After a hectic holiday season, I now finally have time to
sit down and post more fully my thoughts on our Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame
Class Of 2015. I fleshed out a few
comments on the Future Rock Legends site, and I will be quoting my entries
there. Also, while I’m not prone to
ranting, it is accurate to say that this is one dissatisfied customer.
First, the Performer inductees. Let’s face it, everyone knew and predicted Green Day to
make it. Hardly the most deserving, but
hardly the least either. So, we can
just shrug our shoulders and say, “No surprises there.” Pretty much the same deal with Lou Reed,
whose death cemented his spot in the Hall for the second time. Things are bit happier with Stevie Ray
Vaughan And Double Trouble both in the fact that Stevie’s FINALLY getting
his just due, and that they are indeed including his band with him. I’m thrilled about this one. This band has been the biggest omission from
the Hall, in my opinion, ever since they became eligible. Bill Withers is a name that kind of
sneaked up on me. When his name was
first bandied about, I was rather surprised.
I don’t dislike his music, but I’m not a huge fan either. That’s still my feeling on his music. However, ever since his name first appeared
on the nominees list, there was a murmuring within that he would make the
cut. So I predicted him, as well. Four for six on my predictions. Originally, I was planning on predicting Joan
Jett And The Blackhearts due to Jett’s appearance in last year’s
ceremonies, but thought Sting would be much more likely. She and her band are pretty low in my
opinion (and several others’ as well) as far as deserving the honors, but I
love “School Days”, “You Drive Me Wild”, “Fake Friends”, “Androgynous”, and of
course, “I Love Rock N’ Roll” and “I Hate Myself For Loving You”. But I have to point out, how deserving is
someone if they do a cover of “Love Is All Around”? And just to clarify, I don’t mean the proto-monster ballad from
the Troggs, I mean the theme song from The Mary Tyler Moore Show. That’s right. Well, Joan, you’re going to make it after all… into the
Hall. Congratulations. Lastly, The Paul Butterfield Blues Band,
a band we knew was going to keep being nominated until they made it, had Jann
S. Wenner’s support, but no one thought was anywhere near the most deserving,
and few listed them among their favorites.
Well, there’s often one of those.
Not always, but often enough to the point where it’s fruitless to be
sour about it.
But it’s not the Performers that made everyone sit up and
take notice. It was the other two
inductees in this year’s class. The
less discussed of the two is the selection of The “5” Royales as Early
Influence inductees. Fellow Monitor Tom
Lane posted his enthusiasm and willingly accepts this inductee. But I must resoundingly disagree. For reasons I hope to get into in another
entry, I’m going to call this one a bad call.
But the bulk of the ire centers on the induction of Ringo
Starr in the “Award For Musical Excellence” category. The question everyone is asking, but for
different reasons, is “Why?” For some,
it’s “Why even bother?”, for others, it’s “Why in this category and not
nominated as a Performer down the road?”
This is the camp I fall squarely in.
I still feel very strongly that Ringo Starr is (note the present tense)
worthy of induction as a Performer.
Another commenter on the FRL site, fellow Monitor Dezmond, essentially
said that if Ringo were never in the Beatles, no one would be clamoring for his
induction. It’s an interesting hypothetical
to postulate; however, it’s still one that I must disagree with. Partially because I also still support the
induction for artists like Gary U.S. Bonds, Freddy Cannon, Bobby Rydell, Tommy
James And The Shondells, and the Turtles, to name a few. But also because Ringo’s music just makes
the grade. At this point, I’d like to
copy and paste two posts of mine from FRL that further expound my feelings
about Ringo’s music.
“I do think Ringo deserves solo induction as a Performer.
His 70's output were some of the most joyful, ebullient, rocking, rollicking,
fun, and human records from that entire decade. Did it always push the
envelope? No, but sometimes I think that doing so is overrated. He is just
plain good rock'n'roll, and that should be honored for what it is. And with
Joan Jett getting in this year, the ‘fun but safe’ slot would have been wide
open for him. But hey, congrats on him being the first person inducted in two
different categories. Maybe this will lead to a solo Carole King induction now.”
And…
“Ringo Starr's solo career is still very much worthy. I
stand by everything I said about his music in my previous post. In fact, the
only detriment to the argument is that more artists haven't followed his lead.
His solo music is generally the kind of joyful and life-affirming that the
music world is dying of thirst for, amidst a salt-water ocean of lyrics of
angst and abstract, and angry distortion pedals and intentional cacophony. We
get that fresh water in small doses of fun like "Party Hard,"
"Girlfriend," and even the lesser "This Afternoon."
Ringo's music is real to me. More real than Green Day, supposedly the voice of my generation. The medicinal effect of music as expressed through ‘Oh My My’ and ‘A Dose Of Rock And Roll’, the yearning for a stranger in ‘Devil Woman’, the fatigue expressed in ‘You And Me’, the empathy regarding bad days in ‘Hopeless,’ the eagerness for Christmas day in ‘Come On Christmas,’ etc. In fact, one of the greatest quotes about the futility of regret, imo, comes from the Ringo Starr song, ‘Weight Of The World’: It all comes down to who you crucify/You either kiss the future or the past goodbye. It's a kind of realism that is excellent because it is common love and common sense and reaches everyone.
Ringo's music as a solo artist is very deserving.”
Ringo's music is real to me. More real than Green Day, supposedly the voice of my generation. The medicinal effect of music as expressed through ‘Oh My My’ and ‘A Dose Of Rock And Roll’, the yearning for a stranger in ‘Devil Woman’, the fatigue expressed in ‘You And Me’, the empathy regarding bad days in ‘Hopeless,’ the eagerness for Christmas day in ‘Come On Christmas,’ etc. In fact, one of the greatest quotes about the futility of regret, imo, comes from the Ringo Starr song, ‘Weight Of The World’: It all comes down to who you crucify/You either kiss the future or the past goodbye. It's a kind of realism that is excellent because it is common love and common sense and reaches everyone.
Ringo's music as a solo artist is very deserving.”
Regarding the last sentence of the previous full paragraph,
I would also remind the reader of what I said in my merits’ rankings of the
nominees, in favor of Bill Withers under Intangibles:
“Idealists will describe rock and roll music as a musical
genre that at its finest, breaks down borders, shatters barriers, bridges the
widest chasms, and unifies people on a fundamental level that is indisputably
and universally human. If ‘Lean On Me’ doesn’t fit the bill here, what
song does? In this regard, ‘Lean On Me’ belongs in the same discussion as
‘Blowin’ In The Wind’ and ‘All You Need Is Love.’ More than any nominee
on this ballot, Bill Withers reached this ideal with at least one of his
songs.”
While no single song by Ringo Starr as a soloist attained
this goal quite the way “Lean On Me” does, this is the very essence of what
Ringo Starr’s solo music is about: singing about the places where we’ve all
been. The late Dick Clark listed this
as one of the things that made Ray Charles such a genius. It’s part of why we venerate Smokey Robinson
as a songwriter, and it’s why Ringo’s music is unquestionably excellent. And quite honestly, we could use a few more
artists whose credentials are simply that, fuck the holy twins of innovation of
influence.
But hey, the category is called “Award For Musical
Excellence”, right? Shouldn’t I be
jubilant about it then? And the answer
is still no. It’s still no because we
still haven’t gotten any real good explanation about this category. There are still those who imagine this
category as a simple renaming of the Sideman category, much as the
Non-Performer category was re-dubbed the “Ahmet Ertegun Award”. Well,
Ringo did do some session work in the ‘70s, mainly for his friends, but
honestly, a sideman? No. Just no.
Besides which, what about the three engineers from 2012, or the E Street
Band who weren’t studio musicians for hire, but a coherent unit that worked and
traveled together with Bruce Springsteen?
It’s a haze that is very uncomfortable on its own, but with Ringo Starr
this year, it’s even more so.
How about a renaming of “Lifetime Achievement”? Okay…but again, really? “Lifetime Achievement” inductees, pre-2004
at least, were used to mark a higher esteem for those inductees than would
normally befit an inductee for that category, which in this case was entirely
Non-Performers. Does the E Street Band
deserve higher esteem than the Boss? And
as much as I love Ringo’s work as a soloist, he isn’t as deserving as Lennon,
McCartney, or Harrison as soloists, or the Beatles as a whole, though still
more deserving than maybe a third of the names we had on this year’s
ballot. So that answer doesn’t satisfy
either.
The galling alternative conclusion is that
the “Award For Musical Excellence” category is (becoming) the “Because we
fucking say so, that’s why, dammit!” category.
And if that’s the case, then why have categories, or even a ballot at
all? It is also not a good answer, but
it’s much more probable than the other two.
And in hindsight, it may even appear that Sting was the guinea pig this
year. If they couldn’t get Sting in
this year as a Performer, then the outcome wouldn’t have been good for Ringo
Starr either.
Back in 2011, when the Small Faces/Faces joint nomination
got everyone tittering, I emailed one of the NomCom members for some
explanation as to why they were nominated jointly and not separately. This member replied saying two things about
it. The second thing said was this: “I
always think of the Faces as two bands with a continuous history somehow--that
is, I always think of the Faces as Mac, Ronnie, and Kenney working
with...whomever they work with.” A
reply, no doubt to send into a tizzy those who feel Steve Marriott was the
end-all be-all of British music. But
even more telling was what this member said first about it: “What do you figure
the odds are that, having chosen one group or the other, we would succeed in
getting both in within the lifetime of the currently living band members. I
know my estimation of that likelihood.”
Don’t get me wrong, I’ll take my honors while living over posthumously
any day, but when I read that then, I wanted to immediately reply, “Let me ask
you in return, which is important: inducting them while they are still alive,
or inducting them correctly?” Keep in
mind, that at that time, I still believed that the joint nomination was
justifiable. (To some degree, I still
do, but not the way the Hall went about doing it and justifying it.) Clearly, the NomCom knew which they felt was
more important, and still seems to believe, apparently.
And unfortunately, this is the angle people by and large
will take anyway. In his Twitter feed,
Ringo Starr himself has said nothing negative about his being inducted in this
manner, only that he’s grateful it happened.
The kin of the members the “5” Royales don’t care that the Foundation is
playing fast and loose with historical benchmarks and definitions. They’re just glad their loved ones’ legacies
are honored in some capacity. Ringo and the loved ones of the "5" Royales are happy, so in the eyes of all the higher-ups at the Foundation, people
like me who are not directly affected by this but are still upset are in the
same league as comic book devotees who throw a tantrum over having a black Nick
Fury in Marvel’s The Avengers, minus the accusations of racism.
To which, I say, “Up yours.” In the various jobs I’ve had over the years, I’ve repeatedly
encountered corporate buzz talk designed to motivate workers to follow
procedures to the letter, no matter how ridiculous. Among those, one currently stands out as a sentiment I wish to
impress upon the people at the Foundation—if you don’t have time to do it
right, when will you find time to do it over/again? The seeming string of inconsistencies may be partly due to the
change in memberships in power positions, but the duty to be consistent is
mandatory, no matter the entity. Change
can, will, and should happen, but core concepts should remain immutable.
In my opinion, this class has eight outstanding Performer
inductees, and no inductees in any other category (side note: shame on you for
passing on Bob Crewe again). But that’s
not gonna change anything. All I can
say is, if getting them in while alive if possible is of that paramount importance,
why are the classes so small? This is
the first year in a long time that we actually have fewer past nominees still
not inducted—but ONLY because they chose to call the “5” Royales “Early
Influences”. Otherwise, we’d still have
the same number, and most years, that list keeps growing, but not as rapidly as
the list of worthy candidates that haven’t even been nominated. I’m not a politician, and we’re not talking
about education here. Bigger class
sizes are a good thing; they will go a long way in solving these problems. Don’t worry about the television special when you’re in that room
setting confines. You can cross that
bridge when you get to it. For now,
just focus on doing it right. This is not
doing it right.
This is a good article that asks some important questions. I believe Carole King should be inducted (again) either as a performer or "Award For Musical Excellence.” She was the first performer to receive the RIAA Diamond Award for Tapestry. I also believe if Ringo Starr was to be inducted, it should be for a performer. He didn't invent anything new for the drum/drummer, did he?
ReplyDeleteRingo Starr did popularize matched grip in drumming, which is massive influence.
DeleteUntil they decide to create a "veterans committee" type of thing to work on getting in more of the 50s and early 60s foundational acts, the early influence category seems like the best route to fill those holes. We have already seen that the voting population seems increasingly disinterested in honoring those performers.
ReplyDeleteI would also caution against your beating the drum for "consistency" - with the number of people who are critical about the many snubs by the Hall, consistency means continuing to simply ignore the criticism rather than trying to make the Hall a bit more populist. You can't make reforms and improvements *and* keep consistency with a flawed past.
Ringo is a gentleman and of course would say the nice thing. But if the other 3 get proper inductions and he doesn't, it can't feel AS good.
ReplyDelete