I guess my thought is that "Rock n Roll" has become so loosly defined...
You mean by the RHOF, right? This is one of the things the Hall has done correctly, IMO. Rock and Roll should be "loosely" defined because it's parents come from so many different genre's and influences. The blues, country, bluegrass, jazz, pop (Crosby,Sinatra-style), gospel, all and more were essential in the developement of rock and roll. Artists who were important contributors to these genres should
be considered for inclusion in the Hall.
If I misunderstood your statement above, please let me know.
It's hard for me to process acts like Madonna, Donna Summer, Abba and Dionne Warwick being inducted in the RRHOF.. In fact, it pisses me off in many ways...
To me it is about the legacy of the artist's musical (or technical) contribution. Did the artist's music inspire imitators? Can you here echos of that artist's musical style years after he or she is gone?
When you start eliminating from consideration artists who "don't play rock", I think you miss what rock and roll was as a musical genre. By the narrow definitions of some, artists like James Brown, Sam Cooke, and even Ray Charles, should not be in the Hall -- because they didn't play "rock".
Rock was, and is, a complete "mutt", needing contributions from far and wide to become what it is today.
..."rock and roll" was not originally so rigidly defined. These kind of arbitrary, indefinable barriers of what's "in" and what's "out" seem exclusive, while I think the best rock and roll/popular music has been inclusive and diversely influenced.
Well said, very well said.