Music: Rock and roll hall of fame nominations 2021: Tina, King, go gos, Jay z,foofighters

[tarheelhockey]

Serious question, how the heck is Jay-Z even eligible for the Rock and Roll HOF?

I get that they've been inducting rappers for a while now, but... why? It's not like these are rock-rappers, or even a stretch like Run DMC. They're really clearly of a different genre that is not at all Rock and Roll.

 

[Weztex]

Surprised Carole King wasn't inducted long ago. Not many prople wrote more memorable hits than she did.

She’s been inducted as a songwriter in 1990. She’s getting in as a performer now.

 

[Weztex]

Serious question, how the heck is Jay-Z even eligible for the Rock and Roll HOF?

I get that they've been inducting rappers for a while now, but... why? It's not like these are rock-rappers, or even a stretch like Run DMC. They're really clearly of a different genre that is not at all Rock and Roll.

Serious (and long) answer, since it's a subject I enjoy. It seems to me the opinion that Rap shouldn't be part of the Rock and Roll HoF is fairly recent and comes from a culturally tinted view of Rock and Roll.

Rap is a direct offshoot of rock music. It was literally built on samples from James Brown, Sly & the Family Stone or Parliament/Funkadelic. In 1969, whether you were listening to those or to Led Zeppelin, Cream and Steppenwolf, nobody was doubting that you were into rock music. All those bands were building on guys like Muddy Waters, Willie Dixon, Louis Jordan or Big Joe Turner.

Now the next generation of artists took what they liked from 60’s and 70’s rock artists and built upon it. Many new African-American artists were putting emphasis on the rhythmic and funky side of the music (Marvin Gaye, Earth Wind & Fire, Michael Jackson…), while many other went for the heaviness of it (AC/DC, Metallica, Van Halen…).

That’s where it derails…

For reasons that, to me, are deeply rooted in Anglo-Saxon cultural dominance, the latter branch, being appealing to the overwhelming demographic majority, became seen in the mainstream as what rock was all about. Toughness and anger became the sanctified image of the rocker. White males with long hair and electric guitars. The other branch which gave birth to disco then hip hop and contemporary R&B was pushed aside and often derided by the majority, even if commercially incredibly successful.

So, the contemporary definition of rock and roll is incredibly distorted. Every year a lot of people get up in arms about Hip Hop being considered for the Hall. I’d tell those people to go listen to Sabotage, 99 Problems or Mama Said Knock You Out and tell me with a straight face that it’s not rock enough to be in the same Hall as Cat Stevens, Chicago and Joan Baez. Amongst the 2 first class of HoFers were James Brown, Bo Diddley, Ray Charles and The Coasters. I fail to see how Iron Maiden, Foo Fighters or The Go-Go’s are, in music or essence, closer to those artists than Jay-Z, Tupac Shakur or LL Cool J.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Serious (and long) answer, since it's a subject I enjoy. It seems to me the opinion that Rap shouldn't be part of the Rock and Roll HoF is fairly recent and comes from a culturally tinted view of Rock and Roll.

Rap is a direct offshoot of rock music. It was literally built on samples from James Brown, Sly & the Family Stone or Parliament/Funkadelic. In 1969, whether you were listening to those or to Led Zeppelin, Cream and Steppenwolf, nobody was doubting that you were into rock music. All those bands were building on guys like Muddy Waters, Willie Dixon, Louis Jordan or Big Joe Turner.

Now the next generation of artists took what they liked from 60’s and 70’s rock artists and built upon it. Many new African-American artists were putting emphasis on the rhythmic and funky side of the music (Marvin Gaye, Earth Wind & Fire, Michael Jackson…), while many other went for the heaviness of it (AC/DC, Metallica, Van Halen…).

That’s where it derails…

For reasons that, to me, are deeply rooted in Anglo-Saxon cultural dominance, the latter branch, being appealing to the overwhelming demographic majority, became seen in the mainstream as what rock was all about. Toughness and anger became the sanctified image of the rocker. White males with long hair and electric guitars. The other branch which gave birth to disco then hip hop and contemporary R&B was pushed aside and often derided by the majority, even if commercially incredibly successful.

So, the contemporary definition of rock and roll is incredibly distorted. Every year a lot of people get up in arms about Hip Hop being considered for the Hall. I’d tell those people to go listen to Sabotage, 99 Problems or Mama Said Knock You Out and tell me with a straight face that it’s not rock enough to be in the same Hall as Cat Stevens, Chicago and Joan Baez. Amongst the 2 first class of HoFers were James Brown, Bo Diddley, Ray Charles and The Coasters. I fail to see how Iron Maiden, Foo Fighters or The Go-Go’s are, in music or essence, closer to those artists than Jay-Z, Tupac Shakur or LL Cool J.

Interesting post and perspective. I definitely do agree there's a certain subtle racial element to this, though I disagree a bit about it being a new thing. I definitely do remember a very clear rock/rap culture war going back to the 80s when rap first started breaking into the mainstream. It's one of those things where someone hears Public Enemy on the radio and says "that's not even music, they can't even play an instrument, they're just talking, a child could do this" and then changes the channel to Whitesnake and starts jamming out. And that really has never gone away, you can still see the same thing today in the "Freddie Mercury vs Kanye" stuff. I don't think that stuff is consciously racist (necessarily) but there's a certain undertone of affirming one set of cultural currency while disparaging the other. And ignoring the fact that the same argument could easily be made in the other direction if it's really only about the quality of the art.

Anyway, back to topic, I do think you have a really good point about how these genres blend into each other and have much more influence on each other than it might seem superficially. Where it loses me is the idea that this is still a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, when they are inducting artists who by any meaningful definition are definitely not rock artists. It's a bit different to induct James Brown because he was an early pioneer of rock -- than it is to induct let's say Eminem because he samples rock. Maybe you do want to tell that part of the story somewhere in the museum, in a wing or special exhibit focused on contemporary influence. But as an inductee? That doesn't make any sense to me, even in light of your great points about how we can think too narrowly about the genres. Even with a lot of effort, I can't stretch my brain enough to call Jay-Z a rock and roll musician.

At some point, the inductions seem to have crossed a line to just honoring success/influence in popular music, broadly defined. If it's gonna have Michael Jackson, Madonna, Jay-Z, the Bee Gees, NWA, Miles Davis... it's pretty clearly something more like the Popular Music Hall of Fame. And that's where you start asking, where's Garth Brooks? Where's Mariah Carey? Where's Celine Dion? Barbara Streisand? Kenny Rogers? Whitney Houston is rock and roll but Sinatra isn't? Why? Like, what are we actually doing here? It's one thing to have a bit of mission creep, it's another thing to start inducting HOF'ers from totally different genres of music than the one in the name and mission of the institution.

 

[Voight]

 

[Weztex]

Interesting post and perspective. I definitely do agree there's a certain subtle racial element to this, though I disagree a bit about it being a new thing. I definitely do remember a very clear rock/rap culture war going back to the 80s when rap first started breaking into the mainstream. It's one of those things where someone hears Public Enemy on the radio and says "that's not even music, they can't even play an instrument, they're just talking, a child could do this" and then changes the channel to Whitesnake and starts jamming out. And that really has never gone away, you can still see the same thing today in the "Freddie Mercury vs Kanye" stuff. I don't think that stuff is consciously racist (necessarily) but there's a certain undertone of affirming one set of cultural currency while disparaging the other. And ignoring the fact that the same argument could easily be made in the other direction if it's really only about the quality of the art.

Anyway, back to topic, I do think you have a really good point about how these genres blend into each other and have much more influence on each other than it might seem superficially. Where it loses me is the idea that this is still a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, when they are inducting artists who by any meaningful definition are definitely not rock artists. It's a bit different to induct James Brown because he was an early pioneer of rock -- than it is to induct let's say Eminem because he samples rock. Maybe you do want to tell that part of the story somewhere in the museum, in a wing or special exhibit focused on contemporary influence. But as an inductee? That doesn't make any sense to me, even in light of your great points about how we can think too narrowly about the genres. Even with a lot of effort, I can't stretch my brain enough to call Jay-Z a rock and roll musician.

At some point, the inductions seem to have crossed a line to just honoring success/influence in popular music, broadly defined. If it's gonna have Michael Jackson, Madonna, Jay-Z, the Bee Gees, NWA, Miles Davis... it's pretty clearly something more like the Popular Music Hall of Fame. And that's where you start asking, where's Garth Brooks? Where's Mariah Carey? Where's Celine Dion? Barbara Streisand? Kenny Rogers? Whitney Houston is rock and roll but Sinatra isn't? Why? Like, what are we actually doing here? It's one thing to have a bit of mission creep, it's another thing to start inducting HOF'ers from totally different genres of music than the one in the name and mission of the institution.

Well, the genre in the name of the institution was pretty much dead by the early 60's anyway. To me, be it Simon & Garfunkel, The Supremes, Van Morrison or Steely Dan, 80% of the inductees are different genres than rock and roll. So the precedent has always been there. I get that they are in the broader rock genre but the definition of this one as as diverse as there are music fans. By popular contemporary standards, artists like The Everly Brothers, Sam Cooke, The Coasters or Bob Dylan would't be considered rock whereas they probably were near unanimous selections.

So it's worth questioning, why does Hip hop artists nominations triggers that emotive a response in opposition to say, Laura Nyro or Joan Baez? What is it stylistically that makes it break away from the rock umbrella genre? Is it the different singing delivery, is it the use of sampling, is it the departure from the 12-bar blues structure? Also, what makes an artist rock and roll? Are we simply reducing rock to electric guitar? I'd like for people to verbalize their view on that.

I feel like the HoF is encompassing everything that's been influenced by rock and roll. So yeah, pretty much popular music post-1954. In that light I get why country or traditional pop artists would't be considered since those genres predate RnR. Would a Popular music Hall of Fame be preferable? Maybe. But could we ever hope to see giants like The Velvet Underground or Joy Division getting some kind of recognition? Who knows?

I love pop music history and its evolution. When doing a lineage between eras and styles I find it hard to put boundaries that could encompass the extend of rock music. Is Hip Hop out of those boundaries? Maybe. To many it sure is. But I seriously wouldn't know where to draw a clear line. To me Beastie Boys are more rock than Jethro Tull. Why them and not N.W.A. then? Then what about Tupac? Where do we stop? It's a fun debate.

 

[Voight]

Serious question, how the heck is Jay-Z even eligible for the Rock and Roll HOF?

I get that they've been inducting rappers for a while now, but... why? It's not like these are rock-rappers, or even a stretch like Run DMC. They're really clearly of a different genre that is not at all Rock and Roll.

Its turning more into a music hall of fame lately. I guess they realize if they don't start inducting rappers and the like, then someone will either make just a music hall of fame or a rap hall of fame. Better to keep yourself as the only option than risk a competing institution open - i.e. now you'll have certain people visiting the place because the likes of Tupac/Jay Z are in.

(Yes I realize theres apparently a hip-hop hall of fame but I honestly dont know of many people who've gone to see it)

 

[blueandgoldguy]

Great to see some acts receive their long overdue inductions.

Just think, in a couple years these guys will be eligible!

 

[Gordon Lightfoot]

It's the popular music hall of fame. No need to overanalyze it.

 

[Roo Returns]

Serious question, how the heck is Jay-Z even eligible for the Rock and Roll HOF?

I get that they've been inducting rappers for a while now, but... why? It's not like these are rock-rappers, or even a stretch like Run DMC. They're really clearly of a different genre that is not at all Rock and Roll.

He's very influential and powerful in the business is the short answer. I was at the RNR building in 2016 and he had an exhibit directly across from Beyonce.

 

[Jumptheshark]

So you are saying black people only get nominated because of politics?

Nope--She is and has been friends with many of the nominating committee for years and she knows where the bodies are buried and who buried them