The Top 5 SNUBS EVER! | Professor of Rock
| Okay, so this one’s an episode I’ve been needing to do for a long time. And I’ll be upfront with you. It’s a topic that really gets under my skin, so I’ll try to be positive. Today we’re counting down my all-time, Top 5 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame snubs… bands and artists who are well overdue for the so-called honor, but routinely get passed over year after year. There is a long list of rock hall snubs…From Iron Maiden to The Guess Who from Pixies to Motorhead from New York Dolls to the Smiths from Joy Division/New Order to Slayer from Styx to Foreigner to Jethro Tull and Thin Lizzy, Motley Crue, Toto the list goes on and on. We’re also going to try to figure out why the Rock Hall routinely refuses to induct actual rock artists into their ranks. They’re called the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame but they seem to have a bias against rock and Roll? I’m not going to be pulling any punches here. I just want to give some love to some classic rock icons that I think we all admire and I want to hear yours too... |
I wish McKee was still here so he could chime in on this.
Link - (
New Window )
Hot blooded is a good song.
I had to tell her that I don’t think a hundred degrees is enough to write a song about.
Link Wray is going in this year. And there are a lot worse offenders than Eminem, whom I have no problem being in the hall.
1) Honor the most popular and/or commercially relevant participants in an activity
2) Needle the public with enough controversy to keep the public interested or upset about number one
Read up on the makings of the Rock and Roll HOF -- the whole production is unashamedly a promo tool for aging acts.
A lot of this is like Oscar's. Politics or who brings in the big bucks. It's hard to imagine anybody getting into the rock and roll Hall of Fame in the age of Spotify and digital music there is so much s*** out there. Even if it's not s*** it's derivative
This I agree with.
But Slim what if you win, wouldn't that be weird?
Yeah, he kinda lost me with that one.
The second omission that I find damning of the Hall’s legitimacy is Little Feat. They had an incredible 10 year run, Lowell George wrote some great songs, they were a kick-ass live band (viz, Waiting for Columbus), and the musical chops of every member of that band were as good as most if not all of their 1970’s contemporaries. They played extremely difficult rhythms flawlessly. The only other band from that era that could compare to them musically were Steely Dan, and they weren’t a real band for most years of their career. If you doubt that pick up the new Steely Dan book that came out this week. After the second album SD never played live and were really just Donald and Walter and a revolving set of the best studio musicians money could buy. Little Feat were always a real band, one that could take what they put down in the studio and better it live.
Rant over. My apologies, but I love music. And despite that fact that injured myself while playing it a while back, Dixie Chicken is a top 10 All-Time sing for me.
i saw Little Feat a couple of years ago and they played the Waiting for Columbus album straight through - amazing
Steely Dan basically hired multiple studio musicians to play their own parts to a song and then picked the best one. That's not a band.
That band invented much of the music that others have copied and played today. Regardless of whether they are your cup of tea, they needed to go in well before 2006.
The bands they put in the HOF the years prior to 2006 (while snubbing Black Sabbath) is just absolutely ridiculous.
Albums sold is tough to debate or deny. Iron Maiden sold 130 mil, Meatloaf (also not in) sold 100 mil, Sabbath 75 mil, Boston 75 mil. Numbers don't lie.
I don't follow the HOF much or how the process works. But I can't understand artists/bands reaching 100 mil or more sold that they are denied?
I don't follow the HOF much or how the process works. But I can't understand artists/bands reaching 100 mil or more sold that they are denied?
That would make sense if the point of the HOF was to honor lifetime achievement or influence =)
What I've heard from the folks I know in the record industry the nominating committee is focused on 2 things:
1) recognizing the acts they grew up fans of
2) promoting legacy acts that are either getting back together or have an album or tour to promote
That's you see a bunch of minor 50/60s acts be enshrined in the 90s and why you see a bunch of hip hop acts in recently.
This side of the Atlantic we are wary of the elevation of journalists as some kind of high priests of taste. Rock'n'Roll works because of a willingness to take whatever the orthodoxy is and kick it over to create something new. Both of these institutions work against that impulse. They are both intrinsically establishment oriented.
This side of the Atlantic we are wary of the elevation of journalists as some kind of high priests of taste. Rock'n'Roll works because of a willingness to take whatever the orthodoxy is and kick it over to create something new. Both of these institutions work against that impulse. They are both intrinsically establishment oriented.
That's a valid argument, although I think it's worth noting that Rolling Stone was never originally intended to be "the establishment," despite Lester Bangs's insistence to the contrary. It was born in Haight-Ashbury at the crossroads of counterculture.
Based on fame, yes. Based on talent, though?
Pretty much anyone who has had a lot of popularity has had an impact on music. That doesn't mean they all belong in the Hall of Fame if you consider a wide variety of factors.
Based on fame, yes. Based on talent, though?
Well, she's more talented that Black Sabbath and Dolly Parton combined so I say yes
Based on fame, yes. Based on talent, though?
Pretty much anyone who has had a lot of popularity has had an impact on music. That doesn't mean they all belong in the Hall of Fame if you consider a wide variety of factors.
If Britney Spears wrote all of her own material, then sure. But she was a prop. Taylor Swift will almost certainly end up there...
The whole idea seems ridiculous to me.
SL, I know the guy (and his wife, we're kind of friends) on the far left in the Turtles pic. His name is Jim Pons and he played bass for the Turtles and later for Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention. After the Turtles broke up, Jim, Flo and Eddie joined the Mothers for 2-3 yrs.
Jim (and Flo and Eddie) were in the Mothers during the concert that inspired "Smoke on the Water" by Deep Purple. "Frank Zappa and the Mothers were at the best place around. But some stupid with a flare gun burned the place to the ground..".
Interestingly, Jim has a football connection, possibly at least partly because that European tour actually got worse for Zappa after the Smoke on the Water show in Montreux Switzerland.
All of Zappa's and the Mother's equipment was destroyed in the fire, but they still had more shows on the tour, so Zappa rented and borrowed equipment to finish the tour. Then (I believe it was) at the very next show Zappa was attacked on stage by a loon in Germany. Zappa fell off the stage (a pretty long distance, at first Jim thought he was dead) and broke several bones including in his arm/hand, ending the tour. It almost ended Zappa's career and Jim Pons ended up quitting the music biz after that show.
Long story, but Jim lived in NYC at the time and ended up working for the Jets as a camera man and eventually became head of the Jets camera/video crew. Later he moved to the Jax area and did the same for the Jags (he's been retired for a while now). Interesting life.
If Britney Spears wrote all of her own material, then sure. But she was a prop. Taylor Swift will almost certainly end up there...
Being serious for a second, I believe many Taylor Swift songs are a collaboration between her and some very prominent song writers and producers. And her management team went to great lengths to disguise that fact back in the day. I think they're more open about it now but...
Now as some have mentioned in this thread, there are a lot of people considered pioneers for major genres of rock who have been overlooked in favor of more famous and popular bands that came after them. So with that in mind, I think it has been as clear as day that the venue isn't a serious depository of Rock history but rather a popular tourist attraction. I mean that was part of the criteria cited for selecting Cleveland as the home because they knew that they could be a big fish in a small pond compared to NY.
Why would anyone really take their selection process seriously enough to be upset?
Albums sold is tough to debate or deny. Iron Maiden sold 130 mil, Meatloaf (also not in) sold 100 mil, Sabbath 75 mil, Boston 75 mil. Numbers don't lie.
I don't follow the HOF much or how the process works. But I can't understand artists/bands reaching 100 mil or more sold that they are denied?
WTF Meatloaf is not in? Hmm not sure if popularity should be a primary determinant of who makes it in, if so I'm afraid Nickeback might get in.
Quote:
Rolling Stone magazine and the Rock'n'Roll Hall Of Fame are about the two worst things ever to happen to modern music.
This side of the Atlantic we are wary of the elevation of journalists as some kind of high priests of taste. Rock'n'Roll works because of a willingness to take whatever the orthodoxy is and kick it over to create something new. Both of these institutions work against that impulse. They are both intrinsically establishment oriented.
That's a valid argument, although I think it's worth noting that Rolling Stone was never originally intended to be "the establishment," despite Lester Bangs's insistence to the contrary. It was born in Haight-Ashbury at the crossroads of counterculture.
Rolling Stones used to be good and actuallt had something like investigative "journalists" that would uncover great acts. But like almost all "major" media sources today, Rolling Stones is hot garbage.
Quote:
In comment 16118945 Gruber said:
Quote:
Rolling Stone magazine and the Rock'n'Roll Hall Of Fame are about the two worst things ever to happen to modern music.
This side of the Atlantic we are wary of the elevation of journalists as some kind of high priests of taste. Rock'n'Roll works because of a willingness to take whatever the orthodoxy is and kick it over to create something new. Both of these institutions work against that impulse. They are both intrinsically establishment oriented.
That's a valid argument, although I think it's worth noting that Rolling Stone was never originally intended to be "the establishment," despite Lester Bangs's insistence to the contrary. It was born in Haight-Ashbury at the crossroads of counterculture.
Rolling Stones used to be good and actuallt had something like investigative "journalists" that would uncover great acts. But like almost all "major" media sources today, Rolling Stones is hot garbage.
That is true. And it's largely due to it being such a print staple that the shift to more digital media made them so much less relevant and so much more of the typical clickbait crap. Add to that the fact that just as a function of time, there aren't any Rolling Stone writers or contributors that come from a pre-RS world, so of course they now feel much more like the establishment.
But at one time, they were the home of Hunter S. Thompson. I don't think anyone would lump him in with the establishment back then.
I believe the reason the R&R HOF is in Cleveland is to some degree similar to why the baseball HOF is in Cooperstown NY and basketball HOF is in Springfield MA.
Rock and Roll wasn't invented in Cleveland, but it was a disc jockey in Cleveland, Alan Freed, who first used the phrase "rock and roll".
When introducing the song "Rock Around the Clock", Freed said something like "let's rock and roll with Bill Haley & His Comets!" The rest is history.
Quote:
I mean that was part of the criteria cited for selecting Cleveland as the home because they knew that they could be a big fish in a small pond compared to NY.
I believe the reason the R&R HOF is in Cleveland is to some degree similar to why the baseball HOF is in Cooperstown NY and basketball HOF is in Springfield MA.
Rock and Roll wasn't invented in Cleveland, but it was a disc jockey in Cleveland, Alan Freed, who first used the phrase "rock and roll".
When introducing the song "Rock Around the Clock", Freed said something like "let's rock and roll with Bill Haley & His Comets!" The rest is history.
If that's the case, the Baseball HOF should be in Hoboken.
Quote:
In comment 16118945 Gruber said:
Quote:
Rolling Stone magazine and the Rock'n'Roll Hall Of Fame are about the two worst things ever to happen to modern music.
This side of the Atlantic we are wary of the elevation of journalists as some kind of high priests of taste. Rock'n'Roll works because of a willingness to take whatever the orthodoxy is and kick it over to create something new. Both of these institutions work against that impulse. They are both intrinsically establishment oriented.
That's a valid argument, although I think it's worth noting that Rolling Stone was never originally intended to be "the establishment," despite Lester Bangs's insistence to the contrary. It was born in Haight-Ashbury at the crossroads of counterculture.
Rolling Stones used to be good and actuallt had something like investigative "journalists" that would uncover great acts. But like almost all "major" media sources today, Rolling Stones is hot garbage.
The same used to be true of Playboy magazine. Might still be. I haven't seen Playboy in about twenty years.
UK music mags, with the exception of Melody Maker, are/were very irreverent, and often guilty of chasing after the next big thing. The tone in the US is much more serious and bowing down before these great artists. So, I guess creating a Rock'n'Roll Hall Of Fame to enshrine them is the next obvious step.
"Thanks to a groundswell of public support and a $65 million commitment from city officials, the Foundation chose Cleveland as the winning site, over locales such as New York, San Francisco, Memphis and Chicago".
I think many of the people of Cleveland were probably aware of the history of their local DJ Alan Freed and his coining of the phrase "rock 'n roll" and that had something to do with the "groundswell of public support and the $65 million commitment from city officials".
My guess is there wouldn't have been "a groundswell of public support" and the financial commitment for just any HOF.
Lonk - ( New Window )
Imo, if you take Alan Freed out of the equation, you don't have a groundswell of public support and $65 million from Cleveland.
Of course. What's your point? My point is I don’t think there would've been $65M committed, without the history of rock n roll and its connection with Cleveland, which was Freed.
Maybe you missed my post above. Freed wasn't just a Cleveland DJ who discovered some big acts.
He coined the phrase "rock 'n roll". Do you really think that had nothing to do with the public support and the $65M committed by city officials?
Quote:
And if there was a groundswell of excitement, nostalgia about a DJ, and no $65M -- the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame would not be in Cleveland.
Of course. What's your point? My point is I don’t think there would've been $65M committed, without the history of rock n roll and its connection with Cleveland, which was Freed.
Maybe you missed my post above. Freed wasn't just a Cleveland DJ who discovered some big acts.
He coined the phrase "rock 'n roll". Do you really think that had nothing to do with the public support and the $65M committed by city officials?
How many Cleveland folks would have even thought about Freed but for the R&R HOF campaign? I would argue that Spinal Tap's "Hello Cleveland!" line had just as much to do with local residents' association with R&R history, combined with a city that was desperate for some sort of destination attraction.
Quote:
is in but not the band that inspired them is a farce. When will there be justice for the Turtles?
SL, I know the guy (and his wife, we're kind of friends) on the far left in the Turtles pic. His name is Jim Pons and he played bass for the Turtles and later for Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention. After the Turtles broke up, Jim, Flo and Eddie joined the Mothers for 2-3 yrs.
Jim (and Flo and Eddie) were in the Mothers during the concert that inspired "Smoke on the Water" by Deep Purple. "Frank Zappa and the Mothers were at the best place around. But some stupid with a flare gun burned the place to the ground..".
Interestingly, Jim has a football connection, possibly at least partly because that European tour actually got worse for Zappa after the Smoke on the Water show in Montreux Switzerland.
All of Zappa's and the Mother's equipment was destroyed in the fire, but they still had more shows on the tour, so Zappa rented and borrowed equipment to finish the tour. Then (I believe it was) at the very next show Zappa was attacked on stage by a loon in Germany. Zappa fell off the stage (a pretty long distance, at first Jim thought he was dead) and broke several bones including in his arm/hand, ending the tour. It almost ended Zappa's career and Jim Pons ended up quitting the music biz after that show.
Long story, but Jim lived in NYC at the time and ended up working for the Jets as a camera man and eventually became head of the Jets camera/video crew. Later he moved to the Jax area and did the same for the Jags (he's been retired for a while now). Interesting life.
That's a great story
You're addressing how Cleveland raised the money. Which isn't what I'm addressing.
I also know first hand from someone at Rolling Stone at the time the founders wanted their museum in Manhattan. They tried to secure private funding, and when that fell through staged the contest with the hopes to attract an investor in NY. When they chose where to put their industry museum they didn't give two shits about Alan Freed, Rendezvous Records, or Mott the Hoople. It was a last resort and is still a bit of inside joke.
The general sentiment from the execs: mucho stupid in Cleveland, but their were financial considerations.
Mitch Richmond is in the NBA HOF. A complete & utter joke.
When the baseball HOF enshrines the Crime Dog this Summer, they aren't gonna make him suit up and play another season.
But look out for Sheryl Crow on tour this Summer.
And last thing on Cleveland, the industry is so in love with the Clev, they do the induction event in Brooklyn.
https://cleveland101.com/cleveland-101-arts-culture/alan-freed-memorial/
"On January 23, 1986, Freed was part of the first group inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland.
https://www.rockhall.com/inductees/alan-freed?gclid=Cj0KCQjwmZejBhC_ARIsAGhCqnegmuOFOTHZdWdEIh7zJykdzxPYjqnSseLHU-n9FdzMlGmjFyQScKgaAuHhEALw_wcB
So:
1. Alan Freed has been called the “Father of Rock and Roll.”
2. He coined and popularized the term “rock and roll”
3. He produced the world’s first rock concert and he did it at the (old) Cleveland Arena.
4. He was inducted into the Rock 'n Roll HOF with the very first class ('86) with greats like Elvis, Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly. It was almost 20 yrs before another DJ was inducted and there are only a few.
Of course Cleveland was happy to have something they thought would be special to become a destination. But I believe the "groundswell of public support" and the $65M committed by the city officials of Cleveland wouldn't have happened without the above. I've provided multiple facts and quotes supporting this.
Ok, I'm done. You guys believe whatever you want.
You're addressing how Cleveland raised the money. Which isn't what I'm addressing.
I also know first hand from someone at Rolling Stone at the time the founders wanted their museum in Manhattan. They tried to secure private funding, and when that fell through staged the contest with the hopes to attract an investor in NY. When they chose where to put their industry museum they didn't give two shits about Alan Freed, Rendezvous Records, or Mott the Hoople. It was a last resort and is still a bit of inside joke.
The general sentiment from the execs: mucho stupid in Cleveland, but their were financial considerations.
I saw your post after i posted my history of Freed. I agree. I'm sure the founders far preferred Manhattan. Most people would.
I'm talking from the Cleveland perspective. I don't think they make that financial commitment without the historical connection. From that perspective, it makes sense like Cooperstown and Springfield.
Whether it's made Cleveland a destination, i have no idea. It hasn't for me, yet.
They got something like half a million people to sign a petition to endorse hosting the rock hall of fame. I've also never been, but good for them putting up the cash and recognizing the legacy and part of history Cleveland played in rock music.
I think it's a bit of a random place to have it. I think Memphis would have been great.
One day I'll get to the museum. I'm going to try and get to induction concert this year, I'm a huge George Michaels fan, and I'm hoping Elton accepts and performs on his behalf.
Quote:
In comment 16118997 Semipro Lineman said:
Quote:
I mean that was part of the criteria cited for selecting Cleveland as the home because they knew that they could be a big fish in a small pond compared to NY.
I believe the reason the R&R HOF is in Cleveland is to some degree similar to why the baseball HOF is in Cooperstown NY and basketball HOF is in Springfield MA.
Rock and Roll wasn't invented in Cleveland, but it was a disc jockey in Cleveland, Alan Freed, who first used the phrase "rock and roll".
When introducing the song "Rock Around the Clock", Freed said something like "let's rock and roll with Bill Haley & His Comets!" The rest is history.
If that's the case, the Baseball HOF should be in Hoboken.
At the time it was built, it was widely believed that baseball was invented by Abner Doubleday in Cooperstown NY.
Toto?