I've been to the RNRHOF in Cleveland. Twice. Once I paid and once I got in free as part of a reception hosted there by The Cleveland Clinic.
It has a lot of cool memorabilia and exhibits and I think that the people curating it do understand the history of rock and roll pretty well, but they're somewhat constrained by having to use mostly visual displays to explain music and it's organized chronologically which makes it all seem linear when we all know that the evolution of popular music is more like the growth of a bush with many branches and side branches and side branches of side branches. Actually, even that doesn't work because tracing it all back to a relatively narrow set of roots, as the museum does by honoring some great blues and R&B men of the pre-50s, oversimplifies the origins somewhat.
There are a few exhibits that break out of that linear pattern and just present something cool because it is. Like they have a shitload of Jimi Hendrix stuff. Even though he has his own museum in Seattle, there's a ton of stuff he drew or wrote and there was (when I was there a while ago - maybe still) a little theater where you could sit and listen/watch some of his great live performances in awesome sound. I don't know if that overstates his importance, but it is a damn enjoyable experience to just sit there, close your eyes and absorb the sound.
It's arguable that this or that act isn't really rock and roll at all, even if it influenced rock and roll. That's a good point. But then it's hard to decide where to draw the boundaries. It seems like the RNRHOF has defined it as "popular music that isn't jazz or Country" with Country being defined however the Nashville Industrial Complex defines it for the purposes of commercial radio. And that's a pretty inadequate way of going about it.
The actual Hall of Fame list itself is what pisses so many people off. While just about all of us will find some acts on there that we love, a read through comes across as "rock and roll as defined by the sort of
wealthy white media executives who primarily understand rock n' roll as a vehicle for selling stuff to the key demographics.
The treatment of the Sex Pistols kind of illustrated that. They got nominated during a year of "now that we've let in all the dross like Aereosmith in, let's get around to mentioning punk." Of course, they didn't show up, but during that ceremony their absence was treated with a kind of "hahahah, those crazy boys with their contrarian ways. What hijinks!" There was no indication whatsoever that anyone in the room was thinking "maybe they have a point." Lydon was a real dick about it, of course, accusing The Clash of being poseurs, etc. The Clash, like most of the acts whose acceptance comments I've seen, seemed to take it for what it was worth - a nice gesture and a nice moment to get together with their old bandmates, but nobody treats it the way a ballplayer treats getting into that HOF. Probably the only thing good about it is that each act is introduced, at length, by another, usually younger musician who admires them. If I were a musician, I think that alone would make it worth showing up for. I imagine the greatest thrill for a musician is to inspire a kid to make his or her own music.
But I that all of the Sex Pistols, Clash, and Ramones feel suitably embarrassed that they're being held up as the totality of "punk" (and I say that as somebody who has a favorable opinion of all three bands) because it seems very unlikely that Minor Threat, Gang of Four, Dead Kennedys, Black Flag, Big Black, Fugazi, to name a few, will even get a mention. Maybe the Pixies and maybe Husker Du could get in someday. Maybe.
