Some Highlights from the 2010 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Ballot

The 2010 nominees for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame have been announced. The ballot includes KISS, the Stooges, Genesis, LL Cool J, ABBA, Jimmy Cliff, the Chantels, Darlene Love, Donna Summer, Laura Nyro, the Hollies, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Of these 12, five will be chosen for induction into the Hall early next year. That’s a pretty diverse selection.

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has long suffered from two main flaws when it comes to choosing artists for induction. First, the Hall subscribes to the Rolling Stone definition of rock music: basically, all popular music since the late 1950s that isn’t country. In particular, what is favored is the music the baby bomber generation grew up on and loved. This makes perfect sense as the Hall was co-founded by Rolling Stone creator Jann Wenner, and features several contributors to the magazine on its nomination committee and in its voting pool. More problematic is that there is no hard metric to help decide an artist’s merit for induction. Unlike with sports hall of fames, artists are not measured by figures or performance statistics in order to ascertain their worthiness to join the Rock Hall. The only hard criterion is that an artist is only eligible for induction 25 years after they have released their first recording. Aside from this one rule, the 30-member nomination committee weighs concepts like influence and longevity in choosing artists for the ballot in lieu of more concrete measurements like record sales or number of awards won. Additionally, members of the nomination committee can easily exert their own personal prejudices, leading to the active lobbying of induction for some artists and the active dismissal of others held in low critical regard, regardless of that artist’s impact or influence. These factors combined explain why Percy Sledge, Miles Davis, and Madonna are in the Hall, and why Deep Purple, Genesis, and the Cure aren’t.

The Rock Hall of Fame has made some strides in addressing common criticisms of its induction process. For starters, the number of artists on the nomination ballot has been increased from nine to 12 artists this year. Additionally, the Hall’s Chief Curator Jim Henke has explained that the nominating committee has created three subcommittees to suggest nominations in particular genres (“one on progressive rock and heavy metal, one on hip-hop and one on early rock and rollers and rhythm & blues”), which inspires confidence that the Hall is aiming to reach outside the baby boomer music canon. Those considerations have resulted in a pretty intriguing ballot; while there are still head-scratchers (really, Laura Nyro?), there are a fair number of artists who definitely have earned their places in the history of modern music. Let’s take a look at a few of them.

Aside from the surprisingly effective disco single "I Was Made for Loving You", I’ve never been a big fan of KISS’ music. My main issue with the group is that I’ve found its ability to channel its over-the-top stage presence and image on its records rather lacking. For all the band’s showmanship, songs like "Rock and Roll All Night" aren’t the most effective of rock anthems when removed from a live context. The band is definitely far more skilled at transferring the excitement of its live performances into a myriad of licensed products, ranging from toys to comics to caskets. Still, that’s not entirely a bad thing. Even if you don’t know the names of the session players Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley have hired to join them on guitar on drums for the latest KISS tour, you recognize the iconic makeup, some of the most iconic imagery in rock music. Furthermore, the band’s musical influence is massive. Every 11-year-old kid who picked up a guitar in the late 1970s probably did so because they were members of the KISS Army. This includes people ranging from Pantera’s Dimebag Darrell to Pearl Jam’s Mike McCready, and that’s nothing to sneeze at.

It’s easy to dismiss Genesis. In many minds, Genesis is remembered for a series of slick radio-ready AOR hits, largely indistinguishable from the concurrent solo hits of frontman Phil Collins. But the band is so much more than that. Long before the days of "Invisible Touch", Genesis was the most intriguing, exciting, and ultimately the best of the 1970s progressive rock titans. The band’s material under the leadership of original singer Peter Gabriel was extraordinary not merely for its technical skill (which was admirable, to be sure), but for its humanity. Unlike most prog singers of the day, Gabriel’s voice was soft, tuneful, and delicate, allowing him to indulge his lyrical eccentricities without sounding detached or foolish. Genesis’ 1970s material is long-overdue for a critical examination (even the initial material after Collins replaced Gabriel on vocals is great), and is the definitive argument for why the group belongs in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Still unconvinced? If you have ten minutes to spare, I highly suggest you watch this Belgian television performance of "The Musical Box", the standout track from its third album Nursery Cryme (1971). I am convinced that if you watch the performance all the way through, you will become a fan of the group; that’s what happened with me. Note an uncommonly shaggy Phil Collins on the drums.

The Stooges are the prime example of why consideration for induction into the Hall cannot be based solely on the number of records sold. With the Stooges, it’s more important who picked up their albums. If not for the raw and primal sound of the Stooges, punk rock and by extension New Wave, post-punk, and alternative rock would not exist. Amazingly, this year marks the ninth time that the group has made the ballot. Will the group finally make it into the Hall in 2010? I say it could go either way. As with Black Sabbath before them, at this point it’s a given that the Stooges will be inducted into the Hall some point in the future. Currently there seems to be no rush, though. The Stooges’ relative obscurity and nonexistent commercial success seem to be the key factors that keep them on the Hall’s backburner. Hopefully it won’t be too long a wait; after all, at this point frontman Iggy Pop is eligible for induction for his solo work. Speaking of which, this 1977 performance of "The Passenger" by Pop is one of the most riveting examples I’ve seen of how one man can dominate a stage.

There are some solid arguments that disco queen Donna Summer deserves to be inducted into the Hall more than Stooges. Aside from dwarfing the band when it comes to measuring commercial impact, Summer’s late ‘70s work has proven as epochal and influential as the punk rock movement that sprang up alongside her (if not more so). Without her work with producer Giorgio Moroder, much dance and electronic music of the last 30 years would simply not exist. On the surface, Summer’s hits seem like mere escapist dance fodder. But then again, that’s what early rock ‘n' roll was. And those classic 1950s singles by Elvis Presley and Chuck Berry certainly weren’t as carefully produced and constructed as "I Feel Love".

LL Cool J is one of the key figures of the golden age of hip-hop. Unlike many of his 1980s cotemporaries, LL Cool J was able to sustain his success in the face of the advent of Death Row and Bay Boy Records, through the 1990s and beyond. In respect to his longevity, I will refrain from posting his video for "Deepest Bluest", his awful single from the equally awful genetically-engineered killer shark movie Deep Blue Sea. However, I will note that it’s amusing that LL Cool J boasted about putting a muscle-bound man’s face in the sand in "I’m Bad", then proceeded to gain a muscular physique.

To think, that even a few years back the idea of the Red Hot Chili Peppers being the next alternative rock back to follow R.E.M. into the Hall would have seemed fanciful. However, over the last decade the Chili Peppers have transformed into respected elder statesmen of the genre, one of the few band comfortable playing at the stadium level while turning out hit after hit. In fact, despite their current hiatus, the Chili Peppers are currently one of the biggest rock bands in the world. While dismissed early on by critics for their frat-boy rowdiness, all three current instrumentalists in the group are fantastic musicians; guitarist John Frusciante in particular has seen his stock as a respected guitarist rise even since he rejoined the group for its comeback album Californication (1999). The Chili Peppers have made the ballot in their first year of eligibility, which is a rare feat. While I feel they could wait a year or two to enter the Hall when compared to other artists nominated, they’ve certainly proved their staying power over the years. If they do make it in this year, here’s hoping they work in some of their more energetic material during the induction ceremony performance instead of sticking to the more recent contemplative ballads.

The year in song reflected the state of the world around us. Here are the 70 songs that spoke to us this year.

70. The Horrors - "Machine"

On their fifth album V, the Horrors expand on the bright, psychedelic territory they explored with Luminous, anchoring the ten new tracks with retro synths and guitar fuzz freakouts. "Machine" is the delicious outlier and the most vitriolic cut on the record, with Faris Badwan belting out accusations to the song's subject, who may even be us. The concept of alienation is nothing new, but here the Brits incorporate a beautiful metaphor of an insect trapped in amber as an illustration of the human caught within modernity. Whether our trappings are technological, psychological, or something else entirely makes the statement all the more chilling. - Tristan Kneschke

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

If The Prince of Nothingwood will popularly be remembered for celebrating the creative spirit of its star Salim Shaheen, it is equally an important communication on Afghanistan, it's culture and its people.

"Now I am just more tired and poor. So no, I haven't changed. I'm just older and more tired," says French radio journalist and documentarian Sonia Kronlund, as she looks back on the experience of making The Prince of Nothingwood (2017).

Joining Salim Shaheen, the most popular and prolific actor-director-producer in Afghanistan on his 111th no budget feature, Kronlund documents the week-long shoot and the events surrounding it. She crafts an insight into a larger than life persona, yet amidst the comedy and theatricality of Shaheen and his troupe of collaborators, she uncovers the heavier tones of the everyday reality of war and patriarchal oppression. If The Prince of Nothingwood will popularly be remembered for celebrating the creative spirit of its star, it is equally an important communication on Afghanistan, it's culture and its people. Alongside the awareness of the country cultivated by mainstream media news outlets, Kronlund's film offers an insight into a country that can humanise the prejudice and xenophobic tendencies of a western perspective towards Afghanistan.

In October of this year at the UK premiere at the BFI London Film Festival, Kronlund spoke with PopMatters about being driven by questions rather than inspiration. She also reflected on the subjective nature of documentary filmmaking, the necessary artistic compromises of filming in Afghanistan, and feeling a satisfaction with imperfections.

Why filmmaking as a means of expression? Was there an inspirational or defining moment?

Not really, no. I have always done documentary. I used to write scripts and TV series but I only make documentaries myself for radio and television. For this story, I figured out after a while that it deserved a bigger ambition and a bigger screen and that's why I don't very much believe in inspiration. To be honest, I made this film because I had to do something. I didn't have a big project where I thought: I want to make this. I went there and I found a little money and at the end the ambition and the inspiration came along the way. But there was not an urgent necessity to make this film. It fits with a lot of things that I'm interested in, like popular culture -- What does art stand for and why do we go to the cinema? What is the purpose? This is a question I'm interested in, but inspiration, not so much.

Has The Prince of Nothingwood provided you with the answers to those questions?

It has, and I hope it helps people to think about this question. It tells you that there is an urgent need to make images, to make films, even during war,and even if you don't have the money. And even if the films are not very good, they will find somebody who will like them. So something is going to happen, and I think that's very touching. I don't like Shaheen's films, I hardly watched them -- I paid somebody to watch them. But I'm very moved by all these people that do like his films, and it makes you think about the value of art and the purpose of why we make cinema. I used to study aesthetics in London, so it was one of the questions I had and while the film is lighter than this, that's what was in mind.

The film uses Shaheen as a doorway, beginning as a story about one man which becomes a story about Afghanistan, its people and culture.

Yeah, but it's not so much about Afghanistan and it's not my purpose is to say things about the country. There's one guy like him in Iran who makes cowboy movies in the Iranian desert and there's also a guy like that in Tunisia. I mean you have this person with an urgent need to film whatever they have under their hand and since it's war, then it tells you something about the war. But it's not so much interested in him.

There was a lot of editing, 148 hours that you haven't seen [laughs]. Making a documentary is really telling a story and I don't have any idea of objectivity -- it is my point of view on Shaheen. Some people say to me that they would like to show his films, that they really want to see his films, and I say: "You don't see how much I have edited. I show you the very nice parts of his films." People think he's a great filmmaker and that's the story I wanted to tell -- but I could have told another story.

To my mind, objectivity is a human construct, a falsity that does not exist.

Except mathematics maybe, and sometimes physics.

The purist opinion of documentary as objective is therein built on a faulty premise. From the subjective choices of the filmmakers that bleed into the film to the subjectivity of the subjects, it's not purely objective. Hence, it calls into question the traditional dividing line of the objectivity of documentary and the subjectivity of narrative fiction.

Totally! It's the editing, and why you chose this guy, how you film it and what you show, or what you don't show. It's not only subjectivity, it's storytelling. Not many people ask me about this, they take it for granted that it's the real Shaheen. But I'm not lying, I'm not saying things that aren't true, but I am telling a story, a fictional story out of what I filmed. I took scenes that happened one day and I put them with another story that happened three months later and that's why we had seven months of editing with three editors. So it was a lot of work.

One of the striking aspects of the film are the light and comedic moments offset by a darker and heavier sensibility, which include moments when, for example, Shaheen talks about arranged marriages.

We made 70rough cuts and there was one version we tested and you couldn't believe you were in Afghanistan. People would say: "Oh this is too funny. You don't see Afghanistan, it's just a bunch of crazy guys." I then said: "Let's put in a little more darkness." You then have to strike a balance and to me, if it's not perfect, I'm happy.

Shooting the film in a dangerous and volatile part of the world, was the approach that once you had enough footage you then looked to shaping the film in the edit?

It's not when you feel you have enough, it's finding a balance between security and artistic concerns. That's it. You have a plan and you have an agenda. There are things you want to do, but it has to be balanced with security concerns. The real story I was going to tell about Shaheen I found in the editing room and in the end, I only kept five days of the shoot. The whole film takes place in Bamyan (Province), nothing in Kabul, although I had weeks and weeks of footage there that I had to take away.

There's a moment when Shaheen asks if you are scared, which sees him verbalise our silent recognition of your boldness and courage to bring this story to the screen.

It's very difficult and it's not like you are walking in the street and there's a bomb. This is not what's difficult. The difficulty is to cope with your fear and to have rules and to follow or to not follow those rules. There are many foreign people that never go out at all in Kabul -- it is forbidden. You have British diplomats who do not even drive their car from the airport to the embassy -- they will take an helicopter that costs £2,000 each way. Then you have foreign people who walk in the street without a scarf -- these girls get kidnapped.

In between these you have Shaheen, who is telling me all the time that I'm too scared, because it's a man's value to be brave and he's a brave guy, there's no question about that. He was in an attack two weeks ago. There was a bomb in a Shia Mosque and he helped to carry out the bodies. So there's no kidding about the fact that he's a brave guy and he has to be because he's been fighting to make his films. But you are in the middle of this and I'm not a brave person at all and I don't think being brave is a very important question. It is, but I'm not brave, I'm very scared and so in the middle of all of this stress it's enough just to manage to not go crazy, or to not drink too much [laughs].

Salim Shaheen and Sonia Kronlund (courtesy of Pyramide Films)

Related Articles Around the Web

People aren't cheering Supergirl on here. They're not thanking her for her heroism, or even stopping to take a selfie.

It's rare for any hero who isn't Superman to gain the kind of credibility that grants them the implicitly, unflinching trust of the public. In fact, even Superman struggles to maintain that credibility and he's Superman. If the ultimate paragon of heroes struggles with maintaining the trust of the public, then what hope does any hero have?

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.