Madonna doesn't deserve to be in the hall simply because she is a singer; not a composer; not an artist. The fact that you can defend a poser such as Madonna ... well, that speaks for itself.You also state that you only use Rush as your "poster boy" because it elicits response such as mine. Great I won't sully this thread with any more responses... But...Rush represents a genre of music that is directly traceable to the Beatles psychedelic phase. King Crimson, Yes, ELP, and Genesis (to a lesser degree Pink Floyd) were the direct descendents of one of the most important evolutions in music history. Granted, Rush was the second generation of that movement to progressive rock BUT they survived, and thrived. All of the other pioneers of prog collapsed, contracted, swapped members ad hominem.Rush survived, thrived and adapted. For 5 decades. If you're gonna have a "Hall of Fame," doesn't it make sense to have the.most successful, long-lived example of a partcular and popular genre represented in said Hall?There are a TON of one-two-three-and-four bands in the RRHOF. I moved on from bands that didn't challenge me intellectually. Doesn't mean it's not Rock n roll ( and doesn't mean it's not a guilty pleasure to listen to the Nerves). But I moved on too...