Rush to be Inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

[Ar-Pharazon]

I can't say I've ever seen Alex play with anyone else outside of this:



Which is actually a cool thing. Rush is so tight knit, playing with only those three guys for almost 38 years. Most bands have some turnover in personnel, or at least the members do projects with other people.

[1001001]

marillion wrote:

---

Maybe not, but you know what? Alex would dig playing with Nancy, I bet, and would have fun with it... That is the beauty of Alex Lifeson!

I'm sure that's true. I know everyone will have a good time (maybe even Neil!).



I could see Rush playing Barracuda, maybe?

Chances are they'll pick some old 70's tune, something like they did on Feedback.

[gblews]

J.T.B. wrote:

---

Yes indeed. In the early days everyone could pretty much agree, yes, Roy Orbison and the Beatles and Dylan... pretty obvious who should go in. But "rock and roll" splintered and sprawled so much in the '70s and '80s that the number of eligible artists who have been passed over now is fairly staggering.

I'm going to disagree with you a bit here Justin. I think it really has been just the opposite of what you state above. "Rock and roll" in it's early days (the days of Little Richard, early Chuck Berry and early Elvis) encompassed most "popular" music. By "popular", I mean music listened to by "young people".

Beginning in the 70's, "rock and roll" began to be thought of as music that featured out-front guitars played mostly by long haired white guys exclusively. IMO, radio and the rock media (Rolling Stone especially) was to blame for much of this with the creation of FM "rock" stations that played only the aforementioned type music and identified it, and only "it", as "true" rock and roll. Now, many people particularly those born during and after the 70's think that rock and roll is this narrowly defined thing. It really wasn't that way through the 50's and 60's.

But, all that being said, my personal tipping point with the Rock HOF was the inclusion of Madonna, not because she "doesn't play rock", though. It is because I just don't think she is important enough musically to be included. This is my main gripe with some other inductees too.

I don't know all that much about Rush, but I'v heard a fair amount of their music in the last few years and it is easy to see that these fools can play like a mother_______. So, good on them for making it in. I tend now to think of a band who is inducted as being "HOF worthy" even if the HOF into which they are admitted has some questionable members.

[1001001]

Ar-Festivus wrote:

---

I can't say I've ever seen Alex play with anyone else outside of this:



Which is actually a cool thing. Rush is so tight knit, playing with only those three guys for almost 38 years. Most bands have some turnover in personnel, or at least the members do projects with other people.

Alex has played with Porcupine Tree, on their song Anesthetize, but that was in the studio.

I wonder if Victor ever played any live shows? The album was almost all him anyway.

[Neroon]

marillion wrote:

---

Maybe not, but you know what? Alex would dig playing with Nancy, I bet,

Heck... I don't even play guitar and I'd dig hanging with her. She's still as cool as they come and darned fine guitarist.




Speaking of people glad to see Rush in the HoF:

[Ar-Pharazon]

1001001 wrote:

---

Alex has played with Porcupine Tree, on their song Anesthetize, but that was in the studio.

I wonder if Victor ever played any live shows? The album was almost all him anyway.

Damn. Totally forgot about Victor, which is bad since I had the album at some point.

[J.T.B.]

gblews wrote:

---

I'm going to disagree with you a bit here Justin. I think it really has been just the opposite of what you state above. "Rock and roll" in it's early days (the days of Little Richard, early Chuck Berry and early Elvis) encompassed most "popular" music. By "popular", I mean music listened to by "young people".

Beginning in the 70's, "rock and roll" began to be thought of as music that featured out-front guitars played mostly by long haired white guys exclusively. IMO, radio and the rock media (Rolling Stone especially) was to blame for much of this with the creation of FM "rock" stations that played only the aforementioned type music and identified it, and only "it", as "true" rock and roll. Now, many people particularly those born during and after the 70's think that rock and roll is this narrowly defined thing. It really wasn't that way through the 50's and 60's.

I completely agree with that, so I guess I didn't express well the point I was trying to make. Up through the '60s you had a comparatively small group of artists making "meaningful" rock and roll --as opposed to copycats and one-hit-wonders -- and it was stylistically pretty broad. It just seems that as the eligible artists get into the 1970s and '80s a more narrow view has been taken. I don't know what the formula is, but there are loads of artists who made groundbreaking, innovative, consistent albums who have been passed over year after year. Guns N' Roses, what, five albums and they get in the first year eligible, while Black Sabbath -- just an example -- was passed for 10 years? And Johnny Cash and Dusty Springfield are "in" but Merle Haggard and Dionne Warwick are "out"? I don't get it and never will, and don't give a damn for the "honor" the HoF is supposed to be.

Justin

[Nerys Myk]

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?

[J.T.B.]

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?

As gblews 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.

Justin

[marillion]

I guess my thought is that "Rock n Roll" has become so loosly defined... The early pioneers, Bill Haley, the Fireballs, Buddy Holly, Richie Valens, Roy Orbison, Elvis, Jerry Lee and Chet Atkins (just to name a scant few) WERE Rock n Roll in their day, but found popularity as popular (or Pop) music started to change... Suddenly Rock of that era WAS pop music.. Oldies stations now are a mix of two.. (On a side note, as a former Oldies format DJ, I'm saddened that some of the music of my generation's early days (mid 70's) is now starting to creep into that format, dammit!!!)...

Country music has mostly been stand-alone, so entrants to their music hall of fame are easier to understand.. But then again, Country purists who favor Patsy, Hank Sr and others from the Grand Ol' Opry tend to dislike much of today's "Pop" oriented country from the likes of Toby Keith, Carrie Underwood and Garth Brooks.. Then you have the bluegrass crowd.. LOL...

Rock has so many definitions... Prog, Metal, Psychadelic, Folk, Hard, Soft, etc, with the subcatagory of "classic"...

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...

But the arguement can be made that some of the acts we now consider Pop or Country, were at their outset, part of the Rock movement.. Rod Stewart, for example... These days, he's as "pop" as they come, but I don't think anyone could argue that in the late 60's and 70's, he was definitely a Rocker... Not by Rush standards, by any means, but Rock none the less...

[gblews]

marillion wrote:

---

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.

J.T.B. wrote:

---

..."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.

[Nerys Myk]

J.T.B. wrote:

---

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?

As gblews 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.

Justin

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.

[the G-man]

RnR HoF - Warren Zevon = 0 credibility

[1001001]

Maybe it would be better to just call it the Music Hall of Fame, or the Popular Music Hall of Fame.

The argument about what is rock and roll, or not, could then be dropped.

Until then...Madonna, Dionne Warwick, Donna Summer are not rock and roll by even the broadest definition.

As for whether or not it matters that Rush got in, well...in the final analysis, no it doesn't matter. Nothing changes. But for those of us who have followed this band since we were young, there is a certain small satisfaction.

[J.T.B.]

Santa Kang wrote:

---

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".

Understandable, but I just can't get past the apparent implication of her being less of a "Hall-worthy" act than some that are already in. [Personal-preference aside to follow:] She did go pretty middle-of-the-road in the '80s, then the Psychic Friends and all that, but her early '60s recordings on Scepter are absolutely superb. In sales as well as impact I don't think it can be argued that those singles are among the most important R&B records by a female artist in the '60s. It has been suggested that if she had been on Atlantic, as Dusty Springfield later was, she'd have gone in long ago due to Ahmet Ertegun's heavy HoF influence.

1001001 wrote:

---

Until then...Madonna, Dionne Warwick, Donna Summer are not rock and roll by even the broadest definition.

But that's directly contradicted by the fact that, by the Hall's definition, two of them are.

Justin