"Forget Yes - The R&R HoF Still Hates Prog"

I am not sure I want my favourite prog groups/artists inducted into the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame. It stopped making sense a looooong time ago, when they decided to focus on popular music over rock and suddenly went ahead and included hip hop and pop acts.
Reminds me of people who insist on being called vegetarians, because fish aren't animals y'know? The above comitee though has it backwards.

It should be call the "Rock and Roll Hall of Shame" if you ask me. What a band needs is recognition from their fans, not from a bunch of lunatics who have no idea what to write and compose music is.

Manuel wrote: It should be call the "Rock and Roll Hall of Shame" if you ask me. What a band needs is recognition from their fans, not from a bunch of lunatics who have no idea what to write and compose music is.

Progosopher wrote: Like the Grammy's, it celebrates popularity more than quality.

Hey! Cut the Grammy's some slack! Where else can Tull best Metallica for Best Hard Rock/Metal album honors?

To paraphrase Robert Fripp, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is irrelevant.

The RnR HoF simply reflects Wenner and his buddies' tastes, and Rolling Stone magazine was never very amenable to progressive rock.

Re the article the first post in this thread linked to, the voting page on the HoF site notes that the fan vote, collectively, only counts as ONE ballot, amidst about 800 total ballots that will be filled out (mostly by critics, industry folks, etc. who Wenner and his crew have hand-picked to be eligible to fill out a ballot).

The Hall of Fame is not a national or international public body, it's an american-owned private enterprise that makes millions of dollars for its owners and backers and they will naturally honour those who will give them the highest return on that investment, so who seriously gives any flying fux about it anyway?

Dean wrote: who seriously gives any flying fux about it anyway?

A lot of people. Rock and roll represents a lot to people and the Hall earns a lot of ire for it's methods. They do more to cause and further bitterness and resentment (Purple).

No, RS and the HOF do not know or appreciate what it is to write and compose. This is why dead critic Bangs was more concerned  about Iggy vomiting than say Steve Howe's Mood For A Day. Frankly I think they are a bit nuts.

The trouble is that the two things rock represents are not synonymous. If it were about music ELP would be right there right now. The two things are music (not just yer prog rock of course but the actual technical bits - and this means all prog rock). The other bit is what most people argue about whe arging pop music and that is cultural identity (music and culture is where metal collides.)

Unfortunately it is the Hall of Pop Culture. If some pop rap rock act has a pop cultural impact (NWA, Madonna, Pistols) then that is of significance. It is not about music or depth of technical expression. There is some depth of other expression as NWA represent.

I always found it amusing to the point of ridicule that musicians can be deemed bad, inferior, irrelevant for being as good and in many cases as brilliant as they can be while an unfortunate incompetent such as Sid Vicious is lauded. If people wanted to listen to good music why listen to punk? Yeah, a few decent tunes turn up but not that many.

Further irony. This is bad enough among teenage pop fans. But septuagenarian critics arguing teenage "ideals" is really embarrassing. This is the sort of thing that prevents rock from a lot of serious i..e. classical scrutiny. Granted, most rock acts could not take serious critique but some prog rock bands can withstand and indeed earn serious plaudits.

Sadly, the vacuity perpetuated by Wenner and Co diminishes all the good music that is done and even undermines their own pop culture values causing more irritation among the fans.

jude111 wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: I still hate the R&R HoF. I hate the whole idea of it. Hall of Fames are for sports, not art. Has anyone been to the R&R Hall of Fame? It's a museum dedicated to rock. So if they called it the Rock and Roll Museum, I'd have no problem with it - a guitar Hendrix played, some stage props from Pink Floyd, Ringo's drums sticks, a drop of sweat from Elvis collected in a jar, a wisp of Jim Morrison's curls.

I've visited it.

Call it a museum? While well, very true, and a good idea and also more accurate, it would have the poor old boys running it swooning at the idea. Museum means extinction. Death. Preservation for historic purposes. They want their own relevance.

I'm surprised they have not nominated Rolling Stone as the greatest pop magazine of all time.

It is worth looking out for that Keith Moon interview.

At risk of sounding boring, I'll repeat what I have often said whenever the topic of the RRHoF comes up. I wonder how otherwise smart people have to get so upset about their decisions. They are a joke anyway, and I couldn't care less about what they love or what they hate. Look at what they did with Deep Purple - refusing to induct Steve Morse (who's been with them longer than Blackmore) and Don Airey, as well as their original bassist, Nick Simper. As far as I am concerned, they don't deserve a second thought.