2011 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Nominees

The nominees for the Class of 2011 of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame have been announced. I don’t know how to feel about this batch. The powers that be seem to be increasing the number of nominees, but have not said anything about how many of these nominees will be inducted. If they follow the precedent of recent years, it will be five of these fifteen nominees.

The nominees are: Alice Cooper (the band), Beastie Boys, Bon Jovi, Chic, Neil Diamond, Donovan, Dr. John, J. Geils Band, LL Cool J, Darlene Love, Laura Nyro, Donna Summer, Joe Tex, Tom Waits and Chuck Willis.

As a refresher: to be eligible for the Hall of Fame, at least 25 years must have passed since the release of your first album or single. The criteria is rather vague, for the longest time it was stated as having “a significant impact on the evolution, development and perpetuation of rock and roll.” More recently, the Rockhall has added that “We shall consider factors such as an artist's musical influence on other artists, length and depth of career and the body of work, innovation and superiority in style and technique, but musical excellence shall be the essential qualification of induction.” Whatever the hell that means. Does it just come down to the personal preferences of the Nominating Committee? The Nominating Committee is comprised of industry insiders (for a more detailed discussion of the Nominating Committee politics, check out my post here). Then approximately 500 voters (industry insiders, critics, other Rockhall inductees) vote on the inductees. The actual inductees will be announced probably sometime in December or January, with the induction ceremony occurring in March of 2011. This process is for the main “Performer” category (which is the one that most people focus on). There are also specialized committees who choose inductees in “Early Influence,” “Sidemen” and “Non-Performer” categories.


ABOVE: Will Neil Diamond be inducted to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2011?...


ABOVE:...or will it be Dr. John?


ABOVE: Or perhaps Alice Cooper?

First, the good. With 15 nominees, they can afford to be eclectic. We’ve got singer songwriters, a New Orleans legend, psychedelia, rap, disco, soul, shock rock and mainstream pop/rock all represented in this group. Some have been nominated before (such as Beastie Boys, Chic, LL Cool J, Laura Nyro, Donna Summer, Joe Tex), and there are some first time nominees as well (Alice Cooper, Neil Diamond, Bon Jovi, Donovan, Tom Waits).

Now the bad. Genres and entire time periods are still woefully underrepresented in the Rockhall, and this list of nominees does not really rectify some of the Hall’s glaring problems. Beyond Genesis (who got in last year) and arguably Pink Floyd, prog rock as a genre is still MIA. With groups like Yes, Rush, King Crimson and The Moody Blues yet to even be nominated, that is inexcusable. The Committee’s failure to understand or appreciate the 80’s music scene continues. Bon freakin’ Jovi? Really? That is the token 80’s nomination (beyond rap)? Crucial 80’s movers and shakers like The Cure, The Smiths, Depeche Mode, Peter Gabriel, Sonic Youth and others remain on the outside. Hell, even a band like Motley Crue at least influenced a genre that exploded in the second half of the decade. Stevie Ray Vaughan, who would seem a shoe-in, has yet to be nominated despite loud protest. Metal also continues to get the shaft. Other than Black Sabbath and Metallica, metal is mostly ignored. How about Motorhead, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, etc.? All are yet to be nominated. But you give us Bon Jovi?


ABOVE: Bon Jovi? Really?

So, I am both pleased with a decent list and frustrated by infuriating snubs that continue to challenge the relevance of the Rockhall.

Assuming that they will still induct five artists, I will give you my predictions of who will get in out of this group, and then who I would like to see get in. With 15 nominees, this is really a shot in the dark as far as predictions are concerned, but here goes. I think that the following artists will be inducted for 2011:

* Beastie Boys (they’ve been on the ballot recently, and it is time for another rap inductee)

* Neil Diamond (finally nominated, respected as a great songwriter despite the cheese factor)

* Alice Cooper (one of the more egregious snubs until now, Alice Cooper [the band] will get in on their first ballot)

* Tom Waits (Leonard Cohen surprised a few years back by getting inducted, Waits is even more respected and better known)

* Donna Summer (nominated several times, Summer was one of the most important disco artists of the late 70’s. The Bee Gees are in, so she will finally get in too)

Who I would like to see get in:

* Alice Cooper (along with KISS, Alice Cooper brought a sense of shock theater to rock and roll in the 70’s. Crucial early influence on glam rock)

* Beastie Boys (it is time to move cautiously ahead with honoring more groundbreakers in rap)

* Neil Diamond (a great songwriter, superstar of the 70’s, and the cheese factor works mostly to his advantage actually)

* Donovan (underrated pop/folk/psychedelic craftsman from the 60’s and early 70’s. He is a longshot to make it in this crowded field, but I am glad to see him at least nominated. I think he made some of the finest music of the 1960’s)

* Tom Waits (one of our great songwriters and a critic’s darling)

What are your thoughts on the nominees this year? Predictions? To see a full list of the Rock Hall Inductees by year, go to their website here. I have been working with a fellow group of Rockhall obsessives over the summer at futurerocklegends.com in creating our own, alternate universe, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. We voted for each induction “year” once a week over the summer, and of course discussed and argued. Check out our picks here. Ours is better.


ABOVE: Although unlikely, Dez hopes that Donovan makes it in the Class of 2011. Above is Donovan (right) hanging out with Hall of Famer Bob Dylan.

Dez Predicts....

The Texans will be victorious today over the Cowboys. And all of Dallas and San Antonio will weep. It will be a good day.

Dez Recommends The Stone Roses by The Stone Roses, 1989

The great thing about being a music fanatic is that regardless of how much you think you know, you can always come across something that blows your mind. In the latest installment of "I can't believe that I missed this the first time around" comes the remakable debut record from Manchester, England's The Stone Roses. It's not like this was exactly under the radar, as it helped to launch the "Madchester" music movement and while it didn't really make a dent Stateside, in Britain it is considered one of the greatest British records ever released. After doing some research, I found that it ranks in the Top 10 in a host of British music polls of the Greatest Records Ever variety, and in 2009 NME declared that it was the "greatest debut album ever." So, there I am this last weekend, sitting on the couch watching VH1 Classic's documentary on British indie music, and almost half of the freakin' show is dedicated to The Stone Roses. I'm sitting there like a dumbass asking, "who are these guys?"

Naturally I have since rectified that problem. The Stone Roses came out of the music hotbed of Manchester in the late 80's along with Happy Mondays, James and other English notables. They were sort of a second wave, as New Order, The Smiths and The Fall had all come out of the same city earlier in the decade. In many ways, they were the precursor to Oasis, even down to their egos. Before their debut came out, lead singer Ian Brown was loudly crowning his band the greatest band in the world. But damned if their debut didn't, at least for a very short time, back it up.

Full of bold and brash British rock, it is brimming with grooves and hooks every second of its running time. What makes the record so great (and rare) is that it balances equally melodic and hooky pop songwriting with hypnotic grooves and jams. I think this is why they were embraced across the musical spectrum in England at the time. It touches equally on rock, house, psychedelia and pop.

TSR opens with my current favorite song, "I Wanna Be Adored," where singer Ian Brown is more demanding to be adored than asking. While Brown is a potent force, it is guitarist John Squire who makes this band so special. His deft guitar work lays down riffs, glorious arpeggios and a rhythmic touch that is masterful. The rhythm section of Mani on bass and Reni on drums provide a firm foundation that can rock hard or get you out on the dance floor.

The first three tunes were all singles and are all ridiculously great. "I Wanna Be Adored," "She Bangs the Drums" and "Waterfall" are all perfect rock/pop songs. Following "Waterfall" is "Don't Stop," which takes the "Waterfall" track and plays it backwards, creating a mesmerizing groove of its own. After these tunes, I was thinking that it could not stay this good all the way through, but it pretty much does. They had another single with the beautiful "Made of Stone" (which to me sounds like the best Oasis song I've ever heard) and the record closes with the epic "I Am the Resurrection," another British hit for them that clocks in at over 8 minutes.

After TSR came out, they were the toast of the British music scene. But the familiar story of drug excess, clashing egos and record label lawsuits stopped all of the momentum. They would only release one other record (1994's disappointing Second Coming) and then call it quits. Their legacy is a mere two albums and a handful of brilliant non-album singles and b-sides (collected on Turns Into Stone), but what a great band. Get The Stone Roses.


ABOVE: Here's one of the singles, "Made of Stone"

***** out of *****

Still Here, Upcoming Tunes (and Bonus Pics)

ABOVE: Daughter of Dez

Hello readers, sorry for the quiet around here these days. I will get some good new stuff up soon. After the explosively exciting Presidential List, I thought I needed to let my reader(s) catch their breath.

I'm pretty stoked about some upcoming music releases on the horizon. Hopefully at least a couple of them will live up to expectations. Kings of Leon have a new one coming out, as does Pete Yorn. Coldplay is supposed to release a new record before the end of the year. I am particularly excited about some new product from a couple of Dez favorites, Neil Young and Bruce Springsteen. Neil has a new one coming out in about 10 days called Le Noise, and I am quite excited about this one. Produced by Daniel Lanois, it features Neil alone, playing acoustic and electric with some heavy treatments courtesy of Lanois. I've heard snippits, and it sounds really promising and a bit out there. I'll give you a review in about 10 days.

Springsteen is finally releasing his long promised remastered/box set of the Darkness on the Edge of Town-era in November. This could be huge for Springsteen fans. It will have three CDs and three DVDs. The CDs include a remastered version of the Darkness on the Edge of Town album, plus two discs of previously unreleased tracks from the same period. Those knowledgable in Bossology will note that after Born to Run in 1975, Bruce was legally prevented from releasing new material for a three year period due to a lawsuit with his former manager. He recorded a mountain of music in those years that has never seen the light of day, and so here it finally is. He put some great tracks out on the 4-disc set Tracks, but that was just a taste. By many accounts, this material is epic, classic Born to Run-esque Springsteen. He himself said that had he been legally able, this is the stuff that would have been put out on a quicker follow-up album to Born to Run, before he changed sonic directions with what eventually would be DOTEOT. He had over 70 songs he was considering for DOTEOT. As for the DVD's, there is the requisite documentary and commentary. But the real prize is a full show from Houston captured on the 1978 Darkness tour. The Darkness tour has long been acknowledged as his most vital and exciting tour, and now we've got a full show on DVD from that legendary jaunt. And in Houston, no less!


ABOVE: Here is a studio version of "Fire" that will be on the new set(a longtime live staple, but I dig this more subdued, groovy studio version).

Anyway, here's some more Daughter of Dez...


ABOVE: "What do you mean you don't like the new Springteen tunes?"

August Cuteness

Hard to believe, but Daughter of Dez is 6 months old. Here is some of what she was up to this last month...

She seems to be at the stage where she investigates most objects by putting them in her mouth. Here she tries to eat a laptop screen...



The dog is a bit wary of her because she enjoys pulling on his ears...



A true milestone in life: sitting up unassisted!



Another milestone: this is a photo of her enjoying her first taste of food other than mama's milk. It is some rice cereal. She also likes bananas.



I mentioned earlier that the dog was wary of baby. The wariness vanishes if there is food around. And since half of what is intended for her to eat ends up on her hands, elbows, feet, the floor, her tray and various other locations, it is a bounty for dog. Here dog does her the favor of cleaning her hands of some rice cereal...

Dez Reviews John Mellencamp's No Better Than This, 2010

I had given up on John Mellencamp awhile ago. The last consistently interesting records he made were in the early to mid-1990's. His latest, No Better Than This, is defiant evidence that it is never too late to recapture that magic. This is a record that he could not have made in his younger days. It is a significant record for him too, one that may set him up for musical relevance for the next 20 years or so if he can continue down this path in inspired ways.

I say it is defiant, and it is. It is stubborn music, down to how he recorded it. Recorded all in mono using vintage 50's and 60's recording equipment, he even carefully chose the three recording locations to ensure the right mojo: Sun Studios in Memphis, The First African Baptist Church in Savannah, Ga. (a church dating back to 1775) and most interesting to me, in Room 414 of the Gunter Hotel here in San Antonio, which is where Robert Johnson conducted one of the only two recording sessions of his life back in 1936. As you can imagine by now, this music has a retro feel. It is more rockabilly, country, folk and blues than modern rock and roll (and not coincidentally, it is Mellencamp's debut on Rounder Records). Which is fine, because this music really suits Mellencamp these days. His lyrics have always been connected to these older musical genres of the common man, but he rarely made records that committed 100% to those styles musically. He would add elements to be sure (Lonesome Jubilee is a brilliant example of combining those elements with modern rock), but he always kept one eye on the pop charts. Evidently he has given up on mainstream chart success.

As he approaches his 60's (!), his voice is rougher through years on the road, smoking cigarettes and hard living. It works perfectly with gritty rockabilly beats and bluesy/folky acoustic guitars. He tentatively set off down this road on his most recent records (Trouble No More, Freedom's Road and Life, Death, Love and Freedom), but he hedged his bets on those records. Here he finally commits. A reviewer on Amazon.com stated that this record reminds him of the Rick Rubin-produced Johnny Cash records during the musical renaissance in the last decade or so of Cash's life. I could see Mellencamp filling that gap easily for the next 20 years, recording gritty records of Americana based in folk, blues, country and rockabilly idioms, and only occasionally veering into rock and roll.

That is why this record is significant. Mellencamp has set himself up for the next few decades in a musical world where he is at home and where he can age gracefully instead of trying to belt out more "Jack and Diane"-clones in his 60's. It also helps that the tunes here are quite good, catchy and the record has a wonderful organic and coherent sound to it.


ABOVE: This is the video for the title track, "No Better Than This." Far from the best tune on the album, it does at least give you a feel for the sound. (It was the only tune from the album I could find on YouTube.)

Rating: **** out of *****

Dez Prez Rankings: American Zeus

#1 of 39:
George Washington (1st president)
1789-1797
Federalist



It was a close call on whether to put Lincoln or Washington at #1, but I asked myself this question: could anybody else have accomplished what he accomplished? While Lincoln was a rare individual indeed, George Washington was the only man who could do what needed to be done in his time. Yes, Lincoln saved the Union (and ended slavery), but there probably would not have been a Union to save by the 1860's if we didn't have Washington.

George Washington is difficult to humanize. He didn't wear his foibles on his sleeve like a John Adams, Alexander Hamilton or even Thomas Jefferson. Everything he left us in writing was self-consciously composed with posterity in mind. What was he really like in his off hours? We will never know. He was always playing the American Zeus, even when he claimed to just be a "simple" farmer (when in fact he was one of the wealthiest men from the wealthiest state, Virginia). Even the great Abraham Lincoln has had time periods where historians have dug up the dirt, but never Washington. To this day he remains unblemished in our history and memory. Washington should be honored not only for what he did, but also for what he did not do. Much like how Miles Davis is great in part for his silences, so was Washington.

What was so great about Washington? As a general, he lost more battles than he won. When he presided over the Constitutional Convention, he offered no ideas or substantive comments. In fact, most accounts are that he hardly uttered a word as our Founding Fathers hammered out the Constitution. His administration was filled with men more visionary and brilliant than he. Jefferson gave Washington the faint praise of "his mind was slow in operation, being little aided by invention or imagination, but sure in conclusion."

The place to start with Washington is his unshakeable moral character. That is really the key. As an infant country, and despite the fact that we had just fought a war to throw off the yoke of monarchical rule, the people yearned for strong, patriarchal leadership. A Republic of this sort was uncharted waters, and they wanted a sure captain to at least guide them out of the harbor. George Washington was the only man in America universally respected by the people and without enemies, as he had led the colonists to independence. He was above faction. Virtually drafted by the people to be their first president under the new Constitution, a reluctant Washington was the only president to receive a unanimous election in the electoral college (in 1789.) It must be remembered that a democratic-republic was a new type of government that was expected to fail. The vast majority of the rest of the civilized world lived under authoritarian rule of some sort. Washington was popular enough (and many wanted him to) to make himself King George I of America. But he did not. He instead surrendered his sword to Congress and resigned his position as General of the United States Army before he took office as Chief Executive.

There was no precedent to follow. He was the first so he set the precedents. He decided to only serve for two terms, when he could have easily been re-elected for the rest of his life. He fulfilled the peoples' need for patriarchal leadership by insisting on formality and royal iconography. But he balanced that with republican (small "r") values.


ABOVE: This is the artwork on the ceiling of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington D.C. It is called "The Apotheosis of Washington," where George Washington is depicted taking his place amongst the gods (remarkable in this nation supposedly founded on Judeo-Christian principles). Washington was indeed viewed as more than a mortal man, and it was essential that he be the first president of the new nation. (Click the picture for a closer look).

The United States was far from a long term prospect in the early days after the Revolution. In many ways, winning independence from Britain was the easy part. Now what? He was the only man with the stature to keep this thing from falling apart. And he knew it. Historian Gordon Wood has pointed out that in the early days Washington's birthday was a bigger celebration than the 4th of July, and he allowed this cult of personality to flourish in the early days to take the place of an absent patriotism. But one of the things that separates him from a Stalin or Castro is that he allowed it to take root only for a short time when necessary, and then walked away from it. That is remarkable. He personally toured the young country several times to give the people a direct connection to their federal government (vs. their state governments, which they were often more loyal to.) One of the last things he did before leaving office was to personally help design the new capital city that would bear his name.

He had help, of course. George Washington's administration is the most impressive group of men that a president has ever had to serve under him. Hard to go wrong with Alexander Hamilton as your Secretary of the Treasury, Thomas Jefferson as your Secretary of State and John Adams as your vice-president. Washington recognized that each of these men were more brilliant, and he leaned heavily on their advice. But the buck always stopped with Washington. He would consider their counsel (often asking for memos) and then make his decision. Washington's administration was full of intrigue and vehement disagreement. Hamilton and Adams hated each other, Adams and Jefferson distrusted each other, and the rift between Jefferson and Hamilton was the beginning of political parties in America. During Washington's second administration, the first two political parties formed within his very own cabinet with what started as a personal feud between Jefferson and Hamilton! The administration would have fallen apart had it not been for Washington himself keeping these men in check. A lesser man would not have been able to reign in the likes of Jefferson and Hamilton. James Monroe simply said that "[Washington's] influence carried this government." Jefferson said that "the moderation and virtue of [Washington] probably prevented this revolution from being closed."


ABOVE: An All-Star Cabinet (L-R): Washington, Secretary of War Henry Knox, Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and Attorney General Edmund Randolph. Hamilton is appropriately in the center and standing, as he dominated Washington's administration.

What did he actually do as president? Keeping this infant nation from falling apart was the primary thing, but he did have other accomplishments during his administration as well. He allowed Hamilton to establish the Bank of the United States in the face of vocal opposition from Jefferson when we needed financial stability. He supported the unpopular Jay's Treaty with Britain that helped us avoid a war that we probably would not have survived. He was an early supporter of internal improvements. He was involved with designing Washington D.C. (D.C.'s location was the result of a backroom compromise deal between Hamilton and Jefferson. Jefferson secured the capital near Virginia and he in turn did not oppose Hamilton's wish for the federal government to assume state debts).

Washington may have surrendered his sword, but he was always a military man at heart. During the infamous Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania (where backwoods farmers instigated a tax revolt and refused to pay taxes on whiskey), Washington personally led the military into Pennsylvania to put down the revolt. Once Washington showed up on his horse, the rebellion immediately ended. That was the first and last time that the commander-in-chief actually led the military on the battlefield. We have not had a tax revolt since.


ABOVE: Washington arrives to personally squash the Whiskey Rebellion

His famous Farewell Address both set policy for the next 100 years (he warned of entangling alliances and many interpreted his message, although it is not entirely clear, as one of isolationism) and was prescient of future problems, warning against extreme partisanship and stressing the importance of preserving the Union. Historian Gordon Wood states that "Although Washington had aristocratic predilections and never meant to 'popularize' politics, he nonetheless performed a crucial role in creating that democracy. He was an extraordinary man who made it possible for ordinary men to rule."