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

[Ar-Pharazon]

^ Isn't that the point? The HOF's definition of Rock 'n' Roll is the big issue. Simply by getting into the RnR HOF makes some person or artist "rock" when they never were, even in their own minds.

Wasn't Dionne Warwick what we now call R&B? It was called the Motown sound back then, or maybe the Philadelphia sound.

[J.T.B.]

Ar-Festivus wrote:

---

^ Isn't that the point? The HOF's definition of Rock 'n' Roll is the big issue.

I don't really see how that can be at issue. It's self-evident that the Hall's definition includes country, R&B, pop, soul, funk, hip-hop, reggae, punk, dance and other genres. More questionable, to me, is whether the standards for entry are applied uniformly and fairly for all potential honorees.

Wasn't Dionne Warwick what we now call R&B? It was called the Motown sound back then, or maybe the Philadelphia sound.

Yes, R&B, like many artists who are in the Hall of Fame. And no, the Motown sound applies to that Detroit label and its artists and production teams, and the Philadelphia sound to a group of writers, producers and labels in that city that reached its peak in the 1970s.

Justin

[1001001]

J.T.B. wrote:

---

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

Justin

We're kind of going in circles here.

If they called it "The Music Hall of Fame" then that would make a lot more sense.

As it stands, they are letting people into the "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" that don't play rock and roll music.

As has been said, the "Rock and Roll" title is what causes all the controversy. Either be more selective, or change the name of the place.

That's what I think.

[J.T.B.]

1001001 wrote:

---

As has been said, the "Rock and Roll" title is what causes all the controversy. Either be more selective, or change the name of the place.

No, it's not what causes "all" the controversy. What causes the controversy in my mind is that one artist gets in while one in the same genre, with similar charting, critical opinion, influence &c. does not. It gives the whole thing the appearance of an exclusive club where one can be blackballed for undefined, subjective, unsupportable reasons which are never articulated. I don't like exclusiveness and elitism; it goes against what I think is good about "rock and roll."

Justin

[CorporalClegg]

The problem with "The Music Hall of Fame" or "Pop Music Hall of Fame" is Rock has always been blue collar. The thing was put in a blue collar town for a reason. On the other hand, Pop music has always been much more white collar.

It may seem silly, but "rock and roll" is a lot more than just a genre of music. It's a lifestyle. A spirit (of the radio? ) The hall was original put up as a celebration of all that.

[Drago-Kazov]

For a moment i tought it was the other Rush.

[the G-man]

J.T.B. wrote:

---

No, it's not what causes "all" the controversy. What causes the controversy in my mind is that one artist gets in while one in the same genre, with similar charting, critical opinion, influence &c. does not. It gives the whole thing the appearance of an exclusive club where one can be blackballed for undefined, subjective, unsupportable reasons which are never articulated...

It's whomever Jann Wenner wants in. That's it.

There's also a certain desire, I think, to be inclusive, both in terms of sex and race and age.

Right or wrong, with only a handful of exceptions, "rock and roll" was basically white males singing a hybrid of blues and country.

Furthermore, since about the early 90s there have been very, very, few big names in pop music that could be considered rock. Rock was basically pop music for baby boomers. Their kids listen(ed) to hip hop, pop and even what passes now for country.

I am sure the people behind the nomination process don't want to limit the tourism potential to middle aged and senior white males. As such, they put in acts that don't really fit the definition.

CorporalClegg wrote:

---

The problem with "The Music Hall of Fame" or "Pop Music Hall of Fame" is Rock has always been blue collar.

You mean, like...I dunno... David Bowie? Freddy Mercury? Roxy Music? The only "blue collar" on those guys was sequined.

How about Carly Simon (her dad was the "Simon" in "Simon and Shuster")?

Rock and roll hasn't been "blue collar" since about the time Elvis stopped driving a truck.

Drago-Kazov wrote:

---

For a moment i tought it was the other Rush.

Heh. I thought I was the only one.

[gblews]

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".

Your parents probably also listened to the Stones, Beatles, too. Does that eliminate those bands from being considered "rock and roll", also?

Ar-Festivus wrote:

---

Wasn't Dionne Warwick what we now call R&B? It was called the Motown sound back then, or maybe the Philadelphia sound.

Dionne Warwick wasn't an R&B singer in the 60's, nor would she be considered R&B today. Her singing style never included showy "runs" or hyperbolic emotional embellishments. If she had been white, her recordings would never have been played on black radio stations back then. Her sound had nothing to do with the Motown or Philly sounds.

J.T.B. wrote:

---

It's self-evident that the Hall's definition includes country, R&B, pop, soul, funk, hip-hop, reggae, punk, dance and other genres.

This is true. But by calling it the "Rock and Roll" Hall of Fame, many people who aren't really familiar with the history of the music, at least prior to the 1970's, think the title of the Hall should automatically exclude artists who they don't think played what they would likely call a "pure" form of the music.

And you can be sure that if it was called the Popular Music HOF, many would say that their particular Rock God didn't belong in it becaues, of course, he/she played rock and roll, baby.

[1001001]

This is a nice article, written from a fan's point of view:

http://www.nola.com/music/index.ssf/...the_bands.html

"With the possible exception of Kiss, no other major rock band’s omission was as glaring or widely bemoaned."

This shows how tough it is to apply the standard of "best" to something as subjective as art. I personally don't think KISS deserves to be in, so what do I know...

[Nerys Myk]

gblews wrote:

---

Your parents probably also listened to the Stones, Beatles, too. Does that eliminate those bands from being considered "rock and roll", also?

My parents are older than that. My mother went to High School with the Everly Brothers. My Dad was slightly older and missed out on the "birth of Rock and Roll. He was listening to guys like Hank Williams, Sons of the Pioneers and other Grand Old Opry stars as a teen. I was the one who listened to the Beatles and the Stones. ( though I was a preteen in the 60s)

Mostly I was making a joke about how we view our parent's music.

As I and others have said, Rock and Roll was pretty diverse from the start. It more or less meant music popular with teens. So it includes crooner-like ballads, songs about cars, young love and rebellion and even dance music! (its got a good beat and you can dance to it)

[Andrew_Kearley]

1001001 wrote:

---

You must have heard this...

I can honestly say I've never heard that record in my life before. So now I have, so I can at least say that I've heard one Rush record. I have to say, I didn't particularly like it.

[mredom]

1001001 wrote:

---

Here is an interesting "opposing" article, which came out before the HOF decision. A reviewer who doesn't like Rush goes to see Rush live:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...0,423523.story

"Rush makes rock music, too, that's stripped of nearly all of its blues influence, and rock without blues is like fat without the steak."

And again, we hear from a critic with no understanding of musical structure, or musical concepts. If it isn't a simple repetitive twelve bar form, it is beyond his ability to comprehend. There is tremendous "blues" influence in the music of Rush, but it's not encased in a simple paint by numbers format. It requires a developed ear able to perceive of more complex structures than are present in traditional blues. I almost fell out of my chair when he noted the influence of YYZ as a precursor to the "speed metal" of Metallica, as if Lars Ulrich possesses the chops to play 4 beats in a row at one tempo.

Seriously, a concert review by a critic with limited at best understanding of music form and structure, and he's explaining why he doesn't "get" Rush. Rock music would be the same if they never existed? OK, even if that's true, what's your argument for Metallica, ABBA, Guns and Roses, and Donna Summer. None of these groups left a genre changing legacy even close to the impact of Rush.

'nuf said.

[gblews]

Santa Kang wrote:

---

My parents are older than that. My mother went to High School with the Everly Brothers. My Dad was slightly older and missed out on the "birth of Rock and Roll. He was listening to guys like Hank Williams, Sons of the Pioneers and other Grand Old Opry stars as a teen. I was the one who listened to the Beatles and the Stones. ( though I was a preteen in the 60s)

Mostly I was making a joke about how we view our parent's music.

I kind of thought you might have been joking but your smiley threw me off. Your mom went to school with rock royalty. I used to love the Everly Brothers.

Apologies for misunderstanding the joke.

mredom wrote:

---

"Rush makes rock music, too, that's stripped of nearly all of its blues influence, and rock without blues is like fat without the steak."

And again, we hear from a critic with no understanding of musical structure, or musical concepts.

I didn't follow the link to the article but I agree with your take on the author's quote above. I haven't heard nearly as much of Rush as others here have, but most of the stuff I've heard I liked because of, what sounds to me like, a significant jazz influence -- especially from the bassist. The article writer above may have a preference for heavily blues based rock, but just because the blues influence is light, that certainly does not preclude it from being kick-ass.

[marillion]

Andrew_Kearley wrote:

---

I can honestly say I've never heard that record in my life before. So now I have, so I can at least say that I've heard one Rush record. I have to say, I didn't particularly like it.

Ok, what about this one? This song has been everywhere in the past few years, from commercials to movies... Plus, there's a nifty Southpark intro! (sorry about the lack of inbed, but I can't get it to work on my work computer).. Shouldn't I actually be working??

Tom Sawyer

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Andrew_Kearley wrote:

---

I can honestly say I've never heard that record in my life before. So now I have, so I can at least say that I've heard one Rush record. I have to say, I didn't particularly like it.

I know that Digits and marillion mean well, but if you are going to get into Rush cold, always try studio recordings first. I say that for any band, particularity Rush.

So, please, try these:

and a little short, mellow rocker with thoughtful lyrics