Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 2013 Nominees

Whoo! Now this is what I’m talking about. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Central Committee For Rock and Roll Affairs has come up with a ballot for the class of 2013 that is the strongest they have had in years. Out of the 15 nominees, there are only three that I think are borderline, and even those at least can have good arguments made in their defense. As always, I can still nitpick here and there (and yes, I will, but at the end of the post). As a reminder, artists are eligible 25 years after their first single or album release. First, let’s take a look at the nominees, then I’ll give you my prediction and I’ll give you my ballot that I will be submitting, followed by some closing comments.

You read that right. I have a ballot this year. My voice will be heard. And so can yours. OK, it is a very tiny, tiny voice, and more a symbolic gesture than a vote that will really make a difference, but I still appreciate the gesture. At the Rockhall website, when you vote in their poll, this year the results will be tallied and submitted as one “fan ballot” that will be counted alongside the other 500 ballots. Hey, I like it. I can participate in a small way at least. The other 500 or so ballots come from prominent music critics, industry insiders and all current Rockhall inductees (I seriously question whether B.B. King really should be judging the impact of The Cure, as would have occurred last year, but that is the subject of earlier and I am sure later posts).

But here are the nominees and some brief thoughts on each:

Chic: This is their 7th nomination, so the Committee clearly wants to keep pushing them. With Nile Rodgers’s illness, there may be some urgency to get them inducted before he passes on. They were great, important dance music innovators. I’d have no problem with their eventual induction, but not gonna happen with this class.

Deep Purple: Up to this point, one of the most egregious omissions. Shockingly, this is their first nomination. The Committee has shown hostility towards certain genres, and hard rock/metal is definitely one of the most underrepresented in the Hall. Their induction would go a long way in moving the ball for hard rock and for rehabilitating the Hall as far as some of the glaring omissions go. Like them or not (and I'm lukewarm on them at best), they were one of the pioneers for hard rock.

Heart: I was surprised that they did not make it in last year with their first nomination. They help to fill out hard rock and get more women in the Hall, two goals the Committee should be jumping to fulfill.

Joan Jett & The Blackhearts: I dig Joan Jett. How can you not? She is the ultimate rocker chick. That being said, I think she is on the bubble as far as being Hall-worthy.

Albert King: One of the last essential bluesmen still on the outside looking in (I'd also like to see Sonny Boy Williamson II inducted). I have a feeling that Albert will get the shady Wanda Jackson / Freddie King treatment. That is, being nominated, not making the vote cut, and then the powers that be slide him in anyway in the "Early Influence" category, even though his most influential work was done during the rock era, not before. It's a BS move, although Albert definitely deserves a spot in the Hall.

Kraftwerk: So pleased so see these electronic pioneers get another shot. They were nominated once before awhile back. First and foremost, the Hall should honor the pioneers.

The Marvelettes: Not that familiar with them. "Please Mr. Postman" is their best known tune. Not getting in this year anyway.

The Meters: Great New Orleans soul/funk pioneers, but in this weighty class, I think their induction is probably the least likely of any of these candidates.

Randy Newman: Yes! Yes! Yes! And yes! Zimmerman aside, of course, I think that Randy Newman is the most interesting singer-songwriter that the 60's and 70's produced. His chances are good. The trend lately has been to get one singer-songwriter in per class (Tom Waits, Laura Nyro, Leonard Cohen...all recent inductees. Randy is the man and better than all of those.)

NWA: Pioneers of West Coast Gangsta Rap, I'm all for their induction. And I'd LOVE to hear Ice Cube's speech. But with someone else also in this nominee list (see two below), I think NWA will probably have to wait.

Paul Butterfield Blues Band: LOVE this band and I think they were so innovative in an early period. I don't think they have a chance in hell of getting inducted in this class, though. That's a shame. East/West is absolutely brilliant.

Public Enemy: The consensus, and I agree with it, is that Public Enemy are the surest thing in this group of nominees. While I personally prefer NWA, Public Enemy definitely needs to be inducted for their injection of the political into rap. Flava Flav's speech will also be entertaining.

Procol Harum: This is a marginal pick. I'm glad that they are getting to some prog, but come on. Yes, King Crimson, ELP, ELO and the Moody Blues are yet to be nominated (ever), and the Central Committee in all of its wisdom are offering up Procol Harum?

Rush: I don't think there has been a louder chorus of outrage for any other band's snubbing. As the years have gone by, it seems more and more absurd that Rush had not even been nominated. Well, finally the Committee relented and gave them a shot. I'd be shocked if they did not get in with ease. This at least insures that the performances at the ceremony will kick ass.

Donna Summer: Here is the rare case where the Committee is right and the voters are wrong. This is her 5th nomination, and add to that her death earlier this year, she's got to make it this time. I'm not a fan of disco, and neither are the voters, apparently, but come on. She wasn't the "Queen of Disco" by accident. If you are the "King" or "Queen" of any genre of popular music, your Hall credentials are pretty strong. She had a boatload of hits and was a leading force in the genre. It is just a shame that she did not get in while she was here to enjoy it.

The trend has been five inductees per year, although last year it was six (I think mainly due to the fact that they really wanted the Small Faces/Faces to get in, who were probably just outside the top five in voting).

Anyway, if it is six again this year, my prediction is:

Deep Purple
Rush
Randy Newman
Public Enemy
Heart
Donna Summer
And Albert King getting slipped in as an Early Influence

If that is the case, that is a really strong class. If I had my choice and I were King of Rock, my six would be:

Deep Purple
Kraftwerk
Rush
Randy Newman
Heart
Paul Butterfield Blues Band

NOTE: On the Rockhall site, they only let you vote for five.

Hard rock, metal, prog, the entire decade of the 80's...all are still woefully underepresented. My shortlist of the most egregious snubs (not including those nominated this year): The Cars; Chicago; The Cure; Depeche Mode; Devo; Duran Duran; Hall & Oates; Iron Maiden; Journey; Joy Division; Judas Priest; King Crimson; KISS; Lou Reed (solo); Love; MC5; Motorhead; New Order; Ozzy Osbourne (solo); The Replacements; Peter Gabriel (solo); The Pixies; The Smiths; Steve Miller Band; Steve Winwood (solo); Stevie Ray Vaughan; Willie Nelson; Yes and Kool & the Gang. There's more, of course.

Anyway, go to Future Rock Legends for great analysis and discussion of all things Rockhall.

Thoughts? Comments?

Two Great New Records

The Tragically Hip's Now For Plan A, 2012

As far as longevity, consistency and quality music, it is hard to top Canada's Hip. As time goes by, I admire them more and more. 2010's We Are the Same was a bit too slick for many Hip fans, although I rather enjoyed some of it (I still think "Morning Moon" is one of the greatest songs in their entire discography). But they definitely return to their rawer sound on some of their 13th album (15th if you include their Canadian debut EP and live outing), opening with the savage "At Transformation," one of those great Hip grinders as Gordon Downie snarls his way through.


ABOVE: "At Transformation." This is not the wussy sound of We Are the Same

This is a very good latter day Hip record, as there is much here to savor for the loyal fan or newbie alike. Tunes like "The Lookahead," "Streets Ahead" and soaring closer "Goodnight Attawapiskat" are generous with melodic hooks that in a more just world would be all over modern rock radio. There's really not a stinker in the whole batch (which, to be honest, is rare for a recent Hip record), but the centerpiece is "We Want To Be It," a song they've been featuring in their live sets for well over a year (known to fans up to this point as "Drip, Drip"). It is in the vein of "Grace, Too" or "Nautical Disaster" (both from their moody underrated 4th record, Day For Night) in that it builds with an almost creepy intensity in a fashion unique to oddball poet/singer Downie, who remains one of the most interesting vocalists and lyricists in the business.


ABOVE: "We Want To Be It"

A key feature of this record is balance. For every snarling rocker like "At Transformation" and "Streets Ahead," there are also moody pieces like the pretty title track and "Done and Done." The Hip have recovered from the alleged misstep of We Are the Same with a solid, near great record 25 years into their career. Quite impressive.


ABOVE: The lovely closer "Goodnight Attawapiskat"

*** out of *****

Los Lobos's Kiko Live, 2006/2012

NOTE: the show was recorded in 2006, but the disc was released this year to coincide with Kiko's 20th anniversary.

These type of releases are obviously not for the casual fan. It's not a new thing, but it is a practice that is getting more popular, where an artist will play one of their classic records live in its entirety. (Springsteen has done this in recent years, pulling out full length performances of Born To Run, Darkness on the Edge of Town and Born in the USA on the road).

Clearly the more the artist explores and changes things up, the more interesting it is. (That is why, for instance, Van Morrison's live release of Astral Weeks from a couple of years back is so great, he turns the record inside out, changing the order, slowing down the fast songs and speeding up the slow ones. Great listen.) I would expect Los Lobos to do interesting things with their masterpiece, Kiko (a record that is in my Top 10 favorites of all time). Los Lobos are a versatile band that loves to adventurously explore their material onstage. And, overall, they do not disappoint.

Opening with an extended "Dream in Blue" that really emphasizes the driving percussive pulse, they are respectful but also playful with the Kiko material. Kiko is a record of fascinating and intricate textures that cannot be reproduced live, so that, in a sense, opens the songs for shaking things up.

They don't best Kiko overall, of course, but some of the individual songs are actually made better. "Angels With Dirty Faces" and "Wicked Rain" have deeper grooves, and songs that were lesser songs on Kiko are actually made the showstoppers. Traditional-sounding Mexican folk song "Saint Behind the Glass" has more kick and features impressive playing on acoustic Mexican folk instruments, the title track is creepier, and "That Train Don't Stop Here" (which frankly on Kiko is a somewhat generic rocker) has a deep boogie and is turned into an eight minute guitar duel tour de force between David Hidalgo and Cesar Rosas.

It's almost not fair giving this a rating, because they have the headstart of working with the best material of their impressive career. But they do right by it. It is familiar enough to where it is definitely Kiko, but they do enough with the material to make it interesting and fresh even if you know Kiko intimately.

**** out of *****

From the Mouths of Babes

"Ray, you're ridiculous." - My two and a half year old daughter to me this morning at breakfast.

Some Music and DVD Quick Hits

The new Killers record Battle Born is good, but not great. I applaud them for their unabashed emotion and devotion to the soaring radio hook, but there is no "When You Were Young" in this batch. *** out of *****.

Bob Dylan continues his streak with Tempest. Honestly, I more admire his recent work than love it, but he has definitely solidified a late career legacy since the 1990's. No rating on this yet, since I have only given it a cursory listen.

I'm a little baffled by the negative reaction to the new Band of Horses record, Mirage Rock. Perhaps I don't have really high expectations to begin with. I never thought that they broke any new ground or anything, they were just a really solid band. I guess I just always took their debut, Everything All the Time, as sort of lightning in a bottle and never waited for it to be replicated. But the new one is pretty solid, definitely better than the snoozefest Infinite Arms. *** out of *****.

I also thought that with Rick Rubin turning the knobs, ZZ Top had a shot at capturing some of that old down home groove. Not the case. La Futura is just more of the same overdriven sh*t they've been lazily slinging since the mid-90's. Billy Gibbons can still shred on the guitar, but his voice is pretty worn. Dusty Hill actually sings better nowadays, I don't know why he doesn't take more of the vocals. Why can't they play anything as subtle as "Asleep in the Desert" or "Sure Got Cold After the Rain Fell" anymore? ** out of *****.

Looking ahead...

...Looking back, but remastered.

It is the 20th anniversary of Los Lobos's masterwork Kiko, and they have released the requisite remastered version with some bonus tracks tagged on. I didn't buy it, but I do have on the way from Amazon Kiko Live, a recent concert performance of Kiko from start to finish that looks really promising. Considering that the Lobos like to expand and explore their music in the live setting, it could be a great homage to Kiko without merely replaying it note for note. At least that is my hope, I'll let you know.

Speaking of anniversaries, it is the 25th anniversary of Peter Gabriel's commercial breakthrough, So. He is celebrating in similar fashion as Pink Floyd did recently, releasing it in three new versions. First is a remaster of the album. But since his whole catalogue was wonderfully remastered already rather recently (all of which I bought, of course), is this a remaster of the remaster? But what I am excited about is the Deluxe Edition which includes a full live show from the So tour. Now that is something to get excited about, live Gabriel from that period is awesome. There is also a $100 Immersion Box that not even I will be shelling out dough for (which, funny enough, doesn't even include the fantastic b-sides from that era. How immersive is it when you don't even have the b-sides?) Since Peter continues to disappoint with his recent work, I can at least get pumped about material from the vaults from better days.

Now, I am really pumped about the new Tragically Hip coming out October 2, Now for Plan A. Many Hip diehards were pretty disappointed with the glossy We Are the Same (I wasn't, "Morning Moon" is one of their most gorgeous songs, I actually really like it when The Hip go a little mellow), but the cuts I've heard definitely respond to that complaint with grit and drive. This new one sounds like it rocks hard. I am so pleased that "We Want To Be It" is finally getting an official release. It is a tune they've played for awhile live (known to fans as "Drip, Drip"). Such a great song. "Goodnight Attawapiskat" is also top shelf Hip. Still one of the greatest bands out there, people!

Neil Young's had a busy year. He released the wonderfully sloppy Americana earlier this year. He has a book coming out next week. And next month comes the double disc Psychedelic Pill, filled with epic length Crazy Horse workouts from the same recording sessions as Americana, but these are all originals. I hope the man never stops.

Question and suggestion: when Bruce Springsteen released his stunning concert from London in '75 awhile back, I thought that was supposed to be the first in a series of archival shows he was going to put out, like Neil Young has been doing with his Archives series. But there hasn't been any more clearing of the vaults. Bruce, PLEASE put out that show from the Winterlands in '78!! What the hell is wrong with you? Readers, do yourselves a favor and go to Wolfgang's Vault and listen to the boot of this '78 Boss show. The next time you've got about four hours to spare. It is worth the time.

On the DVD front, Steven Spielberg has just lost some of the good will he earned earlier this year for his superb Jaws Blu-Ray release. I have heard that the new Blu-Ray version of Raiders of the Lost Ark is equally impressive, but I won't get to see it. Why? Because it is not being released on its own. You can only get it in the box set with the other Indiana Jones Blu-Rays. I'm not paying $70 for one movie. I have no interest in the crappy sequel, the grossly overrated third film, and the completely forgettable 4th. Raiders is one of my very favorites, but f*ck you, Steven.

I cannot wait for Universal's deluxe Blu-Ray restoration treatment of their classic horror films from the 30's, 40's and 50's. The original Dracula, Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein, Wolf Man, Mummy, Invisible Man and Creature From the Black Lagoon are all being meticulously restored and from what I hear, will be absolutely beautiful. Can't wait.

Anything of interest that you know of?

Is 'Breaking Bad' the Best Thing on TV Since 'The Wire'?

Yes. I'm a little late to the 'Breaking Bad' party, but my wife and I are a bit obsessed with the show at the moment. It is currently in its 5th season on AMC, and over the past two weeks (through the glory of streaming Netflix on my PS3), we've watched the first three seasons and are into the 4th. For those of you who do not know, it is the story of Walter White (played brilliantly by Bryan Cranston, of 'Malcolm in the Middle' fame). White is a mild-mannered high school chemistry teacher. He is a genius chemist who could have done great things, but success passed him by and he spends his days teaching bored students and working part time in a car wash for extra dough. His world is rocked when he finds he has terminal lung cancer. In order to make sure his wife and two children are provided for, he does the logical thing. He becomes the most sought after meth cook in New Mexico and the Southwest, making the most chemically pure meth the world has ever seen. Joining forces with one of his drop-out former students, Jesse (played wonderfully and with much nuance by Aaron Paul), they stumble into the drug world. I haven't spoiled anything, as this is all laid out in the first episode of the series.

Two things make this show really stand apart for me. First, the characters are so great. Yes, some are played broad and for laughs at times (and the show is laugh out loud funny quite often), yet as the seasons progress these characters get more and more interesting. And it does progress. So far, each season has built on the last and is better than the last. One of the rare shows that seems to get better as it goes (at least so far, and I hear outstanding things about Season 4, so I'm excited to dive into it). But while Walt and Jesse remain the center of the show, I love Dean Norris as Walt's badass brother-in-law Hank, who happens to work for the DEA, and Walt and Jesse's sleazy beyond compare lawyer (Bob Odenkirk as Saul Goodman), who schools them on money laundering techniques, among other things. Hank is the perfect example of a character who seems to be played for laughs initially (and he is really funny), but gets much more depth as the seasons roll along.

Also, as creator Vince Gilligan puts it, he wanted to create a show where the "protagonist becomes the antagonist." Walt is incredibly sympathetic initially, but he becomes increasingly less so as he gets deeper and more proficient at navigating in this dark underworld. One of the key themes is how Walt reluctantly gets sucked into this dangerous world of competing drug lords and dangerous cartel killers, and he gets better and better at it and most crucially, starts to enjoy the thrill. He gets more and more reckless, yet is more rewarded for his behavior. At least so far.

I can't recommend this show enough. I have been exhausted at work for weeks now, because after we put our daughter to bed, my wife and I try and catch at least three episodes a night. Midnight rolls around and "just one more!"

If You Like Politics...

There is a lively political discussion going on over at my friend ANCIANT's blog regarding many of the important issues we are facing with this election. Here's the link. Instead of repeating all of the points, because there are some marathon posts there, I'd just direct you over there. Watch as Dez and Saxo give both ANCIANT and JMW an intellectual thrashing.

Clint Eastwood is America

Did you see Clint Eastwood’s surreal 12 minutes of performance art in the guise of a speech on Thursday night at the Republican convention? If not, go here to see it all. I laughed, I stared at the TV with disbelief, I cringed, I said “yes!” and I wondered what the hell he was talking about…all within his 12 minutes of glorious crash and burn. Clint riffed, he let his mind wander and seemingly talked about whatever crossed his mind at the time. It was a dangerous and not altogether smart thing for the RNC to do. In a tightly scripted and controlled convention that had gone very well up to that point (so scripted that Ron Paul was not allowed to speak because he refused to let them vet his speech ahead of time), you’re gonna let Dirty Harry loose on the night Romney needs to try to win over more voters? It was not Clint’s finest hour. He rambled, seemed confused at times, and was pretty crude and unnecessarily disrespectful of our current president. But again, what did you think was going to happen? My understanding is that he was supposed to speak for about five minutes and had given his remarks to the RNC ahead of time. But once onstage he tossed his planned speech aside and just improvised for twice as long as he was given. Are you going to yank Philo Beddoe?

I think Republican leaders were so excited to get some star power on the conservative side of the Hollywood ledger that they didn’t quite understand what they were getting into with Clint. Had they never seen “The Good, The Bad & The Ugly”? “Every Which Way But Loose”? This dude does his own thing. He does not follow institutional rules. That is his whole persona! He is less a straight conservative than a libertarian. For a party that clings to traditional social values, why would they invite a prime time speaker who within this last year in an interview said about gay marriage: “I don’t give a sh*t about who wants to get married to anybody else. Why not?” Or a guy with seven children from five different women? Didn't conservative leaders criticize him for doing the voiceover on a Super Bowl commercial that seemed to praise Obama's auto bailout?

All you need to do is to look at his remarkable career as an actor and director to see that you cannot pin any neat and tidy ideology on this guy. He supports gay marriage and is known as a bit of an environmentalist, yet he also is a fiscal conservative. Who knows what he thinks about foreign policy? Could you tell what he felt about Afghanistan from his speech? I couldn’t. You could take what he said about it either way.

ABOVE: The chair doesn't have a chance

In an excellent article by film critic Carrie Rickey here, she points out that by looking at his filmography, Clint reveals a complex and rather ambivalent view of America. Not your typical convention speaker.

Take a look at his early Westerns with Sergio Leone and his own directorial debut, the bloodthirsty, revenge fantasy “High Plains Drifter.” He is in one sense the ultimate American archetype. Loner, ruthlessly self-sufficient, man of few words (read: not dithering European powers) but one of devastating action (America). His Man With No Name is who we’d like to be, a man with a set of ethics, but also ruthlessly efficient in getting what he wants. Consider “High Plains Drifter” through a 9/11 lens. He was done wrong and almost beaten to death, but he returns and reigns hell fire on his attackers with relish. What Clint’s character was able to do there is what we wish we could do after 9/11 in regards to those who attacked us and aided them. Many of his characters represent a certain strength (albeit flawed), that we collectively feel we have lost as a nation and as a people. Clint gave us a confidence through film like Reagan did through politics and leadership (whether you like Reagan’s policies or not).

He's been attacked from both sides throughout his career. As Rickey points out, in Nixon’s America when his early Dirty Harry films came out, Clint was called “fascist” by Lefties. (I don’t see it, the Dirty Harry films were expressing the angry, conservative backlash of too much mushy Great Society coddling. A vigilante fantasy, yes…fascist, not quite). But later, his films take a much more ambivalent look at the violence that he used to dispense so effortlessly. Conservatives may roar with approval as Dirty Harry blows away scumbags on the streets of San Francisco with his .44 Magnum (“the most powerful handgun in the world…now, you gotta ask yourself, do ya feel lucky? Well do ya? Punk?”), but they weren’t so comfortable with his dark ruminations on the consequences of righteous violence in “Unforgiven.” Red blooded patriots of the heartland were not comfortable at all with his brilliant and sympathetic look from the Japanese perspective in one of his finest films, “Letters From Iwo Jima.”

To quote Rickey: “The first half of Eastwood’s career he played men who shot first and thought about it later. The second half of his career, he’s largely devoted himself to exploring the consequences of that gunplay. Is that Republican? Is that Democrat? I think it’s American.”

Clint Eastwood did embarrass himself somewhat Thursday night. But that is American too. We stumble and make mistakes. And those mistakes are magnified because of who we are on the world stage. (If France makes a fool of itself, it doesn’t really matter, does it?) But Clint is also one of our finest popular film artists, both as an actor who personifies so much of our complexity, but also as a director who chooses to explore these complexities. He can be crude, yet explore issues thoughtfully and deeply. He is independent. He cannot be controlled or told what to do. I’d like to think that he planned it all along. “Yeah, I’ll give them (the RNC) a five minute speech to look at. But once I get up there, I’m going to do what I want. I’m Clint Eastwood.” Dumb move by the RNC. They should have known. Clint cannot be controlled or vetted. He cannot be contained, and he will do what he wants to do. He’ll try to be thoughtful and do the right thing as he gets his way, but things get complicated sometimes. Sometimes you gotta break things along the way. That’s Clint. That’s America.