10 Criteria For The Rock'n Roll Hall Of Fame

[Jesse]

Not worried about order like my usual "Top 10"s. I figure, instead of bitching about this years inductees (hey, Kiss got in this year, I ain't bitchin' about that!), What do we think the criteria should be for getting in the RNRHOF? I think there should be 10 objective things that every inductee should have in common; 10 objective hurdles they all must clear. What are the current criteria? As far as I can tell there are only 2: 1) It must be 25 years since the artists' debut album and 2) The editors of Rolling Stone must deem them worthy. C'mon, I think we here can do better than that! Do I have a better system? No, but give me a few days!

[Frank]

Are you trying to give me another stroke? Lol The RNROF showed how fucked up they are by the way of Kiss disaster this year. That's all I'm gonna say..

[Jesse]

Mar 6, 2014 15:32:05 GMT -5 Frank said:

Are you trying to give me another stroke? Lol The RNROF showed how fucked up they are by the way of Kiss disaster this year. That's all I'm gonna say..

I must've missed something .

[Jesse]

Here's some of mine:


-25 years after debut album. Yeah, this is already existing criteria, but it's a good one!


-10 years after artists' hey day. Call this the "Bonnie RaittTom Waits rule". Raitt's first album came out in 1971, but she really didn't have much success, at least not "Hall Of Fame worthy" success until about 1989-90. Her hey day was from then until about the mid-1990 (1995 or 96) when she became eligible for the HOF. I give the voters a little credit as they waited until 2000 to induct her, but that was still only about 5 years since her peak popularity. Now, 15 years later, I for one, am scratching my head wondering why she's in the HOF as I can name no more than 2 of her songs and can't remember when the last time was I heard either of them! Waits was inducted in 2011, his albums never cracked the top 40 until 1999, top 30 in 2004. He finally hit #6 in 2011! The same year he was inducted! And I still can't name ANY of his songs.

-Minimum of 5 albums and 3 must either be certified Gold or Platinum or have hit billboard top 40. Is this too steep a hill to climb? We'll call this the "Sex Pistols rule". I don't care how good or popular your one album is, this is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall Of one shot wonders! If in 25 years, you can't come up with more than 5 albums (Of new material I should add), then you don't belong in the HOF...period. And in 25 years if you haven't sold at least 500,000 copies of 3 different albums (again of new material, Greatest Hits repackages don't count) then I don't think you belong in the HOF.

More to come.

[Jesse]

Here's another one:


-I Think any artist going into the Rock'n Roll Hall of fame should have at least one song that is identifiable to them. Sure this is a hard thing to measure.....and the public isn't always the brightest bunch to survey (Just watch Leno or Kimmel do their "man on the streets" segments where the general population doesn't seem to know who our Vice President is!) but this really isn't all that difficult a bar to clear if you think an artist is HOF worthy. We're all fairly knowledgible rockers here, humor me and see if you can identify the artists that made these songs popular:

Cat Scratch Fever
Dust In The Wind
Don't Fear The Reaper
Devil Went Down To Georgia
Keep Your Hands To Yourself
I Want You To Want Me
Smoke On The Water
More Than A Feeling
Can't You See

Pretty easy, huh? And NONE of the artists who played these songs are in the HOF! I'm not making the argument that they all should be, just pointing out that if they can do it, so should an artist being considered for the HOF. Wanna play another round? See if you can name the artists that made these songs popular:

I Only Have Eyes For You
The Message
Help Me
Got To Get You Off My Mind
I Want To Be Wanted
Wonderful World Of Beautiful People
Down With The King
Looking For A Love

Can you do it without looking 'em up on wikipedia or youtube? I can't....hint: all these songs were the BIGGEST HITS by artists IN THE HALL OF FAME! Some of these are older songs, but that's no excuse, I think we're mostly aware of who did songs like "Johnny B Goode", "Blue Suede Shoes", "Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On" and "Tutti Frutti". Again, this is the Hall Of Fame, not the Hall Of Artists Who Were Popular At One Time.


Still more to come.

[Jesse]

I have been too busy to come up with another six criteria the last few weeks. Looking over what I already have, I think I have a pretty good bare minimum of requirements for the Rock'n Roll Hall Of Fame already. I'd say the above 4 are MUSTS for HOF entry. All of those, plus one of these and I think an artist is a shoe-in!



-Undeniable influence. It's hard to measure influence, but there are an awful lot of no-brainers: Elvis, Chuck Berry, The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Allman Brothers, Van Halen......and yes, Nirvana (who don't quite make my 5 albums of new material rule, but I have a back-door way of getting them in later here......against my better judgement!) So, if an artist has undeniable influence and meets the first 4 criteria, I'd put them in whether I like them or not.



-Staying Power. If an artist has had multi (we'll say, at least 4) gold or platinum albums through two decades spanning at least 10 years (think Foreigner who's 10 years of hits went from 1977-1987 making them hit-makers in both the 1970's and 1980's), I'd say they are doing something right. While I might not put EVERYBODY who's accomplished this feat in the HOF, I think any artist who's had any kind of staying power deserves serious consideration.

-Pop Culture Icon. Y'know those Gieco commercials with Charlie Daniels and Eddie Money in them? Ever wonder why Gieco chose to use those guys? Cuz people know who the hell they are! 30+ years after their heyday and the general public still know who they are. I don't think either will ever be inducted into the RNRHOF, but I think both should for that very reason. Any artist who is still being referenced in pop culture 10 years or more after their peak obviously made quite an impression during their peak. Not saying I could totally justify putting them in, but think about this: Despite the fact that the Eagles sold many more albums and had tons more hits, "That 70's Show" made more references to Molly Hatchet during their run than the Eagles.....that's gotta count for something!


Still have a few more, what do you think so far?

[Jesse]

Another one:

-Tragic Death. If an artist dies while immensely popular, I'd be willing to drop the 5 album minimum. For the record, this is not to accommodate Nirvana, but rather to accommodate Buddy Holly!

[Equinox]

One criteria would be that 1970's arena rockers should bnot be dismissed out of hand!

BOC
Styx
Foreigner
Journey
Kansas
Tull
etc.....

[Speedy]

The current criteria is the RIGHT criteria...they just need to apply it.

To be eligible for induction as an artist (as a performer, composer, or musician) into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the artist must have released a record, in the generally accepted sense of that phrase, at least 25 years prior to the year of induction; and have demonstrated unquestionable musical excellence.

We shall consider factors such as an artist's musical influence on other artists, length and depth of career and the body of work, innovation and superiority in style and technique, but musical excellence shall be the essential qualification of induction.


I have very FEW problems about who IS in. It's who ISN'T that irks me most. Sorry Jesse, the Sex Pistols belong. That ONE album launched a whole genre of music. To this day Sex Pistols is a known name influencing bands to this day.

The biggest issue is that the "governing body" cannot get past bands/music they do not like. Fortunately now that the public gets a little say things will change for the better.

If I were to be honest, and speaking towards the bands YOU really like...Skynyrd and the Allmans should get in...Blackfoot and Molly Hatchet, as much as I love them should probably NOT get in...at least for many years past their first eligibility date.

It's like the law of obscenity...You can't define it but you know it when you see it. That's the way I look at the HOF.

[Jesse]

Apr 10, 2014 10:18:45 GMT -5 Speedy said:

The current criteria is the RIGHT criteria...they just need to apply it.

To be eligible for induction as an artist (as a performer, composer, or musician) into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the artist must have released a record, in the generally accepted sense of that phrase, at least 25 years prior to the year of induction; and have demonstrated unquestionable musical excellence.

We shall consider factors such as an artist's musical influence on other artists, length and depth of career and the body of work, innovation and superiority in style and technique, but musical excellence shall be the essential qualification of induction



I have very FEW problems about who IS in. It's who ISN'T that irks me most. Sorry Jesse, the Sex Pistols belong. That ONE album launched a whole genre of music. To this day Sex Pistols is a known name influencing bands to this day.

The biggest issue is that the "governing body" cannot get past bands/music they do not like. Fortunately now that the public gets a little say things will change for the better.

If I were to be honest, and speaking towards the bands YOU really like...Skynyrd and the Allmans should get in...Blackfoot and Molly Hatchet, as much as I love them should probably NOT get in...at least for many years past their first eligibility date.

It's like the law of obscenity...You can't define it but you know it when you see it. That's the way I look at the HOF.

Hey, to each their own. This board would be pretty boring if we all agreed on everything (or just kept our opposing opinions to ourselves, like seems to be the case in recent months). My feeling is the current criteria is too vague. What is "unquestionable musical excellence"? Not the Sex Pistols.

"We shall consider factors such as an artist's musical influence on other artists, length and depth of career and the body of work, innovation and superiority in style and technique, but musical excellence shall be the essential qualification of induction"

Again, vague. Sure, put the Sex Pistol in for "Artist's musical influence on other artists" but what about "Length and depth of career and the body of work"? Does that, all of a sudden not matter? Should we then induct an act who had a long and deep career with a large body of work who have influenced no one? (Oh wait, Tom Waits was already inducted....nevermind).

Basically, my bitch with the Rock'n Roll Hall Of Fame is the same as with any Hall Of Fame: The rules are so vague that you can make a case FOR AND AGAINST virtually anybody. You (and, obviously, the Hall Of Fame folks) make a good case for the Sex Pistols getting in. I think I make a good case for not putting them in. From there, it's subjective. Really, there are only a handful of artists (most of them are already in the Hall Of Fame) who you can't make an argument against being in (Beatles, Rolling Stones, Elvis, Led Zeppelin, The Who, oh....there's several more, but I'm too lazy to run it down tonight). From there, it's subjective. With this thread, I was trying to make it less subjective and a little more "ok, we checked 6 or 7 of 10 boxes, they belong". I realize it's not all a numbers game. To compare it to football, you don't put Vinny Testeverde or Drew Bledsoe in the Hall Of Fame just because they threw for a lot of yards and touchdowns in their career. At the same time, you don't put Steve DeBerge in the Hall Of Fame just because he influenced Joe Montana, John Elway and Steve Young (and Vinny Testeverde) either.

[spacel0rd]

Jesse,
I think you are using a little too much logic and stats in determining who should be in and not be in. This is pop/rock music…not sports (where there are definite stats, numbers and wins).
You can hate the Sex Pistols and say how they have one “real album” to their name…but the simple truth is they belong in. When one thinks of punk rock they are one of the first bands that come to mind. For a long, long time, before the Ramones became an overrated iconic sensation (after a few of the members died), The Sex Pistols were the face of punk rock. For that alone, they should go in.
When thinking of who goes in, one has to put down the paper and pen, stop cramming album sales, number of albums, years of activity, ect… You just gotta “go with your heart”. And if a certain kind of music isn’t in YOUR heart, talk to a few other people who have that kind of music in THEIR heart. I’m no Tom Waits fan. I hate him. But I see the impact he has had with his “artsy” kinda rock. And I see how much his fans adore him…and how LONG they’ve adored him. He’s an icon within his weird-ass hipster genre. Would I rather see Deep Purple go in before him? Yea. But I ain’t gonna argue with him being in.
The only thing that surprises me is when acts like 60s doo-wop bands or 70s funk bands go in. Some I never HEARD of. Some don’t even have a signature song that people know. Some have one minor hit.
The O’Jays? Love Train is THAT big of a deal?
The Dells?
Little Walter?
The Moonglows?
The Famous Flames??
The Blue Caps???

[Jesse]

Apr 11, 2014 8:29:08 GMT -5 spacel0rd said:

Jesse,
I think you are using a little too much logic and stats in determining who should be in and not be in. This is pop/rock music…not sports (where there are definite stats, numbers and wins).
You can hate the Sex Pistols and say how they have one “real album” to their name…but the simple truth is they belong in. When one thinks of punk rock they are one of the first bands that come to mind. For a long, long time, before the Ramones became an overrated iconic sensation (after a few of the members died), The Sex Pistols were the face of punk rock. For that alone, they should go in.
When thinking of who goes in, one has to put down the paper and pen, stop cramming album sales, number of albums, years of activity, ect… You just gotta “go with your heart”. And if a certain kind of music isn’t in YOUR heart, talk to a few other people who have that kind of music in THEIR heart. I’m no Tom Waits fan. I hate him. But I see the impact he has had with his “artsy” kinda rock. And I see how much his fans adore him…and how LONG they’ve adored him. He’s an icon within his weird-ass hipster genre. Would I rather see Deep Purple go in before him? Yea. But I ain’t gonna argue with him being in.
The only thing that surprises me is when acts like 60s doo-wop bands or 70s funk bands go in. Some I never HEARD of. Some don’t even have a signature song that people know. Some have one minor hit.
The O’Jays? Love Train is THAT big of a deal?
The Dells?
Little Walter?
The Moonglows?
The Famous Flames??
The Blue Caps???

Hey, whatever. So you are ok with the whole thing being subjective to those in power? Me not liking the Sex Pistols has nothing to do with my line of thinking that I wouldn't put them in the Hall of Fame. I agree with you and Speedy (and a great number of other people in power apparently) that the Sex Pistols were an undeniable influence. I just happen to think that you should bring a little more to the table than that and one record that peaked at #106 in order to get into the RNRHOF. I dunno, is there a separate category for "influences"? I'd have no problem with them being in under that pretense. I am not a big Beatles fan, Rush fan or U2 fan either, but you don't see me arguing against their inclusion. No, because they all bring quite a bit more to the table. My line of thinking is that you gotta draw the line somewhere and I thought it'd be fun to see where everyone wanted that line drawn. But I guess you and Speedy are happy with the blurry status quo. I really had no desire to get into the weeds of arguing who should and shouldn't be in the RNRHOF, I was just using Sex Pistols and Tom Waits as examples. Believe me, I understand the Sex Pistols being inducted, but with Tom Waits being inducted, I think they might as well just let everyone in because what you said about Tom Waits' impact on his style of music and how much his fans adore him and how long they've adored him....well, you can say that about a whole lot of artists who will never get in. Which is why, I go back to my main point, that the whole criteria is too vague and open to interpretation. And when something is open to interpretation, the interpreters have the power. I thought we could do better.

[Jesse]

Fun thread worthy of a bump. A lot of things l wrote on this board, my opinions have changed over time. However, on this topic, my opinion is pretty much the same as it was 8 years ago