Some comments on rock music, rock musicians, and their adulation

I am unsure of whether or not I like the idea of having a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I just read that Madonna was inducted into the RARHOF, begging the question, "Madonna? Rock and Roll?" I realize that rock music, broadly defined, includes a panoply of artists, everything from Run DMC to Hank Williams. But Madonna? Really? I mean, is "Like a Virgin" rock and roll? I just don't see it.

Indeed, I just don't understand the notion of a rock and roll hall of fame. I thought that rock music was supposed to be about rebellion, danger, and confrontation, things that seem antithetical to an institution that celebrates these artists 25 or more years after they have long ceased being rebellious, dangerous, or confrontational. The people that were true rockers are dead or in a mental institution. Not that I am encouraging hedonism a la Jim Morrison, but didn't these people get into this business for the immediacy of the music at the time they started doing what they did? Doesn't having a Hall of Fame go against this notion?

To be sure, as a historian, I am all about exploring and celebrating the past. But rock and roll's past doesn't seem suited to having a bunch of stuffed shirts decide that Iggy Pop, for example, should be given a black tie ceremony at 200 dollars a plate, with Cuban cigars and brandy, to celebrate how rebellious he was - isn't the music enough of a legacy? Which brings me back to Madonna - what is so great about her? The fact that she was consistently a media whore who so-so sang her songs? That she confronted American sexual mores by walking around naked and kissing women? That she won an Oscar? How is that rock and roll? I don't get it; I don't get it one bit...