What's the criteria for entry? Is it the number of hits that an artist had during his lifetime? Is it the influence he had on others follow him? Is both? Or neither?
No I'm afraid it's random, more about the kind of dough they can bring in for the ceremony than anything else, as covered by my post last year.
I don't think that there should be a hall of fame for any of the arts, as if you couldn't tell, but if there was a good reason for a music one, consider this:
Frankie Lyman and The Teenagers are in, KISS is not.
Gene Pitney is in, Chicago (120 million records sold) is not.
The Dells are in, Yes is not.
Bobby Womack is in, Neil Diamond (owner of 37 top 40 hits) is not.
Spooner Oldham is in (you really have to know a lot about the music industry to know who he is), Dire Straits (the biggest band in the world for a couple of years) is not.
Stevie Ray Vaughn, Rush, The Commodores (17 top 40's) not in. But Iggy Pop and The Stooges just got in. Influential, maybe (it's debatable), but never big sellers even in their heyday.
This whole R&R HOF thing is so screwed up it's not even worth bringing up. Sorry for the rant. Until next year.
1 comment:
Agreed, the HOF has always been a little strange in their choices. But honestly, is there any organization or group that can be global/objective enough to get it right? It's all about the people who are voting, and their personal biases, after all. There was a Melody Maker poll in the '90s that had Oasis trumping the Beatles for "best band ever" or some such. And we don't even have to get into the Grammys, AMAs, etc.
I've been annoyed at the HOF's choices since year one, but honestly, who are these guys and what makes their opinion carry so much weight? As the old saying goes, everyone's a critic....
Post a Comment