Talk:Rock and Roll Hall of Fame/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Abbreviations

The abbreviations RRHOF and RRHOFM are not listed anywhere in the article. There are also no existing redirects to this article for users that search for those abbreviations.

There is a redirect for RRHOF but not one for RRHOFM, RARHOF, RNRHOF, RARHOFM, RNRHOFM, RaRHoF, RnRHoF, RaRHoFM, and RnRHoFM.

If what the rock and rock hall of fame calls this latest group I guess I will start playing country. What changed the music back in the 70's was groups like the guess who, BTO and then Kiss. These groups had a major impact on the music world then and still are played today by many.

Do we need this paragraph?

"Not everybody is happy with the selection process, which some feel is effectively controlled by a few individuals, including founder Jann Wenner and writer Dave Marsh, and therefore reflects their tastes, rather than the views of the rock world as a whole. Hence, there are a disproportionate number of lesser known 1950s acts, as opposed to, for example, progressive rock and heavy metal acts. In addition, most of the inductees are American or are British that were successful in the US."

I think that this paragraph should not belong on this wiki. I have never heard any real criticism nor can see how it is really possible for it. How can the RARHOF be controlled be a few individuals and only reflect their tastes? The committee is made up of about 1000 rock historians and experts. If there is any true controversy on this issue it should have its own section rather being tacked on at the beginning.

What about Ahmet Ertegün?

What about this man. He is absolutly missing in this article. But I think he was one of the main initioators of the RRHOF.

Sources on Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

Jake Packman, a Wikipedia user asked the following questions through the Wikipedia help list:

I am a 7th grader at Hall Middle School in Corte Madera, Ca.. I have chosen The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as my topic for a major research paper which is due on November 30th.. However, I can not use the internet for reference material. Can you send me some information or recommend books I can purchase. My interests are on why was it started, how Cleveland became the home for the Museum, how the induction process works, who are the inductees, any controversies surrounding the museum and anything else you might think is important.

Thanks for any information you can provide me.

I responded:

Their website states that "All aspects of the induction process are handled by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation. It can be reached at 1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10104. The Foundation does not have e-mail available. " You might wish to write to them for suggested types of information.

In the early years namely the mid to late 1980's Rolling Stone Magazine" was heavily involved in the process. You might wish to look at copies of the magazine from that period to help you with your research.

The Rock Hall itself has an education office. You might wish to send an e-mail to Education@rockhall.org.

Does anyone else have any suggestions. Capitalistroadster 03:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame / Jim Morrison

I was just at the Rock and The Roll Hall of Fame maybe about a week or so more ago as of this date here in the talk section. And I had took particular interest to the small exhibit that was focused mainly on Jim Morrisson of the Doors. I had paid careful and close attention to the chronology time line of the letters and photos through 1965 and into 1971 to and from Jim Morrisson before the time of when he and the Doors got there start. In and around what was maybe 1965 for when Jim did not seem to have such long hair as he is so well known today from so many photos circulated all over the world leading up to the time for when he died in Paris in what I think was possibly either 1970 or 1971. I was kind of amazed from that exhibit that before the time of when the Doors got there start and in the letters and the photos with his family. He had seemed to me quite bright and educated and infact lucid and clear not just in the ways of poetry and of language and cinema and of film but also in many other ways as well. And maybe 4 or 5 years later he is found dead inside of some bath tub somewhere in Paris. I guess that is what excess drinking and drugs will do that to a person. Before the Doors he seemed quite intelligent and balanced and rational and educated and quite a uniqye and a interesting person back in 1965 to know. www.geocities.com/berniethomas68 02:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


Someone help with this sentence

"Some feel the induction process is controlled by a few individuals, including founder Jann Wenner, former foundation director Suzan Evans, and writer Dave Marsh, reflecting their tastes rather than the views of the rock world as a whole."

Is Jann Wenner someone who feels that the nomination process is controlled by others, or is he one on the people doing the controlling? As written it is ambiguous.

It means that the voting process is controlled by those three. I'll reword it. -- Scorpion0422 20:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of editorializing from "criticism" section

I have removed the following from the "Criticism" section:

"Not everybody is happy with the selection process, which some feel is effectively controlled by a few individuals, including founder Jann Wenner and writer Dave Marsh, and therefore reflects their tastes, rather than the views of the rock world as a whole. Hence, there are a disproportionate number of lesser-known 1950s acts, as opposed to, for example, progressive rock and heavy metal acts. In addition, most of the inductees are American or are British artists that were successful in the U.S."

This section has no sources, uses weasel words, is far from neutral, and is generally opinion rather than fact. User:Scorpion0422 has reinserted this language twice now without comment; I ask that the content not be replaced until these issues can be resolved. JDoorjam Talk 16:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If you look at a whole bunch of articles about the Rock Hall of Fame, you will see these exact criticisms. And it is as neutral as it can be. It is important to note things like these, especially in a controversies section.
Go here: http://www.futurerockhall.com/blog_files/category-15.html and scroll down to "Do petitions help get bands into the Rock Hall?" -- Scorpion0422 19:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
But you don't list any sources for the criticism as it now stands. For instance, who says that their selection of largely American and British bands is a bad thing? It might be true, but who is citing it as criticism? Similarly, who says that their selection of few hard rock acts is a bad thing? In order to be listed as criticism, it has to be more than simply true that there are few hard rock acts or mostly American and British acts. Someone notable (preferably a few notable people) have to actually be saying that this is a problem. This article, on the other hand, is a decent source for criticism (it's the original article referenced in the link you provided). It can probably be used in supporting assertions that the board is controlled by corporate interests, and does not listen to fans. I've reverted the article again, as the criticism cited in the article is, so far, sourceless. JDoorjam Talk 23:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
If sources are so important, why don't you add them in as opposed to just complaining about it? -- Scorpion0422 18:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Eh? If the criticism is so pronounced, why don't you find sources instead of just reinserting the content? JDoorjam Talk 00:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Happy now? Although, it seems to me that as the one who was whining the most, you should have done it. -- Scorpion0422 01:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
No, you should do it since it's your material. Back up what you write. Don't expect people critical of what you write to back it up for you. 74.77.208.52 18:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


Status of Criticism Section

See my personal policy on Unwarranted criticism sections.

Currently there are several problems with the criticism section.

  1. The sections sounds like a review. The criticism section takes up more than 30% of the article itself. Please remember Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
  2. It only includes 1 reference, used twice - the only reference in the entire article.
  3. It includes a lengthy quote that strays from the main topic of the article.
  4. The article uses weasel words: "A former member of the nominations board once said" & "This has led to the belief"

I propose deleting a bulk of the section including the quote, referencing the introductory sentences, and keeping the referenced statement. I also propose turning this section into a subsection of "Hall of Fame." Questions/Comments? Chupper 05:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I delted the last part. As for the quote, it's sourced, so why delete it? It's fine just the way it is. And as for the hard rock/prog rock thing, every time I try deleting it, a half a dozen random people just readd "There is no hard rock" or something along those lines. And the groups are also randomly added as well. -- Scorpion 13:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ownership

Other articles on Cleveland buildings tell who owns the facility. Who owns the Rock Hall? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.103.194.115 (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section

The cite for this material:

A former member of the nominations board once said:

At one point Suzan Evans lamented the choices being made because there weren't enough big names that would sell tickets to the dinner. That was quickly remedied by dropping one of the doo-wop groups being considered in favor of a 'name' artist ... I saw how certain pioneering artists of the 50s and early 60s were shunned because there needed to be more name power on the list, resulting in 70s superstars getting in before the people who made it possible for them. Some of those pioneers still aren't in today — but Queen is.[1]

Petitions with tens of thousands of signatures were also being ignored and some groups that were signed with certain labels or companies or were affiliated with various committee members have even been put up for nomination with no discussion at all.[1]

Says nothing of the kind. Here is the citation: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,134633,00.html

Absolutely nothing of the above is in it. So, what's going on? If the proper cite for this is the Roger Friedman article, then where is the Roger Friedman article? 74.77.208.52 18:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is a source [1] that is properly cited right at the end of the statement. -- Scorpion0422 19:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Then somebody must have just fixed it, because that wasn't the cite an hour ago. I just found the Fox News article myself and was just coming back here to fix the cite. 74.77.208.52 19:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
fox news should NOT be allowed as a credible source173.48.62.136 (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms

Can I say 3 words??? Stevie Ray Vaughan. How quickly they forget. I was under the impression he was eligible for the Hall of Fame in 2008. He should have been inducted in there immediately. His use of the Stratocaster, his great covers of Hendrix and Wonder. His bronze statue in Austin Texas. If Stevie Ray isn't one of the best - the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is crazy. After all, he is what rock and roll is all about...67.190.164.209 (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)tracy hill denver Co

That rock n roll hall of fame is a joke still. I'd better see Donna Summer, Yes, Kraftwerk, Black Sabbath, Madonna, Run DMC, The Clovers, Wynonia Harris, etc., inducted or else this is truly a flawed joke.

The entire grunge genre has been over looked. Generation X were shaped by such songs as "Black Hole Sun", "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Alive".

The article is only for discussing improvements to this article, not for discussing the subject of the article. However, if you read this page, you'll note that no grunge bands are going to be eligible for a couple more years. I don't believe Madonna or Run DMC are eligible yet either. Tuf-Kat 18:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

In regards to grunge, I don't think most of them meet qualifications yet. I'm positive that Nirvana has about ten years before they are qualified. ~Scorpion

Correct--yes, many of the artists/groups suggested are not yet eligible for induction, and yes, this is not a message board to discuss one's own opinion of who should be in the Hall of Fame. -- Pennyforth 21:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Rush has yet to be inducted, and reportedly one of the Rolling Stones (magazine) guys hates their music and said that they'd never get in, despite being one of the best-selling groups of all time. I am still looking for that cite. If anyone can find it, I think it ought to go into this section. Ikilled007 16:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Entry Criteria

Can someone explain what is needed to be eligible as a member of the hall of fame? I dont get how a band *can* be in in year 20XX. Is there a limit per year ? please expain 09:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Crystaliser

Artists become eligible for induction twenty-five years after their first release. 74.77.208.52 17:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a list of people in th RRHOF somwhere on wikipedia? If there is pleas tell me. If there isnt I think there should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T4k (talk • contribs) 01:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversy?

Quote: "The Cleveland location is controversial, but considered historically appropriate......"

Who makes this statement? Doesn't seem NPOV --Seltar 19:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

At the time it was definitely "controversial" in the NPOV sense that it created a controversy. There was a bidding war, there were media polls, and the announcement was met with a huge, nationwide huh? They even ended up putting the question Why is it in Cleveland? in the website's FAQ! I hope the new wording makes it a little clearer, but I'm not picking up an old RS just to find a quote. --Dhartung | Talk 03:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I understand the controversial location remark now, and thanks for the clarification in the article. Seltar 19:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
It's in Cleveland because Alan Freed who coined the term rock and roll was a DJ there Doc Strange (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
...and grew up there (nearby Salem), and started there (regional stations in Akron, Youngstown, and New Castle), and put together the first rock and roll concert there. It's not like Alan Freed just changed planes at CLE once. -- JeffBillman (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

definiteley needs ciatation--Wikirockroll (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

How is this for a controversy? The list states "500" songs that have shaped rock & roll. I beg to differ (hence the controversy) as there are exactly 512 songs on the list. Why the discrepancy? --Uroshnor (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sex Pistols

Which one of the Sex Pistols was quoted as saying their induction at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame was but a mere piss stain www.geocities.com/berniethomas68 02:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I can completely understand that response, bearing in mind that the concept of a 'hall of fame' seems to be an institution unique to the USA. Until I stumbled across this page I thought that the term was more of a conceptual validation used in american english, a bit like you would say "so and so is the best in the world", I didn't realise that an actual hall existed and that there was a whole system of inductions and nominations, the whole thing sounds like a themed truck stop. Like miss world or the european song contest, does anyone take it seriously? 81.102.245.93 19:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Unique to the USA? Make sure you tell that to the UK Music Hall of Fame. 74.77.208.52 18:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
It was John Lydon. Who else? BTLizard (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It was PROBABLY written by Lydon, but it is a letter to the RRHOF from The Sex Pistols, nothing more, nothing less. Link to letter: http://www.sexpistolsofficial.com/index.php?module=features&features_item_id=95 DFS (talk) 08:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Top 500

I notice the section on this song's inclusion in a top 500 songs list does not include a ref that actually shows it's inclusion, nor the other claims re most frequent artists etc. Efficacious (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"A nominating committee selects...."

Regarding the question of how a small group -- Jann Wenner, Dave Marsh or whomever -- can "juice" the process, there is the answer. A committee draws up a list of nominees which the "experts" are then allowed to select from. If the committee doesn't like an act -- be it Rush or Pat Boone -- the voters don't get the opportunity to vote for it.

I'm not saying Rush should not be inducted, and I'm not saying the Boone should be, but it doesn't require a Ph.D. to see that a small group can shape the results if the members of that small group have the power to determine who gets on the ballot and who doesn't.

Perhaps someone can document -- or disprove -- the story that Phil Spector blocked the Ronettes and Darlene Love for years, and that they only got on the ballot after he was sent to prison.

Furthermore, rock music is played in many countries around the world -- and sung in many languages other than English. How many acts have even been nominated that sing primarily or exclusively in a language other than English? If the Hall is as ethnocentric/English-language only as Rolling Stone is when it draws up its idiotic "Greatest....of All Time" lists I doubt there are any. Can someone show otherwise? (71.22.47.232 (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC))

Chuck Willis?

This article, plus the articles on Chuck Willis and the list of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees, mention that he will be inducted this year as an Early Influence. Could someone please provide a reliable source for this? I couldn't find anything about it on the website of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame [2], but maybe someone else has a source just as reliable on this subject as the Hall of Fame self. --The Claw (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hm, it appears that some IP added it, before any other inductees were added, and in the bustle of announcement of the inductees, it slipped through and was accepted as fact. [3] -- Scorpion0422 21:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox discussion.

I've reverted the deletions in the infobox regarding Public Transit:

I've reverted the inclusions in the infobox regarding Opening of the museum:

  • It is explained in the article nicely.
  • It is not a section in the Museum Infobox.

If anyone has questions, comments, or concerns about the infobox entries, please discuss them here. -Kai445 (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

First, if you were familiar with Cleveland, which it appears you are not, then you'd understand that the rapid stop you refer to (like most of the stops in the downtown area on the Waterfront line) have very limited access and are in no way the same as listing the the subway station info for an article in an article like the Met in NYC, where most people do not drive, but in fact take the trains and/or cabs. Second, the museum (which is what the article is mainly about) didn't open until over a decade after the foundation began. Just because the info is listed elsewhere in the article is not automatically grounds for exclusion in the infobox. Case in point: The date 1983 is also listed in the body of the article.
Most of the Cleveland related articles on Wikipedia (especially the major ones) are maintained and routinely monitored and cleaned up by the Cleveland Wikiproject (as well as other applicable Wikiprojects). I appreciate your concern, but the infobox was sufficient for quite some time before you decided to make a personal crusade out of it, and it will be fine without the addition of transit info which is more of a novelty than anything given that Waterfront line is a circuit from the Terminal Tower to the lakefront. It isn't like the Red Line in Chicago, or the Lexington Avenue line in Manhattan. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I understand that the Hall of Fame Museum website tells me that I can take those lines. Maybe you are clued into something that they are not... I implore you to email the R&R Hall of Fame and ask them to remove the public transit information from their website if it is as unused, useless, and limited as you seem to perceive it as.
Inclusion of the information in the article does not automatically make it a candidate for usage in the infobox. I understand that it is notable that the museum opened later than founding, and it is better explained in the article. -Kai445 (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Would both of you please stop edit warring in the article, and stick to discussing the issue here? You've both violated the three revert rule already -- Foetusized (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I always thought that was a guideline not a rule, my mistake if it isn't, I never encountered it before in the year I've been editing (Lucky me?) and am not looking to get on the wrong side of things. Would you care to weigh in on the facts of the matter (as a third opinion), it may help. -Kai445 (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
As someone more interested in music than in museums or Cleveland, I'd have to say that following the example of Smithsonian Institution and including the mass transit stop information, and simply using the date that they officially organized, as opposed to opened their door to the public, would be my choice. It is a "Hall of Fame & Museum", and the hall of fame portion started inducing members in January 1986 (an event presumably planned & organized in 1985), before the museum and Cleveland were part of the equation -- Foetusized (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The Rock Hall organization's founding date should be used in the infobox, not the building's open date. As for the mass transit, I'm okay with some mention if the infobox. And by some I mean much less than was present before my recent edit.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm certainly in favor of some info rather than no info, but check out my previous edit here and tell me if it was too much: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rock_and_Roll_Hall_of_Fame&oldid=443934545

Ryecatcher773 added the more detailed information (which you felt was over the top). -Kai445 (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's too much; public transit shouldn't dominate the infobox. I'm in favor of some inclusion, but let's stick to the Smithsonian Institution example provided by User:Foetusized. Less is more.  Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Moody Blues

Im in outrage,trying to find the right people to contact,and ask one question--Since 1962,The Moody Blues,have been a band,not only of fame and stature,but have gone thru,so many different styles of generation music,produced so many great albums,went on tours and still do today,even though Ray Thomas has retired,its a real shame that the Rock and Roll Hall of fame,has NEVER EVER considered them,nominated them or even inducted them,,Even after Knights In White Satin,that was on the music charts for so many years,still a number one favorite,and still has never been considered,,Instead the bands get nominated,that come and go with the wind,,Isnt it about time,to put this Band In ???? Still On Tour,Still Together,Still making and selling records,whats wrong with this picture?? What An Injustice,shown and given to Justin Haywood,John Lodge,Graeme Edge,Ray Thomas,Patrick Moraz,,Who knows,Maybe my little voice,will reach out to those creating so much injustice to this band,,Thanks and regards Leland M Repp Buffalo New York (74.77.143.169 (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC))

File:Rockhall lobby cars 2005.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rockhall lobby cars 2005.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Rockhall lobby cars 2005.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Notable Omissions Section?

Does anyone else think that there should be a section on artists that have been said to be deserving induction and are not. Each artist would need to be referenced, eg from a music reporter or another artist.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shniken (talk • contribs) 03:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Jethro Tull —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.247.8 (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Rock Hall has a disdain for synth-based bands. Allmusic's entry on Kraftwerk raves about how influential they were (by making it popular in rock to use the synth), but the Hall shuns them. Meanwhile, a band like Traffic gets in, along with 2nd-rate R&B groups. My friend told me the reason Kraftwerk is shunned is because they are an Electronica band, but then why do Country, Rap, and R&B artists get in? Also, the Electronica tag was only applied later, the 80s (I think). Kuvopolis (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Rush too. It's a joke that they've been ignored since they were eligible. As much as I want them to get in, I kind of don't want them to get in because they can nominate disco or rap groups but not Rush or other prog groups... it's a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.68.228 (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree - There should be a notable omissions section...and in fact added one (called it Other Omissions):

Other rock acts of significant achievment and influence currently not inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame include The Dominoes, The Doobie Brothers, The Moody Blues, Jethro Tull, T. Rex, Steppenwolf, Yes, Heart, The Steve Miller Band, New York Dolls, Roxy Music, Kiss, Rush, Cheap Trick, Motörhead, The Scorpions, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Def Leppard, Journey, Stevie Ray Vaughan, and The Cure.

I also included a reference to this list. Now I completely get that everyone has their favorite bands, and there will always be those who object to the inclusion of certain performers. However, I felt that the aforementioned list was objective enough and listed well-known, influential, and successful (I know...also a matter of opinion) acts. I'm unclear why this section continues to be deleted, as I've not been sent a message and didn't spot any objections on the talk page. Constructive feedback would be appreciated. Yobbo14 (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There's already a "Criticism" section. Just expand on that with properly sourced content. If necessary, create a separate sub-section there. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
There were several problems with your addition, Yobbo14. First, your source was notinhalloffame.com, which does not qualify as a reliable source. A bigger problem is that the list is entirely subjective. Who decides which bands should be listed there, and why? The list could go on forever, which leads us to the next problem. In the short time your list was in the article, two different contributors decided that their favorite bands should be in the list, and inserted more bands. Lists like this are magnets for additions of this nature, and it would become uncontrollable in very short order. - Eureka Lott 23:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you're getting at, Eureka. As for a reliable source of who is NOT in the RRHOF, I suppose I could just as easily add the RRHOF itself as a source. I also alluded to your point of how opinions of who should be in the RRHOF will vary. In scanning over the majority of comments on the talk page, it seemed a variety of folks were looking for mention of certain classic acts. Thought it was worth the time and effort to mention the most notable omissions. But hey...I have plenty of other things going on, and have little interest in locking horns with the edit police :) Yobbo14 (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Rush Controversy

I think this section adds information that there's no reason to exclude from this article. One of the guys who has a vote has clearly said a specific band (rush) will NEVER get in. That's noteworthy. Ikilled007 17:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Someone needs to explain why this doesn't belong. It's controversial and it's about the R&RHOF. Ikilled007 20:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The section is called "Criticism" not controversy and this is an article about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, not "Why ____ isn't in", so if there is a big section about why Rush is supposedly hated by the RRHOF committee, why not a large section about KISS, Def Leppard, the Moody Blues, the Stooges, Jethro Tull and other bands that the RRHOF supposedly hates? The section would be better off in the Rush article, not here. The section is for criticism of the Hall in general, not why certain groups are supposedly being snubbed. -- Scorpion0422 15:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Why not add it to the progressive rock sentence, that is already included in the criticism section?
      • Also: "being the only true prog rock group". The true is completely out of place here.. My 2 cents ;) Johnnyw talk 12:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Like I said, we're avoiding mention of specific groups, if we mentioned Rush, we'd have to mention why other Progressive Rock groups are supposedly being held out. -- Scorpion0422 16:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I didn't propose including a new paragraph, actually not even a sentence per group. The point of interest shouldn't be a singular case, as you already stated, but illustrating rather dubious reasons for exclusion could be relevant. For example if there is a specific, documented case, it could be included like so: "With Pink Floyd[3], there has been only one progressive rock inductee, while other genre members are until today being excluded for reasons such as personal dislike of jury members (Rush)[4]." If different cited cases pop up, an expansion of the sentence wouldn't hurt the article. --Johnnyw talk 22:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

1) If you know anything about usual rockcrit biases you'll concede it's unlikely that HOF hates the Stooges. There's probably just not enough voter support for their induction (in fact, they've been nominated several times already); the worthiness of prospective inductees seems to be gauged by an index of popularity, critical acclaim, and historical relevance. The Stooges certainly score on counts 2 and 3 (although much of their acclaim came years after they first split) but fail utterly on the first. They had no hit albums or singles and today are still known almost chiefly by punks-come-lately and music snobs like you and me. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they get in when and if the voting body has some new blood.

2) Unless there's a sea change in mainstream rockcrit thought, Rush will probably never get in. They're hugely popular; they're rather influential; critics absolutely despise them. I really don't like Rush myself, but I think many prog fans fail to grasp the perspective of the voting body that makes up the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Rn'R emanated from Chuck Berry and Elvis; it should be danceable, it should be fun, and if it is neither it should at least have something substantive to say (particularly about human relationships). I think Dave Marsh might argue that bands like Rush may be "rock" but they ain't "rock n' roll". There's a political dimension to it, too - the kind of technical mastery and high-flown narrative that many metal and prog bands seem to fetishize are values that early rock and roll was dead-set against.

Anyway, if it pisses metal and prog fans off so much that their favorite artists are continually passed over or ignored, they should set up a rival institution. Though considering the rampant PRO-metal and -prog bias I see everywhere on the internet already, they probably don't need to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.155.209.26 (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No, progressive rock, almost no metal, etc. I'm sorry but how can you call this "Rush controversy"? RnRHoF is just a joke influence wise.

Critics exist to help us understand the past. Critics almost never predict the future and rarely understand the present. But they often imagine they understand both. RnRHoF was founded by critics to recognize people like Elvis, but these critics were unwilling to accept their role as merely keepers of history. So, worse than their omissions, RnRHoF would need to uninduct various popular bands they fawned all over. I don't think the institution can be reformed without committing slander against financially successfully and popular musicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.190.145.194 (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been a fan of Rush ever since I was enlightened by my dad on REAL music. I think it's a load of you-know-what that they haven't been accepted either and that rap, r&b, and country groups have gotten in, but I understand that other groups need to be recognized as well. Bands like KISS, The Cars, Styx, Dream Theater, and Saga (look them up, they are amazing). I agree also that more metal and progressive bands should be accepted for two reasons: 1) they accept rap, r&b and country bands, and 2)the original rock 'n' roll bands and names (for example, Elvis Presley and Chuck Berry) paved the way for other musicians to use their creative abilities to make the many subdivisions of rock: prog, metal, etc. KEEP ON ROCKIN', RUSH! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.40.150 (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Rush was nominated for the Hall!!! They must be a shoo-in now... If they don't make it in, I would be surprised. Vote for your favorite nominee on the Hall website - if you don't vote for Rush though, good luck... the Rush fans are dominating the vote (this is what happens when you keep a deserving band out of the Hall). Hopefully Rush makes it in, most of the other nominees again stray from rock and roll. RUSH ON! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.58.46 (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Carole King

Carole King was (and still is) a hugely influential performer. Her Tapestry album alone, one of the most popular and widely known recordings in the entire singer-songwriter oeuvre, is a testament to the recognition she deserves as a performer inductee. Yes, she was inducted with Gerry Goffin in the non-performer category for their classic songwriting, but Carole King without question deserves induction as a performer. Danmuse (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Top 600

Is this un-ordered list of 500 now 600 songs available for internet perusal? Do we have a link to it? The link which is simply called "FAQ" is a dead link. Has anyone ever done an article on how and why this list is at variance with Rolling Stone's list? MisterHOP (talk) 07:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Voting process

There's a very small bit in the criticism section about voting and induction, but there really needs to be a specific section on what the process is and how voting takes place. My wife asked me how people are inducted into the rock hall of fame, I came here figuring it would be an easy place to get an answer, but I still have no idea after reading the article. That should be one of the major sections and focus of the article. So if anyone knows this stuff, it's seriously needed. Livingston 10:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Other controversy

I recall at the time that there was controversy that as an individual John Lennon was inducted and not Paul McCartney (he was induced as an individual several years later).

I have not been able to find any info on this but think it would add to the article.

Montalban (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Rock 'n' Roll

Why are Bob Marley and Prince -for instance- in the "Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame". Their music can't really be called rock and roll. Or am I misunderstanding what "rock and roll" means? If I am right about this shouldn't there be something in the article pointing this out.(MrDeBeuker 04:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

Wikipedia makes a distinction between rock and roll and rock music. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame calls all rock music rock and roll, but also adds in even more tangential stuff like reggae. In this context, it basically just means "Anglo and African American popular music plus reggae". Tuf-Kat 05:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

R&B IS Rock, supplanted by Alan Freed. Rock n roll was original black slang for sex, and is esentially black music. Ask Robert Palmer, Dave Marsh, any of the Rock N Roll Hall of fame members and they will tell you the exact same thing. It's just been ingrained into the media that rock is white music and started by Elvis even though Elvis himself continually refuted that claim, always owing his debts to African Americans. Rock was born in the late 40s and early 50s. Rock is disco, prog, folk-rock, funk, punk, rap/hip hop, grunge, soul, etc., all firmly entrenched in R&B before Freed coined the music rock n roll so as to have better marketability and to detach the stigma of whites buying black records.

The real answer to this question is that the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame would be better named the Music Industry Hall of Fame. It's all about corporate product, with a generous icing of smugness and complacency. BTLizard (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

How this completely ridiculous concept that is the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame ever lasted more than 5 minutes is beyond me. Who gives a monkey's whose in this tawdry, tacky, irrelevant thing. I'm only on here because its annoying when you're reading about people who aren't even rock n roll for it to be mentioned that so and so jazz musician is in the RNRHOM as an 'early influence' what a complete insult I'm sure bebop or country musicians of the 1940s would want to be as far away from rock n roll as possible. And the whole idea that its an honour for them to be in this RNRHOF is beyond laughable. And then theres this sometimeinclusion of hiphop or r&b which is no more rock n roll than opera.At least electronic music has so far not 'made it' enough in America not to be besmirched in this manner. I guarantee it the RNRHOF won't even exist and be completely forgottenin 30 years time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.205.95 (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

No Metal

There are also no metal bands. 67.188.172.165 04:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that could be noted here, but the way you worded was extremely POV. I'll add that, but we need to keep the article NPOV. -- Scorpion0422 04:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Surely the whole institution of a hall of fame is POV.


Actually Sabbath is in. Took almost ten years, but they're in Doc Strange (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Black Sabbath is NOT anything like SlipKnot or Disturbed which sometimes is classified as metal, although I'd call it something else.-71.241.91.35 (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You have it the wrong way around. Black Sabbath is metal and Slipknot and Disturbed are mallcore... 62.78.251.108 (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Section: Artists with the most songs

Recently someone changed David Bowie from 4 to 3 songs. While technically accurate as only three of his songs are on the list, he is the song writer for All the Young Dudes although the listing is for Mott the Hoople. Should the count be for strictly performance or include songwriting?--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Songs That Shaped Rock and Roll

These edits[4] on July 8, 2012, changed "500 Songs That Shaped Rock and Roll" to 660. They are unreferenced and no change is mentioned on the R&R Hall of Fame website.[5] "660 songs..." only seems to appear on blog- or forum-type websites. Removed "660" from the article until a WP:RELIABLESOURCE is found. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Fixed the wayback on the 655 list and corrected the "most" as the 500 list showed the wrong info (500: Beatles had 7, Stones and Elvis 6, while the 655 is the one with Beatles and Stones with 8 each.)--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge Articles

It has been suggested that 1995 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony be merged into this article. I think that would be a good idea. I very well do not mind. Thanks.[[User talk:Izaiah.morris| 14:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

That article is a straight copy-and-paste from this 2014 article on Citizendium. I'm not sure if that counts as a WP:COPYVIO or not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The source wiki appears to be freely licensed under CC-by-SA 3.0, but if we decide to merge (more likely SMERGE), we'll somehow need to provide attribution to User:Meg_Taylor. Levdr1lp / talk 23:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I added an attribution template on the reference section of the source article, I believe a mention on each edit summary of the selective merge should suffice. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

Hello all! I've been wanting to ask this for some time now: Is there any way we can add a parameter to the Musician Infobox to include RRHOF inductees? I tried adding it to the existing Infobox, but to no avail. I'm not sure how to do this, but I'm thinking a sample source code would be: 

| rrhof  = would be a heading to indicate he/she is a member;
| date_induction  = would indicate when the act was inducted
| category  = would indicate if the act is a performer, contributor, sideman, etc... and would indicate a group membership where applicable.

If anyone is willing to help out on this, please let me know and I'll get back to you as quickly as I can. Thank you very much!

WestWash97 (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The proper place to bring this up would be at Template talk:Infobox musical artist.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Similarities to the Louvre's pyramid

It should probably be noted that the design of the building, particularly as originally built, is similar to the pyramid at the Louvre in Paris, also designed by Pei. Don't Be Evil (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

List of the members on the nominating committee

The Performers section mentions a nominating committee of musical historians who aided the process in selecting performers, but it did not give an exact list of who they were or how they were selected to make these decisions. I would like to know if there is a list of names of the nominating committee that has yet to be added to this article -Mollie louiseee (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Artists with four or more songs?

Regarding this section: Why not 5 songs? Three? Two? Is "four" noted by sources or is it just original research? SteveStrummer (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Stevie Nicks

The article states that no woman has been inducted into the RRHOF more than once, which was true at that writing; however, Stevie Nicks has now become the first woman inducted more than once--in 1998 as part of Fleetwood Mac, and in 2019 as a solo artist. Should the article be updated with this fact and the current number of inductees? Nicks's double induction is already addressed at List_of_Rock_and_Roll_Hall_of_Fame_inductees.

Dave Andrew (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 2 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame → Rock & Roll Hall of Fame – Everywhere on rockhall.com the name is styled with ampersand. See MOS:AMP – this is a clear case of “a legitimate part of the style of a proper noun”. The place is not about rocks, and rolls, it’s about {rock & roll music}, one thing. MJ (t • c) 14:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rock_and_Roll_Hall_of_Fame/Archive_1&oldid=1214151504"