Disappointingly but predictable in the light of my previous form, only one of my nominees to the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame will be inducted later this year. From the list of 17 nominees, the permitted five I chose were Beck, Eurythmics, MC5, The New York Dolls and Rage Against The Machine, but of the five only Eurythmics were given the nod by the rather mysterious – some would say sinister – committee that decides these things.
This is not the first time that MC5, the Dolls and Rage have been passed over, as have a few others from the list of nominees for whom I did not vote, among them Kate Bush. Aside from Eurythmics, the lucky inductees are Eminem, Dolly Parton, Duran Duran, Lionel Ritchie, Pat Benatar and Carly Simon.
Dolly’s inclusion is controversial insofar as she recused herself from being inducted on the grounds that she’s not rock’n’roll, which is true and which is why I didn’t vote for her myself. As I opined in my post on 11 March, she’s a great performer but she’s country with a capital C and does not therefore belong in the R&RHoF. She evidently agrees but the committee ignored her wishes and voted her in anyway. It remains to be seen what the outcome will be.
I am angry that the New York Dolls have been overlooked yet again. If ever a band held true to the spirit of rock’n’roll, the defiance, the casual disregard for civility, the sticking two fingers up to authority, it was the Dolls. Their output was small but their impact was massive. In many ways the Dolls were the American Sex Pistols, certainly as shocking and almost as influential, and the same applies in many respects to MC5, who kept a few ghastly Republican politicians awake at night. For both these groups – and The Smiths for that matter – to have been dismissed in favour of an act like Duran Duran is a disgraceful action that brings into question the very meaning of rock’n’roll in the eyes of those who administer the Hall of Fame.
Then again, it’s not the first time their judgement has reeked of duplicity. I have nothing really against Duran Duran beyond the fact that their music was not to my taste and much of their appeal seemed to rely on how they dressed, but heaven forbid that the decision to induct them rested on the fact that all five of their original line up are still alive – as opposed to only one from the Dolls – which means Duran and their record label are likely to buy far more costly tickets to the induction ceremony in November. Surely not?
Each year I question why I continue to vote. Nowadays the acts nominated produce music that more often than not passes me by but, with a few exceptions, lack the attributes required to be inducted into an institution that, when it was originated in 1968, rewarded genuine excellence. It all boils down to a simple question: do Pat Benatar and Duran Duran really belong alongside Elvis, Chuck, Beatles, Rolling Stones, Dylan, Who, Jimi, Neil Young, Led Zep, Bowie, Springsteen and the like? Do the New York Dolls for that matter? Maybe I’m just too bloody old.
7 comments:
1. Eminem is neither rock nor roll.
2. Nobody gets in till Nicky Hopkins gets in.
You seem to be tilting towards my own instinct about this place - or certainly about the annual voting hoopla. Really, it's just a few people's opinions and it shouldn't bother anyone. As the world hurtles towards the apocalypse on so many fronts, none of us should really be angst-ridden that so-and-so isn't 'in' this list are that others are 'not in'. Borrow some Slade attitude or some Kate Bush blissful aloofness, Chris, and stick a metaphorical two fingers up at the whole thing... while playing Slade loud!
I’m guessing your et al premier league includes Pink Floyd , Van, maybe Tom Waits /
Pat Benetar / Duran / wrong end of Confrence I’d say.
You're on the right lines.
After the conversation on this topic a few weeks back, just had to check back for the post-game.
I don't want to re-fry the hash, but every conversation I have about the Rock Hall comes back to the objective: "Do these artists meet the criteria for induction as stated by the Hall or not?" That prescription used to be on the Rock Hall site, but I don't see it now. My question for Chris: When you receive your ballot, does the Induction Committee provide the written standard that you are obliged to observe? If so, can you share that here?
Also, and off topic, two nights ago, I was in the crowd for The Who's emotional return to Cincinnati, some 42 years after the tragedy of December, 1979. The online post-show writing on this past weekend's concert is lacking, I believe. Chris, is there a way I can provide my own account to you or do you have specific interest in the show? I figure a Who writer might want to make note of it, and, as I say, what I have read so far is perfunctory at best. I was surprised to see that Rolling Stone did not offer a feature article, since they still feature Pete and Rog so regularly.
Colin, man, there you are again! At this point, we should be bending elbows. Which way to Ireland, anyway?
Glenn - the ballot paper is a brochure with 16 or so pages of pics and potted biographies of those nominated, with a tear-off card at the back with the names to put an x against. Nothing else. If you want to write a report on the Who's Cincinnati show, please do so and send it via email, as an attachment, to chrischarlesworth165@gmail.com
"Tear-off card at the back... Nothing else."
As the mechanic said to the man whose car had no wheels: "Well... THERE'S your problem."
It seems to me that the Hall would logically provide some guidance each year. I wonder if the other entertainment industry polls, votes, and academies do it any differently. Or maybe the Rock Hall does put some parameter to the nomination process only. Whatever. No point in pondering 'til next year, I suppose.
Thanks for an opp to provide some first-hand perspective on the Cincinnati show. I'll try to take care of that soon, and I hope it is useful.
Post a Comment