Most Active Stories
- When Facts Are Scarce, ER Doctor Turns Detective To Decide On Care
- StoryCorps: CJ Box Talks With His Daughter About Their Favorite Pastime, Fly Fishing
- Superintendent Hill Tries To Return To Dept. Of Ed
- Researchers Map Migration Routes With An Eye To Protecting Wildlife
- Wyoming Man Wins U.S. Supreme Court Case Concerning Rails To Trails
Wed December 7, 2011
Shouldn't Rush Be In The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame?
Pardon this blogger for a moment of venting.
We've heard today that the new inductees to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in the performers category are Guns N' Roses, the Beastie Boys, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Laura Nyro, Donovan and The Small Faces.
I don't have any problem with the honorees.
As usual, it's who still isn't in the hall that irks me.
Last year I went on about why KISS should be in. And about 86 percent of those who clicked on our "should KISS be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?" question said "yes" (you can still express your opinion on that critical question here).
This year, let's consider Rush. As Wired's GeekDad blog wrote in September, the Canadian trio has sold more than 40 million records and has "more consecutive gold and platinum records than everyone except the Beatles and the Rolling Stones."
Even the president and CEO of the Rock Hall concedes the band should be honored. "They simply haven't gotten enough votes to make the ballot," Terry Stewart told Cleveland's The Plain Dealer earlier this year. "I can't tell you why. Based on impact, influence, innovation, and excellence, they're worthy. I think it's just a matter of time before it happens."
So, we have to ask:
We'll keep the question open until the end of Friday. And now we'll turn the rock 'n' roll coverage back over to our much savvier colleagues at The Record.