Rock critics are a pretty much useless bunch. Tastes in music are so different, and to compare one act to another can be quite silly. While I certainly understand a really really bad act or musical group, any rock group that has any kind of decent popularity or fan following can't be all that bad; after all, some people must like that kind of music. Otherwise, they wouldn't be shelling out lots of money for it. I disklike Country music, but I recognize that alot of people like it and just because I don't, doesn't mean its "bad music".
What drives me a bit nutty is the Rock n Roll hall of fame. Otherwise known as "who Rolling Stone magazine thinks is important in rock". This is the hall of the music critic. Nevermind rock music being the "music of the people". No, the critics know whats good for you to hear. Nevermind acts that have had large number of loyal fans, lots of hits, and good popularity. No, to critics, that doesn't do it. They give the analogy of such music as being like fast food, and they, like food critics, just don't think its worth a damn. Sadly, the analogy doesn't fit. First, fast food is cheap. If filet mignon was the same price as the whopper, we'd all be eating filet mignon. Music is generally all the same price (with the occasional double album, box set or whatnot). Second, I bet there are some of us who would still crave the whopper, even if offered the filet mignon...
Rolling Stone and its Hall of Fame horde of critics are, by in large, former hippies and oddballs. They spent most of the 70's stoned and the 80's detoxing, in rehab, or raising their kids. Most never left the large cities or college campus areas. They largely missed, or didn't get, the progressive music of the late 70's and the metal/hair bands of the 80's. Such music wasn't cool to them anyways. It was too middle class, too mainstream.
The sad thing is that an entire generation of music is likely to be entirely missed. Lets take progressive rock. Who do you think of? Yes. YES! Of course. How can you not have Yes in the hall? You can't turn on any classic rock station for more than a few hours and not hear a Yes tune. Ok, the beef is "they have had more line up changes than the Pittsburgh Pirates". I have the yes box set and the "family tree" is over three pages long! But come on, just let them in. All of them. What the heck? Is there a limit on the number of people associated with a band who can get into the Hall? For what reason? Its not like the reception room at the Holiday Inn where the fire marshal puts the sign that states the occupancy limit. Gimme a break!
ELO has the same issue. Nevermind that they sold more records from '75 to '85 (the aforemention period where the rock critics were all in rehab) than practically anyone, and that Jeff Lynne is one of the most underappreciated rockstars around (he was in Travelling Wilburys...eveyone else in that supergroup is in the Hall...say no more!!!), plus he is the only Caucasian that looks good in an Afro. Listen to the music. All the sampling, the inclusion of orchestra instruments. They were pushing the envelope. Sure, they did the music for "Xanadu", but hey, we can forgive them, can't we???
Its also sad when the Rock hall doesn't have the greatest rock in roll drummer (hey, Jack Black said it himself!!!) and one of the greatest rock n roll bassists in its midst. Sure, RUSH is controversial, but how many other bands do you know that have been making music consistently (i.e., an album once every 3 years or so) and selling out arenas on tour for over 30 years? They will never get in because Rolling Stone hates them because they don't toe the liberal political line and dislike Neil Peart's Canadian Libertarian views. They also hate Rush because they are sucessful without having to kiss critic ass, making the music that they want to make and liking it. Come to think of it, the Rock Hall is not good enough for Rush. Its the "Temple of Syrinx" indeed, with the high priest clerics critics telling us what we should listen to, and whose music we should honor, rather than letting us decide for ourselves.
The issue with KISS is widely known. Im not even a KISS fan but would argue that they deserve to get in. They paved the way for so many other bands that would come along, including the 80' s metal/hair bands. I could write a whole separate piece about the metal/hair bands, although the hall can argue that most of those acts do not meet the criteria for inclusion in the hall yet. But clearly the writings on the way. They may surprise me, but I would be not more than two metal/hair acts will get in. Probably Motley Crue and Bon Jovi (the former because they would destroy the planet if not allowed in, and the latter because he is now an actor and into social causes, and Rolling Stone just eats politics and the movies up).
There are probably a few more. As many others were, I was outraged when Madonna got into the hall. Not so much that she got in, but that she got in before so many other, more worthy acts. What bothers me is that the Rock Hall of Fame is supposed to be a sort of museum, a tribute to a genre: "take the kids, here is the music that daddy listened to when he was your age...see, he isn't such a square!". Sadly, the music that myself, and the vast majority of people who grew up when I did, will not be included in that hall. Fortunately, I will probably be able to take my kid to a Rush concert, as they will likely still be selling out arenas as always. Besides, why would I want to take my kid to Rolling Stone's Temple of Syrinx???
