posted at 4/20/2013 8:16 AM EDT
In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
I honestly do not understand how a person that loves rock'n'roll - founded as an outsider, rebellious music form cocking its snoot at conventional society - could feel anything but antipathy at awards and congratulations and ceremonies for artists that, in theory, were fighting against such conventional societal acceptance.
I'm a huge seller of votes and awards generally....who cares what many/most people think about anything? If someone thinks "How Green Was My Valley" was a 'better' film than "Suspicion", "Citizen Kane" and "The Maltese Falcon"....fine, think what you want, I don't care. And I imagine Hitchcock, Welles and Wallis didn't give a sh1t either.
But awards and honours for rock'n'roll? I think it degrades the entire genre....but then again, that will fuel the next generation of angry kids kicking the living sh1te of the jewelry rattlers.
No argument from me on your POV. There was a time, however, when there wasn't an award presented once / week, and at that time, they meant more than they do today. It's "award overload" -- totally meaningless and for marketing purposes only.
The odd thing re: the RnR Hall is that the acts don't get nominated until / unless they reach a certain level / status / longevity in the music industry. By then, if the entire, original band is still alive and together (rare?), they are no longer rebellious or against societal acceptance. They may have made the talk show circuit, been interviewed in mainstream web-zines, generic publications, and TV, and spoken out in public on political issues. Their RnR persona isn't as hardcore. Again, I don't disagree with your contention, but with the longevity of the bands who are inducted, they represent the past *and* the present, and some of the rough edges may have been smoothed out (on some, not all) for these bands.