R'nR Hall of Fame

[paul secor]

The question is "does being a pop culture icon singer alone mean that you should be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?" If the answer is yes, then fine. But why then call it a "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?"

Are we going to pretend that "Rock and Roll" is this..."pure art form" that's about music first and sociology second (if at all)?

C'mon....

It seems that you're saying that Frankie Avalon, to give one example, should be in the R&R HoF. Given what the R&R HoF is, I agree entirely.

[paul secor]

The British Invasion was certainly NOT engineered by record companies. Capitol Records (the American arm of EMI, which was the parent company of Parlaphone) was quite convinced that the Beatles would have absolutely NO appeal to American listeners, and flatly refused to release any of their records in the US (this despite the fact that Capitol technically WORKED for EMI). EMI had to release the Beatles in the US through Vee-Jay first, and it was only after they had gotten some airplay in the US that Capitol decided to jump on the bandwagon (and sued the hell out of Vee-Jay). Had Capitol planned this all along, I think they would have been more amenible to releasing the Beatles in the first place. In fact, as I recall seeing in one documentary about the Beatles, EMI was told by the suits at Capitol that "the British don't know how to make rock and roll records."

Not to get into a big thing, Alexander. It's true that Capitol didn't foresee what was going to happen. But once it did happen, Capitol - and a lot of other U.S. record companies - jumped on the wagon big time. The "British invasion" was launched, British groups got major airplay - regardless of their talent - and a lot of record companies made big $. I was around then, and I heard and saw what went on.

[JSngry]

The question is "does being a pop culture icon singer alone mean that you should be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?" If the answer is yes, then fine. But why then call it a "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?"

Are we going to pretend that "Rock and Roll" is this..."pure art form" that's about music first and sociology second (if at all)?

C'mon....

It seems that you're saying that Frankie Avalon, to give one example, should be in the R&R HoF. Given what the R&R HoF is, I agree entirely.

In the sense that you can't have a true picture of Rock and Roll without acknowledging that type thing - and especially acknowledging that it was the first, but far from final, example of successful "corporate rock", yeah, I think you gotta put the guy in there in some form.

What's lost in all this though is that some of Georgio Moroder's productions for Summer w3re pivotal moments in not just "dance music" (and wow, who ever thought that the day that "Rock and Roll" and "dance music" would be viewed in antagonistic terms, yeah, let's just sit and listen to it, ok, talk about overinvesting....is Rock and Roll turning into the new jazz? Being no longer at all relevant to anything but itself, it's well on the way...) but general pop culture, including Rock and Roll. If we wanted to be honest about it, we'd make it Donna Summer/Georgio Moroder, but this whole "Rock and Roll" thing in general has nothing to do with honesty, and hasn't for a looong time.

Summer I'll defend on "cultural significance", but Chic I'll go to the mat for on musical grounds, the whole "what is rock anyway?" thing having but one answer as I can see it - "rock" i$ - and haS been - any popular mu$ic that enough white people li$ten to, but no matter, As noted previously, the trio of Nile Rogers, Bernard Edwards, and Tony Thompson were some bad mutherfokkers and not a little bit innovative. No problem with Chic for me, none whatsumever.

[paul secor]

Well Paul, I'd like to respond on a couple of counts. When I talk about rock 'n' roll of the '60s, I'm talking about the white artists except for maybe Jimi Hendrix and I guess Sly Stone who both came later like in '67. The blacks were r&b. So I don't think your defense of r&b is relevant to my argument that the British bands wiped the Kennedy administration record co. pawns off the map.

Interesting that you mention the r&b artists that you do, because as I recall a number of them quit having white radio station hits after Jan.1, 1964: for example Gary US Bonds, Arthur Alexander, Hank Ballard and The Contours.

I also disagree with your view that the British Invasion was a ploy of the record cos. to sell music to white kids. As I recall the kids (the market) were in control; the record companies had (for the time being) lost control. The cos. were scrambling to sign any British act they could. As I said above, the British bands had honed their skills for years in nightclubs. It was the American acts who were created by the record companies, and who promptly lost favor with the kids.

I also note that the British bands each had many hits. The record co. pawns were often one-hit wonders.

edit for grammar

My point was just that the U.S. popular music scene was not a wasteland - as is often described - during the early 1960's, and that the British groups - many of whom covered U.S. r&b and blues records - were not saviors in any sense. And if the British bands "honed their skills for years in nightclubs, the honing sure didn't do most of them much good - at least IMO.

And to answer your last sentence - people like Bobby Vee, Frankie Avalon, Jimmy Clanton, Bobby Rydell, Connie Francis, Chubby Checker, and even Fabian were by no means one-hit wonders - even if their records were pap. U.S. record companies knew how to take care of their money makers - at least until the next big thing came along.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

My point was just that the U.S. popular music scene was not a wasteland - as is often described - during the early 1960's, and that the British groups - many of whom covered U.S. r&b and blues records - were not saviors in any sense. And if the British bands "honed their skills for years in nightclubs, the honing sure didn't do most of them much good - at least IMO.

And to answer your last sentence - people like Bobby Vee, Frankie Avalon, Jimmy Clanton, Bobby Rydell, Connie Francis, Chubby Checker, and even Fabian were by no means one-hit wonders - even if their records were pap. U.S. record companies knew how to take care of their money makers - at least until the next big thing came along.

Well, it wasn't a wasteland, but "their records were pap" and it wasn't R&R. As a minimum, the British groups were aware of themselves as being the equivalents of people like Presley; white singers/musicians reviving the black music they'd heard as fans a few years (or months) earlier.

I DO agree that the years (and not many) spent honing their skills (cough, cough) in the clubs didn't do many of them much good. The best of them - Cliff Bennett & the Rebel Rousers, the Yardbirds, Manfred Mann - were a cut above pub bands; the rest were good enough to accompany a few beers.

MG

[John L]

The question is "does being a pop culture icon singer alone mean that you should be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?" If the answer is yes, then fine. But why then call it a "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?"

Are we going to pretend that "Rock and Roll" is this..."pure art form" that's about music first and sociology second (if at all)?

C'mon....

No. But there is also no reason to also dismiss Rock and Roll as nothing but pop culture. There are a number of artists like Chuck Berry, Dylan, the Stones, the Beatles, the Grateful Dead who deserved to be enshrined somewhere for their musical contributions, in a place seperate from Donna Summer. That is the point.

Edited October 1, 2007 by John L

[JSngry]

Even if these "musical contributions" existed purely/wholly apart from their sociological impact (and personally, I think that the number of people for whom that could be said could be numbered on no more than two hands...), I'm thinking that a nice-sized living room could do the trick almost as well as a full-blown hall....

But ok, I'll play - what is the musical contribution of Chuck Berry? Explain that to me w/o talking about his lyrics and w/o talking about how his groove (which although powerful, was hardly unigue) captured the spirit of the times.

Not that there's anything wrong with Rock and Roll being seen as a sociological phenomenon that manifested itself through music. Nothin at all wrong with that, and if anything, all the more better. I'm jsut saying that if anybody starts getting all...serious about this stuff in a way that believes that the music itself is what made the stuff "important", well, hey - without crossing over into R&B, you got Hendrix, Lennon/McCartney, Brian Wilson (not The Beach Boys), Steely Dan, and...that's about it, unless you're into that Prog-Rock stuff, which to me reminds me of plugged-in versions of all the composition majors I knew in college who still thought it was 1975 and shit and in which I have less than zero interest. And maybe Elvis Costello. Sure, why not.

Other than that......the sociology matters at least as much as the music. Ain't a damn thing at all wrong with that, either, but let's call it what it is.

(and no, not Duane Allman. Fine player indeed, but musically "important" divorced from the whole southern-hippie scene? Hardly. He was a good blues player, but so are/were a lot of people. He was better than most "of his type", but it's the "of his type" thing that is why he matters, and that is where the sociology comes in, and that is what, time after mutherfkking time, is involved in Rock and Roll).

[John L]

If you ask me, Chuck Berry had a very unique and original approach to music that continues to sound original and different today, even though the sociological context has changed. His multi-note guitar style is very much a part of it. Sure, he didn't invent all of it. But he put it together in a personal and compelling way. A lot of his best recordings are not the hits, many of which were directed at white teenagers and had the "maximum sociological impact."

I am surprised that you think that so few rock artists created significant music that can stand on its own. Sure, the historical and sociological context is important to appreciating a lot of it. (For that matter, you could say much the same about Pops, Bird, and Coltrane.) That doesn't mean that Donna Summer is the equivalent of Jerry Garcia.

[7/4]

(and no, not Duane Allman. Fine player indeed, but musically "important" divorced from the whole southern-hippie scene? Hardly. He was a good blues player, but so are/were a lot of people. He was better than most "of his type", but it's the "of his type" thing that is why he matters, and that is where the sociology comes in, and that is what, time after mutherfkking time, is involved in Rock and Roll).

I don't know if he's in and out at the Hall of Fame, but he's a unique and influential slide guitar player.

[JSngry]

Truthfully, I don't hink that music being able to "stand on its own" is that big a deal as often as we make it out to be, not after a certain point anyway. That's a slippery slope to go down, to be sure, but I do think that "music for the sake of music" without some at least semi-rooted sociological context runs down at least an equally slippery slope.

Besides, "it's only rock and roll" ain't too far off the mark. I don't understand the "need" to take something essentially communal and try to make it something else. "This music can stand on its own!" Well, why should it be able to? Why should it want to? Why should it need to? 50,000,000 Elvis fans may have indeed been wrong, but is it really going to matter one way or the other when there's 50,000,000 of them? 50,000,000 of damn near anything is gonna be it's own "right" whether it really is or not.

Besides, "Rock and Roll" without significant input from other musics is just so much White Folk's Preening For Themselves. Even with significant input from other musics, that's (too) often what it ends up being, even when it's good. Now, if you want real White Folk's Preening For Themselves, there's always Nashville. That's the real deal, yeah buddy. But you know how a lot of white folk are, they wanna be "cool" and shit, so they ain't into all that, especially since the "God" thing implicit in Nashville sets up a dynamic of subservience that our noble "rebels" don't want to confront. So they go out and "borrow" from all kinds of shit, some of it tings that they understand at some level, some of shit that they just like becaue it represents some vague notion of "freedom" to them and that's enough, and some of it stuff that they do just because it's "different", and hey, being different, that's where it's all at, right?

So HOOBOY, we got some Rock and Roll now, and uh,,, now it's not enough that we've made ourselves "different" by buying into a false mythology of "difference" instead of copping to collective mass-cupboard raiding, now we gotta make ourselves feel even more better about it by "justifying" it as "art". I don't see the point.

Hell, put me smack dab into the R&B camp if it's the "popular music with serious musical skills" thing you want. That's a form that histroically hasn't had to "borrow" anything to be hip, it just had to go next door to the uncle's crib and hang out. Donna Summer might not be Jerry Garcia, but Jerry Garcia ain't Marvin Gaye either, and if I'm picking 2-out-of-3 with the goal of creating the most harmonious and fruitful co-existence, Jerry gets left behind. A no-brainer for me, that one is.

Rock and Roll - the brand name - has almost always almost forever been about giving White Folk an out, a way that they can feel "hip" w/o having to go to the source(s). It is what it is, and a lot of times it's fun and even nourishing, but it is very, very seldom music that can "stand on its own simply because it's whole purpose it to disguise - to everybody involved - from whence it came and/or where it's going to end up (is not a "Rock Star" simply a bloated, self-indulgent capitalist pig of the rankest variety?). That's not independence, that's a con game.

Hey - I've got y fair share of the stuff that I dig, and I make no excuses for it. But c'mon, how much music is in most of it relative to how much attitude. It's the exceptions that proove the rule, and the exceptions are mighty mighty few.

[JSngry]

(and no, not Duane Allman. Fine player indeed, but musically "important" divorced from the whole southern-hippie scene? Hardly. He was a good blues player, but so are/were a lot of people. He was better than most "of his type", but it's the "of his type" thing that is why he matters, and that is where the sociology comes in, and that is what, time after mutherfkking time, is involved in Rock and Roll).

I don't know if he's in and out at the Hall of Fame, but he's a unique and influential slide guitar player.

I would say "so I've heard", but "so I've been told" would be the truth, since all I hear is a damn fine player, not An Archetype or anything, except for other Southern White Guys, which is certainly ok, and maybe even necessary, but isn't that at least as much sociology as it is music?

And again, that's more than ok with me, but not when the argument shifts to that a "Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame" should nor reflect the sociology of the music if it means letting in Pop Culture Icons. Becuase believe me, Duane Allman, fine musician that he was, is at least as much Subset Pop Culture Icon as he is Excellent Guitarist. Come down South if you don't believe it.

[JSngry]

The category of disco divas includes some pretty talented singers: Candi Staton, Thelma Houston, Gloria Gaynor. Musically, Donna Summer was nothing compared to them (IMO).

Look for Gloria Gaynor to get in eventually. "I Will Survive" has survived, and the RRHOF is gonna have to get to that sooner or later.

But if you wanna go deep into the real of Disco (i.e. - real dance music, not just pop in a Disco style), you're gonna run up against some names - lots of some names - that no consumers of Rock and Roll The Brand Name even know about becaue they were too black/latin/gay/female/otherwise independent of the White Rock and Roll The Brand Name Mythology Rules Of Play, which are simply this - if we find out about you and bring you to our party, you're one of us. If we don't, hey too bad!

It's musical colonialism, even when it's from the "guilty conscience" POV. Ever wonder why so many "Serious Rock Artists" are always being associated with these "lists", things you "should" listen to/know about, etc. and why Rock and Roll The Brand Name is constantly creating lists of the 500 Best Whatthefuckevers? It's because they're dealing from economic strength and moral weakness. They need to let you know that they know that there is stuff out there that is more hip, more real, more...whatever than what they're all about, and they need to let you know that in spite of that, they've got 100, 500, or how many whatever items that it's ok to lik even after you kinda begin to peep that it ain't really all about what you think it is.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

(is not a "Rock Star" simply a bloated, self-indulgent capitalist pig of the rankest variety?)

Well, the ones that didn't get ripped off by the other bloated, self-indulgent capitalist pigs of the rankest variety, who run the record industry probably are.

MG

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Look for Gloria Gaynor to get in eventually. "I Will Survive" has survived, and the RRHOF is gonna have to get to that sooner or later.

But if you wanna go deep into the real of Disco (i.e. - real dance music, not just pop in a Disco style), you're gonna run up against some names - lots of some names - that no consumers of Rock and Roll The Brand Name even know about becaue they were too black/latin/gay/female/otherwise independent of the White Rock and Roll The Brand Name Mythology Rules Of Play, which are simply this - if we find out about you and bring you to our party, you're one of us. If we don't, hey too bad!

It's musical colonialism, even when it's from the "guilty conscience" POV. Ever wonder why so many "Serious Rock Artists" are always being associated with these "lists", things you "should" listen to/know about, etc. and why Rock and Roll The Brand Name is constantly creating lists of the 500 Best Whatthefuckevers? It's because they're dealing from economic strength and moral weakness. They need to let you know that they know that there is stuff out there that is more hip, more real, more...whatever than what they're all about, and they need to let you know that in spite of that, they've got 100, 500, or how many whatever items that it's ok to lik even after you kinda begin to peep that it ain't really all about what you think it is.

Is this post of the year?

MG

[JSngry]

I doubt it, I hope not, but thanks for the sentiment.

[John L]

Jim - I agree with a lot of what you write about the social context of Rock and Roll. I also have a much stronger general attachment to R&B, Blues, Gospel, and Country than to Rock, and consider the overall musical achievements of the former to be far greater than the latter.

Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that, over the course of half a century, a number of people with exceptional and individual musical talent pursued musical directions associated with Rock. The social context was the reason that they did so, but some of these people would have achieved greatness in virtually any musical direction that they pursued.

Jerry Garcia is a prime example to me of an artist surrounded by rock culture and "social context" in the extreme (a virtual cult), but able to transcend all that musically. The context determined what he did, but not how he did it. I always looked upon the Dead Head scene as something that just had to be tolerated in order to hear the concerts. Today, I listen to Jerry Garcia in the same vein as I do Lester Young, Maria Callas, and (yes) Marvin Gaye. Musical genius is musical genius. It can rise to the top even in a social and cultural sesspool.

Edited October 2, 2007 by John L

[MoGrubb]

Hey - I've got y fair share of the stuff that I dig, and I make no excuses for it. But c'mon, how much music is in most of it relative to how much attitude. It's the exceptions that proove the rule, and the exceptions are mighty mighty few.

As far as the business end of music performance goes I'm still pretty bitter 'bout R&R. You know, it's hard enough to get a fair shake as it is without "excessive" pimping/pandering.

R&R Hall of Frame

[JSngry]

I don't get Jerry Garcia and/or the Dead, although a lot of people I respect do. But me? Nothing. Most of it sounds like something that would be better if it were something else.

But again, that's just me.

Edited October 2, 2007 by JSngry

[danasgoodstuff]

I should be glad that this thread generated so much response, and i sorta am, BUT I'm surprised so much of it is narrowly 'rockist', for lack of a better term. On the other hand, I'm equally surprised to hear that tired old canard that rock 'n roll is just degenerate R&B...an attitude imported from other contexts where it didn't make much sense either (see the book Hole In Our Soul). While you, I or the next guy may not care for what white boy/suburban/ mainstream/corporate R-O-C-K made of its R&B roots (which are only part of its roots, naive reductionist warning), it long ago became its own animal with its own conventions, virtues and vices. By any purist definition of rock 'n roll, not much post-British Invasion woud get in and not even some pre-... But any such definition that omits doo wop and/or Chuck Berry is laughably inane. I think a balance between being admirably 'big tent', reflecting the reality of what rock means to its core audience, and still having some standard of greatness could be struck. I don't think the hall has done a very good job there, but Yawn Weiner is free to put in whatever he wants. In my hall o' fame, there would be very few who weren't at least working, if not recording, before Rolling Stone's pernicious influence, and lots of faceless sidemen/women and writers of songs and Lester Bangs...and probably no one would agree with me either.

[7/4]

I don't get Jerry Garcia and/or the Dead, although a lot of people I respect do. But me? Nothing. Most of it sounds like something that would be better if it were something else.

But again, that's just me.

I never got 'em either.

[BruceH]

I don't get Jerry Garcia and/or the Dead, although a lot of people I respect do. But me? Nothing. Most of it sounds like something that would be better if it were something else.

But again, that's just me.

I never got 'em either.

You're not alone.

[danasgoodstuff]

On the Dead, I can't stand Deadhead (qua heads, many are perfectly nice people otherwise) but I kinda like some of the band's work - Live Dead, Working Mans, American Beauty - when it's not for the traditiona pop verities of song slinging but rather for the jam, it's works for me precisely 'cause Garcia isn't a very strong Lead Guitarist in the usual sense, he doesn't dominate the band the was Cipollina did QMS, which allows the Dead to get as close to Red Norvo Trio level interplay as any 'rock' band...never saw them live, and the more I heard about the experience the less I wanted to.

[BruceH]

Can't wait for the Rock'n'Roll Living Room of Fame.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I should be glad that this thread generated so much response, and i sorta am, BUT I'm surprised so much of it is narrowly 'rockist', for lack of a better term. On the other hand, I'm equally surprised to hear that tired old canard that rock 'n roll is just degenerate R&B...an attitude imported from other contexts where it didn't make much sense either (see the book Hole In Our Soul). While you, I or the next guy may not care for what white boy/suburban/ mainstream/corporate R-O-C-K made of its R&B roots (which are only part of its roots, naive reductionist warning), it long ago became its own animal with its own conventions, virtues and vices. By any purist definition of rock 'n roll, not much post-British Invasion woud get in and not even some pre-... But any such definition that omits doo wop and/or Chuck Berry is laughably inane. I think a balance between being admirably 'big tent', reflecting the reality of what rock means to its core audience, and still having some standard of greatness could be struck. I don't think the hall has done a very good job there, but Yawn Weiner is free to put in whatever he wants. In my hall o' fame, there would be very few who weren't at least working, if not recording, before Rolling Stone's pernicious influence, and lots of faceless sidemen/women and writers of songs and Lester Bangs...and probably no one would agree with me either.

Actually, I think I would but for one thing.

Who the bleedin' 'ell is Lester Bangs?

MG

[danasgoodstuff]

Lester Bangs (the shit outta his typewriter) hyperprolific American rock 'riter, died relatively young, subject of intense veneration, bad imitations and at least one thread here where I said that he rocked more than x, w & z musicians/bands.