2021 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Nominees POLL

VHS: Do you mean as to the nature of her music, rather than its importance? I'm not the biggest Kate Bush fan--I do love a couple of songs--but I don't know that she makes any less sense than Joni Mitchell. They're singer-songwriters who non-fans dismiss as arty or precious or whatever, while fans are passionately devoted.

― clemenza, Wednesday, February 17, 2021 7:41 PM (fourteen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

I love Kate Bush. My confusion is more aesthetic, would be weird to see her plaque next to RHCP or Iron Maiden.

Do non-fans even know what "arty" means, though, and why precious is an insult?

(Not a slam, I just thought this criticism went out with Dave Marsh thirty years ago when cognoscenti, I guess, knew what they meant).

Subjective call, but I have my own interpretations of those words. And sometimes I hate music that fits them, and sometimes I love music that fits them.

I don't think RHCP and Iron Maiden really typify the RRHOF either, though. They haven't been inducting hard rock and metal bands for very long: Black Sabbath didn't get in until 2006, Deep Purple until 2016.

To me, Kate Bush's music is all about defining its own parameters and creating a world apart. Seeing her perform her three or four greatest hits on the same stage as Foo Fighters doesn't fit that profile.

Not what's happening itt but I assume disparaging uses of 'precious' all hark back to this.

^hard to deny that sounds a bit precious xp

Wyman can be ok, but I've rarely seen anyone more wrong than him about, like, fundamental things. Like when he ranked great rock and roll moments years ago and picked the bass line of "Stayin' Alive."

That bass line would rank higher than many Stones efforts.

Watching old stodgy blues rock musicians attempt to comment on classic hip hop is often like watching someone with a Geo Metro trying to win a drag race

Wait, Bill Wyman the journalist wasn't ever a blues-rock musician, was he?

Ah wrong Wyman. Lol @ me

https://d2qpatdq99d39w.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/18161932/rolling-stone.jpg

I have said this before but every rrhof year appears to be trying to do some mixture of the following things

1. Belatedly make up for its history of snubbing genres (rap, metal)

2. Belatedly make up for its history of snubbing whole categories of humans (POCs, women)

3. Belatedly make up for its history of snubbing influencers (vintage blues and soul and R&B)

4. Belatedly make up for its history of snubbing contributors (producers, engineers, session people)

5. Honor acts that were extremely famous and sold lots of records and filled arenas

It's got a long way to go on all those fronts

That said, burn it down

4. Belatedly make up for its history of snubbing contributors (producers, engineers, session people)

They’ve been honoring these folks in side categories for a long time (since 1986 for producers/engineers; since 2000 for session musicians).

I've got an explanation on standby too, which I haul out every year when there's puzzlement as to how x or y fits into a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (e.g., Kate Bush)...It's not a Hall of Fame for people who play what's generally thought of as rock and roll; it's for people who are embraced by what's generally thought of as the rock audience (or at least was when the thing started in the mid-'80s; I haven't a clue what that audience is called now, if it's called anything, after splintering into a thousand sub-audiences). Kate Bush belongs, and Donna Summer belongs, and Leonard Cohen belongs, and Iron Maiden belongs, and Jimmy Reed belongs; Mel Torme doesn't. (John Coltrane would belong too, but for some reason they drew a line there--not sure if there are jazz musicians in the influences wing.)

2. Belatedly make up for its history of snubbing whole categories of humans (POCs, women)

I also don’t agree w/ this claim... scroll through the list of inductees, starting at the beginning. Most were not white in the early years.

Aretha on first ballot, no?

The second, actually.

Scrolling through the entire Performers list of inductees, I would guess (very roughly) that only around half are white.

Maybe they should name it 'Popular Music Hall of Fame'.

I have opinions on this thing.

They absolutely should have. But in 1985, in a project started by Rolling Stone, I guess the name made sense. If it were launched today, I can't imagine them calling it that.

I would guess (very roughly) that only around half are white.

as of a year ago:

The percentage of total people of color in the hall has declined every year from an impressive high of 55.8% in 1989 to the current low of 32.7%.

https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8543758/rock-roll-hall-fame-gender-racial-diversity-guest-opinion-evelyn-mcdonnell

They absolutely should have. But in 1985, in a project started by Rolling Stone, I guess the name made sense. If it were launched today, I can't imagine them calling it that.

When I started listening to pop music with a bit more investment (i.e. understanding it more, etc.) the idea of "rock 'n' roll" already seemed nebulous. Like every basic history on rock and every critical survey folded in genres like dance, hip-hop, electronic, etc. as if it was a continuation. In retrospect, I'd say rock was more or less defined as post-WWII pop music without it ever being articulated that way. The roots of the music pre-dating the '50s (country, blues, gospel/spirituals, folk) was acknowledged as "roots" without being lumped into rock. And pop music from the 50's on that seemed like a continuation of pre-WWII and WWII-era pop (Al Jolson, Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Barbra Streisand, etc.) was a completely separate kind of pop (vocal pop? "mainstream" pop?). Again, I don't recall anyone articulating it that way, BUT it was more or less defined that way when you see how the history of rock music was presented. (For example, the '90s BBC/PBS series on the history of rock, which was supervised by critic/musicologist Robert Palmer.)

So that's how the "rock" HOF looked like to me without really thinking about it, and when dance or disco music or the first hip-hop groups got in as performers, it didn't seem musically inappropriate.

xp Thanks for that link. I wonder how recently (and abruptly) the tide may have shifted. Looks like 2017-2019 saw a lot of member-heavy white groups getting in (Journey, Yes, Pearl Jam, Bon Jovi, Dire Straits, the Cure, Moody Blues, Roxy Music...).

The percentage of total people of color in the hall has declined every year from an impressive high of 55.8% in 1989 to the current low of 32.7%.

It's following the same trajectory as rock 'n' roll, but much more slowly

Also, when I think about jazz's relationship to pop music, it seems to back up that narrative. Jazz was the popular music of the '30s during the swing era, before it was redefined by bebop. After that, there was clear separation as well as the recurring tension of certain types of jazz consciously trying to become "pop" or break into the pop market - it might be Stan Getz starting the bossa nova craze, or it may be Ella Fitzgerald's celebrated songbook series which fit the mold of mainstream vocal pop very well. It wasn't until the late '60s and '70s where you had the term "fusion." Gary Giddins talked about this when he was interviewed for Ken Burns's (seriously flawed) jazz documentary. You could define fusion as jazz and another genre, but go through every decade - there's jazz with Afro-Cuban music, jazz with rhythm & blues, etc, etc....what do you call that? He seemed dismissive of the definition for that reason (and perhaps it was fueled by his own distaste for fusion), but it's always made sense to me. Thinking of his response now, it's still edifying because it does point out how the mixing of some genres is viewed differently than others, and the why fits in with my previous post - what's defined as "fusion" is basically jazz mixing with other music that wasn't defined and hadn't matured until the post-WWII era.

In retrospect, I'd say rock was more or less defined as post-WWII pop music without it ever being articulated that way.

I think it has been articulated that way many times! (post-1955 anyway)

It's following the same trajectory as rock 'n' roll, but much more slowly

That's the impression I got. To be fair, they're not inducting who they should be chronologically - there are a lot of latecomers that should've been in decades ago - but if you look through Robert Christgau's annual Pazz & Jop essays going back to 1974, he does talk about that a lot. He intentionally tracks the development of pop music along racial (and even gender) lines year by year, in terms of who was listening to what and how that music was being recognized, either critically or through sales. With the HOF currently tracking the growth of hip-hop, some of those numbers should be reversing themselves, but if there is actual pushback against hip-hop (maybe not against the biggest names, but enough that important figures like LL Cool J, Boogie Down Productions, Eric B. & Rakim, etc. have been passed over, and hell even OutKast - how are they not nominated yet?) that could explain things.

At some point, people practically started m/l limiting the definition of "rock" to what would have been called "heavy metal" at one time. I don't think Iron Maiden are a more obvious descendent of Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, and Frankie Lymon than Tina Turner or Chaka Khan are. xp

I think it has been articulated that way many times! (post-1955 anyway)

If I'm totally wrong, I'm fine with that, but I've never heard it articulated that broadly. Perhaps rightly, it's usually defined by articulating its roots (mostly country and blues). You can extrapolate that definition if you understand the history or timeline of that music, but I've never heard it defined in those broader terms. Again, maybe there's a good reason for that, but you can see how that also leads to questions of "is this rock?" with hip-hop, reggae, etc.

Oh, right, I see what you mean, I was probably speaking too broadly and reacting to narrower definitions. I don't think Kate Bush requires an especially radical stretch in the definition, though.

Just to clarify my own post above, when I reeled off that list--"Kate Bush belongs, etc."--I mixed people who are in the HOF and who aren't; I meant they all belong under the umbrella of whatever the hall defines as rock and roll, not that every person/band I mentioned should be inducted.

(John Coltrane would belong too, but for some reason they drew a line there--not sure if there are jazz musicians in the influences wing.)

I don’t think there are any country/c&w artists, either. Johnny Cash may the closest? — unless I’m forgetting someone.

Hank Williams and Jimmie Rodgers, the latter as an early influence, the former with apparently no designation.

Thanks – looks like they’re both in as Early Influences. (I was just looking at Performers)

John Coltrane would belong too, but for some reason they drew a line there--not sure if there are jazz musicians in the influences wing

miles davis was inducted, as a performer.

and country music hall of famers bob wills and bill monroe as early influences.

Bootsy on Fela:

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/bootsy-collins-interview-fela-kuti-rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-1128823/

At some point, people practically started m/l limiting the definition of "rock" to what would have been called "heavy metal" at one time. I don't think Iron Maiden are a more obvious descendent of Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, and Frankie Lymon than Tina Turner or Chaka Khan are.

Looks like 2017-2019 saw a lot of member-heavy white groups getting in (Journey, Yes, Pearl Jam, Bon Jovi, Dire Straits, the Cure, Moody Blues, Roxy Music...).

the obvious solution is to induct wu-tang (including cappadonna and killah priest!)

miles davis was inducted, as a performer

Miles much more involved in jazz-rock/electric fusion than Coltrane obv. It's not at all obvious to me why Coltrane would belong, although it would be nice to live in a world where the "rock audience" bought more hard bop, modal, and free jazz records.

xpost seigbran otm

motorhead's much closer to the ramones than any metal band

(xpost) For me, in the sense of what I wrote above: that Coltrane fits under that amorphous umbrella of music "embraced by what's generally thought of as the rock audience." Davis is obviously more directly connected to rock and roll, but when a university roommate got me onto Coltrane, it felt like a natural fit.

Coltrane was a big influence on Rock instrumentalists starting in the Psychedelic Era.

I mean, by sheer numbers, he clearly doesn't sell to all of the people who also listen to Journey and Bon Jovi (or the Rolling Stones), though, so how are we defining the rock audience? xp

C. Grisso's point is interesting. Bach also a major influence on a lot of rock artists from "Whiter Shade of Pale" through last year's Deep Purple album. A worthy candidate as well? I'm all for it!

Pachelbel's sequential bass progression has been used in enough rock songs that he probably deserves a nod.

the obvious solution is to induct wu-tang (including cappadonna and killah priest!)

I was thinking this last night! (Also, they legit should be in.)