@Andrew: Thanks, Andrew. So, you're saying that it should be called the Rock and Soul Hall of Fame, as you've quoted Arthur Conley's "Sweet Soul Music" as a definition?
I've thought for a long time that at the very least it should be called the Rock and Soul Hall of Fame, as that describes the preponderance of performers and non-performers enshrined therein. However, I think it is more accurate to call it the Primarily Western Popular Music from the Mid-1950s to the Present Hall of Fame, although that doesn't fit neatly on any marquee.
I write the DDT's Pop Flies blog for this website, and I've written a lot about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame including an extensive "audit" of the performers the Hall has inducted from its 1986 inception through 2013. Defining just what is "rock and roll" is central to trying to understand the Hall. I get into a lot of discussions about the Hall, either in person or in online forums, and much of the time the discussion boils down to this: "I can't believe that [artist you like] isn't in the Hall of Fame but [artist you don't like] is!" And because music is such and intensely personal and intensely emotional experience, that is usually followed by descriptions of the Hall such as "travesty," "disgraceful," or "shameful."
So, when I ask people what their definition of "rock and roll" is, I usually get examples of artists they like or don't like, which are ultimately indications of their biases and limitations. It doesn't help that the Hall of Fame itself doesn't really define rock and roll, and that, unlike the sports Halls of Fame, there are no meaningful objective metrics you can use in pop music. Record sales, chart positions, and concert grosses only tell a small part of the story, and they don't always apply across the board. It would be like going to the Baseball Hall of Fame and finding not only players from other sports there, but criteria used to justify why they are there that do not apply to all of them.
Does it matter? I don't think that anyone can criticize the Hall without at least having a baseline to work from, which includes a working definition of "rock and roll" along with criteria for why an artist should be considered Hall of Fame-caliber. The RnRHoF has essentially one criterion: "musical excellence"; however, they never define what that means. (Believe me, I've scoured the rockhall.com site looking for it.) My criteria are: innovation, influence, popularity (critical and/or commercial), crossover appeal, and legacy. I think that an artist must rank highly in as many of those five criteria as possible in order to be a Hall of Famer. Of course, the "rankings," as with the criteria themselves, are subjective, but at least they identify areas for evaluation.
And that evaluation should be as impartial as possible. Here, the Hall actually has some good information, as it explains the terms "aesthetic reflection" and "aesthetic judgment." The former is an individual's determination of why an artist's music appeals--or doesn't appeal--to him or her along with attempting to explain why it's "good" or "not good." The latter, aesthetic judgment, is more involved as it is the individual's attempt to determine why other people think an artist's music is appealing or not, or is "good" or "not good." In other words, the latter asks you to look beyond what you like or don't like to look at a broader view of music. That is where a definition of rock and roll would help.
For what it's worth, in my audit I determined that about 75 percent of the inducted performers deserved to be in the Hall. That's a passing grade, but it's not the honor roll. And of course it's ultimately based on my own biases and limitations. However, I tried very hard not to let my "likes" and "dislikes" cloud the analysis, and, quite honestly, at this point that's not too hard to do. There are artists whose music I like but I don't think they should be in the Hall, and there are artists whose music I don't much care for personally but who I think are "Hall-worthy."
It's aesthetic reflection and aesthetic judgment, and it's a baseline from which to operate. Otherwise, these kinds of discussions wind up resembling barroom rambles with one side of the table drunkenly bellowing "tastes great!" and the other side yelling back "less filling!" The kind of discussions the Committee Chairman enjoys. And speaking of whom . . .
@Committee Chairman: No, not really, but it's a pretty cool song.
@Kathleen: Huh? Huh? Huh?