Of course one can't paint the whole of the current and future crop of acts that might be considered "important" in the future with one brush. I'm just saying that the definition and ideal that makes up what is and isn't "rock and roll" will have to change pretty dramatically over time in order to have music fit it's criteria.

As a longtime fan of Leonard Cohen, I even think he was a total stretch. I can see acts like Black Crowes, Dave Matthews, Def Leppard, Nirvana, etc. being inducted, but then what? Maybe Radiohead at some point, but I would hope to see Brian Eno in there well before them.

I'm just thinking out loud about what it might be like 25 years from now. After they've dredged the puddles of all the Weird Al Yankovics and the Go-Gos and whatever acts might make their way in.... are we going to see Ben Gibbard of Death Cab for Cutie or Fallout Boy getting into the Hall of Fame? Too soon to tell, of course, but that image is pretty weird to me for some reason.

Again, my comment isn't that the above mentioned are or aren't worthy, but that there will come a time when popular music will have less and less in common with the original spirit of rock and roll as our forefathers created it. Maybe that's the answer right there. Rock and Roll itself, is an ever-changing thing and it's definition will always expand to include things that may have at one time been the complete antithesis of what it once was.

Here's an example for you. There was a moment in the late 70's when you had fat and bloated rock and roll (Van Halen, The Who, Led Zeppelin, Bad Company, etc) completely at odds with punk/art school music (Sex Pistols, Television, Clash, Talking Heads) and for the most part, both were united against the evil Disco.

In 2008, I could easily see giving adjacent respect to Pete Townshend, Joe Strummer and Nile Rodgers in a hall of fame ceremony and no one would bat an eye.

I guess that answers my question. Hell, even the Bee Gees were given a break 11 years ago and inducted. I don't think anyone ever took as much of a beating as they did in the late 70's, while still being one of the most successful and prolific pop acts in history.

I'll see you all when Guided By Voices get inducted!

Roger

No Link Wray. Fuck the Hall.

No Sonics. Fuck the Hall.

Jennever and I went to the hall two weeks ago. It was great as a museum. I could care less about who it in the place, but the museum portion is amazing.

the end

Don't listen to yeti.

He hates music.

No Syd Barrett.
FTH.

This thread popped up on "three random things" and I was reminded of the Elvis Costello quote "Writing about music like dancing about architecture."
A hall of fame for music is just a dumb idea. I can maybe understand a museum. Collect guitars, drum kits, Keith Moon's jockey's. But a hall of fame? Is the criteria records sold? Influence? Creative genius?
Bottom line. My hall of fame is my collection, the music I hear between my ears while I'm in line at the grocery store, the songs I play over and over just to hear that one guitar part or a singer's yelp.
Louie, your absolutely right, fuck the hall for all those reasons and more.

I'm with Gabe on that point. We write about music on this board all the time, and people say plenty of interesting and worthwhile things.

And why is dancing about architecture so ridiculous? If you can't figure out what it might be like to dance about architecture, that just means you aren't a very creative dancer (I would count myself in that category).

I think y'all are missing the point. Its a Hall of Fame. One needs to be famous to get in. Not good or talented, but famous. Usually that means selling lots and lots of records and being around for a while. Sure there are some exceptions but for the most part, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame elects those who are famous. Its not the Rock and Roll Hall of Talent and Ability. They will through a bone to those considered icons, visionaries or influences, but when it comes down to it, you need to sell.