The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Vs. Kiss

Let's start with a couple of things I believe...

One:

I believe the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is absolutely justified and correct in reaching beyond the narrow confines that many vocal fans (and artists) have about what "Rock and Roll" is. It's important to include outlying genres, because they strengthen and influence the direction that the form moves in. Make no mistake, the reason we're still taking about Rock and Roll is because it, as a from, evolves. Rhythm and Blues is a stone in the foundation of Rock, which begat Elvis Pressley's Hound Dog, and Cuck Berry's Johnny B. Goode, but also begat Chic's Le Freak, and Snoop Dogg's Gin & Juice.

It's absolutely silly to dismiss music that's designed for dancing. When Little Richard blasted into Tutti Frutti, his goal was to git those teenagers in 1956 on the dance floor. Likewise, you cannot dismiss the clear influence of folk artists like Pete Seeger and Woody Guthrie on undeniable Rock artists like Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen. I, personally, see "Rock" as a rainbow of styles and genres with Robert Johnson sitting at the end like the proverbial pot o' gold.

What the critics miss, and it's kind of unforgivable, is that the Hall of Fame is not just about honoring artists for record sales or fame, but providing education about the history of the form. One of my favorite exhibits in the museum (which is separated from the Hall of Fame, proper), are kiosks where you can search for your favorite artists, and explore a graphic diagram of their influences, and then explore their influence's influences. Using this display, you can see how interconnected the tapestry of Rock is. This sort of education is something these vocal opponents might benefit from.

Two:

I believe Kiss deserves induction into the Hall of Fame. They fulfill the requirements I would personally have for such an honor. They were influential, they inspired other musicians, they have a legacy that deserves respect.

But, really, is their legacy about music?

I mean ABSOLUTELY no disrespect with that statement. There are plenty of truly amazing Rock artists who are important, and it has nothing to do with musical skill, originality, or creativity The Punk movement, honestly, was important because they didn't have any of those qualities, as an example. Kiss wasn't doing anything revolutionary, on a musical level. They wrote good, catchy songs that were aimed to be just that, not compositional achievements. I think any members, current or former, of that band would agree.

That should not be taken as me saying the music is bad. I quite like a lot of the early Kiss material, and it is "classic" for a reason. The wrote songs that people liked, and a big reason was because they weren't overly challenging. A lot of artists did the same thing.

The Original Kiss

What Kiss had that was different was, frankly, image. The reason the band became a phenomenon was because of their make-up, the stage show, the tricks and stagecraft. They brilliantly came up with the make-up, costumes and personas that made it possible to immediately "get" what each guy in the band was about - regardless of music. Paul "Starchild" Stanley was the preening frontman. Gene "Demon" Simmons was the dark creature holding down the bass. "Space" Ace Frehley was the lead guitarist, with out of this world leads. Peter "Catman" Criss was the drummer, away and above it all.

When I was in elementary school, EVERYBODY loved Kiss, but I'd actually lay money that the vast majority of the kids I knew had never heard a single song. The music was, in the end, irrelevant to the image and marketing. They had built a marketing machine that led kids into the fold with four-color superhero imagery, toys, games, model kits, and kept them as they reached their teen years with suggestive lyrics and a general naughty vibe. Kiss owned the world from 1976-1978, and I would, again, with respect, say that had very little to do with music.

This is why I totally understand why the Hall of Fame, firstly, seemed to drag their feet on inducting the band, and, now that they will be inducted, are only inducting the original four members. While Eric Carr (who replaced Criss, officially, in 1980), Vinnie Vincent (replacing Frehley, officially, in 1982), Mark St. John (who had a brief tenure as lead guitarist in 1984 - cut short by illness), Bruce Kulick (lead guitar 1984 - 1996), and Eric Singer (Replaced Carr after he succumbed to Cancer in 1991) are all talented and did good work for the band, they existed in a time when Kiss didn't feel like a truly distinctive group. They, speaking bluntly, felt like a lot of other 80's hair metal bands inspired by Kiss. Especially after they removed their make-up in 1983. They were in a good band, but not a Hall of Fame band.

Then, of course, there's the issue of the return to make-up. Which began when the original lineup reunited in 1996, and toured until their "Farewell Tour" of 2001. Criss left the group again, during this "Farewell Tour," and Frehley departed afterward. After that, money was still there to be made, and Eric Singer returned as drummer, with Tommy Thayer taking the lead guitar spot. The difficult choice the band made was that Singer and Thayer are now touring with the group as "The Catman" and "The Spaceman," and wearing the make-up and costumes that Criss and Frehley made famous.

(For the record, Eric Carr performed with the band in make-up, but with his own persona, "The Fox," as did Vinnie Vincent as the Egyptian-themed "The Wiz." Since you're probably never heard of these characters, or know what they looked like, you can probably guess that it wasn't the most successful idea.)

So, you have six other musicians who have played on Kiss albums (seven if you could Anton Fig, who ghosted for Criss), and are technically eligible for induction. Yet the Hall of Fame has decided they will not be inducted. I think this is the correct choice. I think Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation CEO Joel Peresman does a good job of addressing the issue over at Billboard. 

The heyday of Kiss, the point where they were truly a band who's accomplishments made them worthy of induction, really ended when the four original members simultaneously released solo albums on September 18th, 1978. When the TV-Movie Kiss Meets the Phantom of the Park aired on October 28th, 1978, the cracks had begun to show. Kiss began to become a caricature of itself, which is deadly for a band that was conceived as a bit of a caricature. Then the make-up came off, and they just became fairly generic.

Again, not BAD, but they just seemed to become interchangeable with acts like Ratt. Los Angeles sleaze-rock, and with the whimsical quality of the make-up gone, the sleaze could be overwhelming.

Current Kiss lineup

Then after Criss and Frehley left again, and different musicians were asked to  wear their costumes and make-up, he whole thing just felt like it was edging toward a sham. The shows may still be impressive, technically better than with Frehley and Criss, but I think Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley know EXACTLY what they created in the 70's. The personas are the band members to anyone who's not a hard core fan, and the general audience just wants to see a Kiss show, and it doesn't particularly matter if Frehley or Thayer is under the Spaceman make-up. Gene, especially, has even hinted at a point where the band could continue without ANY of the original members, with paid stand-ins doing the work while "the organization" (controlled by Simmons and Stanley) takes it's cut.

The fallout has been that when Kiss is inducted to the Hall of Fame on April 10th, apparently no version of the band will perform. The HOF was pushing for a reunion of the original members, Frehley and Criss appeared to be open to it, but it was apparently nixed by Simmons and Stanley. Simmons and Stanley have also been pounding this idea that's it unfair that the other members are not being inducted.

I call bullshit, and I'll tell you why.

Aside from what I said above, most of these guys didn't play in a Kiss that was a Hall of Fame-worthy band, this comes down to what Kiss has always been about - marketing. This is about the Kiss marketing machine. The machine that has moved more and more strongly toward a model where the band members are personas, not people. Who's the lead guitarist of Kiss? The Spaceman. Not "Ace Frehley," not "Tommy Thayer," but "The Spaceman." Then the band can put anybody up there who can play the tunes, and no one need know the difference.

Long gone are the days when Bruce Kulick could stand on stage as "Bruce Kulick," a member of the band Kiss. Long gone are the days when Eric Carr would be tasked to attempt to figure out a new costumed persona for the band. This is gone in favor of a Kiss "concert" that resembles a play with music. New performers portraying your favorite characters.

By singling out Ace Frehley, Peter Criss, Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley the Hall of fame has made a distinction between the people who created those characters, who defined and lived them, and any replacements the Kiss organization may hire to tour in the future. When the day comes, and it will, that "Kiss" is made up of four guys who have no connection to the original four members, other than the signature on their paychecks...is that really Kiss? To Gene Simmons it is, because he'll be getting paid.

As Mr. Peresman said, and I think it's fair:

"Sometimes there's an entire body of work up until (the artists) are inducted, other times it's a specific period of time that established the band as who they are. With Kiss there wasn't one person here who didn't agree that the reason Kiss was nominated and is being inducted was because of what was established in the 70s with Ace (Frehley), with Peter (Criss), with Paul and Gene (Simmons). That's what put them on that map...(Kiss) is a unique situation where you have artists who wear makeup as part of what the band's about...(later members) are fine musicians who...basically have the same makeup and are the same characters that Ace and Peter started. It's not like they created these other characters with different makeup and playing different songs. They took the persona of characters that were created by Ace and Peter."

Beatlemania, or Rain, are fine, entertaining shows, but no one's trying to sell you on the idea that you're ACTUALLY seeing the Beatles. Likewise, the fan-based Kiss Tribute Bands, aren't saying they ARE Kiss. It's just damn creepy, to me, that the Kiss Organization continues in this direction.

2014 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Nominations

So, the always-controversial process begins anew....

The nominees are:

Hall & Oates
Kiss
Linda Ronstadt
Peter Gabriel
Nirvana
Cat Stevens
Yes
LL Cool J
The Replacements
Paul Butterfield Blues Band
Chic
Deep Purple
N.W.A.
The Meters
Link Wray
The Zombies

So, sixteen acts that will be whittled down to...some number. The last few years have seen seven to twelve.

Nirvana is a sure bet. There's just simply no way they don't get in. It's also no surprise to me that they're virtually tied with Kiss on the Hall of Fame's fan poll. Based on that, I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say that Kiss gets in, too. I'll also guess that The Zombies will get the nod, as they are truly a well-respected, classic act. Same goes for Link Wray.

I think Peter Gabriel has to wait, Genesis was just inducted in 2010.

Can you believe Chic has been nominated SEVEN times, and not gotten in?

 Of course, this is going to drive another round of "what is, or isn't 'rock and roll" bitching from the unwashed masses. Chic is a disco band, for God's sake! Lina Ronstadt!?! N.W.A!?!?!

So annoying. So narrow-minded. I'll say, as I've said before, When Little Richard stared playing "Good Golly Miss Molly" the idea was to get folks to dance. "Rock and roll" evolved from that time, and splintered into different forms. If you want to eliminate "pop" music, The Beatles become questionable. If you want to cut out folk, Dylan becomes a question. In my opinion, both of those artists absolutely belong in the Hall of Fame. As do those forms, because they're all part of the tapestry that is "rock." Rock is about rhythm and rebellion, so rap and R&B fit. Elvis had strong country influences, do we ignore that because we only want loud guitars and drums?

Lots of different music "fits," in it's own way.

I Am So Happy To Post These Videos

Rush is in the Hall of Fame.

About goddman time.

OK, Back to The Grind...

Hello faithful readers! I know it's been a while. My apologies, but things have been crazy for your faithful blogger. I think, however, I'll have a good shot a keeping up with things for a while.

Quite a few things happened while I was quiet. John Carter tanked, despite my best efforts to whip up an audience. The Avengers edged ever nearer to release, and I honestly can't believe it's less than two weeks away. My countdown to the San Diego Comic-Con continues, as I try, desperately, to sock away every last possible cent for it.

However, I did want to jump back a bit and talk about how Guns N' Roses induction to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame ultimately went down. I can't say I was surprised by who showed up, and, more importantly, who didn't. However, I was also struck by how I felt reading Axl's public statements about the induction, which, as is Mr. Rose's want, were pretty rambling and  edging toward schizophrenic.

Still, really when he issued his first real statement about the matter, on Facebook, of all places, I could help but just shake my head and say, "exactly what I expected." I don't even mean that in a bad way. I mean, Axl, and the group he has assembled under the name "Guns N' Roses" were left in a pretty awful place with this induction.

Axl owns the name "Guns N' Roses," that's pretty much uncontested. Now, how underhanded his tactics were to secure ownership of that name is debatable. I tend to believe Slash and Duff on this one, because their accounts of the events in their respective autobiographies synch up pretty well. Why Axl felt he had to do what he did is really something only he can tell us, and I doubt he'll ever really do so.

You can go around and around about it for days. Really, however, for my purposes today, it's irrelevant.

Axl put together a band of truly great players (OK, that Ashba guy strikes me as a complete poseur, but whatever, Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal is a badass player, as is Tommy Stinson) and recorded (and re-recorded, and re-recorded, and re-recorded) an album that, while not Appetite for Destruction, isn't embarrassing or a disaster, by any means. Is it too little, too late? Probably. It is sad to me that Chinese Democracy will never be able to be considered without weighing it against the fourteen years Axl spent making it, because it isn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be.

Is it a Guns N' Roses album? The pragmatic part of myself says yes. That's the name on the damn CD, and this is the band that's out touring. That said, it bears a much resemblance to Appetite for Destruction, or even the Use Your Illusion records, as the Page and Plant albums do to Led Zeppelin II. There are elements that we, as the listening public, associate with "Guns N' Roses" that just aren't there. That doesn't make it bad, but it does make it different. It really is an Axl Rose solo album, but, like it or not, legally, Axl IS Guns. He's been battling since the first tour with, essentially, this lineup in 2002, to assert this Guns, HIS Guns, as THE Guns.

I'm not judging that action, only point out that he's worked pretty hard to put that across to the public. The Hall of Fame induction, frankly, was a very dangerous thing for the Guns N' Roses Axl has been building. The last thing on Earth that the current lineup needs is to be reminded how explosively awesome the original band could be. They could also suck beyond comprehension, but that's a whole 'nother rant. The SECOND Axl steps on stage with the AFD or UYI lineups, the CD lineup is set back 10 years.

Now, why in God's name would he EVER put himself in that position? Why would anyone?

So, he wrote his open letter, and, no matter how much he wants to say it wasn't a press release, it was certainly a calculated move. Bringing up questions about the HOF selection process that play well to the hard rock fanbase is clearly a tactical decision. The wording is very careful. I'm sure 100 lawyers went over it. Although, come on, Axl...You inducted Elton John! Where were your concerns about the Hall of Fame process then?

So, he doesn't show. The crowd boos his name. Izzy Stradlin doesn't show, either, but his history of reclusiveness  makes it forgivable. Steven Adler makes an embarrassing speech, that I can forgive, because the guy's just obviously so damaged. Then Slash, Duff Mckagan, Adler and Stradlin's first replacement, Gilby Clarke, get up and play with Slash's current vocalist, Myles Kennedy, as I suspected might happen.


The night goes pretty well. The band gets to show their stuff a little bit, and then, Axl issues another non-press-release-press-release. A statement that, for all the world, sounds like the guy might juuuussst regret not going a little bit. Who knows? Only Axl really does. Never miss another chance to point out that the Hall might be a sham, however.

(Lord, I am sick of that, but, again, another rant for another time)

I do however, think that, ultimately, what happened in Cleveland was good for everyone. If nothing else, it nailed the coffin of the original lineup shut. Which is probably something that the band, and the fans, needed. There will be no reunion. It's never going to happen, and what we saw on April 14th is probably the closest you'll ever get.

I think it came off so well that everyone can put that experience to bed. Maybe even Adler. Certainly Stradlin has, and Slash and Duff have moved on to their own projects. They all seem pretty happy to let Axl carry the weight of "Guns N' Roses."

Maybe we should, too.

Eddie Trunk Interviews Joel Peresman

The suspended round section? THAT'S the Hall of Fame.

On December 19th, Eddie Trunk had a very long interview with Joel Peresman, the CEO of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

(The link takes you to part one of the interview, with links available foe the other 14 parts)

First off, I certainly see where Mr. Trunk, his listeners, and buddies who stop by, are coming from. I'm VERY vocal about the fact that Rush hasn't been inducted. I think we're closer than we're not.

Yet...What a stupid interview.

Eddie Trunk

First off, I think Trunk and his buddies have a severe misconception of what the Hall of Fame is. The Hall of Fame exhibit, itself, is simply a video presentation and a series of (admittedly cool) lighted glass plaques with the names of the inductees. There isn't a display of each inductee. There's a general museum, with relics and memorabilia, which is about the history of Rock, and then, in, literally, a separate building, is the Hall of Fame. Many of the Hall of Fame inductees have very limited display items, and a ton of non-Hall of Famers have lots of material on display.

Trunk says he refuses to visit the museum, so I guess that makes sense. 

Joel Peresman

Second, frankly, the viewpoint (understandably) is so skewed toward hard rock he doesn't seem to comprehend that there are many, many other "rock fans" who have their own favorites. Favorites that they'd fight tooth and nail to get in, too. Frankly, the backhanded jabs at Laura Nyro show nothing but ignorance, and the same elitism that Trunk spends a lot of time trying to turn back on the nomination committee.

I also take issue with Trunk's dismissive attitude toward acts like Madonna and ABBA. Yes, they are from the dance end of the spectrum of music, but they are also within the realm of "Rock and Roll." Early Rock and Roll, your Elvis, your Chubby Checker, your Little Richard, was all about getting the kids to move, to get out on the dance floor. To not see that dance music, even disco, as well as rap and hip hop, are part of the evolution of that, is just being insular and over-focused on his own interests. It's elitism, but elitism for what trunk considers the "non-elite."

The fact of the matter is, music is a wide and deep river that is filled with artists who have contributed and influenced others. In a room with 35 different people, who all have, yes, personal opinions about who is deserving, to think that those people should conform to your, or anyone's, viewpoint, is ridiculous. The job is to cast as wide a net as possible, and try to, eventually, snare and honor everyone who's deserving.

I am basically rabid with the fact that Rush should be included. It's STUPID that the band with more Gold or Platinum albums than anyone, save the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, who is cited by musicians (including Hall inductees) in multiple genres as an influence, who has continued making interesting, not to mention popular, music for almost 40 years, cannot seem to even get nominated for induction. That's a crime.

I think KISS probably deserves to be in, but I also think they've permanently damaged their legacy with Gene $immon$' rabid pursuit of the almighty dollar. Musically (I'm gonna say it), their contribution is dubious. I am not saying the music or the musicianship was bad, but it also was fairly derivative. I don't think anyone, including the members of the band, could argue otherwise. Yet, they were vastly influential in terms of image and marketing. I think I see why the nomination committee would have difficulty with how to handle them.

Deep Purple? Yes, absolutely, but who? Hasn't about 1500 musicians been in that band at one point, or another? Iron Maiden? Yes, eventually. Judas Priest? Sure.

That said, let's look at a list of what I consider heavy metal/hard rock/progressive rock acts that are already in the Hall of Fame:

• AC/DC
• Aerosmith
• Black Sabbath
• Cream
• Genesis
• The Kinks
• Led Zeppelin
• Metallica
• Pink Floyd
• Queen
• Rolling Stones
• Van Halen
• The Who

Add to that Alice Cooper and Guns N' Roses going in this year. Can anybody truly say that any of the acts Trunk is campaigning for really deserve to be in before any of those groups? Should Iron Maiden be in before Van Halen? Or Metallica? I'd say no. Should ANY of them have been in before Black Sabbath? Absolutely not. (Though Ronnie James Dio should've gone in with Sabbath.)

You can argue about KISS and Rush, I think, but, to be fair, Rush should follow Pink Floyd. Genesis? That's a toss-up.You can also argue that it's too soon for Guns, but they did have a VAST impact.

Trunk acts like NO hard rock/progressive/metal acts are getting inducted. That's simply not true. Two acts this year alone. Trunk's, and his listener's, real issue is that the HOF inducts people from other genres over the metal acts he'd like to see in. That's not really a valid issue, it's a matter of taste, and the Hall has to serve a lot of different tastes.

To snark on Jon Landau (the head of the induction committee), and by extension Bruce Springsteen (who Landau manages - Yes, I am a Springsteen fan, as well as loving Progressive, Metal and Hard Rock), because you think he has an agenda, isn't helpful. It's also not supported by any facts. The answer isn't to change how the voting is handled (for Christ's sake, do not make a public vote out of it), but to continue to work to make the induction committee as diverse as possible. Trunk would still gripe, because that would mean people who don't think like him would get in with people who do.

Oh, and don't believe Trunk when he says he doesn't want to be on the induction committee. I could almost hear him salivating. The funny thing is, if he did get on it, he'd be exactly what he decries, a member with an agenda. The only difference is it'd be HIS agenda.

Guns N' Roses Indcuted to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

Guns N' Roses has made the 2012 induction class for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I could grouse a little about the continued rejection, at even the nominee level, of Rush, but what's the point? It'll happen, eventually, and hopefully the long wait will give them a ton of well-deserved press when it does happen.

I am happy that Guns is getting inducted. I think anyone who'd argue they aren't one of the most important bands of the late 80's/90's is a fool. Just as anyone who'd argue that Appetite for Destruction isn't one of the greatest hard rock albums of all time, not to mention one of the greatest debut albums of all time. The shit kicks, and it still kicks. Play any Appetite track in a bar or club, people get excited.

They are, and always have been a volatile band. There's a real question about what's going to happen at the induction on April 12th. Of course, what the world (and I'm sure the Hall) wants is to see the original five members (Axl Rose, Slash, Duff McKagan, Izzy Stradlin and Steven Adler) on stage for a reunion. It seems that most of the band would be into it. Adler is very vocal about wanting to play together, even to the point of a full tour (that's not going to happen). Everyone else obviously still gets along, Slash and Duff are still associated (along with Adler's replacement, Matt Sorum) with Velvet Revolver, and Izzy, well Izzy seems to float in and out of everyone's life. "Helping" with songs for Velvet Revolver, for example.

Then there's Axl.

I have a feeling in my gut that, after April 12th, we'll have new footage of the original Guns lineup playing two or three songs. I do. Something makes me optimistic about it.

Axl, however, is the stumbling block. Thing is, I understand why he might not want to do it. I do.

Look, no matter how you feel about it, Axl is out there on the road with a new version of Guns N' Roses that he put together, and seems very committed to. This is his band. Maybe they all are ass-kissing hired guns, or maybe they're part of a cohesive musical unit.

I'll say this, very few people I know who've seen the current lineup will say it's a bad band. In fact many of them praise the musicianship on display, with the perennial "but."

"But it's not Guns N' Roses."

Axl, however, feels it is. He's also spent the last fifteen plus years working with this unit (in one form or another) to create what he feels Guns N' Roses is, now. You can bitch about his attitude, the late concert starts, the album a decade-plus in the making that was so over-ordered by Best Buy that they had it on sale for $1.99 recently.

I'd argue that Chinese Democracy deserved better, myself. It's not a bad album, by any standard. It's not Appetite, and it took far, far too long to put together, those are it's greatest sins. Those were sins, however, the public was ready to crucify the album, and Axl, for.

The Chinese Democracy lineup, and material, are what Axl is doing NOW. If he agrees to the induction gig, goes on stage with the original lineup, and kicks ass, the internet will be aflame. Much like when Led Zeppelin was triumphant with their O2 gig in 2007, the immediate question is, "where does it go from here?"

For Axl, I'm pretty damn sure the answer will always be "back to my band." You thought that lineup had a tough time now, more than twenty years after the Appetite lineup dissolved? Try it the week after the internet floods with video of the "reunion."

That is a no-win situation you can't reprogram the computer out of. The only way out of it is to...just not go. Which would be sad, it'd be disappointing, but I'd get it. So, while I honestly do have this gut feeling that we'll see the original five that night, I also see rational reasons for it not to happen.

Not like that Van Halen debacle in 2007. Where, once and for all, Sammy Hagar and Michael Anthony proved where the class in that outfit was located. What an embarrassment.

What do do if Axl opts out? The answer toured with Slash, and is working on an album with him right now. Bring in Myles Kennedy with the rest of the original band. There's no better proof of this option than Slash's recent live album, or if you saw the tour. The guy can sing the stuff, and well. He's also extremely charismatic, but also respectful of the history.

Hell, according to Mick Wall, the guy almost replaced Robert Plant. He can step in for Axl, if need be.

In no way am I saying Axl shouldn't be up there, but, if he pulls a David Lee Roth, I'm offering what I think is a good alternative. Not that anyone cares what I think...but I bet it's crossed Slash's mind.

Utter Silliness

So, the 2011 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Nominations came out today...

I look at this list;

Alice Cooper
Beastie Boys
Bon Jovi 
Chic
Neil Diamond 
Donovan
Dr. John 
J. Geils Band
LL Cool J 
Darlene Love
Laura Nyro
Donna Summer
Joe Tex
Tom Waits
Chuck Willis

And man, it's not like I can argue with a lot of the choices. I mean, seeing Tom Waits up there makes me very, very happy. The Beastie Boys totally deserve it, as well as Neil Diamond and Alice Cooper, I guess. It's neat to see deserving off-the-mainstream choices like Dr. John, J. Giles Band and Laura Nyro.

But Bon Jovi? They've only been eligible for TWO YEARS! There's a lot of acts I might say "the first year they're eligible, they ought to go in," but Bon Jovi ain't one of them. (Down the road? Sure.) Def Leppard is higher on the list, if we want to pick someone from that era. Hell, Van Halen didn't go in until after 4 years of eligibility.

I hate to bring up something I always do with RNRHOF posts, but Rush? Eligible for 12 years. They've been recording for 37 years! They are third behind, get this, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones for consecutive Gold and Platinum albums. They're cited as an influence for at least one of the current HOF acts, Metallica. They're not a "revolving door" band, their lineup has been set and unchanging, recording-wise, since 1975. The've been honored by everyone from the Canadian government to the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. This is a band that has earned it's rightful place in your club.

Plus, they're still a viable musical force. Rush's last three albums may not be the sheer genius of the absolute best of their catalog, but their work is always compelling and energized. Certainly more inspired that anything Bon Jovi's put out recently, or even Eric Clapton, and how many times have you inducted him, now? Ok, I'll admit that's an unfair comment, not every band can, like Led Zeppelin, call it quits before inertia sets in, but still, Rush has put out 18 albums of original material in it's 37 years. I couldn't call any of those records "bad," or even "weak."

I thought, maybe, after the attention paid to the band this year (the movie, and all that), it might finally happen. Alas, I underestimated the advisory board's ability to just be, as Matt Stone put it, "old dickheads."

Of course, it's all opinion. Everything is. I understand that after you get past the obvious inductees, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Buddy Holly, Elvis Presley, etc, it all comes down to taste. It just makes me sad that, with all the factual information above, someone hasn't overridden their own dislike for this great band to make a gesture.

The Great Little Steven

I saw this excerpt posted by Sal Nunziato, over at his Burning Wood blog. I couldn't let the almost-always perfect words of Little Steven Van Zandt go by.

And, yes, as a dyed-in-the-wool Springsteen fan, I probably raise Van Zandt and the other members of the E-Street Band a little higher than they need to. (I don't care at all if Max Weinberg leaves Conan O'Brien to become The Tonight Show bandleader, for instance.) That being said, Van Zandt has such a clear and pure vision of what Rock and Roll should be. As in this speech from the South By Southwest Festival. The man understands the history and importance of Rock, and he's one of the more eloquent speakers on the subject I've ever heard.

Excerpt from Steve Van Zandt's induction speech for the Hollies at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame March 15, 2010 New York City

You know, a lot of us in this room have been doing what we do a long time. We can't help it, I guess, if we take it all at least a little bit for granted. Sometimes some of us don't even show up. And we can't help but feel a little disappointed now that the business is pretty much artistically, financially, and spiritually bankrupt. With a few exceptions. And I say a few exceptions so you can pretend you're one of them.

It's temporary probably, a cycle type thing we hope. There's lots of great new bands out there and hopefully we can find a way to create an infrastructure to support them. But we can't help be a little jaded. A little cynical about what's going on, right?

So it's good once a year that we stop for a minute.

And think about what we do. And this is it.

This is our best night, right?

The Grammys, nice people, good show, a lot of fun but, with all due respect, it's mostly bullshit.

The American Music Awards, nice people, a lot of fun, mostly bullshit.

But this Hall Of Fame thing really has just a little bit of bullshit. On the bullshit scale, this is pretty good. As frustrating as it can be. This is as good as it's gonna get. We should respect it and enjoy it.

Because this night makes us think about what we do. And when you rise ABOVE the bullshit for a minute, you realize something that day to day we don't think about often enough. And that is this-

This thing we do, it's beautiful.

Making music, creating art, inspiring people...motivating people... making people feel good...helping them understand a little bit about life, helping them get through the day...feel a little less confused...a little less alone. What Andrew Loog Oldham called the Industry of Human Happiness. It is truly a divine craft that we work our hands in.

Of course we didn't have any of these big ideas when we started. Frankly most of us were just trying to get laid. Maybe get a little famous. Maybe get a little rich. But mostly it was the pussy. And of course trying to avoid having to work for a living. Something really went wrong with that one! I don't want to name any names.

We are a strange combination of troubadours, court jesters, rabble rousers, and magicians, catching and communicating the mystical mystery of music. This would be a wonderful job in any era. But those of us who have lived in the time of what will surely be remembered as a Renaissance Period are truly blessed. I sincerely believe the 20-year period from 1951 to 1971 will be studied and analyzed for hundreds of years to come.

It may sound crazy but I actually believe history will be divided into the pre-60's, and post-60's. Because the '60's was the birth of consciousness. Everything changed. And not all for the better. We're still struggling with the fragmentation that inevitably comes with cultural changes THAT profound. Civil Rights, The Sexual Revolution, Women's Rights, Gay Rights, Questioning One's Government, the Explosion of the Teenage Marketplace, The Anti-War Movement, Computer Science, the introduction of Eastern Religion and thought to the West, the concept of a Global Community, the radical realization that our Constitution wasn't finished, and a new mass media to tell us all about it.

Which included a terrific little magazine called Rolling Stone by the way.

These massive cultural changes both liberated and divided us. And our culture is still searching, still hoping to regain some common ground.

But for a moment our generation was very much as one.

And it was Rock and Roll that provided our common ground, our means of communication, our education, our means of venting our frustrations, our strength against the fear of growing up. It gave us hope and faith and somehow instilled in us a belief that there would be a future. It replaced everything our parents, our schools, and our society had taught us, and it would become our common religion.

The Disciples and Missionaries of this new religion would, for my age group, first come from England. We called it the British Invasion of 1964/'65. Ironically, as it would turn out, they would introduce us young Americans to what would eventually be recognized as a new art form, that much to our surprise, was born right here in our own country.

An art form born to serve the needs of a new species of humanity called the Teenager. Chuck Berry and Bob Dylan would add the eloquence and the specifics, but we didn't need anything more than Little Richard. He opened his mouth and out came liberation.

These unlikely missionaries from England would change society's perception, and history's evaluation, of the Rock and Rollers of the 1950's completely. Their status would change from temporary teenage circus freaks passing through town as an amusing diversion helping kids get through those awkward years from adolescence to adulthood, to Pioneers of that New Art Form. Pioneers that were in fact instinctive creative geniuses whose work will be celebrated forever.

I never would have heard of Little Richard or Bo Diddley or Chuck Berry or Jerry Lee Lewis or Carl Perkins or Muddy Waters if it weren't for the British Invasion. Forget about Arthur Alexander or Larry Williams. No chance.

It was the English bands that made us aware of the Pioneers' greatness by their own greatness. They introduced us not just to their own extraordinary music, and not just to the global community of new ideas, but to the very idea of a band.

A band.

The singular profound revelation of my life.

The critically important notion that a group of individuals could be stronger together than apart, complementing and completing each other, communicating friendship, brother and sisterhood, and ultimately Community itself.

Where would we be without that?

It is therefore a joy and pleasure to celebrate these artists, those that came before them, and those that have come since, and thank them in this setting once a year.

So here we are thanking the Beatles, the Dave Clark 5, the Rolling Stones, the Animals, the Yardbirds, the Kinks, Herman's Hermits, the Searchers, the Zombies, the Who, Manfred Mann, the Spencer Davis Group, Procul Harum, and the band we celebrate and honor tonight, we're here to thank the Hollies.

Excellent speech, and excellent points. More than worth reading and considering

...But I still think there's more than a bit of bullshit in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, too. The point's been made elsewhere that pop groups (which are certainly part of the rock and roll tapestry, don't get me wrong.) are in the HOF, but more "pure" rock acts Kiss (Love or hate 'em, they are an important band, historically.) or, more horrifying to me, personally, Rush (Come on...30 years, lineup virtually unchanged, they're still selling out arenas and making great records that do sell.) are not. There IS an agenda at the HOF against certain acts that are not loved by the selection comittee, but who's accomplishments obviously make the case for inclusion.

Anyway. Fantastic speech, and I wanted to share. Much thanks, again to Sal over at Burning Wood for pointing this out.

New week....Mea culpa. Comics/ Rock Hall

So, I am not keeping up my schedule on this blog, at all. I always intend to write something every day, or post something, or generally use this space to communicate something on a daily basis. Sometimes I have a lot to say, sometimes just a picture or something from another blog to share.

Well...I haven't posted since last Wednesday.

First off, CByrd and I visited the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum in Cleveland 2 weekends ago. Mainly to see their From Asbury Park to the Promised Land: The Life and Music of Bruce Springsteen exhibit. I loved it, naturally. (How could I not?)

It was rather more emotional to stand in those rooms, looking at the scraps of paper with lyrics scrawled over them, than I expected. When I walked up to one case and saw these words:

I stood stone-like at midnight suspended in my masquerade
I combed my hair till it was just right and commanded the night brigade
I was open to pain and crossed by the rain and I walked on a crooked crutch
I strolled all alone through a fallout zone and came out with my soul untouched

I have to admit....I felt myself getting choked up. It's my favorite Springsteen song, and the words he wrote there...they still touch me. (My eyes are a little wet as I write this) They still speak to me now as much as I did when I first really listened to what he was saying there...

...And I really can't fathom that a 20-year-old kid wrote that.

I mean, in a way, only a kid that young could write it, but there's also an understanding of what it meant to be who he was in that moment that usually only comes when you look back from a distance. Only one who was truly touched by something beyond himself could find that clarity. That's my opinion on the matter.

Caryn Rose also visited the Hall for this exhibit, and frankly, she says it better than I could:

From Springsteen to Strummer: A Tour of the Museum from a First Time Visitor

So, yeah...so glad we made the time to go see that, and it's been extended to the end of 2010, so if you love Springsteen, it's really a can't-miss.

I mean, THE guitar is there, and THE jacket...You know the one;



Moving on...It's also new comic day, and thankfully, after last week being so heavy, we only have two titles for today. So, lets see what's in store...

Jonah Hex #52

Written by Jimmy Palmiotti and Justin Gray
Art and cover by Jordi Bernet

I know I say this every, single time a new issue of this series come out, but it really is the most consistently solid series on the market these days. The return of Jordi Bernet always brings up Palmiotti and Gray's game, as well...so, so recommended.

Red Robin #9

Written by Christopher Yost
Art and cover by Marcus To and Ray McCarthy

Again, I've said this before. Yost has crafted a really nice series here, and, behind Batman and Robin, it's might just be my favorite of the "new Batman" series. Tim Drake is being pushed in new directions, as a character, and the results are most interesting.

That's it! Yay for my wallet!

Hopefully, I'll have something for tomorrow.