amfmsw said:
50's & 60's music is the perfect place for this debate. After reading the a post in the "name game" thread, it came to me to cause new controversy, just for fun of course.
I shiver everytime I hear about the "Rock 'n Roll Hall Of Fame" in Cleveland. Why is it there?
There is a lot of debate among music fans over why Cleveland ended up being chosen, and most industry professionals agree that it is because the city offered the best financial package. (In 1983 civic leaders in Cleveland pledged $65 million in public money to fund the construction of the home for the Hall Of Fame). As one music critic noted, "It wasn't Alan Freed. It was $65 million -- Cleveland wanted it here and put up the money."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rock_and_Roll_Hall_of_Fame
amfmsw said:
Everyone knows that Rock music was spread like"cheese on pizza" by Dick Clark from WFIL-TV6 in Philadelphia. Who ever heard a jock say "there's the sound of Cleveland'? As opposed to "there's the Sound Of Philadelphia". The first Rock HIT was "Rock Around The Clock" by the Comets from nearby Chester PA. (Holiday 88 was an obscure R&B record) The first successful FULL-TIME Top 40 station in a major market was WIBG in Philadelphia.
Several records of this period have been most frequently cited by different authorities as "the first rock’n’roll record". These include:
Wynonie Harris' "Good Rockin' Tonight" (1947); "Rock The Joint" by Jimmy Preston; Rocket 88", Jackie Brenston's 1951 original; Bill Haley's "Rock Around The Clock" (1954); and Elvis Presley's "That's All Right (Mama)" (1954). However, there are many other candidates; the book "What was the first rock'n'roll record" by Jim Dawson and Steve Propes discusses 50 contenders, from Illinois Jacquet's "Blues, Part 2" (1944) to Elvis Presley's "Heartbreak Hotel" (1956), without reaching a definitive conclusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_rock_and_roll_record
BTW: You mentioned "Holiday 88". Were you referring to "Rocket 88"? If so, you are correct in that it was an R&B platter, however - what Alan Freed played on his famous night time radio show was indeed considered R&B by today's historians.
amfmsw said:
Why does it keep inducting marginal, at best, acts that NEVER deserve to be in what SHOULD be a hallowed place of recognition. they induct too many every year.
A nominating committee composed of music historians selects names for the Performers category, which are then voted on by roughly 1000 experts. Performers receiving the highest number of votes greater than 50% of the votes received are selected for induction; each year, about five to seven nominees make the cut. The main criticism is that the nomination process is controlled by a few individuals, reflecting their tastes rather than the views of the rock world as a whole. A former member of the nominations board once said: “…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.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rock_and_Roll_Hall_of_Fame
I have used one resouce (Wikipedia) for these responses, although many are available. Initially I thought of composing my own viewpoints, but they would have been too long and complicated and perhaps boring. This subject is a broad one with many answers - which then involve more questions, and many contradictions. Rather than try to encompass one genre, i.e., Rock and Roll, one needs to break it up into the many sub-genres and their various regional influences. If I may, I’ll recommend the following reading, which most Rock/Roll enthusiasts should find interesting:
“
Rhythm & Blues (New Orleans)”, by Broven
“
Good Rockin’ Tonight” (Sun Records and the Birth of Rock ‘n’ Roll), written by Colin Escott with Martin Hawkins
