In 1983, Atlantic Records founder and industry legend Ahmet Ertegun created the “Rock ‘n’ Roll Hall of Fame Foundation” in order to honor some of the industry’s most esteemed artists. Although the Hall of Fame would not be built for another 12 years, it quickly drew wide public support as an official documentarian for rock ‘n’ roll history. Likewise, nearly 30 years later, Cleveland’s “Rock ‘n’ Roll Hall of Fame” remains an amazing museum for rock fans. Iconic historical artifacts of rock ‘n’ roll’s lifetime line the walls; from David Bowie’s “Ziggy Stardust” performance suit, to Michael Jackson’s moonwalk glove, to Jimi Hendrix’s original “Purple Haze – Jesus Saves” lyrics, the Hall of Fame dedicates itself to rock ‘n’ roll’s long, diverse lifetime.
But, across the Hall’s 20th century artifacts and middle-aged customers, something feels a little off. Ironically enough, when I visited the Hall this past June, I felt like the Rock ‘n’ Roll Hall of Fame was needlessly censoring itself – almost as if the foundation as a whole was selling out. While references to drug usage, free sexuality, and Civil Rights were frequently found throughout the 1960s and 70s sections of the Hall, very few exhibits were actually willing to explore their impact on rock ‘n’ roll’s development. Pete Seeger’s influence on the Civil Rights movement is similarly downplayed on the Rock ‘n’ Roll Hall of Fame website – as well as his former Communist Party membership. Likewise, throughout the Cleveland museum’s “punk” panel, stock footage of English punk feminists and anarchists accurately portray the 70’s movement – but the Hall purposefully censorsreferences to “fuck” and other “vulgar” words. For a genre inherently based on countercultural values, isn’t censoring “curse words” a little silly? It’s certainly ironic that the Hall of Fame website praises Seeger for his anti-McCarthyism stance, yet actively censors its own exhibits.
Likewise, the Hall seems to directly omit pivotal details within their artists’ biographies. The Bruce Springsteen exhibits, for example, eagerly discuss his working-class perspective throughout his songwriting career. Yet, the Hall barely notes his long history with low self-esteem, depression, and psychotherapy. Despite his brief, yet serious, suicidal tendencies after 1982’s “Nebraska,” the Hall barely mentions Springsteen’s inner crisis – let alone the original album’s gangsters, desperate drivers, and serial killers. Likewise, the Jimi Hendrix section within the Hall of Fame avoids serious portions of his chaotic life. For instance, Hendrix’s drunken violence – which, in one case, left a girlfriend with stitches – was entirely omitted in exchange for an entire wall filled with his early childhood drawings and the Hendrix family couch. Likewise, while Hendrix’s museum biography correctly labels his death as “vomit-induced asphyxiation”, the exhibit fails to mention how barbiturates significantly contributed to his death. Evidently, the Rock ‘n’ Roll Hall of Fame is cleverly deleting certain details within their exhibits – outlining family-friendly values over Rock’s darker side.
Granted, the Hall of Fame doesn’t coat Rock ‘n’ Roll with a bright light. There’s plenty of references to Rock ‘n’ Roll’s risqué side; practically every exhibit discusses drug usage, sexual innuendos, or rock ‘n’ roll’s emotionally charged beat. But, the Hall of Fame seems to be catering to the same Establishment it once questioned. Mental illness, violence, and social justice seems to be taking a backseat in Rock ‘n’ Roll’s “success” stories, and family-friendly qualities seem to be over-played. And, while families have a right to introduce their children to rock ‘n’ roll in a comfortable and safe environment, the Hall of Fame isn’t suppose to be about family-fun. As a museum, the Hall should be telling its viewers the truth about rock ‘n’ roll’s crazy, often fatal, rise to fame. By showcasing mainstream values over rock ‘n’ roll’s countercultural side, the Museum isn’t historically valuing rock music – the Hall is only supporting the Establishment it originally questioned.
Philip Wythe