For the second year in a row, I am pleased with the 16 nominees. There are several who are getting first time nominations from my own personal snub list. Here are the nominees, and then I will give you my predictions, my wish list and some final thoughts.
The Nominees (in alphabetical order)...
1. Chic. This is their record setting 8th nomination. Someone on the Committee really wants them in. I think this year is their best chance yet, partly due to attrition. But Nile Rodgers has had a big year, and I think that might push them over. While I really prefer some other candidates here, I do feel they deserve induction. Funk/dance pioneers.
2. Deep Purple. A no brainer and one of the biggest snubs on the outside looking in. Hard rock/metal is one of the more disrespected genres in the Hall, and Deep Purple is one of the true pioneers of the genre.
3. Peter Gabriel. Surprisingly, this is Peter's first nomination as a solo artist. I find that ridiculous. Although he is already in the Hall as a member of Genesis, he is probably even more deserving for his own work. Innovation? Check. His recordings broke a lot of ground, and he was one of the most important western artists to incorporate world music into pop. One of the biggest solo artists of the 80's, his influence is huge and he is very respected.
4. Hall & Oates. Also a first time nomination, it is about freakin' time. Often wrongly dismissed, Hall & Oates are one of the most successful recording duos of all time. The Rockhall is not supposed to consider commercial success, but come on. And the quality is there too. Perhaps a little light in the "innovation" department, but still a deserving act.
5. KISS. This is their second nomination, so I guess the longtime KISS ban imposed by Dave Marsh really has been lifted. Disrespected and disregarded by critics, KISS is the ultimate populist hard rock band. Influential on entire generations of hard rock/metal acts. While not musically innovative, I would say they were innovative as businessmen in the industry for sure. And in a popular music like rock and roll, that does mean something. Quality of work? Well. It's all just rock and roll in the end anyway, right? Clearly deserving in my book.
6. LL Cool J. Rap icon and has been nominated several times. But there is another rap nominee that has a better chance this year.
7. The Meters. No chance. Great New Orleans funk band, but I don't think they are really Hall worthy. I like them a lot, though.
8. Nirvana. The most sure thing the Hall has had in a long time. It is their first year of eligibility, and they are a shoo-in.
9. N.W.A. They will probably be rap's representative this year, and are deserving. More responsible for rap's attitude in the early years than probably anyone else.
10. The Paul Butterfield Blues Band. Somebody's pet project on the Committee, clearly. I like them, I respect their playing and innovation ("East/West"), but no chance this year.
11. The Replacements. Well, color me impressed. One of the Hall's most neglected periods is the 80's, and the Replacements were crucial in the alt-80's scene. Love them, doubt they will make it in this year, but the nomination is a small victory in itself.
12. Linda Ronstadt. Ugh. Yes there is too much sausage in the Rockhall, but please. Sympathy pick due to her recent illness. She'll probably get in too, because she doesn't have anyone here to split votes with, and the institution is sensitive to accusation of lacking diversity.
13. Cat Stevens. No problem with him being nominated. Won't make it though.
14. Yes. Yes, yes, yes. Finally! It is shameful how the Hall neglects certain genres or periods that the Committee members dislike, and Progressive Rock is one of the most neglected. Innovation, influence and quality are all there. How they could nominate for the first time after all of this time a band that should have been in for years is embarassing. Whether you like their music or not, a band that is a pioneer and consistent leader in a particular genre should be the definition of a Hall of Fame act. Come on.
15. Link Wray. Important, but I doubt he gets in. I think the door on 50's acts is already closed.
16. The Zombies. One of the few remaining 60's acts that I think still deserves to get in. Much bigger in England than stateside, they created some fantastic pop music. I am sure Little Steven was behind their nomination, and for once, I support his efforts.
So there you have it, this year's nominees. First my predictions...
Nirvana - duh.
Chic - 8 nominations and Nile Rodgers having a big year = induction
Deep Purple - too influential and important to be left out.
Peter Gabriel - maybe I'm being more hopeful than anything, I just think he is too respected not to make it.
Linda Ronstadt / NWA / Yes / The Zombies - If it is five nominees it will be one of these, if it is six then two of them, if seven then three of them.
My hopes? I know Nirvana deserves it objectively over everyone other than maybe Deep Purple or Yes, but these are my personal choices, so...
Peter Gabriel, Yes, The Replacements, Hall & Oates, KISS. If I get a 6th and 7th, then NWA and Zombies.
As usual with this yearly post, I will leave you with my snub list. Artists eligible but still not in the Hall that should be (not that I love all of these artists, but objectively, they have strong cases for induction): Stevie Ray Vaughan, The Cars, Duran Duran, The Cure, Depeche Mode, The Pixies, Joy Division, New Order, The Smiths, Kraftwerk, Judas Priest, Motorhead, King Crimson, Kool & the Gang, The Commodores, Dick Dale, Lou Reed, Big Star, Cheap Trick, Jimmy Buffett, The Monkees, Roxy Music, T. Rex...etc. etc. etc.
OK, your thoughts?
9 comments:
"Ugh" to Linda Ronstadt? "Sympathy pick"? Dude, come on. First off, her '70s stuff was pretty great. Secondly, given some of the other people under discussion here, she's hardly deserving of such quick dismissal.
What makes her hallworthy? Look at the criteria, such that it is. No innovation. Since she didn't write her own material, she made her name with covers. Influence? I don't see it. Other female singers from the 70s were much more influential and were real artists. She had a great voice, was cute, had the right friends and had hits. Commercial success is not criteria for induction. Yes I know I am contradicting myself (SEE KISS and H&O). But those artists have other arguments. She does not.
"I know I am contradicting myself." 'Nuff said.
But I'll also say: H&O wrote their own stuff. KISS, however, is just terrible, but I understand that you dug them as a kid so you can't really acknowledge that.
Also, your use of the word "hallworthy" implies that word has some real meaning. If it did, I'd see a debate about Ronstadt and many others. But as it is, the Red Hot Chili Peppers are in. So "worthy" is pretty elastic here.
No, not 'nuff said. The word "hallworthy" should have real meaning. I'm not saying you are one of these people, but there are still some who roll out that tired complaint that rock and roll is all about youthful rebellion, and therefore creating an institution like the Rockhall and also the museum in Cleveland is somehow antithetical to rock's spirit. That train left the station decades ago. Rock and roll has become a mainstream popular "artform," and as such it should be preserved for history.
So we can have serious issues with the process (as I am sure most people do with museums and Halls of Fame that honor whatever passions they may have). But the need for their existence is solid.
Now to your arguments. You may feel KISS is terrible. Many people do. You say I am blinded my childhood warm and fuzzies. But you, my friend, are the one that needs to look more dispassionately and objectively at this. There are many artists whom I personally dislike but that I acknowledge deserves a spot in the Hall. KISS revolutionized the industry in the 70's, and also revolutionized the rock stage show. They are an absolute touchstone for many (most?) hard rock / metal musicians who came the generation after them. That has been well documented. Part of their problem has been that they have not been a critical favorite (ever), and Gene Simmons is such a jackass that people are (understandably) loathe to give him any more marketing ammunition. But I can think of few bigger snubs than KISS.
To Ronstadt, my arguments still stand. Again, explain why she is hallworthy.
Hell, even The Replacements covered KISS's "Black Diamond." And it is a pretty straightforward cover, so I don't think it was done ironically or sarcastically.
I will claim to be one who rolls out the tired argument that the hall is antithetical to the spirit of rock. Not sure if I'd peg that exactly to youthful rebellion, but that's as good a name for it as anything. What would a a 23 year old Pete Townshend, (or: Bob Dylan, John Lennon, Mick Jagger, Levon Helm, Jerry Lee Lewis, etc etc) have said if you could have gone back in time to ask him what HE would think about a Rock N Roll hall of fame? He'd ridicule the entire idea. And I'd agree with him. It's part of the Jann Wenner/yuppification of rock, and it's the kind of thing that would really bother me if I were still young enough to care about, you know. Anything.
-ANCIANT
Well, I guess I would argue that rock and roll has been around long enough and has "grown up" enough through the decades to warrant some sort of historical context. I doubt you can argue too strenuously against the museum and archive in Cleveland (well, you can argue against putting it in Cleveland). Having spent several days there, it serves a great purpose for education and preserving important artifacts. The programs they consistently have there are great.
The Hall of Fame I can see more argument against. As you know I have strong objections to the process and Nominating Committee politics, but the idea of a Hall of Fame, if done correctly, I really like. I think it also serves as an educational tool, and a way to preserve the past. And having watched most of the induction ceremonies, it is especially nice to see some of the older R&B and blues musicians given honors. When they were so ripped off by record companies and racial politics in their prime, you can see that they are genuinely grateful for the (belated) recognition for their contributions to the culture. As one somewhat obsessed with history anyway, I have always liked the preservation aspects of both the Hall and the museum.
Many of those you listed have in fact been active in the Hall of Fame and participated in multiple ceremonies, as both recipients and as presenters. You are right, a 23 year old Pete Townshend would have pissed all over the Hall, much like on the cover of 'Who's Next.' But honestly, at this stage in my life, I would probably have more in common with and enjoy conversing more with a Townshend in his 50's and 60's than the 23 year old. He might be a bit wiser and more interesting. And the older Townshend has been active with the Hall and the Foundation.
I don't know.
And it's not like the ceremonies are too uptight. There is much irreverence and fun stuff. One of my favorite moments ever was when The Yardbirds were being inducted, and Jeff Beck said "I guess I'm supposed to feel honored, but I don't. They kicked me out of the band. [Turning to his former bandmates] So f*ck you guys."
Post a Comment