When the nominees on each year's ballot for the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame are announced, there is always an instinctive reaction to each of the names. Sometimes, it's surprise; others, a nodding of expectation. Sometimes, delight; sometimes, disdain. Those last two reactions are often driven by whether or not the person reacting to the news actually likes those acts. Sometimes it's a matter of thinking an act is truly deserving or undeserving, but personal taste often drives the emotional reactions. To some degree, it makes sense. While we want the Hall to salute the true game changers, there's also a feeling of relief when an act that someone is passionate about on personal grounds is voted in. At the Foundation itself, the powers-that-be describe "Unquestionable musical excellence" as the key determining factor for who even gets nominated. But what does that mean? Is it truly a matter of being innovative and influential? When forced to be honest, those people would probably say no. Nevertheless, this year's ballot has a lot of people chirping positively about how it's difficult to go wrong, no matter what. And last year, many people felt, and Dave Marsh even expressed this sentiment, that the best possible class emerged from a relatively weak ballot. So when you've got a ballot full of deserving names, it's fairly obvious that personal taste is going to play a factor.
Which is why I unabashedly rank the nominees by how much I personally like their music, after I rank them as objectively as I can manage. Personal taste undoubtedly comes into play with actual voters, and going through the hassle of actually ranking them by personal favor allows one to be more openly aware of their bias in the process. So, I believe it 's a good thing to do, to take the opportunity to list them by how much I like their music. It gives context to how I discuss them as being fit for the Hall, and probably affects both how I seed them and how I rate them on merits, even though I try to remove personal bias from those two equations. Once again, I'll average them out against the merits ranks to get an average, include the fiance's thoughts, and as a new feature this year, I'm going to include what song of theirs is my personal favorite, as well as the fiance's favorite jam. So, here's how this year's ballot stacks up.
1. The Spinners
Every year they've made the ballot, I've been hesitant to predict them. They consistently rank high on my personal tastes' scale, and this year they top the list, which is good because they keep slipping in the merits' list, this time at #10. Philly soul is just one of the best subgenres in the whole rock and roll spectrum for me. I don't dance, but I feel the boogie of their bass in my blood.
Favorite song: "One Of A Kind (Love Affair)"
Average of my two ranks: 5.5
Fiance's favorite song: "I'll Be Around"
Fiance's taste: 5
Average of her two ranks: 7
2. The Smiths
On paper, the Smiths are a band I just shouldn't like. Not big on post-punk, don't care a lot for Pixies, Sonic Youth, or even the Cure that much. Yet, there's something undeniably catchy in Johnny Marr's melodic guitar playing and Morrissey's vocals. Mesmerizing, almost. 6th in merits.
Favorite song: "Sheila, Take A Bow"
Average of my two ranks: 4
Fiance's favorite song: "How Soon Is Now"
Fiance's taste: 15
Average of her two ranks: 10
3. Cheap Trick
Those who talk to me about music, especially on the Future Rock Legends site, know that I really respect acts who don no pretentious airs, and Cheap Trick fits that bill, which is good, because being 13th in merits, chances are they'll have to rely on actual voters sharing my opinion to get votes.
Favorite song: "Dream Police"
Average of my two ranks: 8
Fiance's favorite song: "The Flame"
Fiance's taste: 3
Average of her two ranks: 7.5
4. Chicago
I'll just say it right now: I don't actually hate the ballads as much as some others. I do think there's some untapped potential in a couple of them. I think if an act like Boyz II Men covered "You're The Inspiration," and gave it their special Motownphilly touch, the resulting cover could have been an absolute soul classic. At the top spot for merits, their esteem with me rides pretty high.
Favorite song: "Make Me Smile"
Average of my two ranks: 2.5
Fiance's favorite song: "You're The Inspiration"
Fiance's taste: 8
Average of her two ranks: 5.5
5. The Cars
Another group I really shouldn't like, on paper. But they know how to be innovative and catchy at the same time, which is pretty awesome, when you think of it. One notch higher in merits.
Favorite song: "Tonight She Comes"
Average of my two ranks: 4.5
Fiance's favorite song: "Drive"
Fiance's taste: 2
Average of her two ranks: 5
6. Steve Miller
Well, the Steve Miller Band, technically, and maybe they'll do justice to the group should this name make the grade for induction. But between some bad lyrics, good grooves, and smooth feel, the high to middle of the pack is a personal taste rank that I bet others share with me. 9th for merits.
Favorite song: "Serenade"
Average of my two ranks: 7.5
Fiance's favorite song: "The Joker"
Fiance's taste: 4
Average of her two ranks: 4
7. Deep Purple
I'm not a metal fan, or a prog fan, and I don't like too many songs by Deep Purple, either. Fortunately, I also don't hate too many songs from Deep Purple, either. So by finishing runner-up in merits, this looks pretty promising for them.
Favorite song: "Highway Star"
Average of my two ranks: 4.5
Fiance's favorite song: "Smoke On The Water"
Fiance's taste: 9
Average of her two ranks: 7.5
8. The J.B.'s
Kind of a shocker, that I ranked them this high: I don't particularly like James Brown. But listening to them while researching them, I was boogieing (my spellchecker didn't flag that, so I'm keeping it like that) in my chair with them. A lot of the songs sound similar at this point, which really only means I need to spend more time listening to them. Unfortunately, they scored low on the merits list. Second last.
Favorite song: "Doing It To Death"
Average of my two ranks: 11
Fiance's favorite song: "I Got Ants In My Pants" (she only know James Brown songs)
Fiance's taste: 7
Average of her two ranks: 10.5
9. Janet Jackson
Going over her catalog over the years, I kind of get the naysayers' complaints: a lot of her early stuff does sound like cookie-cutter '80's R&B, like some of Bobby Brown's more upbeat stuff. Fortunately, I have a high tolerance for that, and enjoy her later stuff too. She rounded out the top five for merits.
Favorite song: "Black Cat"
Average of my two ranks: 7
Fiance's favorite song: "If"
Fiance's taste: 1
Average of her ranks: 1.5
10. Los Lobos
In a way, I really want to hate roots music, just because people have the audacity to call it that. You want to listen to "roots" music of rock and roll, then start filling your head with doo-wop. Nor am I that big on Tex-Mex music, and the days I've spent in processing plants, forced to listen to Latin American music, it's actually saying something that they're this high. Especially when they were dead last in merits.
Favorite song: "Jenny's Got A Pony"
Average of my two ranks: 12.5
Fiance's favorite song: "La Bamba"
Fiance's taste: 6
Average of her two ranks: 10.5
11. Chaka Khan
Her solo stuff isn't as good as the Rufus stuff. Her love songs are pretty good, but not as good as the funkier stuff. Same rank as merits.
Favorite song: "I'm Every Woman"
Average of my two ranks: 11
Fiance's favorite song: "I'm Every Woman"
Fiance's taste: 12
Average of her two ranks: 11.5
12. Chic
I really harbor no "disco sucks" sentiment. Maybe it's just ear fatigue, that I got sick of hearing them. That's as good an explanation as any really. No real hate, just no real love. Also 12th for merits.
Favorite song: "I Want Your Love"
Average of my two ranks: 12
Fiance's favorite song: "Good Times"
Fiance's taste: 11
Average of her two ranks: 9
13. N.W.A.
I'm not a real big fan of gangsta rap, so N.W.A. isn't ranking really high, but there's some fun stuff in there as well. 3rd in merits.
Favorite song: "A Bitch Iz A Bitch"
Average of my two ranks: 8
Fiance's favorite song: "Fuck Tha Police"
Fiance's taste: 10
Average of her two ranks: 5.5
14. Nine Inch Nails
Industrial... not my thing. Don't hate every song, but will change the station when it comes on, usually. In the midst of things at 7 for merits.
Favorite song: "We're In This Together"
Average of my two ranks: 10.5
Fiance's favorite song: "Closer"
Fiance's taste: 13
Average of her two ranks: 13
15. Yes
No.
8th in merits, though.
Favorite song: "Your Move (I've Seen All Good People)"
Average of my two ranks: 11.5
Fiance's favorite song: "Owner Of A Lonely Heart"
Fiance's taste: 14
Average of her two ranks: 12
So when we try balance out merits versus taste, we get some conflict between the two, and it seems like it ends up in a jumbled heap, but from this, we see how theoretically I should vote on the fan ballot. The top five averages are:
1. Chicago
2. The Cars
3. The Smiths
4. Deep Purple
5. The Spinners
And for my fiance, her top five averages are:
1. Janet Jackson
2. Steve Miller
3. The Cars
4. Chicago
5. N.W.A.
So, the end result shows that while I'd like to think I'd be diverse in my voting, the only R&B I'd have would be the Spinners. However, in the face of the corrupted fan ballot, my vote has actually been going to Janet Jackson, Chaka Khan, N.W.A., the Spinners, and.... the Smiths. Because I just couldn't bring myself to vote for Chic, and the J.B.'s are probably gonna get the Award For Musical Excellence induction. Sorry, Nile. Anyway, the next installment, HOPEFULLY before the inductees are actually announced, my official pecking order, from which we can derive the official prediction.
Sunday, December 6, 2015
Thursday, November 26, 2015
The Merits of the 2016 Nominees
More than a month has passed since the nominees were announced, and it is now time to evaluate them by their merits. Between the corrupted ballot, and the interview with Dave Marsh, there's been a lot to keep Monitors busy, perhaps distracted from actually focusing on the nominees themselves. Well, time to rank them by merits. While no method is entirely objective when it comes to evaluating art, we do try to give some quantification, because ultimately, those who vote do not have the option of checking off every box. Eliminations must be made, and there presumably must be reasons for those eliminations. Some acts presumably must be deemed less than worthy, by whatever metric is used. For Rock Hall Monitors, the metric is fourfold: Innovation, Influence, Impact, and Intangibles. What new ground did they break, who followed their lead, how much and how hard did they resonate with the listening public, and what else is there that completes the picture? So, here's a ranking of our nominees. As an alternative viewpoint, I'm once again including my fiance's ranking of the nominees as well, though she isn't nearly as invested in it as I am.
And before anyone takes offense, please remember the bigger picture: the last act on this list of fifteen is most likely still among the top fifty or one hundred deserving acts for the Hall out of all the eligible acts out there. So let's rank 'em.
1. CHICAGO
And before anyone takes offense, please remember the bigger picture: the last act on this list of fifteen is most likely still among the top fifty or one hundred deserving acts for the Hall out of all the eligible acts out there. So let's rank 'em.
1. CHICAGO
Impact: Far and away the biggest success on the albums chart, long string of hits on the singles charts, too. Still has an incarnation going to this day.
Influence: While they weren't heavily cited by some the bigger names in jazz fusion, their commercial success as a jazz rock outfit did help clear the way for jazz fusion acts to break through into the mainstream.
Innovation: They tinkered with the formula first hit upon by acts such as the Buckinghams and Blood, Sweat, And Tears, and managed to make it last into a long-term style.
Intangibles: They're an act you've heard of even if you only listen to current pop and dance or mainstream country. Pretty much a household name.
The fiance's rank: Still in the top 5.... number 3.
2. DEEP PURPLE
Influence: Extremely influential. One of the most influential groups in heavy metal and hard-rock bands. I’ve also heard them referred to as being influential to prog, but I’m not sure how true that is.
Impact: Not hugely successful in terms of singles, but they were a part of the rock scene that focused on albums as single entities. On the albums front, the chart entries are so-so at best, but five gold, three platinum, and one double platinum perhaps speaks to their standing the test of time where the chart numbers don’t seem to match.
Innovation: Can’t speak to it much, but there’s probably some of it in there.
Intangibles: The other projects that members of Deep Purple have been involved with speak to the further and more direct influence of the band. Blackmore’s name is one of the most revered among rock guitarists, and the riff from “Smoke On The Water” is considered to be one of the rites of passage for guitar playing.
The fiancé’s rank: 6
3. N.W.A.
Influence: Gangsta rap is what it is because of these guys. In fact much of the stereotype of what being a rapper means, or at least what it supposedly meant when Tupac and Biggie got shot, is based on the image projected by N.W.A.
Innovation: I’m loathe to put lyrical innovation on the same plateau with rhythmic and instrumental innovation, but this is one of the few times when it’s deserved. Ice-T may be the O.G., but Ice Cube and company really put it on the map.
Impact: Minimal on the singles charts. For albums, three platinum (one doubly so) studio albums (one that hit #1 on the Billboard 200), and one gold greatest hits compilation. But that’s also about all they had. No cache of lesser known/celebrated material behind that.
Intangibles: With notable and big solo careers of some of their members, they might be called the first rap supergroup.
The fiancé’s rank: 1
4. THE CARS
Innovation: One of the front runners of new wave music, they helped define an entire movement in the music world.
Influence: Again, one of the front runners of new wave. They influenced a lot of the new wave and even synth-pop and synth-rock acts of the '80's.
Impact: A very commercially successful group with a string of Top 40 hits.
Intangibles: This was a band that seemed to have something for everyone, including critics, who also had a lot of good things to say about them.
The fiance's rank: 8
Innovation: One of the front runners of new wave music, they helped define an entire movement in the music world.
Influence: Again, one of the front runners of new wave. They influenced a lot of the new wave and even synth-pop and synth-rock acts of the '80's.
Impact: A very commercially successful group with a string of Top 40 hits.
Intangibles: This was a band that seemed to have something for everyone, including critics, who also had a lot of good things to say about them.
The fiance's rank: 8
5. JANET JACKSON
Impact: The biggest singles artists on the ballot, and one of the biggest of the whole rock era. Still going strong with a new album released this year.
Influence: One of the most influential female singers of the past 30 years, paving the way for a lot of starlets of R&B and dance music.
Innovation: Not her strongest suit, admittedly.
Intangibles: It really does say something to her talent, ethic, and overall credit that in a family of nine kids, all of whom vied for success as solo artists, she's only one of two that can rightfully claim the label of "superstar." Additionally, had a bigger hand in the creation of her music than she is often remembered for.
The fiance's rank: A solid 2
6. THE SMITHS
Influence: One of the giants of ‘80’s alternative, along with the Cure and the Pixies. Influenced a lot of independent-label acts in their wake.
Impact: Recording very few albums, they charted few albums, and no single hits, but plenty of name recognition, for themselves and for lead singer Morrissey.
Innovation: Along with the Replacements and the Cure, they really helped define the sound of post-punk.
Intangibles: The name power of Morrissey alone brings a certain seriousness to the Smiths overall.
The fiance's rank: 5
7. NINE INCH NAILS
Innovation: Industrial is a bit of the child between Kraftwerk-style electronica and heavy metal. But it’s still pretty innovative to bring the two together, and Nine Inch Nails did exactly that.
Influence: As one of the earlier examples of industrial, Nine Inch Nails is a name widely cited in modern industrial, and it wouldn’t be surprising if electronica and metal acts cite this name as well.
Impact: Nine Inch Nails’ crossover success was originally limited, but has over time increased, enjoying the biggest hits in just the past decade or so.
Intangibles: The Rock Hall seems to really love and merit those bands who do it all: write, arrange, play, produce, promote, distribute, and so forth their own music. Though employing the skills of other musicians on a frequent basis, Nine Inch Nails is the tour-de-force band boiled down even further: one man, Trent Reznor. One man who can pretty much do it all.
The fiance's rank: Way down yonder at number 13
8. YES
Influence: One of the most respected names in the entire sub-genre of prog-rock. A lot of prog bands took cues from this group.
Innovation: Among the first to really successfully and continuously infuse classical elements into the world of rock music.
Impact: One of the very few prog bands to also have a #1 hit on the Hot 100. They’re much bigger in the album charts than the singles, but even their singles chart history is pretty respectable, especially compared to many other names on this ballot.
Intangibles: Semi-noteworthy solo careers of some of its members give them some additional credibility as it allows for closer inspection of the individual pieces of their machine, and the sense of synergy as a whole.
The fiance’s rank: 10
9. STEVE MILLER
Impact: The band had several hit albums and singles, and a few classics that did not chart.
Influence: They were an important blues-rock outfit during the '70's, and as such, had some influence on the blues-rock acts that followed.
Innovation: Not a whole lot, but they did help refine the way blues-rock was interpreted.
Intangibles: Raised in Texas, teeth cut in Chicago, the man is steeped in blues and has worked and known some of the big names.
The fiance's rank: 4
Impact: The band had several hit albums and singles, and a few classics that did not chart.
Influence: They were an important blues-rock outfit during the '70's, and as such, had some influence on the blues-rock acts that followed.
Innovation: Not a whole lot, but they did help refine the way blues-rock was interpreted.
Intangibles: Raised in Texas, teeth cut in Chicago, the man is steeped in blues and has worked and known some of the big names.
The fiance's rank: 4
10. THE SPINNERS
Impact: A string of minor hits throughout the '60's, then major hits for most of the '70's, and even sneaking into the '80's a bit.
Influence: The genre of soul greatly shifted as the Spinners were at the top of their heyday, nonetheless, there is some influence upon the likes of Hall And Oates, as well as subsequent soul musicians
Innovation: Despite not really inventing Philly soul, their style was more rhythmically driven than that of their contemporaries (perhaps due to their usage of doo-wop style background vocals), making it something unique they brought to the table.
Intangibles: They’re a solid representation of Philly soul, which there isn’t much of in the Hall right now. They’re also a quasi-representation of Motown, having put in a brief stint at that legendary label.
The fiance's rank: 9
11. CHAKA KHAN
Influence: After Donna Summer, possibly the biggest diva to emerge from the '70's, and influenced a lot of women who followed.
Impact: A modest amount of commercial success as a solo artist, including very well known songs: "I Feel For You," and "I'm Every Woman."
Innovation: Not a whole lot, but her work with a wide variety of artists has helped bring about some different fused sounds.
Intangibles: Has rubbed elbows with some big names in the music industry, plus her legacy as the front lady of Rufus bolsters her credibility a little too.
The fiancé's rank: Once again, a match at 11.
11. CHAKA KHAN
Influence: After Donna Summer, possibly the biggest diva to emerge from the '70's, and influenced a lot of women who followed.
Impact: A modest amount of commercial success as a solo artist, including very well known songs: "I Feel For You," and "I'm Every Woman."
Innovation: Not a whole lot, but her work with a wide variety of artists has helped bring about some different fused sounds.
Intangibles: Has rubbed elbows with some big names in the music industry, plus her legacy as the front lady of Rufus bolsters her credibility a little too.
The fiancé's rank: Once again, a match at 11.
12. CHIC
Impact: The impact of “Good Times” upon hip-hop is huge. Also, respectable runs of hits in the disco, R&B, and pop charts, plus a good run of charted albums. Nile Rodgers’ producer credit of the Grammy winning Daft Punk jam “Get Lucky” is also a factor here.
Influence: Again, on the world of hip-hop, having a heavily sampled record does say a lot. Plus, the influence on funk and dance music is sizeable.
Innovation: Not entirely devoid here, as the technique of Nile Rodgers and Bernard Edwards have proven different and difficult to duplicate.
Intangibles: By now, Chic may just be wearing down resistance of the voters. A tenth nomination? The Nominating Committee must be seeing something that not everyone is.
The fiance's rank: Up at 7
13. CHEAP TRICK
Impact: A handful of hits, but very beloved ones.
Influence: A lot of guitar rock bands from the 80's onward have cited Cheap Trick among their influences.
Innovation: They didn't reinvent the wheel, but they made it roll.
Intangibles: Their lack of pretentiousness, inability to take themselves too seriously, makes them something different.
The fiance's rank: 12
Impact: A handful of hits, but very beloved ones.
Influence: A lot of guitar rock bands from the 80's onward have cited Cheap Trick among their influences.
Innovation: They didn't reinvent the wheel, but they made it roll.
Intangibles: Their lack of pretentiousness, inability to take themselves too seriously, makes them something different.
The fiance's rank: 12
14. THE J.B.'S
Influence: They are a widely sampled band. Their brand of funk influenced their contemporaries and many funk and R&B acts to come.
Innovation: Not the first funk act, but they did put it together in an awesome way.
Impact: A few hits under their own name on the Pop charts, a few more on the R&B charts.
Intangibles: And they had a few more as the backing band for James Brown. A lot of weight behind that name.
The fiance's rank: Agreement at 14
15. LOS LOBOS
Innovation: Not the first in roots music, or in Tex-Mex, or Latin rock, but they were a novel fusion of various styles.
Influence: They've stirred a lot of ripples in the non-mainstream scenes, and have had worked with a lot of the old guard, helping them create new sounds.
Impact: Very minimal singles sales. Modest album sales.
Intangibles: The critics' darling of the entire ballot. They are an inside band.
The fiance's rank: Also at 15
So that's how I view their merits. It may not be perfect, but it tries to be as close to it as it can. Soon, we'll go subjective and observe general listenable value of each inductee on the two of us.
Innovation: Not the first funk act, but they did put it together in an awesome way.
Impact: A few hits under their own name on the Pop charts, a few more on the R&B charts.
Intangibles: And they had a few more as the backing band for James Brown. A lot of weight behind that name.
The fiance's rank: Agreement at 14
15. LOS LOBOS
Innovation: Not the first in roots music, or in Tex-Mex, or Latin rock, but they were a novel fusion of various styles.
Influence: They've stirred a lot of ripples in the non-mainstream scenes, and have had worked with a lot of the old guard, helping them create new sounds.
Impact: Very minimal singles sales. Modest album sales.
Intangibles: The critics' darling of the entire ballot. They are an inside band.
The fiance's rank: Also at 15
So that's how I view their merits. It may not be perfect, but it tries to be as close to it as it can. Soon, we'll go subjective and observe general listenable value of each inductee on the two of us.
Friday, October 23, 2015
Rock the vote! Don't tip the vote over!
When the Rock Hall Revisited project started on the Future Rock Legends site, I began a push for Bernie Lowe to be inducted as a Non-Performer as soon as possible. For those who haven't heard me from that particular soapbox, Bernie Lowe was the primary founder (along with co-founder Kal Mann) of the Cameo and Parkway record labels, the sister labels that made stars out of Chubby Checker, Bobby Rydell, Dee Dee Sharp, the Orlons, the Dovells, and the Tymes. They were also early (American) homes for the Kinks, Bob Seger, and where key members of Grand Funk Railroad first started out as members of Terry Knight And The Pack; additionally, their national distribution muscle helped propel R&B acts such as the Five Stairsteps and the Delfonics. Cameo and Parkway records were really among the first record labels that embraced rock and roll as the medium for youth culture, supplying a lot of the dance records for American Bandstand during the early 1960's, perhaps to the point of saturation and even self-parody (Don Covay's "Popeye Waddle" e.g.). To date, Bernie Lowe has not been recognized by the actual Hall for his contribution to the evolution and perpetuation of rock and roll. So, when it began, I was adamant about getting him recognized by our unofficial revisited project. On our fifth class, the Revisited Class Of 1990, Bernie Lowe managed to get recognized as one of our two Non-Performer inductees, and I was thrilled. That thrill was short-lived, however, as it was soon revealed that one of the members of the project had been posting multiple votes under multiple user names and had indeed been largely responsible for the push that got Bernie Lowe through. I was mostly upset because I was worried that in a truly fair vote, Bernie Lowe, and the legacy of the Cameo-Parkway family upon rock and roll would be ultimately dismissed, even among fellow hobbyists who actually gave consideration to my opinion and how I highlighted the importance of Lowe. When we adopted the blind ballot twist on the procedures that involved emailing our votes anonymously, Bernie Lowe was part of the "Class Of 1995," so at least there's a happy ending for me there, but it still stung for awhile to consider that what I wanted couldn't happen honestly.
Well, if you've paid any attention to what's been happening the past two weeks since the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame announced the latest round of nominees, you know exactly where this is heading: the alleged tampering of the fan ballot on the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame's website that has given a runaway top five of Chicago, the Cars, Yes, Steve Miller, and Deep Purple. In sixth place is Janet Jackson, roughly sixteen million votes behind the current fifth place holder, Deep Purple. So disparate is this gap that people have cried foul, claiming that the ballot was hacked by "bots" that voted nonstop, around the clock until the IT people for the Rock Hall's website temporarily took down the ballot, and implemented a fifteen-vote-per-day limit per IP address.
But the damage has been done, and now people want the ballot thrown out and the whole fan ballot be started anew, blank slate. The Hall has not done this as of yet, and is unlikely to do so. For starters, it's not exactly like electoral honesty is the Hall Of Fame's most prominent feature. From the noted lack of transparency (third-party affiliation, accountability, whatever you wish to call it); to the side door inductions of Performer nominees who don't get enough votes--oh and let's not forget the 2006 controversy involving Grandmaster Flash And The Furious Five and the Dave Clark Five--; if the Hall threw out the fan ballot as it is now on grounds of corruption, the "smack" of hypocrisy would be more of an "assault and battery." But let's not ignore a general reality of businesses: they want their sites to get as many hits as possible. To admit that traffic to their site was artificially inflated by bots is likely pretty embarrassing. Every hit helps, but this concentrated flurry for an express purpose must cause some degree of embarrassment. But I'm no authority, as this blog is the closest thing I've got to having a website. (If the administrator of Future Rock Legends would care to weigh in on this in the comments section below, I'd be most grateful for the input.) What must more certainly be embarrassing for a company, though, is for their process to essentially be hacked, period, nevermind the purpose of skewing public opinion to say what one person wants it to say. Now, obviously not actually hacked, but for their IT integrity to be so lax that this possibility was allowed to occur would certainly egg the Foundation's collective face, especially given how they vaunted the number of votes at the beginning of this year's process. So the Hall would likely rather pretend that every hit and vote was genuine, and not automated, and that no tampering occurred. Additionally, as often goes with our ephemeral cyber-culture, the ballot is probably old news to most people who even cared in the first place, and they're probably done voting and have moved on to the newest thing that has captured their fascination. So, if the Hall started all over, they probably couldn't get those numbers back anywhere close to where they were.
That's not even taking into consideration the fans that would be steamed at any resetting, and by fans, I mean "Chicago fans," because I'm not hearing one peep of denial of fraud from people who think Deep Purple is the biggest snub, or those who are overjoyed to see the Cars finally nominated, or those sighing breaths of relief that Yes has returned after being absent from last year's ballot. Nope, it's the Chicago fans who are doing all the talking, primarily because Chicago is the clear front runner right now, and they have not been the least bit shy of claiming legitimacy to each and every single one of those votes, now totaling over thirty-seven million. Well, I'm now going to take a few moments to address the Chicago fans and say, "You're wrong." And before you take to the comments to berate me, please read everything after this sentence, because at the end, there is good news for you devoted fans of this band.
But first, let's address what we have in front of us. The main problem with the Chicago fans who are in denial is their myopia has created a false sense of victimization. The most important thing that must be said to those people is this: no one is claiming fraud simply because Chicago took over the lead. For crying out loud, last year's fan ballot showed Stevie Ray Vaughn And Double Trouble surpassing Nine Inch Nails late in the game. No one cried foul because the lead changed hands. It requires the ability to see beyond merely who's in first place to truly understand what's going on.
Now, I'm going say that I live on the West Coast, and observe Pacific Time. When I went to bed on October 8th, the first day of voting, the leader was Janet Jackson, with more than one million votes more than second place Chicago. This was around 10 or 11 at night. Having a sub-par night of sleep, I was up by around 6 or 7 the next morning, October 9th. I went to the site to cast more votes for my acts of preference. Literally overnight, Janet Jackson dropped from first to sixth. That means not only had Chicago caught up and passed her by, so had four others. I even joked about it on Twitter, saying Eddie Trunk had finally awoken his minions and got them to go out and do his bidding. Now, being on the West Coast, and part of the last time zone of the contiguous 48 to arrive at dawn, I originally figured that maybe the Eastern and Central time zones were finally getting more active, but the disparity between fifth and sixth place at that time already seemed fishy, and it wasn't because of my proximity to the ocean.
And the gap only grew from there. In leaps and bounds. That day, and over the next several days. Until we got where we are now. I spent much of my voting time noticing how those top five acts' votes all went up in comparison to others. Acts like the Spinners, Janet Jackson, N.W.A. and Cheap Trick all saw their votes increase in folds of fifty to one hundred, in between each click of mine to vote, which was somewhere between three to seven seconds. Chicago, the Cars, Steve Miller, Deep Purple, and Yes all saw theirs go up over a thousand every three to seven seconds.
Now, is it possible for those acts to have that many fans devotedly casting ballots until they all get carpal tunnel syndrome? Theoretically, and from the number of Chicago fans who have come forth to swear to the veracity of their voting, it might even be plausible, if not for certain other factors. Going back to what I said earlier, Janet Jackson went from first to sixth, literally overnight. My friends and even my fiance like to razz me for being a mild grammarian, so when I emphatically say, "literally," I literally mean "literally." This means that five acts all overtook Janet Jackson in the course of seven hours, nine tops, during the time when the moon rules the sky over the United States for most of that time. Most people are presumably sleeping, working graveyard shifts, or gaming. That means in all likelihood, the vast majority of those votes in that time window would either have to come from the Eastern hemisphere (or relatively close to it), or from automated bots. Now, one particularly tenacious fan has argued that Chicago has millions of fans from all over the world and would gladly jump on board to vote for them in the fan ballot. Well, for a statement like that to be completely disproved would require more pollsters working more man-hours than could happen before the voting deadline. However, we really don't need to do all that. Extrapolating from the comments seen on the Future Rock Legends site from European and Canadian contributors, it would appear that a large number of non-Americans think of the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame as an American institution, and nothing more, and not just because it was founded, has a museum, and is largely run in the United States. Just ask about any British person who they'd consider no-brainers, and it'd be shocking if Cliff Richard And The Shadows or Status Quo isn't mentioned. But neither of them are in the Hall. Canadians, in true stereotypical fashion, have suggested a minimum of one Canadian candidate per ballot, but that request goes unheeded. When the Dave Clark Five were inducted in 2008, Dave Clark himself called it an honor to be inducted into the "American Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame." The point is, the Rock Hall is largely considered an American institution, and there are a large number of people in Europe who simply won't partake in the fan vote because they consider the Hall to be an American institution, and thus don't care.
But even if they did care enough, would Chicago overwhelmingly receive the international votes (especially with an Ameri-centric name like "Chicago")? Possibly, but stereotypes exist for a reason, and in Europe, that means EDM. It's hard to imagine that given the ballot selection, European music lovers wouldn't vote for music that had more bearing or influence on the music that is ubiquitous to their part of the world. I can't reasonably imagine a scenario where artists relevant to dance music such as Chic, Chaka Khan, and especially Janet Jackson don't benefit from the European vote. That's not even getting into Africa, where Afrobeat music has a lot of similarities to the kind of funk that the J.B.s gave us; or Asia, Australia, New Zealand, or even Latin America, where it'd almost certainly cause an upswing for Los Lobos. Even if the rest of the world were behind Chicago, it'd be ludicrous to state that Janet Jackson wouldn't also benefit from an international voting cattle drive.
Which brings us to the next, and perhaps most important part of the argument, and the biggest problem with the argument presented by Chicago supporters: this is not about JUST Chicago! If it were just Chicago, no one would be saying anything, I promise you. If it were even just a matter of Chicago versus Janet Jackson, it would be called an interesting fight to watch. But it's not. This gets lost in the melee for two reasons: one, Chicago is now in the lead, so it's assumed they'd suffer the worst if there were any credence to the accusations; two, Chicago fans in their own defense have continued to erect that strawman to the point of giving themselves a persecution complex. But this is not about just Chicago or even Chicago and Janet Jackson. You MUST include the other four benefactors of the automated attack for the discussion to make any sense. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that Chicago would overcome the million vote deficit to take the lead. But if Janet Jackson was ahead of Chicago by over a million votes that first night, how many more was Janet ahead of the likes of Deep Purple, Steve Miller, and Yes that night? Is it really reasonable to think that ALL five would overcome their deficits of two million or more in that one night? Have you really considered what that would take? Especially when the votes for other acts like the Smiths, N.W.A., and Nine Inch Nails have remained at steadily low levels? That means that an overwhelming majority of the votes for Chicago ALSO had to be cast for the Cars, Steve Miller, Deep Purple, and Yes. Now let me ask this of the staunch Chicago supporters: every time you have cast your ballot, has it been always been, every time, for Chicago, Deep Purple, Yes, Steve Miller, and the Cars? I don't doubt that there have been some voters who have voted thus each and every time they click to vote, but every Chicago fan?
In addition to the statistical near-impossibility of that happening, there's another solid reason that this is extremely unlikely: in two words, Cheap Trick. When the ballot was first announced, fellow Monitors commented that this was a classic rock enthusiast's wet dream, with six acts that all get airplay on classic rock radio. Those are the five poll leaders and Cheap Trick. But Cheap Trick has not benefit from this, as they are still in seventh place, behind Janet Jackson. Is it really reasonable to argue that no fan of Chicago also voted for Cheap Trick? Wouldn't Cheap Trick be a more reasonable vote recipient than the Cars, whose new wave keyboard sound doesn't fall in line with "classic rock" as neatly as Cheap Trick's? Now, in the past, every fan ballot has skewed heavily rockist, meaning the acts that are most played on classic rock radio, or likely to be played on classic rock radio in ten to twenty years, should the format and radio industry survive that long. In fact, that's why some of us initially took no notice when Janet dropped from first to sixth, but the truth is, it just doesn't add up. Is it really believable that the fans who have voted would be content to let Cheap Trick lag roughly seven million votes behind Janet Jackson? Or to let the Smiths and Nine Inch Nails languish in thirteenth and fourteenth place? Are you telling me that no fan of Chicago is also a fan of Janet Jackson? Or the Spinners? While I'm certain that Chicago fans jumped on the bandwagon after those five jumped well out ahead, deviating only to put Chicago back on top after the Cars temporarily took the lead, it simply could not have happened organically. Not when five acts jump up over one thousand votes every three to seven seconds and the others a hundred or less in that same time period. That's the third reason we're calling fraud. That those five acts could go up in such large increments every three to seven seconds, and the others, not so much. And so evenly, too. With the lone exception of the Cars briefly taking the lead, positions among the five leaders never changed. The intervals have remained relatively constant, too, as have the rate of votes throughout the days. For that to happen would require either a collusion of 4chan proportions, or an automated program, a bot if you will, doing the voting rapidly and incessantly. No amount of "vote early, vote often" can rationally explain it. People have to work (even if around the home), eat, sleep, shower (hopefully), and tend to other obligations; not to mention the fact that people also like to watch TV, go to the movies, attend worship, go out with friends, spend time with their families, etc. The math that allows for a truly honest result as such requires the elimination of pretty much all of those things, plus the ability to sit in front of a computer screen and stay focused on one web page for a concentrated period of time. It's just not plausible. As I've written this entry, I've risen to stretch, eat, shower, do laundry, and halfheartedly watch a rerun of Murder, She Wrote (don't judge me!). I imagine that due to the length of this post, some of you have paused to visit another tab, possibly Facebook or check email (and if you haven't, thank you!).
Of course, without a confession, or a sudden revelation by the IT people working for the Hall, the bot voting cannot be completely proven, and for that, some Chicago fans are still in denial. To which, I must quote my father who often said to all of us children as we were growing up, "Use your God-given gift of common sense!" I have a friend who refused to believe that famous wrestler Chris Benoit killed his wife and kid, and then killed himself, because it couldn't be proven one hundred percent beyond any shadow of a doubt. Chicago fans denying the automated voting bot are just like my friend, who love Chicago so much, they cannot accept the possibility that anything involving their band could be negative. Well, even in the justice system, prosecutors don't have to prove beyond all doubt; they only have to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and it's just unreasonable to believe that there has been an uncoordinated, happenstance surge for those five, and only those five artists. Even if the Chicago voters all wanted an all-classic rock class, Cheap Trick would have divided the ballot between the other four classic rock acts to where it'd be impossible for all four of them--the Cars, Yes, Steve Miller, and Deep Purple--to each have over twenty-five million votes. That's not even considering that the Smiths and Nine Inch Nails would likely have eaten into those shares somewhat as well. It's unreasonable to think this could have just happened, and as no Chicago fan is confessing to collusion, a bot is the only logical conclusion. The vote was hacked, tipped over, capsized.
Nevertheless, I promised good news for the Chicago faithful: you won. Chicago never needed the bot. As I type this, Chicago has over thirty-seven million votes. Second through fifth places all have between twenty-five and twenty-six million votes. Chicago has over ten million votes MORE than the next closest candidate, which is more than the less than ten million that Janet Jackson, in sixth place has. Even if every vote for fifth place was bot generated, that means Chicago has at least ten million votes that were not from the bot. Ten million honest votes. It wouldn't be a runaway, but they would still be in the lead. You should be proud of that. And if the bot hadn't deflated the hopes of the fans of Janet, and Cheap Trick, and all the others, I'm convinced that you wouldn't, and probably still won't, give up your tenacity in voting for Chicago to ensure that lead.
But wouldn't you rather win honestly? Sure it's only vote out of eight hundred or so in the end, but don't you still want it honestly cast? If your answer is "Who cares?" or "Whatever." or anything other than "Yes.", you have no grounds to question the integrity or the credibility of the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame, because you have no more than you accuse them of having. For the sake of integrity, I hope the IT people at the Foundation are able to determine (possibly by IP traces) just how many votes came from the bot and are thrown out. Barring that, and given the voting patterns with the rest of the ballot results, I think once the polls are closed, they should start by automatically subtracting twenty-two million votes from each of the top five (I suspect the actual number is closer to twenty-three and a half million, but I'll compromise) and determine the top five from there. Chicago will still be in the lead, but we'll undoubtedly have a true reflection of how actual people are voting.
Let us now paraphrase the words of wisdom from the Hues Corportation. Rock on with your bad self. Rock the vote, baby. But don't tip the vote over.
Well, if you've paid any attention to what's been happening the past two weeks since the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame announced the latest round of nominees, you know exactly where this is heading: the alleged tampering of the fan ballot on the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame's website that has given a runaway top five of Chicago, the Cars, Yes, Steve Miller, and Deep Purple. In sixth place is Janet Jackson, roughly sixteen million votes behind the current fifth place holder, Deep Purple. So disparate is this gap that people have cried foul, claiming that the ballot was hacked by "bots" that voted nonstop, around the clock until the IT people for the Rock Hall's website temporarily took down the ballot, and implemented a fifteen-vote-per-day limit per IP address.
But the damage has been done, and now people want the ballot thrown out and the whole fan ballot be started anew, blank slate. The Hall has not done this as of yet, and is unlikely to do so. For starters, it's not exactly like electoral honesty is the Hall Of Fame's most prominent feature. From the noted lack of transparency (third-party affiliation, accountability, whatever you wish to call it); to the side door inductions of Performer nominees who don't get enough votes--oh and let's not forget the 2006 controversy involving Grandmaster Flash And The Furious Five and the Dave Clark Five--; if the Hall threw out the fan ballot as it is now on grounds of corruption, the "smack" of hypocrisy would be more of an "assault and battery." But let's not ignore a general reality of businesses: they want their sites to get as many hits as possible. To admit that traffic to their site was artificially inflated by bots is likely pretty embarrassing. Every hit helps, but this concentrated flurry for an express purpose must cause some degree of embarrassment. But I'm no authority, as this blog is the closest thing I've got to having a website. (If the administrator of Future Rock Legends would care to weigh in on this in the comments section below, I'd be most grateful for the input.) What must more certainly be embarrassing for a company, though, is for their process to essentially be hacked, period, nevermind the purpose of skewing public opinion to say what one person wants it to say. Now, obviously not actually hacked, but for their IT integrity to be so lax that this possibility was allowed to occur would certainly egg the Foundation's collective face, especially given how they vaunted the number of votes at the beginning of this year's process. So the Hall would likely rather pretend that every hit and vote was genuine, and not automated, and that no tampering occurred. Additionally, as often goes with our ephemeral cyber-culture, the ballot is probably old news to most people who even cared in the first place, and they're probably done voting and have moved on to the newest thing that has captured their fascination. So, if the Hall started all over, they probably couldn't get those numbers back anywhere close to where they were.
That's not even taking into consideration the fans that would be steamed at any resetting, and by fans, I mean "Chicago fans," because I'm not hearing one peep of denial of fraud from people who think Deep Purple is the biggest snub, or those who are overjoyed to see the Cars finally nominated, or those sighing breaths of relief that Yes has returned after being absent from last year's ballot. Nope, it's the Chicago fans who are doing all the talking, primarily because Chicago is the clear front runner right now, and they have not been the least bit shy of claiming legitimacy to each and every single one of those votes, now totaling over thirty-seven million. Well, I'm now going to take a few moments to address the Chicago fans and say, "You're wrong." And before you take to the comments to berate me, please read everything after this sentence, because at the end, there is good news for you devoted fans of this band.
But first, let's address what we have in front of us. The main problem with the Chicago fans who are in denial is their myopia has created a false sense of victimization. The most important thing that must be said to those people is this: no one is claiming fraud simply because Chicago took over the lead. For crying out loud, last year's fan ballot showed Stevie Ray Vaughn And Double Trouble surpassing Nine Inch Nails late in the game. No one cried foul because the lead changed hands. It requires the ability to see beyond merely who's in first place to truly understand what's going on.
Now, I'm going say that I live on the West Coast, and observe Pacific Time. When I went to bed on October 8th, the first day of voting, the leader was Janet Jackson, with more than one million votes more than second place Chicago. This was around 10 or 11 at night. Having a sub-par night of sleep, I was up by around 6 or 7 the next morning, October 9th. I went to the site to cast more votes for my acts of preference. Literally overnight, Janet Jackson dropped from first to sixth. That means not only had Chicago caught up and passed her by, so had four others. I even joked about it on Twitter, saying Eddie Trunk had finally awoken his minions and got them to go out and do his bidding. Now, being on the West Coast, and part of the last time zone of the contiguous 48 to arrive at dawn, I originally figured that maybe the Eastern and Central time zones were finally getting more active, but the disparity between fifth and sixth place at that time already seemed fishy, and it wasn't because of my proximity to the ocean.
And the gap only grew from there. In leaps and bounds. That day, and over the next several days. Until we got where we are now. I spent much of my voting time noticing how those top five acts' votes all went up in comparison to others. Acts like the Spinners, Janet Jackson, N.W.A. and Cheap Trick all saw their votes increase in folds of fifty to one hundred, in between each click of mine to vote, which was somewhere between three to seven seconds. Chicago, the Cars, Steve Miller, Deep Purple, and Yes all saw theirs go up over a thousand every three to seven seconds.
Now, is it possible for those acts to have that many fans devotedly casting ballots until they all get carpal tunnel syndrome? Theoretically, and from the number of Chicago fans who have come forth to swear to the veracity of their voting, it might even be plausible, if not for certain other factors. Going back to what I said earlier, Janet Jackson went from first to sixth, literally overnight. My friends and even my fiance like to razz me for being a mild grammarian, so when I emphatically say, "literally," I literally mean "literally." This means that five acts all overtook Janet Jackson in the course of seven hours, nine tops, during the time when the moon rules the sky over the United States for most of that time. Most people are presumably sleeping, working graveyard shifts, or gaming. That means in all likelihood, the vast majority of those votes in that time window would either have to come from the Eastern hemisphere (or relatively close to it), or from automated bots. Now, one particularly tenacious fan has argued that Chicago has millions of fans from all over the world and would gladly jump on board to vote for them in the fan ballot. Well, for a statement like that to be completely disproved would require more pollsters working more man-hours than could happen before the voting deadline. However, we really don't need to do all that. Extrapolating from the comments seen on the Future Rock Legends site from European and Canadian contributors, it would appear that a large number of non-Americans think of the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame as an American institution, and nothing more, and not just because it was founded, has a museum, and is largely run in the United States. Just ask about any British person who they'd consider no-brainers, and it'd be shocking if Cliff Richard And The Shadows or Status Quo isn't mentioned. But neither of them are in the Hall. Canadians, in true stereotypical fashion, have suggested a minimum of one Canadian candidate per ballot, but that request goes unheeded. When the Dave Clark Five were inducted in 2008, Dave Clark himself called it an honor to be inducted into the "American Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame." The point is, the Rock Hall is largely considered an American institution, and there are a large number of people in Europe who simply won't partake in the fan vote because they consider the Hall to be an American institution, and thus don't care.
But even if they did care enough, would Chicago overwhelmingly receive the international votes (especially with an Ameri-centric name like "Chicago")? Possibly, but stereotypes exist for a reason, and in Europe, that means EDM. It's hard to imagine that given the ballot selection, European music lovers wouldn't vote for music that had more bearing or influence on the music that is ubiquitous to their part of the world. I can't reasonably imagine a scenario where artists relevant to dance music such as Chic, Chaka Khan, and especially Janet Jackson don't benefit from the European vote. That's not even getting into Africa, where Afrobeat music has a lot of similarities to the kind of funk that the J.B.s gave us; or Asia, Australia, New Zealand, or even Latin America, where it'd almost certainly cause an upswing for Los Lobos. Even if the rest of the world were behind Chicago, it'd be ludicrous to state that Janet Jackson wouldn't also benefit from an international voting cattle drive.
Which brings us to the next, and perhaps most important part of the argument, and the biggest problem with the argument presented by Chicago supporters: this is not about JUST Chicago! If it were just Chicago, no one would be saying anything, I promise you. If it were even just a matter of Chicago versus Janet Jackson, it would be called an interesting fight to watch. But it's not. This gets lost in the melee for two reasons: one, Chicago is now in the lead, so it's assumed they'd suffer the worst if there were any credence to the accusations; two, Chicago fans in their own defense have continued to erect that strawman to the point of giving themselves a persecution complex. But this is not about just Chicago or even Chicago and Janet Jackson. You MUST include the other four benefactors of the automated attack for the discussion to make any sense. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that Chicago would overcome the million vote deficit to take the lead. But if Janet Jackson was ahead of Chicago by over a million votes that first night, how many more was Janet ahead of the likes of Deep Purple, Steve Miller, and Yes that night? Is it really reasonable to think that ALL five would overcome their deficits of two million or more in that one night? Have you really considered what that would take? Especially when the votes for other acts like the Smiths, N.W.A., and Nine Inch Nails have remained at steadily low levels? That means that an overwhelming majority of the votes for Chicago ALSO had to be cast for the Cars, Steve Miller, Deep Purple, and Yes. Now let me ask this of the staunch Chicago supporters: every time you have cast your ballot, has it been always been, every time, for Chicago, Deep Purple, Yes, Steve Miller, and the Cars? I don't doubt that there have been some voters who have voted thus each and every time they click to vote, but every Chicago fan?
In addition to the statistical near-impossibility of that happening, there's another solid reason that this is extremely unlikely: in two words, Cheap Trick. When the ballot was first announced, fellow Monitors commented that this was a classic rock enthusiast's wet dream, with six acts that all get airplay on classic rock radio. Those are the five poll leaders and Cheap Trick. But Cheap Trick has not benefit from this, as they are still in seventh place, behind Janet Jackson. Is it really reasonable to argue that no fan of Chicago also voted for Cheap Trick? Wouldn't Cheap Trick be a more reasonable vote recipient than the Cars, whose new wave keyboard sound doesn't fall in line with "classic rock" as neatly as Cheap Trick's? Now, in the past, every fan ballot has skewed heavily rockist, meaning the acts that are most played on classic rock radio, or likely to be played on classic rock radio in ten to twenty years, should the format and radio industry survive that long. In fact, that's why some of us initially took no notice when Janet dropped from first to sixth, but the truth is, it just doesn't add up. Is it really believable that the fans who have voted would be content to let Cheap Trick lag roughly seven million votes behind Janet Jackson? Or to let the Smiths and Nine Inch Nails languish in thirteenth and fourteenth place? Are you telling me that no fan of Chicago is also a fan of Janet Jackson? Or the Spinners? While I'm certain that Chicago fans jumped on the bandwagon after those five jumped well out ahead, deviating only to put Chicago back on top after the Cars temporarily took the lead, it simply could not have happened organically. Not when five acts jump up over one thousand votes every three to seven seconds and the others a hundred or less in that same time period. That's the third reason we're calling fraud. That those five acts could go up in such large increments every three to seven seconds, and the others, not so much. And so evenly, too. With the lone exception of the Cars briefly taking the lead, positions among the five leaders never changed. The intervals have remained relatively constant, too, as have the rate of votes throughout the days. For that to happen would require either a collusion of 4chan proportions, or an automated program, a bot if you will, doing the voting rapidly and incessantly. No amount of "vote early, vote often" can rationally explain it. People have to work (even if around the home), eat, sleep, shower (hopefully), and tend to other obligations; not to mention the fact that people also like to watch TV, go to the movies, attend worship, go out with friends, spend time with their families, etc. The math that allows for a truly honest result as such requires the elimination of pretty much all of those things, plus the ability to sit in front of a computer screen and stay focused on one web page for a concentrated period of time. It's just not plausible. As I've written this entry, I've risen to stretch, eat, shower, do laundry, and halfheartedly watch a rerun of Murder, She Wrote (don't judge me!). I imagine that due to the length of this post, some of you have paused to visit another tab, possibly Facebook or check email (and if you haven't, thank you!).
Of course, without a confession, or a sudden revelation by the IT people working for the Hall, the bot voting cannot be completely proven, and for that, some Chicago fans are still in denial. To which, I must quote my father who often said to all of us children as we were growing up, "Use your God-given gift of common sense!" I have a friend who refused to believe that famous wrestler Chris Benoit killed his wife and kid, and then killed himself, because it couldn't be proven one hundred percent beyond any shadow of a doubt. Chicago fans denying the automated voting bot are just like my friend, who love Chicago so much, they cannot accept the possibility that anything involving their band could be negative. Well, even in the justice system, prosecutors don't have to prove beyond all doubt; they only have to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and it's just unreasonable to believe that there has been an uncoordinated, happenstance surge for those five, and only those five artists. Even if the Chicago voters all wanted an all-classic rock class, Cheap Trick would have divided the ballot between the other four classic rock acts to where it'd be impossible for all four of them--the Cars, Yes, Steve Miller, and Deep Purple--to each have over twenty-five million votes. That's not even considering that the Smiths and Nine Inch Nails would likely have eaten into those shares somewhat as well. It's unreasonable to think this could have just happened, and as no Chicago fan is confessing to collusion, a bot is the only logical conclusion. The vote was hacked, tipped over, capsized.
Nevertheless, I promised good news for the Chicago faithful: you won. Chicago never needed the bot. As I type this, Chicago has over thirty-seven million votes. Second through fifth places all have between twenty-five and twenty-six million votes. Chicago has over ten million votes MORE than the next closest candidate, which is more than the less than ten million that Janet Jackson, in sixth place has. Even if every vote for fifth place was bot generated, that means Chicago has at least ten million votes that were not from the bot. Ten million honest votes. It wouldn't be a runaway, but they would still be in the lead. You should be proud of that. And if the bot hadn't deflated the hopes of the fans of Janet, and Cheap Trick, and all the others, I'm convinced that you wouldn't, and probably still won't, give up your tenacity in voting for Chicago to ensure that lead.
But wouldn't you rather win honestly? Sure it's only vote out of eight hundred or so in the end, but don't you still want it honestly cast? If your answer is "Who cares?" or "Whatever." or anything other than "Yes.", you have no grounds to question the integrity or the credibility of the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame, because you have no more than you accuse them of having. For the sake of integrity, I hope the IT people at the Foundation are able to determine (possibly by IP traces) just how many votes came from the bot and are thrown out. Barring that, and given the voting patterns with the rest of the ballot results, I think once the polls are closed, they should start by automatically subtracting twenty-two million votes from each of the top five (I suspect the actual number is closer to twenty-three and a half million, but I'll compromise) and determine the top five from there. Chicago will still be in the lead, but we'll undoubtedly have a true reflection of how actual people are voting.
Let us now paraphrase the words of wisdom from the Hues Corportation. Rock on with your bad self. Rock the vote, baby. But don't tip the vote over.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Alright already: the 2016 ballot
The 2016 ballot has been announced, and everyone's weighing in with their thoughts about it, so it's kind of expected that I do the same.
Except, everyone's already said everything I've wanted to say. Or if they haven't, I've kind of already said most of my initial reactions on Future Rock Legends. So, forgive me if I'm parroting a bit too much here. Hopefully, there will be some original content too.
First off, I went 6 for 15 again. I predicted I would. I suppose this is what's muting the enthusiasm for me, somewhat: that I stink so badly at predicting the ballot. While I wasn't the only one who got only six, I don't think anyone correctly guessed fewer than that. Also, I suppose I'm kind of bummed that there are really only one or two acts that I absolutely love. There are many on here that I like, but not love. So that's something, I guess.
Second, a lot of people, including me, were correct in our prediction that the Nominating Committee downsizing would all but eliminate any acknowledgment of the '60's. Some of the acts were recording in the '60's, but none of them peaked any sooner than the '70's. That said, a lot of folks got their hopes up that the 80's would dominate this time around. Nope. Guess again.
As far as the actual artists themselves go, the first thing I thought was, "What the hell are the J.B.'s doing on the ballot? They're just going to be inducted in the Award For Musical Excellence category anyway!" Now, no one's saying the J.B.'s aren't an interesting and worthy call; however, I believe literally everybody who knows the rudimentary aspects of the Hall, and has any knowledge of its side door shenanigans has already predicted that they will be inducted in the Award For Musical Excellence category. It used to be known as the Sideman category, and it's widely considered the more appropriate place to put them, acknowledging all reality, including that their name comes from the fact that they were the backing band for one famous singer with the initials "JB." It's just too on the nose to think they'll be inducted in any other capacity. That said, fans of the Godfather Of Soul can rest easy seeing their name on the ballot, knowing that they'll most likely be inducted next year.
I suppose the next artist I should comment on is Los Lobos, mainly to say this is a band I need to get more familiar with before I say too much more about. What I will say for now, is that the general impression I get is they're a niche band. As far as niche bands go, the top of that list appears to be Big Star, who appear to have a bigger fan base, just not in the powerful positions. Los Lobos, on the other hand has a smaller fan base, which in a weird way, makes them even more niche. So, I'll just let you all wrap your minds around that one.
No real thoughts on the returns of Nine Inch Nails, N.W.A. or Chic, other than to say, "Yup."
As for the return of the Spinners, I'm pretty happy. The Spinners had some awesome jams and I love smooth Philly soul. I do worry about their chances though. They don't appear to be a major priority for any one voter who isn't a NomCom member, but they could sneak through.
As for the Smiths, I too was taken aback by the fact that the NomCom hadn't given up on them as they did the Cure and the Replacements in previous years. Glad they're back, though. Thoroughly enjoy their music too.
As for Chaka Khan, my first thought is, "Thanks for the tip ?uestlove!" If he hadn't posted that, I probably would have predicted Janet Jackson, not knowing I'd be right either way. I'd love to see both inducted, but I doubt that'll happen. Janet's got the bigger name power, and the bigger potential to dominate. Still, I feel pretty awesome that I was the only person I can think of offhand who predicted JUST Chaka Khan, and not Rufus as a whole.
So the running motif of my predictions was "pick the act you hate." That paid off exactly once: Yes has returned to the ballot. I'm not a prog fan, but if this is the act they want to put in now, then it's better to get that over with, too. While I did predict Deep Purple, I don't hate them, though I'm not a big fan either.
But those eleven acts are not the reason people are so abuzz or happy, though the last two are a big hint as to the reason. The nominations for the Cars, Cheap Trick, Chicago, and Steve Miller are what really have people stoked. All four have been previously considered, and all four are considered longtime snubs by the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame. First off, Chicago are juggernauts of the populist scene. They are the biggest albums act on the ballot, and the second biggest singles act (second to Janet Jackson). With a lengthy career that still has a thready pulse to this day, they're an act the Hall had long tried to ignore but could no longer. The Cars on the surface don't seem like a huge snub, or at least, not uncharacteristic of the Hall: the Hall has long dragged their feet on 80's acts with at least as much underground cred as mainstream, acts that feature some heavy synth elements, and new wave in general. Still, they are an act that is popular with the general populace, respected by critics, and influential to fellow artists. So, overall, it does seem a bit odd that it's only now they're being nominated. Conversely, the nomination of Cheap Trick really is more of a surprise that it happened, than it is that it's taken so long. They really don't seem to be any more special or deserving than acts like Journey, Styx, Foreigner, etc. So why them? Well, why not? If you're going to clear out the backlog of classic rock acts, and Cheap Trick is part of the backlog, then logically at some point, they'll have to be cleared out too. Doesn't really matter when. As for Steve Miller, the waters surrounding his nomination are already getting murky, mainly because the members of the Band behind him have been excluded. There's also been some tittering about how while he's produced some amazing music, he's also created some of the most atrocious. It's ultimately a matter of not knowing what to think.
However, put those four acts together, and you quickly understand the excitement. With these four, and Deep Purple and Yes as well, you've got a real chance to turn this into the Classic Rock Hall Of Fame. At least this year. Which sets the stage for it to happen again. And again. I said it casually, and I'll say it again here: when the Hall finally inducts Chic against the voting bloc's will, they could very possibly be the last non-rap R&B act inducted into the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame. After that, guitars, guitars, guitars. I really hope that doesn't happen, and to that end, even though I like all four of those newly nominated classic rock acts, I hope they don't all get through this time. I'd like to see at least three of the R&B acts get in, just so I can have some reason to maintain some semblance of hope in the Hall. (Then again, I'd also like to see a class of nine or ten Performer inductees, but we know that ain't happening either.)
So there are my early impressions of this ballot. A lot of people are particularly stoked this time around. As for me, "stoked" really only applies to the Hall of the early days. I doubt I'll ever see a ballot of fifteen names that are both quite deserving and also in my collection because I love them. This ballot, however, ain't too shabby, and that's good enough for me.
Except, everyone's already said everything I've wanted to say. Or if they haven't, I've kind of already said most of my initial reactions on Future Rock Legends. So, forgive me if I'm parroting a bit too much here. Hopefully, there will be some original content too.
First off, I went 6 for 15 again. I predicted I would. I suppose this is what's muting the enthusiasm for me, somewhat: that I stink so badly at predicting the ballot. While I wasn't the only one who got only six, I don't think anyone correctly guessed fewer than that. Also, I suppose I'm kind of bummed that there are really only one or two acts that I absolutely love. There are many on here that I like, but not love. So that's something, I guess.
Second, a lot of people, including me, were correct in our prediction that the Nominating Committee downsizing would all but eliminate any acknowledgment of the '60's. Some of the acts were recording in the '60's, but none of them peaked any sooner than the '70's. That said, a lot of folks got their hopes up that the 80's would dominate this time around. Nope. Guess again.
As far as the actual artists themselves go, the first thing I thought was, "What the hell are the J.B.'s doing on the ballot? They're just going to be inducted in the Award For Musical Excellence category anyway!" Now, no one's saying the J.B.'s aren't an interesting and worthy call; however, I believe literally everybody who knows the rudimentary aspects of the Hall, and has any knowledge of its side door shenanigans has already predicted that they will be inducted in the Award For Musical Excellence category. It used to be known as the Sideman category, and it's widely considered the more appropriate place to put them, acknowledging all reality, including that their name comes from the fact that they were the backing band for one famous singer with the initials "JB." It's just too on the nose to think they'll be inducted in any other capacity. That said, fans of the Godfather Of Soul can rest easy seeing their name on the ballot, knowing that they'll most likely be inducted next year.
I suppose the next artist I should comment on is Los Lobos, mainly to say this is a band I need to get more familiar with before I say too much more about. What I will say for now, is that the general impression I get is they're a niche band. As far as niche bands go, the top of that list appears to be Big Star, who appear to have a bigger fan base, just not in the powerful positions. Los Lobos, on the other hand has a smaller fan base, which in a weird way, makes them even more niche. So, I'll just let you all wrap your minds around that one.
No real thoughts on the returns of Nine Inch Nails, N.W.A. or Chic, other than to say, "Yup."
As for the return of the Spinners, I'm pretty happy. The Spinners had some awesome jams and I love smooth Philly soul. I do worry about their chances though. They don't appear to be a major priority for any one voter who isn't a NomCom member, but they could sneak through.
As for the Smiths, I too was taken aback by the fact that the NomCom hadn't given up on them as they did the Cure and the Replacements in previous years. Glad they're back, though. Thoroughly enjoy their music too.
As for Chaka Khan, my first thought is, "Thanks for the tip ?uestlove!" If he hadn't posted that, I probably would have predicted Janet Jackson, not knowing I'd be right either way. I'd love to see both inducted, but I doubt that'll happen. Janet's got the bigger name power, and the bigger potential to dominate. Still, I feel pretty awesome that I was the only person I can think of offhand who predicted JUST Chaka Khan, and not Rufus as a whole.
So the running motif of my predictions was "pick the act you hate." That paid off exactly once: Yes has returned to the ballot. I'm not a prog fan, but if this is the act they want to put in now, then it's better to get that over with, too. While I did predict Deep Purple, I don't hate them, though I'm not a big fan either.
But those eleven acts are not the reason people are so abuzz or happy, though the last two are a big hint as to the reason. The nominations for the Cars, Cheap Trick, Chicago, and Steve Miller are what really have people stoked. All four have been previously considered, and all four are considered longtime snubs by the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame. First off, Chicago are juggernauts of the populist scene. They are the biggest albums act on the ballot, and the second biggest singles act (second to Janet Jackson). With a lengthy career that still has a thready pulse to this day, they're an act the Hall had long tried to ignore but could no longer. The Cars on the surface don't seem like a huge snub, or at least, not uncharacteristic of the Hall: the Hall has long dragged their feet on 80's acts with at least as much underground cred as mainstream, acts that feature some heavy synth elements, and new wave in general. Still, they are an act that is popular with the general populace, respected by critics, and influential to fellow artists. So, overall, it does seem a bit odd that it's only now they're being nominated. Conversely, the nomination of Cheap Trick really is more of a surprise that it happened, than it is that it's taken so long. They really don't seem to be any more special or deserving than acts like Journey, Styx, Foreigner, etc. So why them? Well, why not? If you're going to clear out the backlog of classic rock acts, and Cheap Trick is part of the backlog, then logically at some point, they'll have to be cleared out too. Doesn't really matter when. As for Steve Miller, the waters surrounding his nomination are already getting murky, mainly because the members of the Band behind him have been excluded. There's also been some tittering about how while he's produced some amazing music, he's also created some of the most atrocious. It's ultimately a matter of not knowing what to think.
However, put those four acts together, and you quickly understand the excitement. With these four, and Deep Purple and Yes as well, you've got a real chance to turn this into the Classic Rock Hall Of Fame. At least this year. Which sets the stage for it to happen again. And again. I said it casually, and I'll say it again here: when the Hall finally inducts Chic against the voting bloc's will, they could very possibly be the last non-rap R&B act inducted into the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame. After that, guitars, guitars, guitars. I really hope that doesn't happen, and to that end, even though I like all four of those newly nominated classic rock acts, I hope they don't all get through this time. I'd like to see at least three of the R&B acts get in, just so I can have some reason to maintain some semblance of hope in the Hall. (Then again, I'd also like to see a class of nine or ten Performer inductees, but we know that ain't happening either.)
So there are my early impressions of this ballot. A lot of people are particularly stoked this time around. As for me, "stoked" really only applies to the Hall of the early days. I doubt I'll ever see a ballot of fifteen names that are both quite deserving and also in my collection because I love them. This ballot, however, ain't too shabby, and that's good enough for me.
Monday, September 7, 2015
Official Nominee Prediction: 2016
September.... when kids go back to school and there's that nip in the air, that the Nominating Committee is soon to meet and decide what the ballot for next year's Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame class will be. And for some reason, we enjoy trying to predict which names will be on the ballot. I don't entirely get it either, but I enjoy it. Maybe it's because it's harder to predict the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame's nominees than it is to predict Oscar, Emmy, Grammy, or Tony nominees. Maybe it has to do with the downsizing of the number of members on the NomCom. That certainly will make things much harder to figure out, because the patterns that we look for may no longer be all that trustworthy. Whatever it is, here we go again.
As I read the predictions of other people, I feel like a lot of the left field picks and seeming fillers are mainly driven by hope against hope. I'm actually going to try to go in the other direction as much as possible. In recent years, there haven't been too many acts on the ballot that I absolutely love. Sure, last year we got Stevie Ray Vaughan And Double Trouble and the Spinners, but the point is, the majority of the ballot is comprised of artists I'm lukewarm to or just don't like. Not that I'm complaining too loudly, though--most of my favorite acts have already been inducted. Still, I feel like where there are gaps to fill, I need to make sure I'm filling them with acts I can either take or leave or would actually prefer not to see at all. With that happy thought to help us fly off to Neverland, it's time to predict the nominees for the Class of 2016.
First off, the no-brainers. Chic will be back, because the higher-ups at the Foundation will not be ignored in their love for Nile Rodgers. I've said this before, but at some point, they're just going to decide that it doesn't matter where Chic finished in the votes, and induct them anyway, even if they also have to induct every act that got more votes than Chic, which means, we could be looking at a class with 15 Performer inductees. I'm also speculating that Nile Rodgers will finally retire when Chic is inducted and he no longer has to keep the name recognition up.
Next, another act that was guaranteed to reappear even without any new mojo working for them, N.W.A. will certainly return. Between the biopic Straight Outta Compton, the new work from Dr. Dre coming out, and the tidal wave of big name rappers becoming eligible starting next year, the pressure will be overpowering to get these guys inducted.
But rap isn't the only part of the rock 'n' roll spectrum with that tidal wave about to crash. Next year, Pearl Jam becomes eligible, which means all the acts that were influenced by Nirvana, Green Day, and Pearl Jam will subsequently follow in the coming years. So, with that in mind, it's probably a safe bet that Nine Inch Nails will come back for a second nomination.
The past two years, there has been a clear enough favorite among the newly eligible artists to predict which would be nominated. This year, not so easy. It is however, pretty widely held that only one of two will make the ballot. One is Alice In Chains, with a strong fanbase and solid music to back it up. The other is Smashing Pumpkins, which with the bolded name, means that I'm predicting them. Their music is accessible enough to the older members of the NomCom, and Billy Corgan is that kind of cantankerous enigma that is often attributed to genius. Not the Kurt Cobain tier of genius though... more like Axl Rose.
Next up we come to what is horrifyingly yet accurately described as the Death Fairy pick. A major star dies since the last nominations were announced and now the push to induct that person posthumously is on. And the Grim Reaper has been busy this year. A lot of people think that along with the NomCom's habit of bringing back seemingly forgotten past nominees, the token early '60's salute, and the nod to soul, Ben E. King is fated to be nominated again. But I don't think so. I would be thrilled to the moon if they picked Lesley Gore, but I'm not putting her name in bold either. Re-reading what I wrote near the top, time to go dystopian. When in doubt, pick the act you hate. So, and with the hype kicked up by people like Billy Joel, I'm betting Joe Cocker will be put on the ballot this year. I really don't want to predict him, but it's probably going to happen. And hey, now that Linda Ronstadt and Joan Jett And The Blackhearts are in, we need another cover artist on the ballot, and Cocker just fits the bill. And let's make it a two-fer. A key member of Yes passed away this year, and I don't like prog all that much. Plus they were nominated two years ago, so they're due to return.
Speaking of due to return, the classic rockists will be thrilled to see Deep Purple return to the ballot. As far as I know, Tom Morello is still on the NomCom, and if he was so impassioned to push for KISS, I can't see him turning a blind eye to Deep Purple, who will likely be the runaway favorite on the fan ballot if they are nominated. Another recent addition to the NomCom is ?uestlove. Up until now, I was skeptical, but optimistic that the Induct Janet campaign would finally succeed in getting Janet Jackson on the ballot. But with the recent tweet from ?uestlove, I now no longer hold that belief. While they could both be nominated, I really doubt they'll want to divide the ballot between Janet Jackson and Chaka Khan. Two R&B divas on the same ballot just won't happen, I don't think. So while Janet's more deserving in my opinion, ?uestlove has shown his cards and will be pushing for the former Rufus frontlady. And no, I don't believe it'll be another nomination for Rufus with Chaka Khan. And I hope they don't. That mess was bad enough with the (Small) Faces, but then again, the Hall seems to thrive on controversy these days, so who knows?
As for '80s alternative, a name has found its way onto the ballot each year, not gotten in, and didn't return the next year. So, out with the Smiths, and in with Pixies, whose names were to be found on the updated list of "Previously Considered" artists on the Future Rock Legends site. My initial gut reaction says to go with Sonic Youth, and the new memoir from Kim Gordon seems to insist on that push, But if being part of "Hervana" wasn't enough last year, will a memoir be enough this year? Possibly. Maybe they just wanted to focus on Joan Jett And The Blackhearts last year and so had to nix Sonic Youth. But I'm going back to my rule of picking the act I don't like, and I like Sonic Youth more than Pixies, so it means Pixies are more likely to be nominated. However, since I'm making this up as I type it, I may also add Sonic Youth if I find myself at fourteen names, and don't feel like going to left field.
Circling back to Joan Jett And The Blackhearts, let's pick another name recently associated with her. Despite the recent purge of the NomCom, there actually might still be a '60's act on there. And as Jett, and Green Day, and others have shown in past years, the Hall loves those that love the Hall. A token sign of respect may prove sufficient to get Tommy James And The Shondells on the ballot.. As a side note, I would find the juxtaposition of Tommy James And The Shondells and Joe Cocker on the same ballot to be hilarious: an act that was extremely well-known at the time that turned down the chance to perform at Woodstock because their manager dissuaded them, and a singer that the world only knows and cares about because he appeared at Woodstock. Anyway, at first, I wasn't sold on James and company, and still am not entirely, especially with the purge of NomCom members this past year. Still, it fits the ass-kissing motif that threads its way through this annual event. So would the nomination of the J. Geils Band, who is a known favorite of Master In This Hall, Jann S. Wenner, The combination of Peter Wolf inducting the Paul Butterfield Blues Band this year, the fact that the Paul Butterfield Blues Band were also another big favorite of Jann S. Wenner, and the general trend to acknowledge the blues as part of rock 'n' roll, it just seems too likely to ignore Jerome and the gang.
Along with the blues, there's usually an effort to acknowledge soul and singer/songwriters. Last year, the Hall killed two birds with one stone by nominating Bill Withers. I actually have a sneaky suspicion, they'll try to do this again. Happenings at the museum should not always be ignored either, and this year saw the unveiling of the exhibit highlighting the clash of the worlds of rock 'n' roll and politics. The Hall has always loved politically charged acts, so between soul, singer/songwriters, and sticking it to the man, there's a gnawing suspicion that the name of Gil Scott-Heron could stun a few people. Granted, Scott-Heron is known most for his slammin' poetry, and when I went looking for his albums, I found them in the jazz section of the music shop, but he did a lot of singing, and there're a lot of elements of soul and funk in his songs. So, I'm betting the NomCom will throw his name on the ballot and call it good enough when representing soul music. Also, like Pixies, Gil Scott-Heron is one of the twenty-five new names added to the Previously Considered list.
My next pick may seem a bit askew, but it's not too far out to be left field... maybe deep at third. For starters, I'm not totally convinced anymore that Kraftwerk will return. Second, the NomCom purge could mean more '80's acts making the ballot and into the Hall. Third, there will probably be some representation, besides Chic for danceable pop music. Lastly, I turn to an old bit by fellow monitor Lax, who for a couple years used to drive others crazy with his assertions whom he knew beyond a shadow of a doubt would be inducted this year. The thing is, his dream class wasn't a bad class, just the unfounded confidence that it would happen. That ire has since been re-appropriated towards another member who does much the same thing, but I digress. Of Lax's dream class, three have been inducted: Peter Gabriel, Donna Summer, and Cat Stevens. I can't remember who the fifth was, and may have been an arbitrary fifth member, but all things put together, it wouldn't be a huge stretch to predict the Eurythmics. So I will. Two slots left, and I'm tapped. Let's hedge our bets a little. As promised, I'll predict Sonic Youth after all, and we'll also throw in War, a good nominee any year, but always struggles to rise to the top of the conversation.
There you go, my fifteen selections. To recap, in alphabetical order:
-Chic
-Joe Cocker
-Deep Purple
-the Eurythmics
-the J. Geils Band
-Tommy James And The Shondells
-Chaka Khan
-Nine Inch Nails
-N.W.A.
-Pixies
-Gil Scott-Heron
-Smashing Pumpkins
-Sonic Youth
-War
-Yes
Compared to the mid-season report, my opinion has shifted on the greater half of my choices, which is actually pretty significant. In the past, I've been lucky if I got six nominees correct, and that'll probably be the case again. Let's wait and see.
As I read the predictions of other people, I feel like a lot of the left field picks and seeming fillers are mainly driven by hope against hope. I'm actually going to try to go in the other direction as much as possible. In recent years, there haven't been too many acts on the ballot that I absolutely love. Sure, last year we got Stevie Ray Vaughan And Double Trouble and the Spinners, but the point is, the majority of the ballot is comprised of artists I'm lukewarm to or just don't like. Not that I'm complaining too loudly, though--most of my favorite acts have already been inducted. Still, I feel like where there are gaps to fill, I need to make sure I'm filling them with acts I can either take or leave or would actually prefer not to see at all. With that happy thought to help us fly off to Neverland, it's time to predict the nominees for the Class of 2016.
First off, the no-brainers. Chic will be back, because the higher-ups at the Foundation will not be ignored in their love for Nile Rodgers. I've said this before, but at some point, they're just going to decide that it doesn't matter where Chic finished in the votes, and induct them anyway, even if they also have to induct every act that got more votes than Chic, which means, we could be looking at a class with 15 Performer inductees. I'm also speculating that Nile Rodgers will finally retire when Chic is inducted and he no longer has to keep the name recognition up.
Next, another act that was guaranteed to reappear even without any new mojo working for them, N.W.A. will certainly return. Between the biopic Straight Outta Compton, the new work from Dr. Dre coming out, and the tidal wave of big name rappers becoming eligible starting next year, the pressure will be overpowering to get these guys inducted.
But rap isn't the only part of the rock 'n' roll spectrum with that tidal wave about to crash. Next year, Pearl Jam becomes eligible, which means all the acts that were influenced by Nirvana, Green Day, and Pearl Jam will subsequently follow in the coming years. So, with that in mind, it's probably a safe bet that Nine Inch Nails will come back for a second nomination.
The past two years, there has been a clear enough favorite among the newly eligible artists to predict which would be nominated. This year, not so easy. It is however, pretty widely held that only one of two will make the ballot. One is Alice In Chains, with a strong fanbase and solid music to back it up. The other is Smashing Pumpkins, which with the bolded name, means that I'm predicting them. Their music is accessible enough to the older members of the NomCom, and Billy Corgan is that kind of cantankerous enigma that is often attributed to genius. Not the Kurt Cobain tier of genius though... more like Axl Rose.
Next up we come to what is horrifyingly yet accurately described as the Death Fairy pick. A major star dies since the last nominations were announced and now the push to induct that person posthumously is on. And the Grim Reaper has been busy this year. A lot of people think that along with the NomCom's habit of bringing back seemingly forgotten past nominees, the token early '60's salute, and the nod to soul, Ben E. King is fated to be nominated again. But I don't think so. I would be thrilled to the moon if they picked Lesley Gore, but I'm not putting her name in bold either. Re-reading what I wrote near the top, time to go dystopian. When in doubt, pick the act you hate. So, and with the hype kicked up by people like Billy Joel, I'm betting Joe Cocker will be put on the ballot this year. I really don't want to predict him, but it's probably going to happen. And hey, now that Linda Ronstadt and Joan Jett And The Blackhearts are in, we need another cover artist on the ballot, and Cocker just fits the bill. And let's make it a two-fer. A key member of Yes passed away this year, and I don't like prog all that much. Plus they were nominated two years ago, so they're due to return.
Speaking of due to return, the classic rockists will be thrilled to see Deep Purple return to the ballot. As far as I know, Tom Morello is still on the NomCom, and if he was so impassioned to push for KISS, I can't see him turning a blind eye to Deep Purple, who will likely be the runaway favorite on the fan ballot if they are nominated. Another recent addition to the NomCom is ?uestlove. Up until now, I was skeptical, but optimistic that the Induct Janet campaign would finally succeed in getting Janet Jackson on the ballot. But with the recent tweet from ?uestlove, I now no longer hold that belief. While they could both be nominated, I really doubt they'll want to divide the ballot between Janet Jackson and Chaka Khan. Two R&B divas on the same ballot just won't happen, I don't think. So while Janet's more deserving in my opinion, ?uestlove has shown his cards and will be pushing for the former Rufus frontlady. And no, I don't believe it'll be another nomination for Rufus with Chaka Khan. And I hope they don't. That mess was bad enough with the (Small) Faces, but then again, the Hall seems to thrive on controversy these days, so who knows?
As for '80s alternative, a name has found its way onto the ballot each year, not gotten in, and didn't return the next year. So, out with the Smiths, and in with Pixies, whose names were to be found on the updated list of "Previously Considered" artists on the Future Rock Legends site. My initial gut reaction says to go with Sonic Youth, and the new memoir from Kim Gordon seems to insist on that push, But if being part of "Hervana" wasn't enough last year, will a memoir be enough this year? Possibly. Maybe they just wanted to focus on Joan Jett And The Blackhearts last year and so had to nix Sonic Youth. But I'm going back to my rule of picking the act I don't like, and I like Sonic Youth more than Pixies, so it means Pixies are more likely to be nominated. However, since I'm making this up as I type it, I may also add Sonic Youth if I find myself at fourteen names, and don't feel like going to left field.
Circling back to Joan Jett And The Blackhearts, let's pick another name recently associated with her. Despite the recent purge of the NomCom, there actually might still be a '60's act on there. And as Jett, and Green Day, and others have shown in past years, the Hall loves those that love the Hall. A token sign of respect may prove sufficient to get Tommy James And The Shondells on the ballot.. As a side note, I would find the juxtaposition of Tommy James And The Shondells and Joe Cocker on the same ballot to be hilarious: an act that was extremely well-known at the time that turned down the chance to perform at Woodstock because their manager dissuaded them, and a singer that the world only knows and cares about because he appeared at Woodstock. Anyway, at first, I wasn't sold on James and company, and still am not entirely, especially with the purge of NomCom members this past year. Still, it fits the ass-kissing motif that threads its way through this annual event. So would the nomination of the J. Geils Band, who is a known favorite of Master In This Hall, Jann S. Wenner, The combination of Peter Wolf inducting the Paul Butterfield Blues Band this year, the fact that the Paul Butterfield Blues Band were also another big favorite of Jann S. Wenner, and the general trend to acknowledge the blues as part of rock 'n' roll, it just seems too likely to ignore Jerome and the gang.
Along with the blues, there's usually an effort to acknowledge soul and singer/songwriters. Last year, the Hall killed two birds with one stone by nominating Bill Withers. I actually have a sneaky suspicion, they'll try to do this again. Happenings at the museum should not always be ignored either, and this year saw the unveiling of the exhibit highlighting the clash of the worlds of rock 'n' roll and politics. The Hall has always loved politically charged acts, so between soul, singer/songwriters, and sticking it to the man, there's a gnawing suspicion that the name of Gil Scott-Heron could stun a few people. Granted, Scott-Heron is known most for his slammin' poetry, and when I went looking for his albums, I found them in the jazz section of the music shop, but he did a lot of singing, and there're a lot of elements of soul and funk in his songs. So, I'm betting the NomCom will throw his name on the ballot and call it good enough when representing soul music. Also, like Pixies, Gil Scott-Heron is one of the twenty-five new names added to the Previously Considered list.
My next pick may seem a bit askew, but it's not too far out to be left field... maybe deep at third. For starters, I'm not totally convinced anymore that Kraftwerk will return. Second, the NomCom purge could mean more '80's acts making the ballot and into the Hall. Third, there will probably be some representation, besides Chic for danceable pop music. Lastly, I turn to an old bit by fellow monitor Lax, who for a couple years used to drive others crazy with his assertions whom he knew beyond a shadow of a doubt would be inducted this year. The thing is, his dream class wasn't a bad class, just the unfounded confidence that it would happen. That ire has since been re-appropriated towards another member who does much the same thing, but I digress. Of Lax's dream class, three have been inducted: Peter Gabriel, Donna Summer, and Cat Stevens. I can't remember who the fifth was, and may have been an arbitrary fifth member, but all things put together, it wouldn't be a huge stretch to predict the Eurythmics. So I will. Two slots left, and I'm tapped. Let's hedge our bets a little. As promised, I'll predict Sonic Youth after all, and we'll also throw in War, a good nominee any year, but always struggles to rise to the top of the conversation.
There you go, my fifteen selections. To recap, in alphabetical order:
-Chic
-Joe Cocker
-Deep Purple
-the Eurythmics
-the J. Geils Band
-Tommy James And The Shondells
-Chaka Khan
-Nine Inch Nails
-N.W.A.
-Pixies
-Gil Scott-Heron
-Smashing Pumpkins
-Sonic Youth
-War
-Yes
Compared to the mid-season report, my opinion has shifted on the greater half of my choices, which is actually pretty significant. In the past, I've been lucky if I got six nominees correct, and that'll probably be the case again. Let's wait and see.
Thursday, May 7, 2015
Mid-season 2015
Falling behind more and more, but this is just a quick little mid-season check.
Honestly, I think they should just take the remnants of this ballot, and call it a nine-act ballot, and let's induct at least another six. You'd get a solid class out of that, even if Sting was one of those six. I don't like Kraftwerk, or Nine Inch Nails, and not a huge fan of N.W.A., but they all deserve induction. Chic is a dead weight that we need to jettison, and induction's the only way that's gonna happen. And I both like and believe in the merits of the Marvelettes, the Spinners, the Smiths, and War, Any six of those nine, and you've got another decent class.
Regardless, that doesn't mean any of them are going to make the ballot later this year. It's a pretty good guess that both N.W.A. and Chic will be back. I'm gonna stretch a hair and say that both Kraftwerk and the Marvelettes will return as well.
The upcoming crop of newly eligible acts has some people clamoring, but I really don't know if any of them will appear. Everyone is calling Alice In Chains and Smashing Pumpkins locks to be nominated. I'm not sold on either one. And if Janet and Whitney are still not in, then Mariah Carey's not gonna be nominated anytime soon either. So all that, in my opinion, gives Nine Inch Nails another nod, and I doubt they miss twice.
The Death Fairy's been busy recently, and while Joe Cocker is a favorite among fellow Monitors and some members of the powers-that-be, I think he'll get passed by. Lesley Gore is certainly high profile, but my faith in her ever getting the induction she deserves has diminished. Still, I think a recent, high profile death will yield a nominee, and at present, it looks to be Ben E. King. The Hall enjoys adding members to the Clyde McPhatter Club, and Ben E. would be a great addition, even if he hasn't been nominated in almost 30 years.
Six names picked and they're all repeats. Any new names? Yes, I think the NomCom will repeat the habit of scrapping an '80s alternative act when they fail to get in and replacing it with another one. This time around, instead of the Smiths, we'll probably get Sonic Youth. Also, Despite not being on the ballot last year, I'm still going by ?uestlove Gomez's shirts and say at some point we will see the Average White Band nominated. And on the rap front, we may see Toure sneak a second act on the ballot, possibly De La Soul. With Stevie Ray Vaughan And Double Trouble inducted at last, and with the queue cleared by getting the Paul Butterfield Blues Band in, the blues and blues-rock field is wide open. Pretty good chances that Johnny Winter is next in line there. With David Letterman retiring soon, he made his plea, particularly to bandleader Paul Shaffer, to try and get Warren Zevon into the Hall at last, so maybe his request will be honored. There is certainly no shortage of people who agree with David on that one. And while the Marvelettes and also Chic represent the female gender, perhaps they'll try to add another member of the feminine persuasion to the ballot. Perhaps with Joan Jett in, it's time for Pat Benatar to get her due.
Let's throw three more repeats in to top it off. Deep Purple, Yes, and the J. Geils Band to all return, to placate the classic rock crowd.
Off the top, off the cuff. Something to do while waiting for the ceremonies to air.
Monday, April 20, 2015
I hate these blurred lines.
There are several reasons why I'm slow to start a new post: busy work schedule, difficult to get started, jumbled thoughts that I'm having trouble organizing, general laziness. In this case, all of the above, with two new stitches: desktop computer gone kaput, and medical issues. All that to say, sorry I didn't get this one up sooner.
In the previous entry, I lamented the pigeonholing of Ringo Starr in the Award For Musical Excellence category. You may have also missed that I similarly lamented the induction of the "5" Royales in the Early Influence category. However, the "5" Royales are only the most recent, and not even the most blatantly wrong example, of an act that should have been inducted in the Performer category, only to get the side door induction of the Early Influence category. Other fairly recent and more unpopular inductees in this category have been Wanda Jackson (in 2009) and Freddie King (in 2012).
In all fairness, while also perhaps most damning, the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame has always had a little bit of a problem with the line between the Performer and Early Influence categories. On the Rock Hall website, before they changed the layout, the timeline for 1986 Early Influence inductee Jimmie Rodgers included the charting of songs "Honeycomb" and "Kisses Sweeter Than Wine." Not good. And the next year, the induction of Big Joe Turner was in the Performer category, but the Top Pop Singles books from Joel Whitburn always include a special notation of "Blues pioneer" next to his induction as a Performer. Next, look at the 1990 class on the Rock Hall's website right now. Click on the link for Charlie Christian. A guitarist for the Benny Goodman orchestra until his death in 1942, he's listed on the Rock Hall's website as a "Performer" inductee, which is just plain factually inaccurate. However, as bad as those examples are, and as bad as the side door inductees of Wanda Jackson and Freddie King were, perhaps no class decries the lack of clarity more so than the Class Of 1991. Indeed, fellow monitors, as I have also done, have scratched their heads wondering how John Lee Hooker, a blues musician whose career began in the '40s, who recorded most of his discography in the '40s, including his most innovative and influential recordings, gets inducted as a Performer; while Howlin' Wolf, a bluesman whose first recordings were in the early '50s, whose signature songs were in the mid-to-late '50s, gets inducted as an Early Influence. To add further confusion to that mound, nominated for that same class as a Performer, but didn't make it, was blues guitarist Elmore James, whom you might recognize as an inductee in 1992, in the Early Influence category! Why Performer one year and Early Influence the next is a baffling question that only came to a head when people started asking why Wanda Jackson was nominated as a Performer but inducted as an Early Influence. Add to that Pete Seeger's illustrious solo career, despite beginning in 1954, meriting Early Influence status, though there it's much more obvious that this is simply the worst, yet-to-be-corrected case of Front Man Fever.
So the Hall has a clear and established record of fudging with this category. Why only in the past ten years have people started calling attention to it? I suspect a good deal has to do with the Internet making things easier to track and discuss, but part of it also may be the confusion in drawing lines of distinction in what's rock and roll and what isn't, and that it wasn't until the induction of Wanda Jackson as an Early Influence in a class where she'd been nominated as a Performer that people perked up and noticed those very circumstances and started to cry foul. It certainly has been no help that the Hall had been mired in murmurs in previous years: Miles Davis inducted as a Performer in 2006, even though the man himself denied being anything other than jazz--not even jazz fusion (and that his career as a billed artist began in the '40s); the accusations of ballot tampering in 2007 leading to Grandmaster Flash And The Furious Five getting in instead of the Dave Clark Five (or both together); and the coincidental induction of the Dave Clark Five the next year.
But what I suspect made Wanda's situation different was that not only was she unquestionably rockabilly in the beginning, only to go full country later on, but that she was initially under the wing of none other than Elvis Presley himself. Practically being the protege of the King should most likely result in disqualification from being called "Early Influence." Take that however you wish, it's really intended more as a timeline than anything else. Needless to say this only made things more confusing with Freddie King's induction in 2012, especially given that Freddie's first release wasn't until the late '50s, and that fellow bluesman Buddy Guy was a Performer in 2005, while another fellow bluesman Albert King was inducted as a Performer a year after Freddie got the side door treatment. While Freddie was more blues than blues rock, he was no less rock than Buddy or Albert, and it still seemed bad form to shoehorn him in as an Early Influence when he also had been on the ballot for Performer.
Which brings us to the "5" Royales. What to do? In all fairness, there's a solid argument to be made for Early Influence. Steady releases beginning in 1952, which most music historians call "pre-rock", certainly helps; however, perhaps most favorable for the Hall is the fact that if you listen to their records, their sound is much more primitive or "proto" as an R&B styling than it is the well-known version we got from Performer inductees like the Flamingos, the Moonglows, the Platters, and even the first incarnation of the Drifters. It's a fair evaluation to say their sound was rawer than the sounds that really reached out across racial barriers, from acts less likely to be inducted such as the Five Satins, the Harptones, and even the Five Keys.
However, there is also sufficient cause to say they should have been a Performer inductee, namely that they were nominated twice for that honor in the past. As with Elmore James, we are left asking why they were Performer then and an Early Influence now. Even worse, vocal R&B, aka doo-wop, is that territory that most music historians would also recognize as rock and roll at its most basic and earliest. So now you're breaking up a stone that is critical to the foundation of rock and roll. Is it really smart to go down that road? How will they handle this in the future? It's all but certain that if the Clovers are ever inducted, it will also be as an Early Influence. But what about acts like the aforementioned Five Keys, Five Satins, and Harptones? Some would argue that I'm putting the cart way before the horse, as it is unlikely those acts will ever be nominated, let alone inducted; however, not only have all three been Previously Considered, it's an important question to ask because the slope is already getting a little slippery to keep credibility intact (and even then some would say that ship has sailed). They've already hammered at other stones, like rockabilly with Wanda Jackson. What if they decide they owe something to lesser-known-but-still-important '50s guitar hero and rock outfit Buddy Knox And The Rhythm Orchids? What if they want to induct Chubby Checker as an Early Influence because he was an early precursor to EDM? Or Lesley Gore for being an original standout figure that paved the way for "riot grrls" like Joan Jett?
This is why I oppose fellow monitors who suggest the "movable timeline," that Early Influence is best applied to those who predate, but helped laid the groundwork for major patches of musical mini-epochs. By that logic, the MC5 are a prime candidate for Early Influence induction for predating, but heavily influencing punk. It's ridiculous: rock 'n' roll music is constantly evolving, and everything that is current is potentially significant in its pre-dating of something to come. That doesn't make what we have now, "not rock." And that's the latent effect you're ultimately having when you call a musician or group "Early Influence" instead of "Performer." You are decidedly declaring it as "not rock 'n' roll." I've already dealt with people in real life who think that REAL rock 'n' roll didn't exist until the Beatles came along or until Bob Dylan plugged in, or think that if it ain't hard or metal, it ain't rock. And every once in awhile some chucklehead will spew ignorance stating that soul, reggae, and rap have nothing to do with rock 'n' roll.
This is why I can only be marginally happy for the "5" Royales when they get inducted as an Early Influence, instead of Performer. Or Wanda Jackson. Or Freddie King. (Or Ringo Starr as AME, but that was last entry.) When you get an award, it's supposed to mean something. But when you play the game the way the Hall is doing it now, it becomes less meaningful. Its integrity is compromised. It's why I'm infuriated when the inductees or surviving family members (and fellow non-affiliated fans and even fellow Monitors) are so gracious about induction. It pains me to know that they're not getting their full or proper due. I'm told I should just be thankful that they ARE getting official recognition in some capacity. But I'm not. I can't be. Earning the award you're given within its proper parameters is rewarding. This is a pity induction, and it shouldn't happen this way. Do it right, or don't do it at all.
I won't go so far as to say the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame Foundation owes it to us to get it right. No, but they DO owe it to the inductees, the inductees' surviving families and loved ones, history itself, and even to themselves, for their own credibility's sake. Having rabid fans howl about their favorite acts getting snubbed is one matter. They're like the fans at a football stadium cheering their favorite teams. By claiming to have guidelines and categorizations for inductees, the Foundation sets themselves up as refs, so to speak. And I won't even go into the mess you get when, by that analogy, Jann S. Wenner is posturing himself as rock 'n' roll's Roger Goodell. Nope, not gonna go there. I'll let Tom Lane do that. The point is, we as fans hate bad calls, and that the Foundation owes it to the players (of instruments, including voice) to make the correct calls, for the good of the game (music history). When they can't do that right, the whole league suffers, especially when a quick peek at Future Rock Legends' Revisited & Projected project shows a plethora of worthy candidates for Early Influences still not inducted into the actual Hall, including but not limited to Sister Rosetta Tharpe, Ella Fitzgerald, the Mills Brothers, the Carter Family, Blind Lemon Jefferson, and the Four Freshmen.
So let's make a point to be more consistent, shall we? Maybe a rule that says once they've been nominated for Performer, they can never be inducted as an Early Influence? That sounds like a pretty reasonable idea to me. As is, the Rock Hall loses esteem for every year they continue to make the distinctions even blurrier.
And to quote Robin Thicke, I hate these blurred lines.
In the previous entry, I lamented the pigeonholing of Ringo Starr in the Award For Musical Excellence category. You may have also missed that I similarly lamented the induction of the "5" Royales in the Early Influence category. However, the "5" Royales are only the most recent, and not even the most blatantly wrong example, of an act that should have been inducted in the Performer category, only to get the side door induction of the Early Influence category. Other fairly recent and more unpopular inductees in this category have been Wanda Jackson (in 2009) and Freddie King (in 2012).
In all fairness, while also perhaps most damning, the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame has always had a little bit of a problem with the line between the Performer and Early Influence categories. On the Rock Hall website, before they changed the layout, the timeline for 1986 Early Influence inductee Jimmie Rodgers included the charting of songs "Honeycomb" and "Kisses Sweeter Than Wine." Not good. And the next year, the induction of Big Joe Turner was in the Performer category, but the Top Pop Singles books from Joel Whitburn always include a special notation of "Blues pioneer" next to his induction as a Performer. Next, look at the 1990 class on the Rock Hall's website right now. Click on the link for Charlie Christian. A guitarist for the Benny Goodman orchestra until his death in 1942, he's listed on the Rock Hall's website as a "Performer" inductee, which is just plain factually inaccurate. However, as bad as those examples are, and as bad as the side door inductees of Wanda Jackson and Freddie King were, perhaps no class decries the lack of clarity more so than the Class Of 1991. Indeed, fellow monitors, as I have also done, have scratched their heads wondering how John Lee Hooker, a blues musician whose career began in the '40s, who recorded most of his discography in the '40s, including his most innovative and influential recordings, gets inducted as a Performer; while Howlin' Wolf, a bluesman whose first recordings were in the early '50s, whose signature songs were in the mid-to-late '50s, gets inducted as an Early Influence. To add further confusion to that mound, nominated for that same class as a Performer, but didn't make it, was blues guitarist Elmore James, whom you might recognize as an inductee in 1992, in the Early Influence category! Why Performer one year and Early Influence the next is a baffling question that only came to a head when people started asking why Wanda Jackson was nominated as a Performer but inducted as an Early Influence. Add to that Pete Seeger's illustrious solo career, despite beginning in 1954, meriting Early Influence status, though there it's much more obvious that this is simply the worst, yet-to-be-corrected case of Front Man Fever.
So the Hall has a clear and established record of fudging with this category. Why only in the past ten years have people started calling attention to it? I suspect a good deal has to do with the Internet making things easier to track and discuss, but part of it also may be the confusion in drawing lines of distinction in what's rock and roll and what isn't, and that it wasn't until the induction of Wanda Jackson as an Early Influence in a class where she'd been nominated as a Performer that people perked up and noticed those very circumstances and started to cry foul. It certainly has been no help that the Hall had been mired in murmurs in previous years: Miles Davis inducted as a Performer in 2006, even though the man himself denied being anything other than jazz--not even jazz fusion (and that his career as a billed artist began in the '40s); the accusations of ballot tampering in 2007 leading to Grandmaster Flash And The Furious Five getting in instead of the Dave Clark Five (or both together); and the coincidental induction of the Dave Clark Five the next year.
But what I suspect made Wanda's situation different was that not only was she unquestionably rockabilly in the beginning, only to go full country later on, but that she was initially under the wing of none other than Elvis Presley himself. Practically being the protege of the King should most likely result in disqualification from being called "Early Influence." Take that however you wish, it's really intended more as a timeline than anything else. Needless to say this only made things more confusing with Freddie King's induction in 2012, especially given that Freddie's first release wasn't until the late '50s, and that fellow bluesman Buddy Guy was a Performer in 2005, while another fellow bluesman Albert King was inducted as a Performer a year after Freddie got the side door treatment. While Freddie was more blues than blues rock, he was no less rock than Buddy or Albert, and it still seemed bad form to shoehorn him in as an Early Influence when he also had been on the ballot for Performer.
Which brings us to the "5" Royales. What to do? In all fairness, there's a solid argument to be made for Early Influence. Steady releases beginning in 1952, which most music historians call "pre-rock", certainly helps; however, perhaps most favorable for the Hall is the fact that if you listen to their records, their sound is much more primitive or "proto" as an R&B styling than it is the well-known version we got from Performer inductees like the Flamingos, the Moonglows, the Platters, and even the first incarnation of the Drifters. It's a fair evaluation to say their sound was rawer than the sounds that really reached out across racial barriers, from acts less likely to be inducted such as the Five Satins, the Harptones, and even the Five Keys.
However, there is also sufficient cause to say they should have been a Performer inductee, namely that they were nominated twice for that honor in the past. As with Elmore James, we are left asking why they were Performer then and an Early Influence now. Even worse, vocal R&B, aka doo-wop, is that territory that most music historians would also recognize as rock and roll at its most basic and earliest. So now you're breaking up a stone that is critical to the foundation of rock and roll. Is it really smart to go down that road? How will they handle this in the future? It's all but certain that if the Clovers are ever inducted, it will also be as an Early Influence. But what about acts like the aforementioned Five Keys, Five Satins, and Harptones? Some would argue that I'm putting the cart way before the horse, as it is unlikely those acts will ever be nominated, let alone inducted; however, not only have all three been Previously Considered, it's an important question to ask because the slope is already getting a little slippery to keep credibility intact (and even then some would say that ship has sailed). They've already hammered at other stones, like rockabilly with Wanda Jackson. What if they decide they owe something to lesser-known-but-still-important '50s guitar hero and rock outfit Buddy Knox And The Rhythm Orchids? What if they want to induct Chubby Checker as an Early Influence because he was an early precursor to EDM? Or Lesley Gore for being an original standout figure that paved the way for "riot grrls" like Joan Jett?
This is why I oppose fellow monitors who suggest the "movable timeline," that Early Influence is best applied to those who predate, but helped laid the groundwork for major patches of musical mini-epochs. By that logic, the MC5 are a prime candidate for Early Influence induction for predating, but heavily influencing punk. It's ridiculous: rock 'n' roll music is constantly evolving, and everything that is current is potentially significant in its pre-dating of something to come. That doesn't make what we have now, "not rock." And that's the latent effect you're ultimately having when you call a musician or group "Early Influence" instead of "Performer." You are decidedly declaring it as "not rock 'n' roll." I've already dealt with people in real life who think that REAL rock 'n' roll didn't exist until the Beatles came along or until Bob Dylan plugged in, or think that if it ain't hard or metal, it ain't rock. And every once in awhile some chucklehead will spew ignorance stating that soul, reggae, and rap have nothing to do with rock 'n' roll.
This is why I can only be marginally happy for the "5" Royales when they get inducted as an Early Influence, instead of Performer. Or Wanda Jackson. Or Freddie King. (Or Ringo Starr as AME, but that was last entry.) When you get an award, it's supposed to mean something. But when you play the game the way the Hall is doing it now, it becomes less meaningful. Its integrity is compromised. It's why I'm infuriated when the inductees or surviving family members (and fellow non-affiliated fans and even fellow Monitors) are so gracious about induction. It pains me to know that they're not getting their full or proper due. I'm told I should just be thankful that they ARE getting official recognition in some capacity. But I'm not. I can't be. Earning the award you're given within its proper parameters is rewarding. This is a pity induction, and it shouldn't happen this way. Do it right, or don't do it at all.
I won't go so far as to say the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame Foundation owes it to us to get it right. No, but they DO owe it to the inductees, the inductees' surviving families and loved ones, history itself, and even to themselves, for their own credibility's sake. Having rabid fans howl about their favorite acts getting snubbed is one matter. They're like the fans at a football stadium cheering their favorite teams. By claiming to have guidelines and categorizations for inductees, the Foundation sets themselves up as refs, so to speak. And I won't even go into the mess you get when, by that analogy, Jann S. Wenner is posturing himself as rock 'n' roll's Roger Goodell. Nope, not gonna go there. I'll let Tom Lane do that. The point is, we as fans hate bad calls, and that the Foundation owes it to the players (of instruments, including voice) to make the correct calls, for the good of the game (music history). When they can't do that right, the whole league suffers, especially when a quick peek at Future Rock Legends' Revisited & Projected project shows a plethora of worthy candidates for Early Influences still not inducted into the actual Hall, including but not limited to Sister Rosetta Tharpe, Ella Fitzgerald, the Mills Brothers, the Carter Family, Blind Lemon Jefferson, and the Four Freshmen.
So let's make a point to be more consistent, shall we? Maybe a rule that says once they've been nominated for Performer, they can never be inducted as an Early Influence? That sounds like a pretty reasonable idea to me. As is, the Rock Hall loses esteem for every year they continue to make the distinctions even blurrier.
And to quote Robin Thicke, I hate these blurred lines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)