Jann Wenner has led a productive, and downright fascinating kind of life. He is the co-founder and publisher of Rolling Stone, which I'll admit is questionable at times, but nonetheless a provocative and simply interesting magazine. Especially for the interviews. Wenner has had a true eye for talent, and knack for motivating people to do their best. He gave Hunter S. Thompson a forum to let loose his imagination on the world, and Cameron Crowe credits Jann with literally giving him his "big break." Tom Wolfe acknowledges him as being the only person willing to serialize his first novel, ensuring that it was actually released, and he's had a hell of a career since. And in 1970 Jann Wenner discovered a 21 year old San Francisco Art Institute student, and hired her as a staff photographer. By 1973, she was head of the department. That woman would go on to take arguably the most iconic celebrity shots in the world. Her name was Annie Leibovitz.
So how did a guy like this, who would seem the perfect candidate to operate something as distinctive and encompassing as a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, get it so wrong? Granted, not all the blame can be placed squarely on his shoulders, there are a lot of other players and factors at work. Among them President Terry Stewart, the nominating committee member, who has actually attempted to explain the Hall of Fame's very questionable induction process:
Nomination and induction into the Hall of Fame is not about popularity, record sales, which label the group is on, or anything other than the process below. The love for, the evaluation of, and the impact of any artist are subjective questions to be answered by the nominators and the voters. Unlike baseball, football, basketball or hockey, statistics are not relevant. Please read below:
Before we do read below, I have an issue with "the above." Is it really wise to make statistics an entirely moot point? I understand not having the numbers count for everything, or even a lot, but to say they're not relevant completely discounts the public, and puts all power in the hands of first, the nominators (Nominating Committee), and then the voters, who are apparently a body of more than 500 "rock experts," but nobody knows what criteria must be met to receive that qualification. All we do know, is that neither of those groups are "the people."
Now I generally operate under the assumption that the general public has poor taste, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have a say, and I think the simplest way to exemplify this idea, is with certain figures. At the very least those figures give insight into popular trends and certainly to the staying power and impact of certain artists. Granted, radio may dictate the majority of what people hear, and lord knows they've always been in the pockets of the record companies, but I still think we should at least acknowledge the fact (even remotely) that the sales and chart numbers have to at least be looked at. Terry continues:
The entire nomination and induction process is coordinated by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation in New York City. Individuals can be inducted in four categories: Performer, Early Influence, Non-Performer and Side-Men. The only formal criteria for the performance category is that an artist has to have had their first record 25 years ago. That said, candidates are reviewed and discussed relative to their impact on this music that we broadly call rock and roll. The innovation and influence of these artists is also critical. Gold records, number one hits, and million sellers are really not appropriate standards for evaluation.
Well that certainly explains why KISS and REO Speedwagon didn't make the cut. They sold a shit-load of records, and I believe I heard somewhere in my travels that in the late 80's, REO was the most lucrative band in the world. And I understand what the HOF is trying to do and say with the above, innovation and influence are essential points to base selection on. But the question I must ask is, are the committee members really objective when deciding which bands DO meet their standards? And more importantly, what are the criteria for becoming a member of either the nominating or voting committees!? I think thats just as important as the criteria the artists themselves must face at the end of the day, and it's still not entirely clear to me.
How are we ensured that the voters are not just a hand selected crop of Jann's and Ahmet's closest and most agreeable friends or contacts? Even if they are "industry professionals", how do we know that they were not selected because they shared similar tastes with the bosses? I'm not saying that's the way it is, but are the voters vetted individually each year? Are they rotated out regularly? Are they a diverse group of industry peoples, representing a healthy strata of tastes and knowledge, who are still nonpartisan and fair?
As for the nominating committee, I did a little research, and it seems like there's a few repeat names from past years. Guys who were around when Ahmet was alive, and on the committee with him. Jim Henke, the Hall of Fame museums curator is also conveniently on there, which puts him in the employ of Jann and at one time, Ahmet. There's also more than quite a few Rolling Stone employees of past and present, and that doesn't seem objective at all. In fact, that's the goddamned definition of rigged if you ask me. How can we be asked to put stock in that? How can we be asked to trust that? I'll tell you what, I don't and I won't. And I think it's pretty clear that they're trying to pull the wool over our eyes, and there's a little too much of that going on these days in everything else in this cruel and fucked up world. But not with music. Not with my music. You can't take that from me, I won't let you corrupt it like everything else. Because a man's got to draw a line somewhere, and I drew that line a long time ago. But it seems that as we get older, we get more forgiving with the amount of bullshit we'll put up with. It's not worth the fight, you'll say. But this is worth it. This is worth everything to me, and I'll be damned before I let these sneak-thieves and swindlers tell me, who's deserving of honors and who's not in the music I've spent my life listening to, appreciating, and loving. I'll be the judge of that from now on, thank you very much.
No comments:
Post a Comment