Every spring, the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame announces its nominees, and fans immediately begin debating who deserves induction. But behind the headlines is a large and eclectic voting body that includes musicians, critics, industry insiders — and a historian from the College of Letters & Science.
Alexander Shashko (’94), a full-time lecturer in the Department of African American Studies, has been one of those voters for about a decade. We sat down with him to talk about how the process works, how he approaches his ballot and why debates over disco and heavy metal still matter.
So, let’s start with the obvious question: How does a UW–Madison historian end up voting for the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame?
It’s a process shrouded in mystery. OK, it’s actually quite a bit simpler than that. Every few years the Hall revamps or expands its voting membership, and about a decade ago they were doing that, and apparently a couple of people suggested my name. I got an email inviting me to be a voter. And that was it. No ceremony, no blindfold test, no hazing. I didn’t have to fly to Cleveland and memorize all the exhibits. It was really just a recommendation from people who knew me or knew my work.
I think they were looking for a broader range of voices at a number of different levels. They were looking for, certainly, a greater level of diversity in all the ways that that can be defined. I think they were looking for people outside of New York and L.A. and the industry itself to sort of expand the number of voices who were available.
How does the Rock Hall voting process actually work?
There’s a nominating committee of a couple dozen people — musicians, critics, historians, industry folks — who meet each year and decide who goes on the ballot. They’re working from a master list of artists who are eligible, meaning it’s been 25 years since their first commercial recording. They’ll go around the room and advocate for artists they think deserve to be nominated. Then they have a big discussion and ultimately decide which names go on the ballot. Once that list is set, the ballot goes out to voters like me, and we have a few weeks to make our choices before everything gets tallied and the Hall announces the results.
When that ballot lands in your inbox, how do you decide who gets your vote?
I’ll make playlists or listen to playlists of the nominees, revisit key albums or songs, read a bit about their careers if I want to brush up. I feel strongly that if someone is nominated, they deserve the time and attention to be seriously considered before I vote.
As a historian, what do you think you bring to the voting process that a critic or industry insider might not?
I probably emphasize influence more than fame or commercial success. To me the story isn’t just what an artist accomplished in their own career, it’s also what they helped create afterward.
A historian also thinks about narrative. The Hall of Fame is telling a story about the history of popular music and because of that, I tend to be open to a wide range of genres and artists. Different musical styles should be represented because they’re all part of that story.
Speaking of genres: Who do you think has been historically undervalued by the Hall?
Disco is the first thing that comes to mind. Disco was very contentious even when it was popular, and I think the residue of that conflict still exists. There’s a whole class of singers and musicians from the disco era who aren’t considered as artistically valuable as artists from other genres. And we’re just starting to deal with Latin artists and Spanish-speaking musicians who have generally not been incorporated into the Hall. Heavy metal is another one, and I know you feel strongly about that.
I’d vote for Motörhead, every year, regardless of whether they’re nominated or not.
Seven votes for Iron Maiden this year, right? You know my feelings about metal. I think it’s underrepresented in the Hall. I suspect part of the issue is that a lot of voters simply like other genres more, so those artists end up getting the votes instead. But metal is undeniably part of rock and roll. If you’re telling the story of the music, it should be represented.
This is where my historian perspective comes in. I have a very broad definition that I bring to the idea of what rock and roll is. I feel like a bigger story is a better one. I do think for a lot of voters, they ultimately just decide that the metal artists are not the ones they like as much or understand as well. But heavy metal needs to be adequately represented in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.
When you’re filling out your ballot, how do you balance personal taste with the bigger historical story the Hall is trying to tell?
I almost never vote for my seven personal favorites from the ballot. Usually there are one or two artists who are so historically important that they have to be included. There’s also a little strategy involved. Sometimes you think an artist will get in without your vote, so you support someone who is on the margins where your vote might matter more. Of course, I’m often wrong about those calculations.
Have you ever had to leave off an artist you absolutely love, because the historian in you said someone else mattered more?
Yes, and I’m dealing with that right now. There are artists on this year’s ballot who I really love and listen to all the time, artists that I’d put on for a road trip or listen to late at night. But there are other artists whose importance feels undeniable, and they’ve earned my vote even if they’re not the ones I’d put on a road trip playlist. That’s the part of the process I don’t enjoy.
Was there an induction that felt especially meaningful to you as a fan?
The Spinners. They were one of the first groups I really loved when I was a kid. The harmonies, the production. There’s a soulfulness there but also this incredible groove. For decades they were nominated on and off without getting in, and it drove me crazy. If there had been a write-in option, I probably would have written in the Spinners every year. When they finally got inducted, that was incredibly satisfying.
Every Rock Hall conversation eventually turns into the “who’s missing?” debate. Who’s the artist you think absolutely belongs in but still isn’t there?
My answer is always Chic. They’re arguably the most important band in the history of disco, and they’ve been nominated more times than any other group without getting inducted. Their co-founder, Nile Rodgers, did eventually get in through another category, which he absolutely deserves. But Chic themselves should be in. That’s the anti-disco bias showing up again.
You teach the history of this music. What do you hope students take away from studying rock and roll?
First and foremost, the centrality of African American culture to the story. Rock and roll grows out of gospel, blues, jazz and African American folk traditions. That foundation is essential to understanding the music. But I also want students to see how the music evolves through a complex conversation with the broader society — new styles, new audiences, new identities forming around it.
And every year I bring that conversation into the Hall of Fame vote. I actually poll my students and ask them who they would induct. With 500 students a semester, that gives me a pretty interesting snapshot of what 20-year-olds think the Hall should look like.
Last question: Why does the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame still matter?
History gets written not just by historians, but by institutions that decide what we remember. The Hall helps shape how we think about the history of popular music. It’s imperfect — any award for art is subjective — but it keeps the conversation going about which artists mattered and why.
And honestly, the debates are part of the point. Every year when the nominations come out, people argue about it. Even when they’re saying the Hall got it wrong, they’re still talking about the music. And that’s a good thing.