More musings on the Rock Hall of Fame...

So you all remember this post, in which a commenter to a Houston Chronicle story mentioned certain acts which were and were not in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I wondered how much of that had to do with politics. Well, last night I was screwing around on the Internet, and googled the phrase "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame credibility." Some surprising stuff there, that I honestly didn't have a clue was the case, but on the other hand not so surprising in other ways. I never knew that Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner had anything to do with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, much less effectively controlled who gets in and who doesn't. That would certainly explain why certain artists who had little to nothing to do with the genre are in the HOF and certain other artists who became icons of the genre aren't, considering his POS magazine labels certain artists as "rock artists" who have little to nothing to do with the genre. I can understand somewhat the induction of certain artists from the '30s to the '60s considering that's the period in which rock was born and became a distinct genre, but the inclusion of other artists has, as many others have said, really diminished the Hall's credibility and made it into more the American Popular Music Hall of Fame. (Rush isn't in the HOF, but the Jackson Five are? Really?) I dont necessarily see anything wrong with acknowledging the contributions of non-rock artists to the American musical canon, but they really should be putting a lot of those artists in an "American Pop Music Hall of Fame." And some of those in the Rock Hall wouldn't really belong in the Pop Hall either. The Beastie Boys? Didn't they have that one big hit that they more or less just shouted the lyrics on? A supposed insider said here that Jann Wenner treats the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Museum like a toy. He and his cronies more or less treat the Hall of Fame itself as a showcase of their favorite artists as well, apparently, considering some of those inductees.