Rock and Roll Hall of Fame vs. MLB Hall of Fame

This will be short because I'm mostly interested in your thoughts. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame does not keep drug users out of the Hall. It doesn't really care one way or the other. Drug use and music have gone together for longer than than I've been alive (39 years today). The best bands have been ones that are known to have used drugs, sometimes large quantities of them. You don't often hear about the musician who is anti-drugs. It's less frequent than 10 years ago in baseball and a hell of a lot less frequent than today in baseball.

I imagine one such argument against this analogy is that there are a finite number of jobs in MLB, but I don't really buy this. People have a finite amount of money they're willing to spend on music and if the better bands are all doping, that leaves less money for the non-dopers. They're left to either beg for food or get a job outside of music. 

What are your thoughts? Why do we celebrate The Beatles, but not Barry Bonds? Why do so many love The Grateful Dead, but not Sammy Sosa? Why is it that we consider Pink Floyd among the all-time greats, but refuse to honor baseball players in the same way? Would we think less of Pink Floyd's music if they were known to lie? Why do so few care that Bob Dylan may be a plagiarist and so many care that Roger Clemens is almost certainly a liar? 

Is baseball the same kind of entertainment that music is? People spend money on music and couldn't care less if the musician was sober or slowly killing himself with heroin. When I was in college it was funny that The Beatles experimented with LSD and began putting out better music. It would have been unthinkable to listen to Pink Floyd if they were sober when recording their music. 

Quantcast