Santa Kang wrote:
Cash has solid Rock n Roll cred. Dusty had the blue eyed soul thing going on. Love Merle, but he's solidly country. Warwick, could she be any more pop?
Those were just examples, but that kind of pigeonholing is what I don't get. I understand Johnny Cash going in, but he's not somehow less country. The influence of Haggard's lean, anti-Countrypolitan Bakersfield sound can be heard all over the Byrds-Burritos-CSN-Eagles axis of California rock and roll and well beyond. Dusty Springfield had one great soul-influenced album; most of her chart success was exactly the same kind of pop as Warwick was recording, and often the same Bacharach-David songs. Why is Warwick's "pop" less admissible than Brenda Lee's, or Abba's, or Madonna's?
said, "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.
I agree that Rock and Roll is a pretty broad category, so when people start objecting to various acts being admitted into the that Hall of Fame, I'm often the first to point that out. (I defended Madonna when she got the nod) Guess I dropped the ball this time. But Warwick is someone my parents listened to back in the Sixties, so I have to draw the line at her being a "Rock and Roller".
For some acts its just one song that makes them "Rock and Roll". A lots of early "rockers" went on to be come bigger stars in Country, Pop or Soul. And some later "rockers" would bring Country, Pop and Soul back to rock, creating fusions like Country Rock, Pop Rock and Soft Rock. It continues to day with Rap/Rock fusions.