Comments on: HoF Unveils Minnie Pearl Exhibit; Free Time Jumpers Download; Stream Radney Foster’s Del Rio, TX Revisited

By: Adam Sheets

Adam Sheets — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:56:13 +0000

Here’s the point. It doesn’t matter how many #1 hits Jerry Lee Lewis or Kenny Rogers had on the country chart. My idea of an “ambassador” category (Olivia Newton-John is another possible inductee) also doesn’t say that these artists aren’t really country. Rather it acknowledges that they began their careers (and, in some cases, ended them) in other genres, but turned a lot of folks on to country music along the way, thus being an ambassador for the genre.

By: Adam Sheets

Adam Sheets — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:51:38 +0000

I would make an argument that Kenny Rogers was country for possibly five years. Before and after that he was a pure pop artist and even he would say the same. As for Charlie Rich, country happened to play him at one point in his career. Before that, doing the exact same style of music, he was played on rock and R&B stations. You may have a point with Jerry Lee.

By: Barry Mazor

Barry Mazor — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 02:55:09 +0000

Musical categories are all constructed by people; they’re always subjective, and–when organized–always subject to conglomerations of whims. These things go as they go.And saying so doesn’t mean I don’t care. Relax.

By: Jon

Jon — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 01:49:18 +0000

This discussion is getting loonier by the minute.

By: luckyoldsun

luckyoldsun — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 01:18:55 +0000

It’s one thing to say that Ray Charles isn’t really country and keep him out of the H-o-F. I think it’s shortsighted, but fine, if that’s how you feel about it.

But to say that people like Jerry Lee and Charlie Rich–and Kenny Rogers–who recorded on country labels and each had multiple #1 country hits do not qualify because they’re not country–that strikes me as entering the Twighlight Zone.

By: Adam Sheets

Adam Sheets — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 01:02:02 +0000

I would pretty much agree. Charles’ label (now owned by Concord Music Group) isn’t known as a country label, therefore he isn’t in. The voters mostly come from the major country labels, whereas the museum is run by country music lovers. Not to say that I think he should be inducted as a country artist (I think he’s more important to country than Parsons, but there are artists who spent their entire careers in country who need to be inducted first). Rather, I think that he, along with folks like Kenny Rogers, Rick Nelson, and, yes, even Gram Parsons, should be inducted in a new “ambassador” category, much like the “sidemen” category in the Rock Hall. Maybe we could even switch the inductions of Elvis and the Everly Brothers to that category and finally get Jerry Lee and Charlie Rich in.

By: luckyoldsun

luckyoldsun — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:38:56 +0000

True enough, NM.
My feeling is that when you have an acknowledged American musical giant like Ray Charles, the only plausible reason that you would not put him in the Country Music H-o-F is that he’s “not country.”
By running “a major Ray Charles country exhibit,” the H-o-F management seems to be saying that Charles “IS country”–(or is sufficiently country to merit a “major exhibit.”)

Seems to me the H-o-F management is implicitly expressing that it disagrees with the voters. (I don’t think you’re gonna see the H-o-F run a “major Ferlin Husky country exhibit.”) I’ll stick with my theory about Charles unless someone has some information that shows that it’s wrong.

By: nm

nm — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:07:12 +0000

My comment above was directed to LoS and not to Jon, as I trust the content makes clear.

By: nm

nm — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:01:53 +0000

You do know that the Rock HoF inducts numerous artists every year (17 in 2012; 36 over the past 3 years), while the Country HoF inducts three? That difference gives the Rock Hall plenty of leeway to include precursors, fellow travelers, offshoots, and even some total headscratchers. If doesn’t give the Country Hall the same sort of leeway. It’s nice that the Museum has the space to present exhibits on people who don’t make it into the HoF, but it doesn’t (IMO) show that there’s any big difference of opinion on who matters.

By: Jon

Jon — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:48:51 +0000

Kind of suggests to me that there might be a difference between the mission of the Museum and the many ways in which it might be carried out, and the mission of the Hall of Fame and the only way in which it might be carried out.