ADVERTISEMENT

2020 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Finalists

How old are you? I'm 56. I grew up listening to WKQQ, WEBN, etc. They were all marketed as playing rock-N-Roll music. They did not play pop, R&B, Jazz, Country, etc. Check out Sirius/XM radio and channels like classic vinyl and classic rewind are categorized as rock. They don't play Whitney Houston. Channels, such as the blend are categorized as pop. They do play Whitney Houston. The radio stations that played Whitney Houston, for example, never marketed themselves as a rock stations. The expansion of the term has come about in the last few decades to include all pop music. That doesn't mean the term didn't start out as a reference a specific type of music and has been perverted over time to mean something entirely different.
'Rock and Roll' and 'Rock' are different things. Whether you like it or not, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has all different types of artists inducted. Should they go back and weed out the ones you don't consider to be your definition of 'Rock'? No, that would be ludicrous. In the same vein, the new artists to be nominated should follow the original aim of the Hall of Fame.

It's really very simple.
 
'Rock and Roll' and 'Rock' are different things. Whether you like it or not, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has all different types of artists inducted. Should they go back and weed out the ones you don't consider to be your definition of 'Rock'? No, that would be ludicrous. In the same vein, the new artists to be nominated should follow the original aim of the Hall of Fame.

It's really very simple.
I never said any different. They can induct whoever they want. It's their hall of fame. I could start the fried chicken hall of fame and induct the McDonald's Quarter Pounder if I wanted. It won't stop people from saying I'm not inducting things consistent with the name I have given the hall of fame.
 
'Rock and Roll' and 'Rock' are different things. Whether you like it or not, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has all different types of artists inducted. Should they go back and weed out the ones you don't consider to be your definition of 'Rock'? No, that would be ludicrous. In the same vein, the new artists to be nominated should follow the original aim of the Hall of Fame.

It's really very simple.
Rock is short for Rock_N_Roll. You didn't really address all the radio stations from the 70's and 80's that marketed themselves as Rock-N-Roll radio stations that never played pop, R&B, Jazz, etc. The radio stations that played pop music and R&B didn't market themselves as Rock-N-Roll radio stations. Why is that if all forms of pop music are Rock-N-Roll?
 
Ray Charles and Elvis Presley were played on the same stations (they were in the first Rock Hall class along with James Brown, Jerry Lee Lewis and others). Otis Redding played at Monterrey Pop. Sly and the Family Stone were one of the key acts at Woodstock. Most people would consider Motown music "rock" or at least to fit within the same broad genre as the Beatles in the mid 60s. You say that Whitney Houston was not played on rock radio and that's generally true, but she was played on MTV in the same block as rock artists (which was my original point) and that is pretty much the same thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: funKYcat75
'Rock and Roll' and 'Rock' are different things. Whether you like it or not, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has all different types of artists inducted. Should they go back and weed out the ones you don't consider to be your definition of 'Rock'? No, that would be ludicrous. In the same vein, the new artists to be nominated should follow the original aim of the Hall of Fame.

It's really very simple.
You and The RNR HOF absolutely deserve each other: you're perfectly aligned in your thinking.

And, just to be absolutely clear, I mean this in the most sincere and negative way possible.
 
Ray Charles and Elvis Presley were played on the same stations (they were in the first Rock Hall class along with James Brown, Jerry Lee Lewis and others). Otis Redding played at Monterrey Pop. Sly and the Family Stone were one of the key acts at Woodstock. Most people would consider Motown music "rock" or at least to fit within the same broad genre as the Beatles in the mid 60s. You say that Whitney Houston was not played on rock radio and that's generally true, but she was played on MTV in the same block as rock artists (which was my original point) and that is pretty much the same thing.
You are talking about the infancy of genre. When Elvis was popular, would there have been enough "rock-n-roll" music to support a stand alone station? As the genre evolved, radio stations in the 60's. 70's, and 80's created formats just for that style of music. At that point, pop artists were no longer played on rock-n-roll stations. Do you disagree that once rock-n-roll became popular as a genre those stations that marketed themselves as rock-n-roll stations did not play pop music? And stations that played pop music did not market themselves as rock stations?

As I said before, it's difficult to support whether or not the rock hall of fame is misusing the term by using their inductees as proof they aren't. I'm not sure why people keep using their inductees to demonstrate what rock-n-roll means.

Monterrey Pop Festival was a pop festival, not a rock-n-roll festival. Woodstock was not marketed at a rock-n-roll festival, but 3 days of peace and music. Not 3 days of peace and rock-n-roll music. I've never heard anyone equate Motown and rock until you just did it.
 
I could give you all history and analysis all day, but it will all boil down to you don’t like certain genres of music and that why you don’t think they belong.

Music evolves and so do the ways to describe it. It’s called progress and I know that’s a scary word to most of you. If you don’t see a clear wall to build around the types of music, it scares you. It will be OK, I promise.


In the meanwhile, I’ll go search for the “rock and roll” station ( spoiler: there isn’t one).
 
I could give you all history and analysis all day, but it will all boil down to you don’t like certain genres of music and that why you don’t think they belong.

Music evolves and so do the ways to describe it. It’s called progress and I know that’s a scary word to most of you. If you don’t see a clear wall to build around the types of music, it scares you. It will be OK, I promise.


In the meanwhile, I’ll go search for the “rock and roll” station ( spoiler: there isn’t one).
That might be the dumbest thing I've ever read. Why would anyone be scared of how someone describes music? If you're serious, you have lost touch with reality.
 
That might be the dumbest thing I've ever read. Why would anyone be scared of how someone describes music? If you're serious, you have lost touch with reality.
Then why does this thread keep popping up with the same responses nearly every year (2015, 2016, 2017, skipped last year though)?
 
At least in my definition, 'rock' or 'rock 'n roll' music needs at least a few basic items: people who play their own instruments, not music created from computer manipulation, attitude, guitars (preferably electric but there are definitely some 'rock' artists who have been mainly acoustic), a backbeat, no choreographed dancing troupe in live shows, no lip syncing. Now, just because you happen to have all or most of these elements doesn't mean you're any good. But, if you don't have a majority of these elements, then I wouldn't classify you as 'rock'. My definition, of course. But, if I have a museum for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, I'm pretty sure most people would expect rock 'n roll artists to be included. Now Whitney Houston had a ton of talent and some wonderful songs but if we could somehow reanimate her corpse she wouldn't claim to be rock 'n roll. MTV was MUSIC television, not rock 'n roll television, so whether her videos were played next to Motley Crue or not, she wouldn't qualify as a rock artist.

I think part of the problem with the Hall is that, in its infancy, rock was characterized as 'pop' which was short for 'popular'. Nowadays, 'pop' is a genre that is very specific and not just an all-encompassing term describing popular music. If the term 'pop' were used in the same way today, you would have country, rap, hip-hop, rock, electronica all lumped together.

Having said all that, the RARHOF is a joke. Some artists clearly deserve to be there and others are a complete travesty that they're included.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CatOfDaVille
I'm not a fan of Kiss at all. I've never thought they were worth listening to. That being said, they have criticized the RARHOF for inducting acts that do not play rock-n-roll.

Let's be clear about something. Just because several people start a hall of fame doesn't make them the final word on the subject.. Anybody could have started the RARHOF and the artists inducted could have been very different based on the criteria they used. The RARHOF is really no different than the Helms championships in basketball. They have about the same level validity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: augustaky1
I could give you all history and analysis all day, but it will all boil down to you don’t like certain genres of music and that why you don’t think they belong.

Music evolves and so do the ways to describe it. It’s called progress and I know that’s a scary word to most of you. If you don’t see a clear wall to build around the types of music, it scares you. It will be OK, I promise.


In the meanwhile, I’ll go search for the “rock and roll” station ( spoiler: there isn’t one).
I've already pointed out rock-n-roll stations for you. For example, a friend of mine who grew up in Maysville, had several WEBN shirts with the tree frog beer logo on the front and rock and roll printed on sleeve, when we went to college together. He also had a WEBN poster that said "WEBN The Rock and Roll Station". They commonly used the term rock and roll, just as many other rock and roll stations did. Just because most stations have condensed rock and roll to just rock, doesn't mean stations in the 60's, 70's, and 80's didn't market themselves as rock and roll stations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: augustaky1
Feel free to continue making my point by pointing out stations from the 60s, 70s and 80s.
Not sure how that makes your point. Has the term's meaning been changed over the years by some people in the media? Yes. Is that your point, because that is also the point being made by the other side. Not seeing how saying the RARHOF has changed the meaning of the term helps your point. It seems to support the idea that the term has been corrupted over time. If your point is simply that terms get corrupted over time and used in different ways, then well of course they do. It doesn't stop people from pointing out they are being misused when that corruption happens.
 
Pat Benatar should be in. In recent years she has toured smaller venues and put on a good show. Love seeing long careers.
 
Good to know there are so many DMB haters on here.

DMB is not meant for radio play, even though put out good quality studio materials (and they are the only band to ever have 7 consecutive albums debut at No. 1).

They are a band you need to see live and they have been doing that extensively for over 25 years. The were the top-selling live act from 2000-09, and continue to tour every summer. They play 2.5 to 3 hours shows with different set lists every night.

Their live show and longevity made them a shoe-in to get in (if not this year, soon after).
 
Good to know there are so many DMB haters on here.

DMB is not meant for radio play, even though put out good quality studio materials (and they are the only band to ever have 7 consecutive albums debut at No. 1).

They are a band you need to see live and they have been doing that extensively for over 25 years. The were the top-selling live act from 2000-09, and continue to tour every summer. They play 2.5 to 3 hours shows with different set lists every night.

Their live show and longevity made them a shoe-in to get in (if not this year, soon after).

Dave Matthew fans. Every single one of them have punchable faces.

Not to mention his "shitty" band dropped 800 lbs of poop from their tour bus from Kinzie bridge in the Chicago river on August 8th, 2004.
 
If you don't have a guitar in your band, you aren't rock n roll. You'll never convince me otherwise.

rock and roll
/ˈˌräk ən ˈrōl/
noun
noun: rock 'n' roll; noun: rock'n' roll
  1. a type of popular dance music originating in the 1950s, characterized by a heavy beat and simple melodies. Rock and roll was an amalgam of black rhythm and blues and white country music, usually based on a twelve-bar structure and an instrumentation of guitar, bass, and drums.
 
If you don't have a guitar in your band, you aren't rock n roll. You'll never convince me otherwise.

rock and roll
/ˈˌräk ən ˈrōl/
noun
noun: rock 'n' roll; noun: rock'n' roll
  1. a type of popular dance music originating in the 1950s, characterized by a heavy beat and simple melodies. Rock and roll was an amalgam of black rhythm and blues and white country music, usually based on a twelve-bar structure and an instrumentation of guitar, bass, and drums.
If you don't dance to it, is it still rock and roll? It's in the definition.
 
If you don't dance to it, is it still rock and roll? It's in the definition.

Dancing is completely subjective. There are many different types of dancing. Mosh pits, head banging, slam dancing, bobbing your head, etc. are all forms of dancing. So yes, there is some type of dancing to any type of rock and roll music.

Nice try though.

How do you rebut the fact that instruments (specifically guitar, bass, and drums) is a requirement for rock and roll as clearly stated in the definition?
 
Dancing is completely subjective. There are many different types of dancing. Mosh pits, head banging, slam dancing, bobbing your head, etc. are all forms of dancing. So yes, there is some type of dancing to any type of rock and roll music.

Nice try though.

How do you rebut the fact that instruments (specifically guitar, bass, and drums) is a requirement for rock and roll as clearly stated in the definition?
Requirement. That's laughable. That is from an online dictionary. BTW, most music has a guitar in it somewhere. Also, BTW the White Stripes didn't usually perform with a Bass. Guess they weren't rock and roll either. Definition says so.

You all are just stuck on definitions. It's literally the opposite of what music should be about. I could go write a piece of music and use parallel fifths or not follow commonly accepted chord structure. Is the music police going to come and stop me?
 
Requirement. That's laughable. That is from an online dictionary. BTW, most music has a guitar in it somewhere. Also, BTW the White Stripes didn't usually perform with a Bass. Guess they weren't rock and roll either. Definition says so.

You all are just stuck on definitions. It's literally the opposite of what music should be about. I could go write a piece of music and use parallel fifths or not follow commonly accepted chord structure. Is the music police going to come and stop me?

Dude, you're the one trying to argue that Whitney Houston is rock and roll and arguing semantics to try to prove your ridiculous take. Nobody has a problem with her music or other non-rock artists, but literally every rational human being if asked would agree that her music is not rock.

I'm not sure why you are choosing to die on this hill, but you're completely wrong. You do you, and we'll agree to disagree.
 
All HOF’s suck. The RnR HOF certainly sucks. The sports HOF’s suck too...mainly because of sports writers and their stupid vendettas but also because of the stupid criteria involved. Some players transcend criteria....just like some musicians do.

But it’s all subjective. Everyone is going to have their own opinions about who deserves to be in whatever HOF.

But I think there is at least one thing that we can all agree on...it’s long past due that Vanilla Ice should be inducted into the RnR HOF.

Drop that zero...and induct a hero...

vanilla-ice-ice-baby.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: -Mav-
All HOF’s suck. The RnR HOF certainly sucks. The sports HOF’s suck too...mainly because of sports writers and their stupid vendettas but also because of the stupid criteria involved. Some players transcend criteria....just like some musicians do.

But it’s all subjective. Everyone is going to have their own opinions about who deserves to be in whatever HOF.

But I think there is at least one thing that we can all agree on...it’s long past due that Vanilla Ice should be inducted into the RnR HOF.

Drop that zero...and induct a hero...

vanilla-ice-ice-baby.gif
This guy gets it.
 
Completely a lazy argument to cite the tour bus incident, which you obvious had to look up by quoting the date. I’ve seen 60+ DMB shows and couldn’t even tell you the year that happened.

Also it was well documented it was a driver of one of the buses, which didn’t have band members on it, that decided to do that and not the damn band.

IDGAF about someone else’s personal music tastes, I think you should listen to what you enjoy. I’m not a metal guy but have friends that love it, good for them to have the passion to listen.

Except Christian Rock, if you like that you can GFY.
 
The problem I have with your analogy is MTV was never characterized itself as playing just rock and roll music. I've never in my life heard anyone say Whitney Houston was a rock and roll artist. I doubt there are any rock and roll radio stations that player her music. At least I've never listened to one that did. Even satellite radio has channels devoted to specific types of music, including rock and roll. I've never heard any of her music played on those rock and roll specific channels either. The term rock and roll has specific meaning for a lot of people and it doesn't include pop, R&B, rap, etc. I don't really care what they do, but it annoys me that they have taken a term that has been used in radio etc., to mean a specific type of music and turned it into a generic term for all music except, I guess country and jazz. Who knows though, maybe they will start inducting country, jazz, etc., along with everyone else.

My point was that Whitney Houston was played alongside bands like Motley Crue on MTV in the 1980s, and that demonstrates how "music" in general (under the rock umbrella) was much more "universal" in the 80s (and 70s and 60s) than it is today.

And, to the larger point - "rock and roll" is not a radio term or format. If you ask Jann Wenner or Dave Marsh or any of the rock media, it was a youth cultural movement that could "change the world". It was not about a specific type of music. Basically they would say that youth music across the whole "rock era" - from 55 or 56 and ending sometime in recent years, not including country, jazz, classical, easy listening, etc...was "rock" music.

And for whoever in this thread said that the Monterrey Pop festival in the summer of 67 was not a "rock' festival but a pop festival, and that Woodstock was "peace and music" and not "rock music", I don't know what to tell you.
 
My point was that Whitney Houston was played alongside bands like Motley Crue on MTV in the 1980s, and that demonstrates how "music" in general (under the rock umbrella) was much more "universal" in the 80s (and 70s and 60s) than it is today.

And, to the larger point - "rock and roll" is not a radio term or format. If you ask Jann Wenner or Dave Marsh or any of the rock media, it was a youth cultural movement that could "change the world". It was not about a specific type of music. Basically they would say that youth music across the whole "rock era" - from 55 or 56 and ending sometime in recent years, not including country, jazz, classical, easy listening, etc...was "rock" music.

And for whoever in this thread said that the Monterrey Pop festival in the summer of 67 was not a "rock' festival but a pop festival, and that Woodstock was "peace and music" and not "rock music", I don't know what to tell you.
I'm not really following the leap you are making with respect to MTV. MTV is music television. They played random music videos along side other random music videos. The channel was not segmented into specific musical genres. Explain how MTV was "under the rock umbrella". I'm just not following that logic. They played popular music videos, not specifically rock music videos.

Once again, you and others are using RARHOF committee members to support the idea that how the RARHOF defines the term is correct. Jann Wenner and Dave Marsh are both committee members. Surely, you understand you can't use the opinions of the organization in question to support the idea that the organization is correct? Both Jann Wenner and Dave Marsh have come under criticism for how they choose nominees and for unbelievably stupid comments they have made about certain bands over their careers. Wenner, in particular, has been accused of liking any band he can use to make money off of. I certainly wouldn't hold those two up as any legitimate measure of what the term rock and roll means to many people who grew up with the music.

I have already shown examples of the term rock and roll being used to market a specific genre of music being played on radio stations. It was commonly used in radio station marketing to explain to potential listeners what genre of music they could expect when listening to their station. I never said it originated with radio, but it certainly became a marketing term used to describe a genre of music played on those stations. If you listened to stations such as WKQQ or WEBN, you already know that though. They still use the term to market their stations to listeners today,although it has been shortened to just rock. If the term doesn't mean that specific genre of music, why do they use it to communicate to potential listeners what they are playing? That wouldn't make a lot of sense. So when you hear WEBN say they are a rock station to you that means you can hear an occasional Whitney Houston song on that station? If not, what does it mean to you?
 
Is (was) Michael Jackson a rock artist? He had rock songs. Beat It, Bad (to a lesser extent), Dirty Diana: all prototypical rock songs. Is that Rock and Roll?
 
ADVERTISEMENT