Here is my list of viable candidates for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame who will soon be eligible for induction, in no particular order:
Alice in Chains
Beck
The Black Crowes
Sonic Youth
Depeche Mode
Guns ‘n’ Roses
Bon Jovi
Counting Crows
Collective Soul
My Bloody Valentine
Joy Division
The Jesus and Mary Chain
Dave Matthews Band
Foo Fighters
Garbage
Hole
Indigo Girls
Lenny Kravitz
Matchbox 20
Sarah McLachlan
Oasis
Pearl Jam
Dr. Dre
NWA
Metallica
Run DMC
Jeff Buckley
Public Enemy
Wilco
Radiohead
Rage Against the Machine
Soundgarden
Stone Temple Pilots
Smashing Pumpkins
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Weezer
Uncle Tupelo
Yo La Tengo
Lucinda Williams
Violent Femmes
Neutral Milk Hotel
The Flaming Lips
Blur
Gang of Four
Husker Du
The Pixies
Green Day
Pet Shop Boys
The Cure
Nine Inch Nails
Tool
Bjork
Sublime
Modest Mouse
Jane’s Addiction
Alanis Morrissette
Bush
Live
Jars of Clay
The Beastie Boys
Mariah Carey
Whitney Houston
Celine Dion
Sheryl Crow
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Do you have any idea what sort of criteria the voters (and who are the voters?) use when determining what artists to induct into the hall? In baseball, for example, although there's still a great deal of subjectivity, there are benchmarks writers throw around whenever the voting rolls around--number of hits, number of HRs, batting average, number of wins, etc.
Are there benchmarks for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? Or, a better question, if you had a vote, what would your criteria be?
For me, the criteria is far more subjective than in sports. Record sales don't correlate well to, say, career hits (baseball, not songs). Of course, plenty of the current members of the R&RHF have had a wealth of chart success, but they also created great music. The same can't be said for most of today's chart-topping acts.
My criteria, in no particular order, would include the following:
- impact on the music scene as a whole or impact within a given genre
- perception of the band held by their musical contemporaries
- reputation as live performers
- influence upon subsequent bands
- longevity
- consistency
- has at least one "must own" album
- critical reception (I think peer perception should trump this)
I'm sure I could think of more to add. And, of course, some of the items on my list are debatable. Jeff Buckley lacks the longetivity credentials, but he gets a pass because he met an untimely demise. In his case longevity can be measured, though, by how long his music has continued to be relevant. Then again, maybe he actually gets a few strikes against him for recording the definitive take on a song only to inspire a host of really crappy covers of his cover.
I haven't looked into whether or not the voters are given some sort of guidelines. I know bands aren't eligible until 25 years after their first album, but, past that, I'm not sure.
Your criteria are very solid. I think I would put influence on future bands close to the top, and I agree that peer reputation should go before critical reception.
I might add an innovativeness criterion; I think a band that takes risks should be rewarded above a band that just masters a middle-of-the-road sound.
At the end of the day, though, you're right that it's so much more subjective than sports halls of fame. Your measurable criteria (record and ticket sales) are probably the most unreliable indicators of actual quality out of those that we've mentioned. The test of time is probably the best one we have.
Post a Comment