Talk:Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ohio Portal

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Entry Criteria

Can someone explain what is needed to be eligible as a member of the hall of fame? I dont get how a band *can* be in in year 20XX. Is there a limit per year ? please expain 09:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Crystaliser

Artists become eligible for induction twenty-five years after their first release. 74.77.208.52 17:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy?

Quote: "The Cleveland location is controversial, but considered historically appropriate......"

Who makes this statement? Doesn't seem NPOV --Seltar 19:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

At the time it was definitely "controversial" in the NPOV sense that it created a controversy. There was a bidding war, there were media polls, and the announcement was met with a huge, nationwide huh? They even ended up putting the question Why is it in Cleveland? in the website's FAQ! I hope the new wording makes it a little clearer, but I'm not picking up an old RS just to find a quote. --Dhartung | Talk 03:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I understand the controversial location remark now, and thanks for the clarification in the article. Seltar 19:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

It's in Cleveland because Alan Freed who coined the term rock and roll was a DJ there Doc Strange (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources on Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

Jake Packman, a Wikipedia user asked the following questions through the Wikipedia help list:

I am a 7th grader at Hall Middle School in Corte Madera, Ca.. I have chosen The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as my topic for a major research paper which is due on November 30th.. However, I can not use the internet for reference material. Can you send me some information or recommend books I can purchase. My interests are on why was it started, how Cleveland became the home for the Museum, how the induction process works, who are the inductees, any controversies surrounding the museum and anything else you might think is important.

Thanks for any information you can provide me.

I responded:

Their website states that "All aspects of the induction process are handled by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation. It can be reached at 1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10104. The Foundation does not have e-mail available. " You might wish to write to them for suggested types of information.

In the early years namely the mid to late 1980's Rolling Stone Magazine" was heavily involved in the process. You might wish to look at copies of the magazine from that period to help you with your research.

The Rock Hall itself has an education office. You might wish to send an e-mail to Education@rockhall.org.

Does anyone else have any suggestions. Capitalistroadster 03:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

That rock n roll hall of fame is a joke still. I'd better see Donna Summer, Yes, Kraftwerk, Black Sabbath, Madonna, Run DMC, The Clovers, Wynonia Harris, etc., inducted or else this is truly a flawed joke.

The entire grunge genre has been over looked. Generation X were shaped by such songs as "Black Hole Sun", "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Alive".

The article is only for discussing improvements to this article, not for discussing the subject of the article. However, if you read this page, you'll note that no grunge bands are going to be eligible for a couple more years. I don't believe Madonna or Run DMC are eligible yet either. Tuf-Kat 18:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

In regards to grunge, I don't think most of them meet qualifications yet. I'm positive that Nirvana has about ten years before they are qualified. ~Scorpion

Correct--yes, many of the artists/groups suggested are not yet eligible for induction, and yes, this is not a message board to discuss one's own opinion of who should be in the Hall of Fame. -- Pennyforth 21:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Rush has yet to be inducted, and reportedly one of the Rolling Stones (magazine) guys hates their music and said that they'd never get in, despite being one of the best-selling groups of all time. I am still looking for that cite. If anyone can find it, I think it ought to go into this section. Ikilled007 16:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abbreviations

The abbreviations RRHOF and RRHOFM are not listed anywhere in the article. There are also no existing redirects to this article for users that search for those abbreviations.

There is a redirect for RRHOF but not one for RRHOFM, RARHOF, RNRHOF, RARHOFM, RNRHOFM, RaRHoF, RnRHoF, RaRHoFM, and RnRHoFM.

If what the rock and rock hall of fame calls this latest group I guess I will start playing country. What changed the music back in the 70's was groups like the guess who, BTO and then Kiss. These groups had a major impact on the music world then and still are played today by many.

[edit] Rock 'n' Roll

Why are Bob Marley and Prince -for instance- in the "Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame". Their music can't really be called rock and roll. Or am I misunderstanding what "rock and roll" means? If I am right about this shouldn't there be something in the article pointing this out.(MrDeBeuker 04:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

Wikipedia makes a distinction between rock and roll and rock music. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame calls all rock music rock and roll, but also adds in even more tangential stuff like reggae. In this context, it basically just means "Anglo and African American popular music plus reggae". Tuf-Kat 05:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

R&B IS Rock, supplanted by Alan Freed. Rock n roll was original black slang for sex, and is esentially black music. Ask Robert Palmer, Dave Marsh, any of the Rock N Roll Hall of fame members and they will tell you the exact same thing. It's just been ingrained into the media that rock is white music and started by Elvis even though Elvis himself continually refuted that claim, always owing his debts to African Americans. Rock was born in the late 40s and early 50s. Rock is disco, prog, folk-rock, funk, punk, rap/hip hop, grunge, soul, etc., all firmly entrenched in R&B before Freed coined the music rock n roll so as to have better marketability and to detach the stigma of whites buying black records.

The real answer to this question is that the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame would be better named the Music Industry Hall of Fame. It's all about corporate product, with a generous icing of smugness and complacency. BTLizard (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do we need this paragraph?

"Not everybody is happy with the selection process, which some feel is effectively controlled by a few individuals, including founder Jann Wenner and writer Dave Marsh, and therefore reflects their tastes, rather than the views of the rock world as a whole. Hence, there are a disproportionate number of lesser known 1950s acts, as opposed to, for example, progressive rock and heavy metal acts. In addition, most of the inductees are American or are British that were successful in the US."

I think that this paragraph should not belong on this wiki. I have never heard any real criticism nor can see how it is really possible for it. How can the RARHOF be controlled be a few individuals and only reflect their tastes? The committee is made up of about 1000 rock historians and experts. If there is any true controversy on this issue it should have its own section rather being tacked on at the beginning.

[edit] Rock and Roll Hall of Fame / Jim Morrison

I was just at the Rock and The Roll Hall of Fame maybe about a week or so more ago as of this date here in the talk section. And I had took particular interest to the small exhibit that was focused mainly on Jim Morrisson of the Doors. I had paid careful and close attention to the chronology time line of the letters and photos through 1965 and into 1971 to and from Jim Morrisson before the time of when he and the Doors got there start. In and around what was maybe 1965 for when Jim did not seem to have such long hair as he is so well known today from so many photos circulated all over the world leading up to the time for when he died in Paris in what I think was possibly either 1970 or 1971. I was kind of amazed from that exhibit that before the time of when the Doors got there start and in the letters and the photos with his family. He had seemed to me quite bright and educated and infact lucid and clear not just in the ways of poetry and of language and cinema and of film but also in many other ways as well. And maybe 4 or 5 years later he is found dead inside of some bath tub somewhere in Paris. I guess that is what excess drinking and drugs will do that to a person. Before the Doors he seemed quite intelligent and balanced and rational and educated and quite a uniqye and a interesting person back in 1965 to know. www.geocities.com/berniethomas68 02:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sex Pistols

Which one of the Sex Pistols was quoted as saying their induction at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame was but a mere piss stain www.geocities.com/berniethomas68 02:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I can completely understand that response, bearing in mind that the concept of a 'hall of fame' seems to be an institution unique to the USA. Until I stumbled across this page I thought that the term was more of a conceptual validation used in american english, a bit like you would say "so and so is the best in the world", I didn't realise that an actual hall existed and that there was a whole system of inductions and nominations, the whole thing sounds like a themed truck stop. Like miss world or the european song contest, does anyone take it seriously? 81.102.245.93 19:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Unique to the USA? Make sure you tell that to the UK Music Hall of Fame. 74.77.208.52 18:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It was John Lydon. Who else? BTLizard (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of editorializing from "criticism" section

I have removed the following from the "Criticism" section:

"Not everybody is happy with the selection process, which some feel is effectively controlled by a few individuals, including founder Jann Wenner and writer Dave Marsh, and therefore reflects their tastes, rather than the views of the rock world as a whole. Hence, there are a disproportionate number of lesser-known 1950s acts, as opposed to, for example, progressive rock and heavy metal acts. In addition, most of the inductees are American or are British artists that were successful in the U.S."

This section has no sources, uses weasel words, is far from neutral, and is generally opinion rather than fact. User:Scorpion0422 has reinserted this language twice now without comment; I ask that the content not be replaced until these issues can be resolved. JDoorj a m Talk 16:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If you look at a whole bunch of articles about the Rock Hall of Fame, you will see these exact criticisms. And it is as neutral as it can be. It is important to note things like these, especially in a controversies section.

Go here: http://www.futurerockhall.com/blog_files/category-15.html and scroll down to "Do petitions help get bands into the Rock Hall?" -- Scorpion0422 19:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

But you don't list any sources for the criticism as it now stands. For instance, who says that their selection of largely American and British bands is a bad thing? It might be true, but who is citing it as criticism? Similarly, who says that their selection of few hard rock acts is a bad thing? In order to be listed as criticism, it has to be more than simply true that there are few hard rock acts or mostly American and British acts. Someone notable (preferably a few notable people) have to actually be saying that this is a problem. This article, on the other hand, is a decent source for criticism (it's the original article referenced in the link you provided). It can probably be used in supporting assertions that the board is controlled by corporate interests, and does not listen to fans. I've reverted the article again, as the criticism cited in the article is, so far, sourceless. JDoorj a m Talk 23:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If sources are so important, why don't you add them in as opposed to just complaining about it? -- Scorpion0422 18:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh? If the criticism is so pronounced, why don't you find sources instead of just reinserting the content? JDoorj a m Talk 00:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy now? Although, it seems to me that as the one who was whining the most, you should have done it. -- Scorpion0422 01:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you should do it since it's your material. Back up what you write. Don't expect people critical of what you write to back it up for you. 74.77.208.52 18:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status of Criticism Section

See my personal policy on Unwarranted criticism sections.

Currently there are several problems with the criticism section.

The sections sounds like a review. The criticism section takes up more than 30% of the article itself. Please remember Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
It only includes 1 reference, used twice - the only reference in the entire article.
It includes a lengthy quote that strays from the main topic of the article.
The article uses weasel words: "A former member of the nominations board once said" & "This has led to the belief"

I propose deleting a bulk of the section including the quote, referencing the introductory sentences, and keeping the referenced statement. I also propose turning this section into a subsection of "Hall of Fame." Questions/Comments? Chupper 05:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I delted the last part. As for the quote, it's sourced, so why delete it? It's fine just the way it is. And as for the hard rock/prog rock thing, every time I try deleting it, a half a dozen random people just readd "There is no hard rock" or something along those lines. And the groups are also randomly added as well. -- Scorpion 13:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Metal

There are also no metal bands. 67.188.172.165 04:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that could be noted here, but the way you worded was extremely POV. I'll add that, but we need to keep the article NPOV. -- Scorpion0422 04:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely the whole institution of a hall of fame is POV.

Actually Sabbath is in. Took almost ten years, but they're in Doc Strange (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Someone help with this sentence

"Some feel the induction process is controlled by a few individuals, including founder Jann Wenner, former foundation director Suzan Evans, and writer Dave Marsh, reflecting their tastes rather than the views of the rock world as a whole."

Is Jann Wenner someone who feels that the nomination process is controlled by others, or is he one on the people doing the controlling? As written it is ambiguous.

It means that the voting process is controlled by those three. I'll reword it. -- Scorpion0422 20:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Omissions Section?

Does anyone else think that there should be a section on artists that have been said to be deserving induction and are not. Each artist would need to be referenced, eg from a music reporter or another artist.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shniken (talk • contribs) 03:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Jethro Tull —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.247.8 (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rush Controversy

I think this section adds information that there's no reason to exclude from this article. One of the guys who has a vote has clearly said a specific band (rush) will NEVER get in. That's noteworthy. Ikilled007 17:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to explain why this doesn't belong. It's controversial and it's about the R&RHOF. Ikilled007 20:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- The section is called "Criticism" not controversy and this is an article about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, not "Why ____ isn't in", so if there is a big section about why Rush is supposedly hated by the RRHOF committee, why not a large section about KISS, Def Leppard, the Moody Blues, the Stooges, Jethro Tull and other bands that the RRHOF supposedly hates? The section would be better off in the Rush article, not here. The section is for criticism of the Hall in general, not why certain groups are supposedly being snubbed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  - Why not add it to the progressive rock sentence, that is already included in the criticism section?
  - Also: "being the only true prog rock group". The true is completely out of place here.. My 2 cents ;) Johnnyw talk 12:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Like I said, we're avoiding mention of specific groups, if we mentioned Rush, we'd have to mention why other Progressive Rock groups are supposedly being held out. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
      - I didn't propose including a new paragraph, actually not even a sentence per group. The point of interest shouldn't be a singular case, as you already stated, but illustrating rather dubious reasons for exclusion could be relevant. For example if there is a specific, documented case, it could be included like so: "With Pink Floyd[3], there has been only one progressive rock inductee, while other genre members are until today being excluded for reasons such as personal dislike of jury members (Rush)[4]." If different cited cases pop up, an expansion of the sentence wouldn't hurt the article. --Johnnyw talk 22:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

1) If you know anything about usual rockcrit biases you'll concede it's unlikely that HOF hates the Stooges. There's probably just not enough voter support for their induction (in fact, they've been nominated several times already); the worthiness of prospective inductees seems to be gauged by an index of popularity, critical acclaim, and historical relevance. The Stooges certainly score on counts 2 and 3 (although much of their acclaim came years after they first split) but fail utterly on the first. They had no hit albums or singles and today are still known almost chiefly by punks-come-lately and music snobs like you and me. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they get in when and if the voting body has some new blood.

2) Unless there's a sea change in mainstream rockcrit thought, Rush will probably never get in. They're hugely popular; they're rather influential; critics absolutely despise them. I really don't like Rush myself, but I think many prog fans fail to grasp the perspective of the voting body that makes up the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Rn'R emanated from Chuck Berry and Elvis; it should be danceable, it should be fun, and if it is neither it should at least have something substantive to say (particularly about human relationships). I think Dave Marsh might argue that bands like Rush may be "rock" but they ain't "rock n' roll". There's a political dimension to it, too - the kind of technical mastery and high-flown narrative that many metal and prog bands seem to fetishize are values that early rock and roll was dead-set against.

Anyway, if it pisses metal and prog fans off so much that their favorite artists are continually passed over or ignored, they should set up a rival institution. Though considering the rampant PRO-metal and -prog bias I see everywhere on the internet already, they probably don't need to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.155.209.26 (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What about Ahmet Ertegün?

What about this man. He is absolutly missing in this article. But I think he was one of the main initioators of the RRHOF.

[edit] Criticism Section

The cite for this material:

A former member of the nominations board once said:

At one point Suzan Evans lamented the choices being made because there weren't enough big names that would sell tickets to the dinner. That was quickly remedied by dropping one of the doo-wop groups being considered in favor of a 'name' artist ... I saw how certain pioneering artists of the 50s and early 60s were shunned because there needed to be more name power on the list, resulting in 70s superstars getting in before the people who made it possible for them. Some of those pioneers still aren't in today — but Queen is.[1]

Petitions with tens of thousands of signatures were also being ignored and some groups that were signed with certain labels or companies or were affiliated with various committee members have even been put up for nomination with no discussion at all.[1]

Says nothing of the kind. Here is the citation: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,134633,00.html

Absolutely nothing of the above is in it. So, what's going on? If the proper cite for this is the Roger Friedman article, then where is the Roger Friedman article? 74.77.208.52 18:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is a source [1] that is properly cited right at the end of the statement. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Then somebody must have just fixed it, because that wasn't the cite an hour ago. I just found the Fox News article myself and was just coming back here to fix the cite. 74.77.208.52 19:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership

Other articles on Cleveland buildings tell who owns the facility. Who owns the Rock Hall? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.103.194.115 (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)