Is the "Rock and Roll Hall-of-Fame" really for Rock and Roll?

With the announcement this week of the 2014 class of performers to be inducted into the "Rock and Roll Hall-of-Fame" (Cat Stevens, Hall and Oats, Nirvana, Kiss, Linda Ronstadt, and Peter Gabriel), I felt it was a good time to discuss a few issues and questions I have with and for the Rock and Roll Hall-of-Fame (RRHOF) Foundation.

As you may or may not know, the RRHOF resides in Cleveland, Ohio and began voting in recipients in 1986.  Since then, 719 people, 295 performers, and 104 groups have been inducted.  Which brings me to my first question.  The induction of 295 performers over a 27 year period averages about 11 per year.  At that rate, isn't every performer going to be in the RRHOF at some point in the future?  I would hope that the RRHOF foundation will decide sometime soon to start inducting fewer people (five or less) each year to preserve the dignity of the hall.  If not, we'll start to see more and more mediocre acts being inducted, and the quality of the RRHOF will slowly be diluted.

My next question to the RRHOF would be a pretty basic one:  "What is your definition of Rock and Roll"?  I only ask, because here are a few of the performers who have been inducted into the hall since its initiation:  Nat King Cole, Billie Holiday, The Supremes, The Temptations, The Platters, The Four Tops, The Four Seasons, Gladys Knight and the Pips, the Bee Gees, Brenda Lee, Donna Summer, The O'Jays, The Ronettes, Run-D.M.C, and Abba.  All great and even legendary performers in their own right, but Rock and Rollers? Pop Hall-of-Fame, Rap Hall-of-Fame,  Soul Hall-of-Fame, Hip Hop Hall-of-Fame, R&B Hall-of-Fame for sure.  Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?  I'm not too sure about that.

"Artists become eligible for induction 25 years after the release of their first record. Criteria include the influence and significance of the artists’ contributions to the development and perpetuation of rock and roll.  The RRHOF Foundation's nominating committee selects nominees each year in the Performer category. Ballots are then sent to an international voting body of more than 600 artists, historians and members of the music industry. Those performers who receive the highest number of votes are inducted."  That is the extent of the RRHOF Foundation's explanation of their voting/induction process. What is considered a high number of votes?  Is there a minimum number of votes needed to be elected? If not, who determines which performers have the "highest number of votes" for any given year?  Where's the cut off?  Inquiring minds want to know!

Finally, what do the following list of performers have in common:  The Doobie Brothers, Chicago, Yes, Emerson, Lake and Palmer (ELP), Jethro Tull, The Cars, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Journey, Dire Straits, Bad Company, the Electric Light Orchestra (ELO), Styx, and Kansas?  None, I repeat, none, are in the RRHOF!  That's stunning to me.  What's even more outrageous is that outside of Yes, NONE of them have ever been nominated!  And all but The Cars and Dire Straits have been eligible for over 15 years now!  How can this be?  How can some, if not all of these groups be omitted?  They certainly fit the RRHOF Foundation's criteria of "Artists become eligible for induction 25 years after the release of their first record. Criteria include the influence and significance of the artists’ contributions to the development and perpetuation of rock and roll. "  Sure, some of the groups border on pop (Chicago, Dire Straits) or New Age (The Cars), but no more than any other group already in the RRHOF (The Beach Boys, The Bee Gees, Abba, Simon and Garfunkel, Earth, Wind and Fire, Beastie Boys, Hall and Oates this year, or any of the other members mentioned earlier).

Aerosmith and Queen were inducted 12 years ago.The Talking Heads and Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers 11 years ago. The Police and AC/DC 10 years ago. ZZ Top in 2004 and The Pretenders in 2005.  Blonde in 2006.  Van Halen in 2007. Genesis in 2010. Kiss and Hall and Oates this year.  I'm a fan of most of these groups, and all probably should be in the RRHOF at some point, but is there really a good argument for any of them being inducted before Chicago, The Doobie Brothers or Yes? And not just elected, but some 10 years (and counting) before them?  I have a hard time finding one.

Unfortunately, I don't have the answers to any of my questions above. I wish I did!  If you fish around the internet, you'll find various opinions, including some who believe the whole process is very political with grudges and favorites existing throughout the music industry. That I could believe and would actually make some sense. Regardless, being a big fan of music, and especially rock-and-roll, the RRHOF's process has always been a perplexing one to me. Not to mention a bit vague!

So there you go.....my gripes and confusion with the RRHOF Foundation.  I feel much better now!  Feel free to chime in with your thoughts!

Good links:

• RRHOF Snub list:  http://www.futurerocklegends.com/The_Snub_List.php

• RRHOF Overview page:  http://www.rockhall.com/inductees/

All is Lost/Last Vegas

Here's my take on a couple of theatrical movies I've seen during the past month that are about as polar from each other as you can get:  "All is Lost" and "Last Vegas"!  Be interested to read your comments and opinions as well!

All is Lost

Could have easily been called "Perseverance", as persevere is what Robert Redford's no-named character was forced to do throughout the movie.  Redford's eight day journey stranded at sea is nothing less than a constant struggle and battle against the elements. Not to mention bad luck, which starts off right away when his boat collides with a large storage container anchored by itself out at sea in the middle of nowhere. The collision rips a large hole in the side of his boat, that, with a little ingenuity, he's able to fix. Watching the Redford character troubleshoot through various obstacles like this using nothing but his imagination and skill is what I enjoyed the most about the movie. Just as important, the character, for the most part, keeps his cool throughout the ordeal. This, I would think, would be crucial to surviving something like this. (Although personally, I would throw in a little prayer as well!)

More bad luck ensues as Redford's already crippled boat sails into what all stranded-at-sea boat movies seem to encounter....a massive storm.  Although lost for just eight days, Redford encounters not one, but two storms!  Very back luck.  Regardless, Redford's boat continuously and relentlessly takes a beating until finally Redford must take alternative action.  The bad luck unfortunately continues when two  boats pass by and don't see him, and salt water gets into his fresh water supply. But, not to be beaten, he simply refuses to give up.

To add to its uniqueness, the first five minutes of the film contains 95% of the movie's dialog as Redford audibly reads the goodbye note he writes on day 8 of his adventure. But is it goodbye?  The story keeps taking us back and forth, and we literally don't find out until the final scene of the movie.
  

Redford is excellent in the role, and just as importantly, believable.  Sure, he's 76 years old, but I've never doubted that he, or any reasonably fit 70+ year old, couldn't actually do anything he did in the movie.  I'm sure there were a few scenes a stunt double was used, but Redford was in the majority of the film, and thus did most of the physical acting that was required. The last thing I'd like to mention is the cinematography.  It was beautifully filmed.  From the underwater shots to the high-in-the-sky views, you get a real grasp of the solitude the ocean can present, and what the Redford character must have felt. Reminded me a bit of "The Life of Pi", as that film incorporated the vast ocean as a character as well.

Using my rating system (1= skip it, 2= rent it, 3= worth a matinee, 4= worth full price), I’d give it a solid “4”.

Last Vegas

I was pretty sure I knew what I was getting myself into when I went to see "Last Vegas".....cheesy, dumb, nothing new.  And I was mostly right.  But I couldn't avoid the cast!  Robert De Niro, Michael Douglas, Morgan Freeman, Kevin Kline.....four of my all-time favorite actors!  Six Academy Awards trophies and 14 nominations between them! So I had to see it.  The movie certainly had it's highlights, and a few pretty funny scenes.  But it was your typical "the pains of getting old" story.

The four actors play childhood friends who are currently scattered around the country and don't see much anymore.  When one of them, Douglas, announces that he's getting married, the others arrange a bachelor party/reunion in Las Vegas. Once reunited, the jokes really begin to flow.  The storyline in Vegas was nothing memorable, but did have it's moments.  One of the highlights was Mary Steenburgen, who was terrific as a nightclub singer that two of the friends take a liking to. This triangle actually becomes a re-enactment of an event that happened some 50 years earlier between the same two friends.  This backstory was actually one of the better parts of the movie.  And the climax of the current situation provided for me the best scene in the movie where the Douglas character spills out his heart about how he really feels about life and being 70 years old.

Outside of that, I felt the movie was mostly a waste of the talent of four premium actors. But it was kind of fun seeing them all together.  Plus it was probably the only chance for them to actually have a chance to work together, and I'm sure the money was good. So who can blame them?

Using my rating system (1= skip it, 2= rent it, 3= worth a matinee, 4= worth full price), I’d give it a “2.5”.

Movieguide: The family guide to movies and entertainment

A couple of years ago at our church I heard some people discussing a movie review site called MOVIEGUIDE® that was a) family-oriented and b) had an emphasis on Christian values.  Upon checking it out, I really liked it, particularly how they broke up their reviews into four areas:  "Content", "Summary", "Review" and "In Brief". I found the "Content" section especially helpful, as it broke down into specific detail the violence, language, sex, or nudity (if any) that could be found in each movie. In other words, you'll know what to expect before you see it. This is pretty handy if you're looking for an appropriate movie for your kids to see....or not see.

MOVIEGUIDE® was founded in 1985 by Dr. Ted Baehr, a former president of the Episcopal Radio & Television Foundation and former director of the Television Center at the City University of New York, and is affiliated with the Christian Film & Television Commission® ministry (CFTVC),

Another unique feature of MOVIEGUIDE® is their two rating system when reviewing movies. Here's a brief rundown of both, taken directly from their webpage (www.movieguide.org):

1. Quality:

The Quality Ratings refer to the production values in the movie, the entertainment quality of the production, and whether the movie fulfills what it tries to do. A four-star rating does not guarantee that the movie will meet our criteria for what makes a truly fine, much less great, work of art.  Quality ratings used are:

* * * * EXCELLENT
* * * GOOD
* * FAIR
* POOR

2.  Acceptability:

Acceptability Ratings take into account cognitive stages of development, moral issues and theological issues. Acceptability Ratings help parents with children and the media-wise adult viewer. Acceptability Ratings are based on a traditional view of the Bible and Christianity. Some movies receive positive ratings because they fit a biblical worldview of ethical monotheism, even though there is little specific Christian content in them. The ultimate evaluation of a movie depends on one’s moral and spiritual values. Those values depend on one’s worldview or total philosophy of life, humanity, the universe, and the supernatural. Acceptability ratings used are:

+4           EXEMPLARY:  Biblical, usually Christian, worldview, with no questionable elements whatsoever.
+3           MORAL:  Some minor questionable elements.
+2           GOOD:  Moderately questionable elements.
+1           WORTHWHILE:  Discernment required for young children.
-1            CAUTION:  Discretion advised for older children.
-2            EXTREME CAUTION:  Discretion advised for adults.
-3            EXCESSIVE:  Excessive sex, violence, immorality, and/or worldview problems.
-4            ABHORRENT:  Intentional blasphemy, evil, gross immorality, and/or worldview problems.

So there you go. A good movie review site focused on family values and promoting quality entertainment that you can trust to help you find the right movie to take you or your family to.

Here again is the their website:  http://www.movieguide.org. They have an excellent iPhone app as well. Check them out!