I don't know whether it is irrelevant. I believe you think so because bands you would have inducted are not even considered.

When you have artists that have been amazingly successful, and honestly do not need this "honour", saying that they are pleased to be part of it, I guess it still means something.

Eddie Trunk is also a keen critic of the RnRHOF. I personally do not care for it. I think it should be called Music HOF, as a lot of people get pissed off because some acts are not 'rock". If you ask me, Rush and Heart are not necessarily "rock" in the way Led Zep would be for instance. If Toto were to be considered, are they rock? They are not to me and I like them a lot.

What is rock anyway? It is a state of mind, an attitude to innovate and go against a certain idea of what people consider acceptable? Quincy Jones then fully deserves to be in. He has been a tremendous innovator, pioneering mixing different genres / artists.

It's like the Grammy's. Are the artists of today less good/important than those of 20 years ago? If you aks me, yes. However, Grammys are only a snapshot of what is commercially popular at any given time. Toto in 1983 was a commercial as you can be (back up by amazing musicianship though). Lots of purists hates them.

I don't think we should get all wired up because a band is in it or not.