005 - 07 inducted
2006 - 07 inducted
2007 - 05 inducted - WORST YEAR EVER!
2008 - 08 inducted

240 inducted in 23 years. Each band is counted as 1.

AVERAGE # OF INDUCTEES PER YEAR - 10

I believe that all major charting musicians from the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s have to be inducted because they were all a part of the foundation of Rock and Roll. YES, 50s-60s = GROUNDBREAKING! 50s-60s = FOUNDATION! Without them, nothing else would have happened!

INDUCT NOW!:

The Surfaris, The Hollies, The Troggs, The Turtles, The Monkees, The Kingston Trio, Herman’s Hermits, The Searchers, Peter, Paul and Mary, The Crystals, The Harptones, The Miracles, Little Anthony and the Imperials, Tommy James and the Shondells, The Osmonds, The Moody Blues, Blood, Sweat & Tears, Chicago, Genesis, Derek and the Dominos, The Spencer Davis Group, Blind Faith, Captain Beefheart, The Paul Butterfield Band, Three Dog Night, The Doobie Brothers, The Commodores, Kool & The Gang, Dire Straits, Yes, Deep Purple, King Crimson, Emerson, Lake and Palmer, Jethro Tull, Alice Cooper, KISS, Rush, The Cars, Cheap Trick, Heart, Electric Light Orchestra, REO Speedwagon, Journey, Styx, Boston, Kansas, Chic, Thin Lizzy, Blue Oyster Cult, Judas Priest, Steppenwolf, The Average White Band, The Guess Who, Canned Heat, Hot Tuna, Love, Roxy Music, Jan and Dean, Sonny and Cher, Chad and Jeremy, Ashford and Simpson, Loggins and Messina, Hall & Oates, The Steve Miller Band, The Stooges, The New York Dolls, Joy Division, New Order, Television, The Buzzcocks, INXS, 10,000 Maniacs

Patsy Cline, Joan Baez, Judy Collins, Nico, Melanie, Laura Nyro, Janis Ian, Roberta Flack, Dionne Warwick, Patti Labelle, Marianne Faithful, Darlene Love, Cher, Tina Turner, Bette Midler, Carly Simon, Linda Ronstadt, Donna Summer, Gloria Gaynor

Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett, Willie Nelson, Harry Belafonte, The Big Bopper, Chubby Checker, Bobby Rydell, Paul Anka, Neil Sedaka, Dick Dale, Tom Jones, Neil Diamond, Engelbert Humperdink, Randy Newman, Barry Manilow, Phil Ochs, Don Ho, Joe Cocker, Barry White, Lou Rawls, Albert King, Joe Tex, Charles Mingus, Todd Rundgren, Steve Winwood, Peter Gabriel, Phil Collins, Lionel Richie, Don Henley, Sting, Jeff Beck

Quincy Jones, Casey Kasem, Bernie Taupin, David Foster

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 06:58am

What about Mott the Hoople and Gary Lewis & the Playboys??

Posted by joker on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 09:53am

Now this is what I call a good conversation. Philip and Shawn - thank you for many of the points you made. I don't see how pure innovation and direct influence can be the only benchmarks for the HoF. I still think perpetuate is the key word and you don't have to be either to do this.

Shawn - you got to let D.L. go, please. Yes, I believe Lep deserves consideration for all the reasons I have mentioned in the past, but that is not a vote from me of the whole 80's scene. Yes, I enjoyed the music. It was fun, especially in the clubs, but I only think a handful of those bands deserve any consideration (Queensryche comes to mind) and IMO, there are a lot of bands who came before that which I would like to see inducted first (Purple, Cheap Trick, K.C., ELP, etc.).

Liam - serious question for you. Don't you think that all RnR bands are underground up to the point where someone makes their music accessible to some sort of listening outlet (radio, internet, etc.)?

Joker - Mott the Hoople - why not! Great band, but i doubt it.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 11:45am

" If being rock and roll was actually criteria you couldn't make any inductions past 1972. You either take the name totally literally or not at all.
I think "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" was a stupid choice for a name...
A better choice? "Contemporary Music Hall of Fame" or "Modern Music Hall of Fame." -Liam

Agree and disagree with you there Liam. The phrase "Rock and Roll" is prickly and brings about outrage in some breeds of purists when it evolves and welcomes Madonnas, Run DMCs, even James Taylors, Paul Simons and Bee Gees and Earth, Wind & Fires.

But I Contemporary or Modern just sound to me whatthey are: words so beige and impotent in their lack of controversy as to be devoid of meaning, much less attractiveness.

I think people need to justexpand their perceptions of Rock and take off the blinders, open up a bit.

Although I have to say it is inconsistent to posit R&B, funk and even now rap/hip-hop as natural brothers of rock, but to see country as a different species when obviously country is very much an influence and ingredient in countless rock and roll songs and styles.

Posted by shawn on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 11:50am

"The ONLY way of "perpetuating rock and roll" is by innovating sounds and influencing musicians." -Liam

Afteral this conversation, you STILL are locked stubbornly into pretending to not see what blokes like Philip and I mean when we talk about Impact and perpetuation of rock (rock-n-roll - whatever - fukking semantic games there..).

P-E-R-P-E-T-U-A-T-I-O-N
Come - freakin - ON already!
Where is the danger you see in opening up to more than this rigid, scholarly insistence on scientific documentation of Innovation or Influence by a peer reviewed medical journal.
Which, by the way, I will submit yet again, can be subjective itself; accurate possibly, yes, but nonetheless subjective.

Posted by shawn on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 12:00pm

After justnow reading through the entirety of Liam's and Philip's volley, the great divide is now very clear, and why we shall go no furher without some kind of a bridge:
Liam's paradigm completely negates the value of the common listener - the fan, the consumer, the populus of popular/rock music - for him the lastner has no relevance in the context of Perpetuation.

Philip and I keep pointing to the broad nature of that word and how crazy it is not to recognize how popular/rock music is nourished and continued by airplay, sales and ubiquity. But for Liam, Impact on other musicians is the only respectable and relevant measure.

That's it. I understand and respect his viewpoint, but disagree wholeheartedly and think him a bit nuts. Were we to embrace his approach, the Hall would quickly become a self-absorbed pedantic study of "Art". Sorry Liam, but I find it comically absurd to treat popularity as irrelevant, even treat it rudely as the white trash component of a naturally popular medium and to try to "legitimize" rock only if we see it as art, only consider what other musicians think. What a self-involved load of hooey that would be ultimately just collapse in on itself under the weight of all that grandiose.

Posted by shawn on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 12:23pm

I'm yet to hear a convincing argument from either of you about it. Pretty much the entirety of this thread has consisted of "It is so because it is," without explaining any of how it works.

Well, I can't see anything within the 'Labels Encouragement' crap, because even if the label didn't pick the group up, the group would still be making the music. How should a bands label status affect the music their making? All that argument proves is that 'Sales = Sales'.

You need to explain how sales on their own have impact, because you haven't already. Explain exactly how The Doobie Brothers impacted rock without innovating or influencing. How do sales affect anything other than sales (ignoring the very minor connection between that and influence).

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 12:26pm

Yeah, I mean, God forbid Rock should be remembered as an art-form in centuries to come.

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 12:43pm

"..why should the opinions of one million idiots be taken over that of fifty well-informed music lovers?

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 05:15am"

Because as a practical concern, you have an umpteen million $ complex with future expansion in the works that takes $$$$ per annum to maintain. How do you propose we finance this? By forbidding the dumb public from entering?? By charging each of the 50 musicians that visit the place every month or year $10,000-20,000 for their tour? I know, we could have the inductees pitch in with the chores to save some money. We'll have Johnny Rotten be the greeter, the surviving members of the Grateful Dead pass out refreshments of brownies and Kool-Aid, dress up Debbie Harry in a maid's outfit to dust off the trophies, assign the Police to security detail, put Steve Tyler on the snow blower and let Paul McCartney fix holes on the roof when the rain gets in.

Posted by joker on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 12:54pm

I think you're underestimating the size of Pitchfork's reader base, joker. Considering that that site has been shown to be able to either decrease and/or increase a group's commercial success, I'd imagine it's pretty big.

There are more people giving a crap about influence and innovation than you realise. Whether there is enough to keep the Hall afloat is anyone's guess, although I wouldn't be surprised if there was.

Posted by Liam on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 13:04pm

Liam, you're saying that innovation and influence are mutually exclusive from sales, right? So in that case, there should be no correlation between the innovators/influencers and the top sellers...

So how do you explain that a large proportion of the top sellers of all time are in the Hall of Fame? Just a crazy coincidence? If the Hall has it wrong, then who among the top sellers are you kicking out?

And don't try to turn this around by saying that I'm advocating sales as a prerequisite for induction. Exactly NOBODY here is saying that. All I'm saying is that there is something going on when there is that much of a relationship between the most influential artists and the biggest sellers. Again, this is not true for ALL artists (like VU of course), but it's definitely true for a whole bunch of them.

Posted by mel on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 17:17pm

Ok, kind of a touch-and-go response trying to reply to as much as I can with as few words as possible, so if I omit some seemingly small point that means the world to you, sorry and tough.

"I'm yet to hear a convincing argument from either of you about it. Pretty much the entirety of this thread has consisted of 'It is so because it is,' without explaining any of how it works."

The problem with this statement is that it ignores the fact that it is regardless of our ability to explain it.

"You need to explain how sales on their own have impact, because you haven't already. Explain exactly how The Doobie Brothers impacted rock without innovating or influencing. How do sales affect anything other than sales (ignoring the very minor connection between that and influence)."

We did. If it sells, it's a bandwagon that other companies will jump on to cash in on. Simple example: Nirvana. While you can talk about the evolution of the indie scene until that point, the fact still is that once Nirvana broke big, companies and labels scrambled to get a piece of the pie that was the Seattle garage/grunge scene. In a way it still affects us and influences us today. Some of those other bands that had been around before Nirvana broke big finally broke big themselves because the labels wanted to sell what they were offering. And even if you call it a "very minor connection", as you parenthetically did, you can't just wave it off, because it's there.

"Well, I can't see anything within the 'Labels Encouragement' crap, because even if the label didn't pick the group up, the group would still be making the music. How should a bands label status affect the music their making? All that argument proves is that 'Sales = Sales'."

The wider the distribution, the wider you can cast your nets of influence and the better chance you have of catching more fish, and therefore influencing them.

"Yeah, I mean, God forbid Rock should be remembered as an art-form in centuries to come."

And God forbid that Rock be remembered as something that gave people joy and happiness. Because clearly those are bad things to have.

""..why should the opinions of one million idiots be taken over that of fifty well-informed music lovers?"

Nice try to resurrect the "unwashed masses" argument, but it has no credence with me. Claiming "unwashed masses" is usually just another way of saying "I have personality issues that forbid me from exercising even the most basic form of respect for my fellow man if they don't agree with me about this." It's also a weak argument because you're just as likely to be included among those you claim to be above in some respect or another. I could get all pretentious and snotty because I absolutely loathe not just 00's mainstream music, but also what "American Idol" has done to both TV and radio. But I don't. There are things I like that aren't exactly haute couture. Instead, I choose to just get myself together and join the human race.

When you sing along to Patti Smith's "People Have The Power", on the chorus, you don't have time to interject "except for those who disagree with us" before it's time to belt out "PEOPLE HAVE THE PO-WER!" again. Now, I'm not saying they have as much credibility as other musicians, or producers, insiders, historians, but that doesn't make them idiots.

As for Ono, I like her, but wouldn't put her in. Her only influence that you can call hers is with other performance and avant-garde artistes, and that just doesn't extend very widely. Her current popularity is due more to the talent of electronica producers and remixers.

On a positive note, though, I am taking your advice and trying some of the stuff you recommended. Autolux didn't agree with me (I don't mean this as a derogatory statement... it sounds like music made for stoners or at least to be enjoyed more fully when high), but so far, there's hope for the Go! Team.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 17:22pm

Philip - Applause! Same for you Shawn.

Liam - as much as I respect your opinion as to why innovation and influence are the King and Queens of benchmarking, it is just not possible for this subject to be so black and white. If we feel that Rock is as much an art form as anything else, then we have to appreciate the fact that art is usually liked or disliked. Liked = sales. Sales leads to accessibility and accessibility leads to possible influence. I think you are correct when stating that a lot of people are looking for bands that have something new to give us. But I think that people are looking more for something that they enjoy. If that something is also new and influential, then great. But if it is nothing more than a reinvention of something done 20 years earlier with maybe a slight new twist, then that can be just as important in perpetuating the continued success and growth of the art form.

I have waited 5 months to see this conversation and I thank you all.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 17:48pm

"I'm yet to hear a convincing argument from either of you about it. Pretty much the entirety of this thread has consisted of "It is so because it is," without explaining any of how it works." -Liam

My God Man, you can't be serious by this point.
C'mon - are you being intentionally obtuse now?
If this difference in our paradigms has been distilled down now and diagnosed as simply the difference in how we define perpetuate and how you are willing to define it (a musician context only) then let's get some clarity and move onto another phase of this conversation.

But how long will we keep coming back to this same loop of questions from you?

Philip has explained how our reasoning works in at least 3 different ways that I just went back and saw and I have a couple times now.

Sales and airplay >> popularity >>> more ears reached >>> marketing of an artist to the listening world at large >>> more interest in music >>> not only new musicians inspired but demand for more of that artists creations and more music in general>>> perpetuation.

Hopefully, that particular artist is quality and has something other than crass sales to offer the world of rock/popular music. If not (see Jay-Z, 50 Cent, Celine Dione, Bon Jovi, Loverboy, et al..) then they are judged accordingly in the court of subjectivity. Fear not that duty.

Also: At the most fundamental level,
sales >>> is the goal of almost all aspiring artists because they need money to live too. Financial success not only prompts them (perpetuates) to continue creating this rock music but allows them to do so. Simple equation.


I too, like Mel am perplexed at your belief that ackowledging that rock is an amalgam of art and entertainment is devil talk - why are tey so damn mutually exclusive to you? You are setting up a false dichotomy which we will reject over and over; from whence comes this fevered quest to preserve the homor of your fair maiden Art?

As mel points out, who here is giving the finger to Innovation & Influence and advocating sales as a prerequisite for induction? Exactly NOBODY here is saying that.

Posted by shawn on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 18:09pm

"But if it is nothing more than a reinvention of something done 20 years earlier with maybe a slight new twist, then that can be just as important in perpetuating the continued success and growth of the art form." -Dameon

Quite right Dameon, and could not have stated it better. That's spot on.

Posted by shawn on Sunday, 04.27.08 @ 18:12pm

How I would structure the 2009 vote/induction parameters:

- Outsource one nominee ballot and induction spot to Pitchfork. (1 spot)

- The Cure, Sonic Youth, The Replacements, Husker Du, Depeche Mode, Joy Division
(voters instructed to choose 2 of these 6)

- King Crimson, Genesis, Rush, Moody Blues, Jethro Tull, Yes
(voters instructed to choose 2 of these 6)

- Kraftwerk, Brian Eno, Big Star, Nick Drake, The Stooges, Roxy Music
(voters instructed to choose 1 of these 6)

- Alice Cooper, Steve Miller Band, Chicago, Joe Cocker, Jeff Beck, T.Rex
(voters choose 2 of these 6)

Total of 8 inductees.

Also: change the eligibilty threshhold to 20 years since first recording, back from 25 years.

Posted by shawn on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 09:44am

"Liam, you're saying that innovation and influence are mutually exclusive from sales, right? So in that case, there should be no correlation between the innovators/influencers and the top sellers..." - mel

The link between sales and influence is so small it might aswell not be there. In the '50s and '60s, before rock became an artform, artists could rely less on substance and more on publicity to be influential (eg The Monkees).

There is absolutely no correlation between innovation and sales whatsoever.

"All I'm saying is that there is something going on when there is that much of a relationship between the most influential artists and the biggest sellers." - mel

Which assumes that the Hall is actually metting its own standards (I&I), which it isn't.

"All I'm saying is that there is something going on when there is that much of a relationship between the most influential artists and the biggest sellers. Again, this is not true for ALL artists (like VU of course), but it's definitely true for a whole bunch of them."

Right, so by that logic, Lionel Richie, Phil Collins, Boyz II Men, Meat Loaf, 'N Sync, The Spice Girls, Bon Jovi, Mariah Carey, Britney Spears, George Michael and Bryan Adams must be among the most influential artists, unless you feel the need to shout "ANOMALY!" Going the other way, how do you explain:

Bad Brains
Big Black
Big Star
The Birthday Party
Cocteau Twins
The Cure (before they went big)
Dead Kennedys
Dinosaur Jr.
Brian Eno
Fugazi
Gang of Four
Happy Mondays
Husker Du
JAMC
Joy Division
Killing Joke
The Kinks
Meat Puppets
Minor Threat
Minutemen
My Bloody Valentine
Pavement
Pixies
R.E.M. (before they went big)
The Replacements
Siouxsie & The Banshees
The Smiths
Sonic Youth
The Stone Roses
Talk Talk
Television
Violent Femmes
Wire and
XTC?

None of whom's influential work was "best-selling." I'll give it that The Cure and R.E.M., but they had influential stuff when they were lesser known (Pornography, Murmr). Oh wait, there all anomalies, right?

Posted by Liam on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 10:14am

"If it sells, it's a bandwagon that other companies will jump on to cash in on. Simple example: Nirvana. While you can talk about the evolution of the indie scene until that point, the fact still is that once Nirvana broke big, companies and labels scrambled to get a piece of the pie that was the Seattle garage/grunge scene. In a way it still affects us and influences us today. Some of those other bands that had been around before Nirvana broke big finally broke big themselves because the labels wanted to sell what they were offering. And even if you call it a "very minor connection", as you parenthetically did, you can't just wave it off, because it's there."

So record labels make music all of a sudden? Neat.

Even if the label didn't pick up the group, the group would STILL be playing the music. I'm not completely dismissing that there are a certain few artists whose influence was aided by huge commercial success, but how many artists got in the same position as Nirvana?

"As for Ono, I like her, but wouldn't put her in. Her only influence that you can call hers is with other performance and avant-garde artistes, and that just doesn't extend very widely. Her current popularity is due more to the talent of electronica producers and remixers."

It actually sounds like you trying to discredit underground influence right there.

"The wider the distribution, the wider you can cast your nets of influence and the better chance you have of catching more fish, and therefore influencing them."

But that doesn't mean you WILL have those followers. All it shows is that your CHANCES of having followers will increase, but you haven't given a concrete rule that the followers will be there. With that, you're forced to assume that the followers are there. Why not make it easy on yourself and actually find out who actually followed the artist?

Posted by Liam on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 10:18am

"more interest in music >>> not only new musicians inspired"

And that's the assumption that breaks your chain. You cannot assume that any proportion of the consumers are musicians.

But, more importantly, even if an artist IS cloned due to large sales, what about the clones that undoubtedly make it big? For every one Pearl Jam there are around thirty Nickelbacks that enter the mainstream (and often stay there). How do you deal with them, without bringing your own opinion of the music into it?

"sales >>> is the goal of almost all aspiring artists because they need money to live too"

Not all artists make music for money ("isn't it queer?"). Yes, many do, but it's not everyone's priority.

"I too, like Mel am perplexed at your belief that ackowledging that rock is an amalgam of art and entertainment is devil talk - why are tey so damn mutually exclusive to you?"

Strawman, because I never said the two were mutually exclusive. You enjoy a band. Great. Lots of people enjoy that band. Even better. But exactly why they should be put into a museum is something baffling.

This is supposed to be a HoF that includes the artists that "perpetuate rock and roll." You see, you're little rule with the sales doesn't work, since I've shown that one stage is an assumption.

Also, you won't be around forever. You can't "prove" that something is 'bad.' If Nickelback sold alot of records, how do you keep them out without killing your reputation? You can't just lump extra criteria (like your opinion) onto sales, otherwise, what's the point?


You either take sales on their own or you don't ake them at all. And since there are already plenty of organisations that recognise sales, I'd go for the latter.

Posted by Liam on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 10:51am

"The link between sales and influence is so small it might aswell not be there." -Liam

In your list of influential artists, I couldn't seem to find any artist that had sold less than 10,000 albums. Can you list them please? Because by your logic, there are loads of them to choose from. There should at least be as many that have sold over 10 million albums.

And nice try twisting my argument into "sales = influence." That's not what I said at all.

Posted by mel on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 10:52am

Liam, you act like museums are places which are put together by robots documenting history. You don't think there are curators in an art museum? You don't think they apply some editorial control of what gets exhibited?

Why else do you keep asking for Pitchfork to take over the process other than the fact you think their taste is more closely aligned with your own? They wouldn't be any more "objective" than the current committee. They are just coming from a newer perspective.

Posted by mel on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 10:59am

10,000 albums as the maximum? Ridiculous.

You said "best-selling" artists, and NONE of them were that whn they were doing their influential works (or at all, in most of the cases). I listed 34, each one managing to have masses of influence either without or before going mainstream.

You tried to make an argument that best-selling artists were the most influential, and then turned around and said that when an 'underground' group was influential (The Velvet Underground), they were an anomalie, which is exactly the same as saying Sales = Influence.

Posted by Liam on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 11:04am

Why is 10,000 maximum "ridiculous"? You're saying sales have no relationship to influence, so there should be an even distribution of influencers across the sales spectrum. There are way more artists who sold < 10,000 than sold over 10 million, so what's the problem?

If 10,000 is ridiculous, then what number isn't ridiculous? 50,000? 100,000? Or are is there a flaw in your logic?

Posted by mel on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 11:44am

What makes bands like VU so special (and many of the ones you listed), is that they were able to make an impact in spite of sales. They're the needle in the haystack (and it's a large haystack). The odds of that happening are small (certainly < 1%). Now, if your sales are over 10 million, the evidence suggests your odds of being influential increase (maybe 15%), if being a member of the Hall is any indictation (and it doesn't have to be, the artists can stand on their own, but we are talking about the Hall of Fame after all).

NOTE! Selling millions of albums does not increase your chances to 100%! The 85% non-influentials are the silly examples Liam trots out to try to put a hole in the sales argument.

Posted by mel on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 12:19pm

Let's look at your original post:

"Liam, you're saying that innovation and influence are mutually exclusive from sales, right?"

No, I'm saying that there is only ever a very small link between sales and influence.

"So in that case, there should be no correlation between the innovators/influencers and the top sellers..."

Yes. There is NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING that links innovation and sales.

"So how do you explain that a large proportion of the top sellers of all time are in the Hall of Fame? Just a crazy coincidence? If the Hall has it wrong, then who among the top sellers are you kicking out?"

I explain it by saying that the Hall is getting it wrong and has been for a while. The HoF has to sell tickets to keep itself running and make profits, and the most obvious way of doing that is by putting recognizable acts in there.

Who do you think the guy on the street would rather see when he makes his visit: Sonic Youth or The DC5?

I do not care about a band's popularity at all when it comes to this. The Beatles are highly influential, they sold alot of records, therefore they deserve in. Sonic Youth are highly influential and innovative, they didn't sell anywhere near as many records, they deserve in. I would kick out any artists who I deem to be in simply because of the fact they were/are popular.

"And don't try to turn this around by saying that I'm advocating sales as a prerequisite for induction. Exactly NOBODY here is saying that."

Apart from Shawn and Philip.

"All I'm saying is that there is something going on when there is that much of a relationship between the most influential artists and the biggest sellers. Again, this is not true for ALL artists (like VU of course), but it's definitely true for a whole bunch of them."

Assuming that the Hall is getting it right, when there's a backlog of at least 50 deserving artists waiting for induction, which will undoubtedly grow over the years. Feel free to track down a backlog queue I made somewhere to see whether you agree with my picks.



"Why is 10,000 maximum "ridiculous"?"

Because you were making a link between best-selling artists and most-influential artists, and I'm pretty sure you've got to get quite a bit above 10,000 to be considered anywhere near "best-selling."

"You're saying sales have no relationship to influence, so there should be an even distribution of influencers across the sales spectrum."

Yes, ofcourse, and there is.

"If 10,000 is ridiculous, then what number isn't ridiculous? 50,000? 100,000? Or are is there a flaw in your logic?"

Well, Wikipedia says that best-selling artists have all sold above 50 million copies, so I'd go by that. You could push it down to 30 mill., but anymore would just seem ridiculous to me.

Posted by Liam on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 12:28pm

"Because you were making a link between best-selling artists and most-influential artists, and I'm pretty sure you've got to get quite a bit above 10,000 to be considered anywhere near "best-selling."" -Liam

You must have misunderstood my question. You're the one claiming that there is an even distribution of influencers across the sales spectrum. So I'm asking you to prove that by naming some influencers who have sold less than 10,000 (or 50,000 if you wish) albums. Who are they?

I'm saying that to make an impact at that low of a sales threshold is nearly impossible, but it can happen if the planets are aligned just so.

Posted by mel on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 12:43pm

This always comes back to what you are willing to include in your definition of Perpetuate, Liam.
I find it myopic to the point of baffling.

Influence between musicians is a pillar - YES - a solid touchstone indeed- we all acknowledge that as gospel and do not challenge it NOR are stating that it must be correlated to sales.

Furthermore, mel may have inferred it, but I do not think that sales >>> influence on musicians necessarily, other than the COMMON SENSE observation that the more widely an artist is distributed, the better the chance that it will be heard by a fellow musician. Your assertion that we have no basis to assume that any portion of consumers may also be musicians is simply contrary nonsense and flys in the face of common logic. C'mon. That's what breaks my chain? Who's a strawman?





"But, more importantly..what about the clones that undoubtedly make it big? For every one Pearl Jam there are around thirty Nickelbacks that enter the mainstream (and often stay there). How do you deal with them, without bringing your own opinion of the music into it?" - Liam

I deal with them by the suck test I mentioned and am not shy from being subjective when it is time. Let's reread a key sentence from that letter from Terry Stewart - you know, the one that sites I & I as pillars ALSO?:
"The love for, the evaluation of, and the impact of any artist are subjective questions to be answered by the nominators and the voters."
-Terry Stewart

As a board member I would not be squeamish to admit when it was time for a darker shade of subjectivity. That's the nature of the beast.

In fact, do you understand that when you decise to only salute the flags of I & I, isolated as the only pillars, you have committed a preemptive form of subjectivity? It may be indirect, but personal in philosophy nonetheless.


"Not all artists make music for money ("isn't it queer?"). Yes, many do, but it's not everyone's priority." - Liam

What a phantasmal view that is. Are there Hobbits and wee fairies playing the lute and harp for kind passer-bys in this land of the hippie troubador you describe? Call me cynical, but I'd bet much money that 99% of those playing music professionally/semi-pro are hoping hard to acheive financial success, and if they stumbled across it they would be motivated to continue. This all speaks to perpetuating.

"Strawman, because I never said the two were mutually exclusive." -L

WHAT??!! How many times have we seen you declare that sales and influence had nothing whatsoever to do with each other? Your list of 34 influencial
yet modest selling artists combined with your matra would certainly suggest that you find the two mutually exclusive, or at least offensive to admit sales/Impact can be a third pillar.


"This is supposed to be a HoF that includes the artists that "perpetuate rock and roll." You see, you're little rule with the sales doesn't work, since I've shown that one stage is an assumption." -Liam

Must we perform an autopsy on our word of the day "Perpetuate"? How can you be so stubborn? How can you really believe that perpetuating rock and roll can ONLY be evaluated in the myopic context of the fishbowl world between musicians? They are not animals in a zoo whom we watch the mating habits of for study purposes....... they make their music for public consumption and praise - that's the consumer - don't you get it? It IS related, it ISrelevant. It IS a poular medium. It IS entertainment s well as art. Yea, yea it is, brother!!!!!!!!!!


"You either take sales on their own or you don't take them at all." Liam

The false dichotomy is shouted again across the windmills of Spain, and our braveo Sir Liam Quixote of La Mancha will not acquiesce until he has preserved the honor of his maiden Rock Art.
he and his faithful companiion, Sancho William Panza.

Tilt on Liam.

Posted by shawn on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 12:50pm

""And don't try to turn this around by saying that I'm advocating sales as a prerequisite for induction. Exactly NOBODY here is saying that." - mel

"Apart from Shawn and Philip." - Liam

No, no you did not just say that. For the first time here Liam, you are exasperating me to the point of pissing me off.

Posted by shawn on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 12:53pm

"No, I'm saying that there is only ever a very small link between sales and influence." -Liam

Liam, this is a slight concession on your part. (good for you!) You're on record many times as saying "sales don't mean anything" -- mainly about bands you simply don't like. Now you can say that "sales increase your chances for being influential, but don't guarantee it."

Posted by mel on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 13:11pm

When I say "sales don't mean anything," I mean it within discussion for Hall nomination.

Posted by Liam on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 13:43pm

They don't "increase your chances." There is a tiny correlation between sales and influence, just like there's a correlation between ice cream sales and murder. It doesn't show a real cause and effect relationship, just a correlation. They trend together. And yeah, a band with sales tends to be a band with decent marketing, thus more airplay, so unless they bring absolutely nothing new to the table, what they do bring will spread. Only rarely could a band with no original aspects gain a serious amount of followers, and this tends to happen by convincing the public that what they did was original even if it wasn't (The Beatles, Hendrix, etc.). This is so rare it's barely worth mentioning, and is unlikely to ever happen again.

If your idea of "perpetuating" rock is just keeping people listening to it, what the hell? Were they at risk of stopping? How many listeners do we need to maintain critical mass? Just because people bought Bon Jovi doesn't mean he "perpetuated" rock for those people. They might have bought something else, and even the worst case scenario, nothing, isn't bad. I haven't bought a new album in a while, but I'm not somehow devoid of rock and waiting for someone to come along and "perpetuate" it for me. There's always something to listen to. More albums are released in a week than there is time in that week to listen to all of them. Nearly everyone "perpetuates" rock in that sense. It's never in danger of disappearing, but it is in constant danger of stagnation.

Posted by William on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 13:55pm

I don't think anyone has said that sales = influence. What is being said is that sales = accessibility; that in turn opens the door for possible influence. You cannot be influenced by an artist unless you have heard their music. Granted, with the increasing availability of music on the internet, younger musicians need not go buy a CD to hear something. But 20 years ago, this was not the case. Bands showcased themselves in hopes that some label, major or independent would sign them and release their work.

And Shawn makes a point; musicians/bands who have hopes of making a career of their musical talent need to sell records to pay the rent. Bands just starting out do not slap around the local music scene for $1000 bucks because they enjoy hand to mouth living existance. They do it because they want the big payday, whatever that may be. Yes, there is always an exception to the rule. But in general, all bands want to achieve some level of success.

Liam - why do you keep lumping the Kinks into this? They achieved a large amount of commercial success.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 14:01pm

"They don't "increase your chances." There is a tiny correlation between sales and influence, just like there's a correlation between ice cream sales and murder. It doesn't show a real cause and effect relationship, just a correlation. They trend together." -William

I think there is a bit more than a "tiny" correlation. But I accept your point about it not being a cause and effect relationship.

I also don't think it's quite like ice cream sales and murder. More like gun sales and murder rates.

Posted by mel on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 14:05pm

"They [The Kinks] achieved a large amount of commercial success."

Not compared to many acts of the era.

Posted by Liam on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 14:10pm

LIAM - "You're the one claiming that there is an even distribution of influencers across the sales spectrum. So I'm asking you to prove that by naming some influencers who have sold less than 10,000 (or 50,000 if you wish) albums. Who are they?"

Come up with any yet, or are you still digging?

Posted by mel on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 14:14pm

"I also don't think it's quite like ice cream sales and murder. More like gun sales and murder rates." - mel

*puts hand out flat and slices air above head, simultaneaously makes a 'whoosh' noise*

Posted by Liam on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 14:16pm

Sorry, Liam if that one went over your head ;)

I guess I need to use those stupid emoticons like everyone else.

I stand by my point though. Sorry you don't understand. It's pretty clear you've painted yourself into a corner, so you try to change the subject.

Posted by mel on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 14:23pm

Oh, it's absolutely hilarious now you stuck the emoticon on the end. Seriously, I'm gonna burst. Somebody help me.

Posted by Liam on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 14:26pm

As for these influencers selling less than 50,000 copies, you need to secify as of what period in their career, and how old the artist is. I'm pretty sure R.E.M. sold alot more records in their Out of Time/Automatic For The People period than they did in their Murmur/Reckoning period.

I'm still not totally sure why you're obsessing over specific sales margins anyway. Or do you actually think The Fall and MBV to be "best-selling?"

Posted by Liam on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 14:43pm

Well, there are plenty of influencers at the top end of the sales spectrum. You haven't produced any at the bottom, yet you maintain they are evenly distributed throughout. So the lowly sellers who with the massive influence are... who? There are tens of thousands of bands who sold less than 10,000 albums. Why can't you name one that had lasting impact on rock?

MBV and The Fall actually have had relatively successful (sales wise) careers. Their influence far outpaced their sales record, that's a credit to them. But they had to have a modicum of sales/exposure to get that point. And even bands that have a small following get the opportunity of 25 years for it to snowball before they're eligible, and it should be big enough to be measured by that point.

Posted by mel on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 15:09pm

How did MBV get exposure? Isn't Anything (from before every critic and his dog was hailing Loveless) got almost no recognition by the media, and yet it (somehow) managed to kickstart the whole shoe-gaze scene. Anomalie?

Answer this: is there a cause and effect link betweem sales and influence? Yes or no.

Posted by Liam on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 15:22pm

I have maintained that there is a strong correlation between sales and influence. Not a cause and effect relationship.

And you really need to learn how to spell anomaly if you're going to keep using it.

Posted by mel on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 15:33pm

"So record labels make music all of a sudden? Neat."

Uh no, I didn't even come close to saying that. I said they distribute it.

"Even if the label didn't pick up the group, the group would STILL be playing the music."

But if fewer people are hearing it, there's less chance of an artist being influential. You can't always rely on sheer quality of music to do all the work. It goes a long way, yes, but in addition to being art and entertainment, there's also the business side to it. That's why we induct record execs, promoters, etc. as well as artists.

"I'm not completely dismissing that there are a certain few artists whose influence was aided by huge commercial success, but how many artists got in the same position as Nirvana?"

Depends on how strict your parameters are for defining Nirvana's position. It could be argued that Bill Haley and Elvis are in the same position... also the Beatles, Carole King, Ramones, etc.

"It actually sounds like you trying to discredit underground influence right there."

Kinda but not really. I'm not denying underground influence, but if underground influence begets ONLY more underground artists and more underground influence, imo, you're not doing a lot to help perpetuate rock'n'roll. Which is easy to misunderstand... but lets be clear here, Sonic Youth, New York Dolls, etc. all underground, but their influence reached beyond the world of the underground.

"But that doesn't mean you WILL have those followers. All it shows is that your CHANCES of having followers will increase, but you haven't given a concrete rule that the followers will be there. With that, you're forced to assume that the followers are there."

No, you're only forced to assume that the chances are BETTER than if they never get picked up by a major label. Your argument seems to assume that the chances of followers are greater if they DON'T get wider distribution.

"Why not make it easy on yourself and actually find out who actually followed the artist?"

Why yes, I believe that's why they instituted the 25 year rule.

Posted by Philip on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 15:50pm

"Because David, they are the Bran Flakes of rock music: bland, unimaginative gruel and they give me loose bowel movements." - Shawn

But - Bran Flakes is the healthy choice.

Watch the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame go the healthy way for headlines and admission sales.

Shawn - In late September, you better take Imodium AD.

Posted by David on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 16:31pm

"Answer this: is there a cause and effect link betweem sales and influence? Yes or no." -Liam

First of all, the answer to that will not negate either influence or sales impact as a pillar of perpetuaton and development. They stand independant regardless of whether they effect one another hypothetically. You have no leverage to discard sales when it is condeded that influence blossoms forth from musician to musician, often irrelevant of common listener exposure.

But to answer: not a direct link, not even an indirect one always, but common sense says things like this:
from Dameon:

"I don't think anyone has said that sales = influence. What is being said is that sales = accessibility; that in turn opens the door for possible influence. **(You cannot be influenced by an artist unless you have heard their music.)
- Dameon

from Philip:
"Not exactly. I think popularity is a part of Impact, Impact in turn can lend itself to influence (though not always)." - Philip

Posted by shawn on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 16:39pm

"I haven't bought a new album in a while, but I'm not somehow devoid of rock and waiting for someone to come along and "perpetuate" it for me." - William

Ridiculous. Just because you personally didn't consume an artist's offerings doesn't mean THEY haven't contributed to the growth of the art. You can't possibly be that egocentric, right?


"There's always something to listen to. More albums are released in a week than there is time in that week to listen to all of them. Nearly everyone "perpetuates" rock in that sense.
It's never in danger of disappearing, but it is in constant danger of stagnation." - William

Undeniably true and an excellent statement... but so what? As an ethical analogy, every good deed shines in the vastness of this weary world regardless of how many others are being simultaneously done.
Besides that, we sift out the busywork and recognize the stuff that for one reason or another (I, I or I) worked for the cause of rock & roll on a deeper, more lasting, or more forceful scale as independant artists, standing out from the collective you speak of.

"If your idea of "perpetuating" rock is just keeping people listening to it, what the hell? Were they at risk of stopping? How many listeners do we need to maintain critical mass?" - William

Yes William, it's just that simple. Popular music will always exist - the mainstream popular stuff sucks monkey ass currently - but hypothetically, those who are creating stuff worth listening to are indeed perpetuating rock. Underground/indie stuff is more vital in a time of musical plague like right now, and during other eras (the 70's) the environment and state of evolution was different, so artists then should be judged in the context of their time. Sales were much more relevant at that juncture in perpetuating rock than they are now, I would argue.

But yea, keeping people listening is pretty much how Impact/sales works. Innovation and Influence fertilize another kind of crop - entirely necessary ones, just different.

Posted by shawn on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 17:04pm

"Shawn - In late September, you better take Imodium AD."

I'm gonna need to ask you if I can use your bathroom --- to blow shit all over the walls.

Bon Jovi is about as healthy as a diet of Slim Jims and Mountain Dew. Bran Flakes was an imperfect analogy.

Posted by shawn on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 17:08pm

Don't worry Shawn, those Jersey Boys are not getting in, at least on this upcoming ballot.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 19:34pm

"Ridiculous. Just because you personally didn't consume an artist's offerings doesn't mean THEY haven't contributed to the growth of the art. You can't possibly be that egocentric, right?"-shawn

I'll spell it out since you seem to have missed my point entirely: If people didn't buy rock albums for a period, that does not mean that rock is "dead" or "asleep" or any of the other lame metaphors people use. Just because people aren't buying albums does not mean they aren't listening to rock. You somehow read this to mean "Only what I buy matters" or something, which is not what I said at all. I'm certainly not the ridiculous one here.

The point of the argument was that this definition of "perpetuation" is meaningless. Literally every artist could be said to "perpetuate" rock via selling albums provided they sell even one pressing. But it doesn't mean anything in the long run. Remember A Taste of Honey? Don't feel bad if you have to look them up. They set a record for most copies of a single sold and won a Grammy for Best New Artist over Elvis Costello, but they were also an instantly-forgettable pop disco group who showed up near the end of disco's long run in the spotlight and had nothing new to add to anything. I can't think of even one group who cites them as an influence, and rightly so. They did not matter in the long run.

Posted by William on Monday, 04.28.08 @ 22:16pm

William, the 25 year waiting period is there so that we can observe whether an artist's contributions o rock were significnt enough to merit induction consideration, or, as in your Taste of Honey example, only helped perpetuate for a moment. We can also judge whether they were throwaway crap or they just sucked. Case by case basis, y'know? You have this obsessive preoccupation with ordered precepts. I would never have submitted Taste of Honey or Debbie Boone or Milli Vanilli as Hal worthy contributors, despite some high sales they may have garnered once.

Once again, noone here is saying that sales tacitly = significance worth memorializing in a Hall; just that they are certainly not always irrelevant, as you and Liam want to proffer.

And by the way, when you say,"Just because people aren't buying albums does not mean they aren't listening to rock.", please don't try to hamstring me with the word Sales - I mean that contact with the listener, the consumer of music DOES have a relationship to the perpetuation of rock, so I mean sales of cds, downloads, radio airplay, listening and sharing of music already owned - basically things that involve a musician's audience and not just peers. Jesus that sounds so common sense when I think about it more - what the fukk are you positing anyway???

That the audience/listener/non musician/consumer's role in the perpetuation of rock is irrelevant. Jesus that is just stupid.

Posted by shawn on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 01:38am

"I'm gonna need to ask you if I can use your bathroom --- to blow shit all over the walls." Shawn

Are you admitting that you are full of shit?


I think if only 5 artists get inducted yearly. it will be harder for non-mainstream artists to get inducted.

Posted by David on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 06:32am

You know what I find to be really convenient of the sales case, though? The fact that it allows you lot to induct artists that just happen to be your favourites, artists who would otherwise not warrant induction.

Impact? Bullshit. You just want a nice big personal gallery to keep those waybackwhen bands alive.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 09:48am

"I think if only 5 artists get inducted yearly. it will be harder for non-mainstream artists to get inducted." -David

Indeed - I quite agree. That is why there should be more inductees each year, say 8-9 rather tahn the manipulated exclusivity Wenner & Co have cooked up with reducing it to 5. Stupid, stupid move.

"Are you admitting that you are full of shit?"

Touche! Aren't we all?

Posted by shawn on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 09:50am

I don't think anyone has mentioned the quality of the music yet as criteria for induction. Personally, I don't have a problem with inducting artists who put together an outstanding catalog of songs and albums, regardless of their influence or innovation. I'm thinking of Hall of Famers like Tom Petty and AC/DC.

These artists are not a dime a dozen. It's relatively rare to have a long career that consistently put out great music. And yes, this does allow for subjective taste to determine induction. Sure, it won't be perfect, but there's enough of a critical consensus around certain artists that it can be pretty accurate.

Posted by mel on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 10:09am

Good point Mel - but you are going to get some negative feedback from a few here. Personally, I agree with you and your examples of AC/DC and Tom Petty and crew are excellent. Both bands have consistently put out excellent music for decades. They may be slowing down now, but it certainly doesn't diminish what they have done over the last 25 years.

I guess the question is, "who defines quality"? Can you actually do a qualitative analysis on music?

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 10:15am

"Impact? Bullshit. You just want a nice big personal gallery to keep those waybackwhen bands alive. ..the sales case... allows your lot to induct...your favourites, artists who would otherwise not warrant induction." -Liam

Let's drag this abstract argument into the daylight here in the yard and have a look at who we are talking about, from both ends of the debate, shall we? Let's see what specific artists we would be fighting over in our pretend ballot barfight.

I would put Alice Cooper, Chicago, Steve Miller Band and Doobie Brothers on a ballot, primarily by virtue of my Impact perspective; would you scoff at these or go along?

I would put My Bloody Valentine, Kraftwerk, Brain Eno and Joy Division too for all the reasons you will give and I would agree 90% with your reasons.

You see, the conflict between you and William vs Philip, Dameon, mel & I is who you guys will DENY... not who we would. The battle rests in your NO --- not ours. This is fine, and I point it out not to plead some kind of equitable trade (nonsense - one has to stick to their principles) but let's be clear where the contention lies.

I would not support many of your Brit-pop or fukking shoegaze heroes. I would also be more cautious than you about heaping the love on your pantheon of post-punk idols.

So for example, if we had one slot left:
Joe Cocker over The Pixies? Yea, probably.

Chicago over Sonic Youth? No way.

Steve Miller Band over Cocteau Twins. Abso-fukking-lutely.

Doobie Brothers over The Buzzcocks? Yes.

Genesis over The Replacements? I want both. I really don't know - if I was forced into a Sophie's Choice.

These are all just hypotheticals designed to see where exactly how argument would manifest itself pragmatically.

Posted by shawn on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 10:15am

Shawn - This attempt at logic and reason is only going to upset people even more.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 10:43am

The difference between Alice Cooper and Steve Miller Band, Chicago and Doobie Brothers is that Cooper is actually vital to both glam rock and hard rock.

"I would not support many of your Brit-pop or fukking shoegaze heroes."

But alot of britpop bands got alot of airplay. What makes Supergrass or Blur any different to The Doobie Brothers or Steve Miller Band that exempts them from your criteria? Unless this is more to do with personal preference. What a shocker that would be.

There's no more than ten shoegaze bands that I can think of that deserve induction, BTW.

"Steve Miller Band over Cocteau Twins. Abso-fukking-lutely."

Right, so you would value certain Speshal Sales Bands over bands with actual influence and innovation? Way to drop that bombshell all of a sudden. Obviously the Cocteaus have truckloads more influence than Steve Miller Band.

This is just seems like your opinion getting in the way of your judgement. Would you take a band you were indifferent to - let's just say KISS - over the Cocteau Twins?

"Doobie Brothers over The Buzzcocks? Yes."

But wait! The Buzzcocks had influence AND regular airplay (and innovation, depending on how you look at pop punk's developement), so surely logic would suggest that they get in over the Doobies?

And again, all I read is that you let your opinion get in the way.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 10:48am

And again, all I read is that you let your opinion get in the way. - Liam

Your opinion is getting in the way as well. Can you show me where it is definitively stated that The Cocteaus have truckloads more influence than the Steve Miller Band? The same for the Doobies and the Buzzcocks or any of the other examples? I am keeping my opinion out of this, but can you quantify your statements while rejecting Shawns?

You did notice that Shawn clearly stated the following:

These are all just hypotheticals designed to see where exactly how argument would manifest itself pragmatically.


There's no more than ten shoegaze bands that I can think of that deserve induction, BTW. - Liam

You make this determination, yet you easily dismiss the Hair Band genre. What makes one better than the other? And if you say because the music of the Hair Bands sucked, then you are being subjective and it doesn't matter if the consesus of opinion agrees with you or not.

I am not disagreeing with you and many of the points you have made about this subject, but your rigidity on the subject of I & I seems to be based on those bands which you think are deserving. I don't see objectivity in your opinions.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 11:17am

"What makes Supergrass or Blur any different to The Doobie Brothers or Steve Miller Band that exempts them from your criteria?" -Liam

That would be IMPACT.

Supergrass and Blur have almost none (in America), and Steve Miller Band are an all-American favorite.

Obviously, since SMB aren't in yet, the Hall doesn't think what their catalog is in line with Petty or AC/DC.

Posted by mel on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 11:33am

"Can you show me where it is definitively stated that The Cocteaus have truckloads more influence than the Steve Miller Band?" - Dameon

Well, I'm not going to make SMB's case, because I don't think there is one. Cocteau Twins influenced the entirety of shoe-gaze bands and had a huge hand in the development of post-rock and dream-pop.

It's "definitely stated" in your mind, assuming that you did your research.

Unless you actually think SMB are more influential than The Cocteau Twins, in which case, I'll be happy to lob your credibility out the window for you.

"The same for the Doobies and the Buzzcocks or any of the other examples?" - Dameon

Just to give a vague picture, compare the list of Followers AMG gives to the Doobie Brothers to that of The Buzzcocks. The Buzzcocks actually have more followers than that, but AMG limits those lists to twenty to avoid over-crowding.

Again, feel free to try to make a case of the Doobie Brothers being more influential than The Buzzcocks. It's your credibility, not mine.

"You make this determination, yet you easily dismiss the Hair Band genre. What makes one better than the other? And if you say because the music of the Hair Bands sucked, then you are being subjective and it doesn't matter if the consesus of opinion agrees with you or not."

Who said that I was bringing my opinion into this? Those shoe-gaze bands deserve in for their influence and, in numerous cases, innovation. The only hair metal groups who have any sort of case (excluding Van Halen) are Def Leppard and Guns N Roses. Bon Jovi et al. suck, and I don't think any well-informed individual needs telling that they have a miniscule following and non-existent innovation.

"but your rigidity on the subject of I & I seems to be based on those bands which you think are deserving. I don't see objectivity in your opinions."

You "don't see objectify in my opinions" because that's not possible. Do you need a clue-in as to what an "opinion" is and how subjectivity and objectivity differ from each other?

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 11:47am

"That would be IMPACT.

Supergrass and Blur have almost none (in America), and Steve Miller Band are an all-American favorite." - mel

What exactly makes popularity in the USA any different from popularity in the UK, France, Germany or anywhere else? How exactly are American listeners the only ones that can be "impacted?" Are all non-American radio-listeners somehow exempt from the "impactable" status? Alla Pugacheva is massively popular in Russia, so how does her impact differ at all to the impact of SMB in the States?

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.29.08 @ 11:55am

"What exactly makes popularity in the USA any different from popularity in the UK, France, Germany or anywhere else?" -Liam

Are you serious? Uh, the Rock Hall is an American institution that recognizes artists that were significant to Americans. The Nominating Committee isn't made up of an international panel, it's (probably) Americans with a couple of Canadians.

Are you suggesting the Rock Hall should recognize Russian artists that have no significance in the US? That's not what it's about, even if the front door doesn't spec