I try not to care about hall of fames because they are curated and maintained by human beings, which means they invariably apply subjective or inconsistent criteria for induction. While we might aspire to meritocracy and fairness, even the most earnest voters are susceptible to biases and misapprehensions, and others would use the vote as a means for score-settling and/or to promote agendas.

For instance, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is less a serious institution dedicated to honoring genuine excellence and preserving history than a revenue-generating tourist attraction. It has some fine exhibits--a must-see on a visit to Cleveland--but you can skip the gallery on level three. The idea of a pantheon of enshrined greats is anathema to the idea of rock 'n' roll. Rock 'n' roll is more a cultural practice than a musical genre, and non-musicians like James Dean and Hunter S. Thompson contributed more to the spirit of rock 'n' roll than many of the acts enshrined within its walls.

The rebellious counter-cultural ethos that defined rock's formative years cannot be neatly packaged into a museum exhibit or confined to a list of inductees approved by a select committee. Rock 'n' roll is a democratic aesthetic that thrives in the margins, underground clubs, and suburban bedrooms, in the restless hearts of those who reject conformity--not in curated displays behind glass cases. It doesn't bother me that the Replacements, Graham Parsons, Los Lobos, and Warren Zevon haven't been inducted. I'd like to think they're like me: They don't give a damn about no hall of fame.

On the other hand, I care about the Baseball Hall of Fame and write about the inductions almost every........

© El Dorado News Times