CHUD.com Community › Forums › MUSIC › Music › Fox News takes on the Rock'n'Roll HoF
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fox News takes on the Rock'n'Roll HoF

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
Boycott Rolling Stone, or "I Hate Rap"

Quote:
To anyone who’s still reading or buying Rolling Stone: It’s time to boycott Jann Wenner’s flagship magazine.

I’ve never participated in a boycott — not of lettuce or grapes or anything else. But enough is enough.

After the announcement late Friday of the nominees’ ballot for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, there’s only thing to do: Hit publisher Wenner, who controls the Rock Hall, where it hurts.

If you love rock 'n' roll, stop buying Rolling Stone until the tremendous insults of the Hall of Fame are corrected.

Last year, in a story reported by this column exclusively, Wenner threw out a vote in which the classic British invasion group Dave Clark Five was voted in and changed it for another round that favored rappers Grandmaster Flash.

As one insider from the Hall has maintained, "Once Ahmet Ertegun died, Jann felt like he could run wild." The legendary co-founder of Atlantic Records was considered the only person who could control Wenner. He died in 2006.

The Dave Clark Five incident has repercussions, however. I’m told that Wenner was made to meet Clark after I broke that story last March. The group now is guaranteed entry, although it’s a bittersweet win. They are probably not, to paraphrase one of their hits, "Glad All Over."

But this year’s choices are a complete affront to fans of the Rock and Roll Hall. And to show how much Wenner controls what’s happening, the exclusive announcement was made on Rolling Stone’s Web site.

If you’re still reading or buying Rolling Stone, it’s time to stop.

This year’s ballot shows that the Hall has skipped over the seminal 1970s for the worthless '80s. The committee has chosen dance music over rock. They’ve all but ignored the pioneers who influenced the genre in favor of non sequiturs.

The choices: dance group Chic, hip-hop pioneer Afrika Bambaataa, mediocre Bruce Springsteen-wannabe John Mellencamp (a Wenner crony who’s lost out on many tries), white rappers the Beastie Boys, disco queen Donna Summer and, of course, Madonna.

Among "older" names: the aforementioned DC5, instrumentalists the Ventures and Leonard Cohen.

Here’s the idea: that these names should enter the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame before such historically important and influential acts as Iggy Pop and the Stooges, "fifth Beatle" Billy Preston or performer/producer Todd Rundgren.

They aren’t the only ones.

Major groups the Hall voters deem "not hip": The Moody Blues (simply for "Days of Future Passed") and Chicago (for its first two seminal albums). Hall & Oates, Yes, Genesis, J. Geils Band, Alice Cooper and KISS are also names often mentioned by critics.

Also left wanting: stars such as Carly Simon and Linda Ronstadt, who were mainstays of Rolling Stone in the 1970s, have been iced out. Carole King was inducted only as a writer with ex-husband Gerry Goffin. Her achievement as the creator of "Tapestry," for years the best-selling album of all time, has been ignored.

Neil Sedaka ("Calendar Girl," "Breaking Up Is Hard to Do") is not in the Hall of Fame. Neither is Neil Diamond ("I’m a Believer," "Sweet Caroline"). That’s right. They only wrote half the hits that modern groups cover or sample. Go figure.

The late Laura Nyro, who also wrote a dozen or so hits, is absent, as is Leon Russell, whose songs "This Masquerade" and "A Song for You" are among the most covered by pop acts. He also was a member of Phil Spector’s legendary band, as were other nonmembers Glen Campbell and Sonny Bono.

Then there are the R&B performers who remain in the cold, such as Tina Turner, Dionne Warwick, Motown legends Mary Wells, the Marvelettes and the Spinners, not to mention Ben E. King ("Stand by Me" and dozens of hits on Atlantic), Stax Records legends Carla and Rufus Thomas, Spector star Darlene Love, Joe Tex, Al Green and, of course, Chubby Checker, whom the Hall denies over and over again despite his invention of rock’s greatest dance hit, "The Twist."

Neither John Fogerty, Lou Reed, Peter Gabriel, Ringo Starr, Tom Waits, Steve Winwood, Diana Ross, Steve Miller nor Sonny Burgess — the man behind Elvis Presley — is in the Hall of Fame.

OK, just so we’re straight on why Rolling Stone must be boycotted. It wants the Beastie Boys before Randy Newman, The Hollies, Tom Jones or Mitch Ryder’s "Devil in the Blue Dress."

Controversial Cat Stevens also stays in the cold despite his dozen or so hits and his influence on singer-songwriters of his era. And I haven’t even raised the idea of Poco, Aaron Neville, the Turtles, Gram Parsons and hitmakers Three Dog Night, whose members made hits for dozens of new songwriters including Harry Nilsson, John Hiatt, Jimmy Cliff, Hoyt Axton, Paul Williams and Randy Newman.

The Hall has caused its own problems over the years. It no longer includes three categories that the Hall introduced, then eliminated: Non-Performers, Side Men and Early Influences. The nominating committee, with a couple of exceptions who are obviously ignored, is simply too young and uneducated in popular music history to select entries in those groupings.

It’s a pathetic, ridiculous situation and it must be stopped.

Of the new crop, I don’t have much to say that’s positive. Madonna is a steamroller because of the cult of personality. She’s not a rocker, she has a thin voice and she doesn’t write all of her own material. But she’s a force of nature.

There’s no stopping Madonna when she wants something. Chances are good she won’t bring Steve Bray, Patrick Leonard, William Orbit and all her writers and producers to the stage. They are Madonna.

Chic is a fun idea with great songs, but it was really producer-writer Nile Rodgers and his partner Bernard Summers who made it work as a dance group. Rodgers should be in as a hugely successful producer of music by David Bowie, Ross and others. Summers can be thanked. Chic, however, is not rock.

The rest are totally off base, given the above list. Summer was a disco act. For her to get in before Ronstadt is a joke. Mellencamp at least plays rock. But he’s a minor note in the genre’s history.

Afrika Bambaataa and the Beastie Boys: Are they kidding? Even the latter must be laughing. They had one big hit, "You’ve Got to Fight for Your Right to Party." The former, while I’m sure quite lovely, is a record-scratcher with a great name. Each of these belongs in a Rap Hall of Fame.

And it’s not that I am against hip-hop or rap artists in the Hall of Fame. But Run-DMC is the obvious choice for an act in that genre that crossed into rock. Apart from its own music, Run-DMC’s partnership with Aerosmith on "Walk This Way" brought hip-hop to a new level and standard. No one would argue with its inclusion.

Of the two senior acts aside from the DC5, the Ventures probably are a good idea. The Hall lacks instrumentalists. But Cohen should be in as a writer. His morose style never once crossed into rock, and he knows it.

Diamond, Sedaka and Simon have among them dozens more actual rock hits as writers and performers. Come on. And Cohen’s songs have not had nearly the same impact on rock as those by Jimmy Webb. He’s also been snubbed by Wenner’s crew.

By the way: The Hall of Fame Foundation, which Wenner runs with toadie Joel Peresman, has nothing to do with the Rock and Rock Hall of Fame Museum in Cleveland.

"Jann treats the museum like a toy and has no respect for Terry Stewart," an insider says. Stewart runs the museum with no regard for Wenner’s exclusions.

Last year, the Hall claimed to have given away only $158,968 of its $12 million war chest to needy musicians. It gave $56,236 to the museum to maintain its own archives. The museum must raise its own money.

These selections for 2008 are terrible, but they’re just the beginning of what’s going to be a weird ride, thanks to the new generation. To wit: Kanye West is scheduled to be honored soon by the Chicago branch of the Recording Academy.

This means that other artists will have to perform a tribute to him by performing his music. Only: He has no music. West samples existing records. So someone will have to sample a sample to praise him. It’s sad.

So: I don’t know anyone who buys or reads Rolling Stone, but someone must, since Wenner Media seems to make money. It can’t all be Us Weekly.

Until real rock is served by the Hall of Fame, please don’t buy Rolling Stone or click on any of the ads on its Web site. Then maybe Wenner will get the message that no one can take his Rock and Roll Hall of Fame seriously anymore.
post #2 of 26
Thread Starter 
It's kinda funny that he manages to not realize that several of the people he rants about being excluded from the HoF are, um, IN the HoF - Tina Turner has been in the HoF for 17 years (as Ike and Tina Turner), Ringo Starr for 20 (as part of The Beatles), John Fogerty for 15 (as part of CCR), and Lou Reed for 12 (as part of the Velvet Underground). Not to mention Al Green was inducted in 1995 as, um, "Al Green." Easy to miss.
post #3 of 26
People still regularly read Rolling Stone?
post #4 of 26
Is it okay to have the reaction of "who gives a shit?" Something about a bunch of rockers having to plead to be included in the RnR HoF still seems very un-rock-like to me. I know that case was made back in the day when the HoF first opened, and not much has changed.
post #5 of 26
Well, a lot of the names mentioned do deserve to be there. I just hate agreeing with FoX News because a portion of this opinion comes from just being a bunch of lazy racists.
post #6 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pop Zeus View Post
Is it okay to have the reaction of "who gives a shit?" Something about a bunch of rockers having to plead to be included in the RnR HoF still seems very un-rock-like to me. I know that case was made back in the day when the HoF first opened, and not much has changed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Sex Pistols were the ones who didn't even show up to their induction cause the called it bullocks or something. That's awesome.

Yeah, my subscription to Rolling Stone ran out last summer. They'd mostly go straight from the mailbox to the trash, so I learned my lesson to never subscribe for more than a year at a time. Or to read Rolling Stone for that matter.
post #7 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Eaton View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Sex Pistols were the ones who didn't even show up to their induction cause the called it bullocks or something. That's awesome.

Yeah, my subscription to Rolling Stone ran out last summer. They'd mostly go straight from the mailbox to the trash, so I learned my lesson to never subscribe for more than a year at a time. Or to read Rolling Stone for that matter.
(Sheepishly raises hand.) I'm a current subscriber to Rolling Stone and admit to buyers remorse. The magazine is horrible ... Zac Efron? On the cover? Really? That was their big story for the month?
post #8 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSO Major Domo View Post
(Sheepishly raises hand.) I'm a current subscriber to Rolling Stone and admit to buyers remorse. The magazine is horrible ... Zac Efron? On the cover? Really? That was their big story for the month?
Jim DeRogatis has a great article about his firing from RS (their editorial policy on reviews is apparently "three stars means never having to say you're sorry")
post #9 of 26
I'm just shocked because I've never heard anyone refer to the Dave Clark Five as "classic" British rockers. They always seem so overshadowed by other groups from the era like The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Kinks, The Animals, the Yardbirds...the list goes on. Sure, they had a couple decent songs, but did they consistently release good material as often as those other guys?

No.
post #10 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lead Salad View Post
I'm just shocked because I've never heard anyone refer to the Dave Clark Five as "classic" British rockers. They always seem so overshadowed by other groups from the era like The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Kinks, The Animals, the Yardbirds...the list goes on. Sure, they had a couple decent songs, but did they consistently release good material as often as those other guys?

No.
Good point - it's pretty comical that the reason the writer is in such a snit is the fucking DAVE CLARK FIVE.

Yes, if we can't make room for all the 2nd tier British Invasion bands, what's the point?
post #11 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chavez View Post
Good point - it's pretty comical that the reason the writer is in such a snit is the fucking DAVE CLARK FIVE.

Yes, if we can't make room for all the 2nd tier British Invasion bands, what's the point?
Hell, I'd say they're third-tier with Herman's Hermits and Gerry and the Pacemakers. The Zombies (not inducted) haven't even made it in yet, and their hit singles have had a better shelf life, and they have a bona fide masterpiece in Odessey and Oracle. The Hollies (also not inducted) had way better early singles and a far more interesting career, overall.

Anyway, all the gripes about Afrika Bambaataa, Chic, and Madonna don't change the fact that those acts, rock or not, all had a far more profound effect on other rock acts than Neil Sedaka, Carly Simon, Hall & Oats, Laura Nyro, and Steve Winwood (at least in a solo capacity - Traffic's already in). And Chicago? In my experience, Chicago had a far greater influence on high school band teachers who once had bizarre dreams of hitting it big as rock trumpet or trombone players than on anyone in an actual rock band.

Yeah, sure, we all have gripes about who has and hasn't made it. But don't start equating Carly Simon and Steve Winwood with more egregious oversights like the Stooges, Todd Rundgren, Tom Waits, and Darlene Love.
post #12 of 26
I will boycott the HOF until Dwight Twilley and The Chocolate Watch Band get in.
post #13 of 26
Quote:
And it’s not that I am against hip-hop or rap artists in the Hall of Fame. But Run-DMC is the obvious choice for an act in that genre that crossed into rock. Apart from its own music, Run-DMC’s partnership with Aerosmith on "Walk This Way" brought hip-hop to a new level and standard. No one would argue with its inclusion.
I may not know shit about hip-hop, but this made me laugh.
post #14 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chavez View Post
Jim DeRogatis has a great article about his firing from RS (their editorial policy on reviews is apparently "three stars means never having to say you're sorry")
I've alway enjoyed (though that might not be the right word) watching Rollng Stone's album reviews "change" over the years. I had Rolling Stone book published in 1979 that had some interesting reviews. Many Blue Oyster Cult albums (BOC, Tyranny, Agents, Spectres) all received four stars. The other studio albums receives three stars, with the live albums got two stars.

By comparison, Black Sabbath's entire discography up to that point received 1 star, except for the greatest hits album that got 2 stars.

Skip ahead about 12 years and RS publishes another book ... and in this one, all of Black Sabbath's albums gain at least 2 stars, while BOC's albums all dropped by one star.

Sometime during the interim Black Sabbath must have become a better band. Or, more likely, Rolling Stone simply lost all relevancy (which probably happened around the time they put E.T. on the cover) and decided to retract all previous reviews. They should have called the book "Remember that album we said we hated? Now we like it!"


(Note: I like Sabbath just fine, but prefer Blue Oyster Cult. Sabbath seemed to record the same album repeatedly until Sabbath Bloody Sabbath, when they actually began to experiment again. Regardless, RS's initial reviews were mostly shit ... but how much credibility can you have when you contradict yourself repeatedly? I can't wait to see how future RS books retract those 4-5 star reviews they give Justin Timberlake, etc.)
post #15 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSO Major Domo View Post
Sometime during the interim Black Sabbath must have become a better band. Or, more likely, Rolling Stone simply lost all relevancy (which probably happened around the time they put E.T. on the cover) and decided to retract all previous reviews.
What probably happened was that "grunge" happened, and people at Rolling Stone had to re-evaluate Black Sabbath in light of giving rave reviews to Seattle bands that were basing their sound on Sabbath.
post #16 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-Man View Post
What probably happened was that "grunge" happened, and people at Rolling Stone had to re-evaluate Black Sabbath in light of giving rave reviews to Seattle bands that were basing their sound on Sabbath.
Presumably, there was also a huge turnover in writing and editing staff. I guess you could make an argument that a given publication is some sort of consistent entity that should retain the same standards for all time, but it would also be sort of weird for a staff that unanimously agrees that Paranoid is absolutely essential to put out a record guide that reflects the contrary opinion of an entirely different staff in 1971.

No publication has a single opinion. All opinions either come directly from a single writer or reflect a consensus reached by all current contributors. I don't see it as contradictory for a rating to be revised, especially if the staff changes.
post #17 of 26
That's true in theory, Dave, but it doesn't apply to Rolling Stone. The Black Sabbath thing illustrates that Rolling Stone went from being a magazine that helped define pop culture to being a magazine that simply reflects it.
post #18 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobClark View Post
That's true in theory, Dave, but it doesn't apply to Rolling Stone. The Black Sabbath thing illustrates that Rolling Stone went from being a magazine that helped define pop culture to being a magazine that simply reflects it.
No institution can remain edgy for long. I think the music coverage still had a lot of merit up until the early 90s. It championed a lot of bands who weren't getting mainstream exposure at the time and turned me and a lot of other younger music listeners on to stuff like Sonic Youth, the Pixies, and the Replacements.

I think the fact that this music (or, rather, the bands who were influenced by this music) went mainstream for a time sort of killed RS's ability to maintain any sort of tastemaker status. They still haven't gotten it back, but I keep my subscription for the odd interview (the Radiohead one from last month was quite good), some of the political coverage, and to act as a counterpoint to Pitchfork and other publications that dismiss mainstream acts outright and often overpraise fringe acts. Naturally, I don't take the star ratings very seriously.
post #19 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
No institution can remain edgy for long. I think the music coverage still had a lot of merit up until the early 90s. It championed a lot of bands who weren't getting mainstream exposure at the time and turned me and a lot of other younger music listeners on to stuff like Sonic Youth, the Pixies, and the Replacements.

I think the fact that this music (or, rather, the bands who were influenced by this music) went mainstream for a time sort of killed RS's ability to maintain any sort of tastemaker status. They still haven't gotten it back, but I keep my subscription for the odd interview (the Radiohead one from last month was quite good), some of the political coverage, and to act as a counterpoint to Pitchfork and other publications that dismiss mainstream acts outright and often overpraise fringe acts. Naturally, I don't take the star ratings very seriously.
When ever I feel down about my subscription being paid for another 18 months, I get a kickass interview with Iggy Pop. So I sympathize.
post #20 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
Hell, I'd say they're third-tier with Herman's Hermits and Gerry and the Pacemakers. The Zombies (not inducted) haven't even made it in yet, and their hit singles have had a better shelf life, and they have a bona fide masterpiece in Odessey and Oracle. The Hollies (also not inducted) had way better early singles and a far more interesting career, overall.

Anyway, all the gripes about Afrika Bambaataa, Chic, and Madonna don't change the fact that those acts, rock or not, all had a far more profound effect on other rock acts than Neil Sedaka, Carly Simon, Hall & Oats, Laura Nyro, and Steve Winwood (at least in a solo capacity - Traffic's already in). And Chicago? In my experience, Chicago had a far greater influence on high school band teachers who once had bizarre dreams of hitting it big as rock trumpet or trombone players than on anyone in an actual rock band.

Yeah, sure, we all have gripes about who has and hasn't made it. But don't start equating Carly Simon and Steve Winwood with more egregious oversights like the Stooges, Todd Rundgren, Tom Waits, and Darlene Love.
Nothing to add here, except for 100% agreement.
post #21 of 26
Wow. That is the whitest article ever. I actually saw my skin get paler while reading that.

<Obligatory "What about Randy Newman and Warren Zevon getting shafted by the Hall of Fame" mention>
post #22 of 26
Strawberry Alarm Clock wuz robbed.
post #23 of 26
I still have no clue why Rush and Alice Cooper are not in the Hall of Fame.

I have no problem, though, with other genres making themselves feel at home at the HoF. I'm surprised, though, they didn't add any major jazz musicians this time around. We just got Miles Davis, but shouldn't they immediately want to add Mingus and Coltrane too?

I don't think I've ever read an issue of "Rolling Stone."
post #24 of 26
Why does Fox News assume what they have to say about rock and roll is relevant to any living person? It's Fox Fucking News. They employ Bill O'Reilly.
post #25 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Jim Slade View Post
Why does Fox News assume what they have to say about rock and roll is relevant to any living person? It's Fox Fucking News. They employ Bill O'Reilly.
Bill O'Reilly is the Bruce Springsteen of right-wing political commentators.
post #26 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSO Major Domo View Post
Skip ahead about 12 years and RS publishes another book ... and in this one, all of Black Sabbath's albums gain at least 2 stars, while BOC's albums all dropped by one star.
While I certainly understand Dave's viewpoint, I think that an intellectually honest move would have been to run the initial reviews and explain WHY there was a critical re-assessment.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
CHUD.com Community › Forums › MUSIC › Music › Fox News takes on the Rock'n'Roll HoF