Sunday, December 6, 2015

Nine Inch Nails: Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Justifications and Excuses, Part VI

There is very little instruction given to the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame voters, other than to select five choices out of the 15 nominees. We're not told that we have to consider an artist's influence, or originality, or popularity, or endurance, or even artistic worthiness.

So we're left to make these decisions on our own critieria. Popularity is something that is important to me but not the be-all and end-all; Leonard Cohen never had a Top Forty hit, but he is in and obviously belongs. Artistic contributions are not even of paramount significance. The Supremes basically came in at the end of the Motown assembly line, and laying down their vocals was their only contribution to those records. But I don't think anyone begrudges them their enshrinement.

But one factor that is a deal breaker for me, at minimum, is that I have to enjoy listening to their music. I would never vote for an artist I wouldn't want to listen to, and I don't think that's an unreasonable standard.

Which brings us to the pioneering industrial band Nine Inch Nails. Trent Reznor and his crew created the music that set the backdrop for much of the Nineties with their innovative use of blah blah blah, but does anyone actually enjoy listening to this stuff? It's not just that it's unpleasant; its very purpose seems to be its unpleasantness. Reznor badly wants us all to know about his seething unresolved anger, although I was never quite sure what he was angry about. As my friend Rob Sheffield said about Live, never underestimate the ability of teenage boys to feel deeply about nothing at all.

And I'm not even sure how much of the NIN stuff was brand-new. I would appreciate it if someone who enjoys this music a lot more than I do would explain what NIN did that Ministry hadn't already done back in the 1980s. Plus, I have to deduct points from their score for foisting Marilyn Manson on the world - not cool, Trent.

I vote NO for Nine Inch Nails.


5 comments:

  1. I did not realize that HoF voters are given no criteria for making their choice. Suddenly, the whole institution is a lot clearer to me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Trent Reznor showed up about a decade too late to be considered an Industrial pioneer. Pretty Hate Machine in 1989 was actually very late on the Industrial timeline

    I shared some thoughts on Future Rock Legends recently about where Trent Reznor fits in from my perspective as an Industrial fan dating back to the early-80s.

    http://www.futurerocklegends.com/artist.php?artist_id=Nine_Inch_Nails#350937

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jim, they gave us a little booklet with profiles of each of the 15 nominees. Here are the guidelines to voting, in their entirety: "Please vote for a maximum of five (5) Nominees." Sic and sic.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jim, they gave us a little booklet with profiles of each of the 15 nominees. Here are the guidelines to voting, in their entirety: "Please vote for a maximum of five (5) Nominees." Sic and sic.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is the first of these essays of yours where I agree with the vote (I too did not vote for NIN, though it was a close call) but do not agree with the thrust of the essay. I can't make you like NIN, but are they really that unlistenable to you? "Closer" is essentially disco; all of the singles off 'Pretty Hate Machine' are virtually as catchy as some Janet Jackson singles you're endorsing (as am I). I dunno, NIN always seemed surface-scary to me back in the day but deeply pop at heart. If I had six voting slots, Reznor would take that sixth slot easily (him or Chaka Khan).

    ReplyDelete