Of course not. Don't be ridiculous. My point is that longevity does matter. No one doubts that the Stones are greatest RnR band ever, but their later stuff? Meh....
I dont think being the Ramones was easy. You seem to think that playing Jacobs Ladder in13/8 time was easy. It's not.
I don't see a clear lineage for the VU to the New York Dolls. I've always read and heard that the NYD were the FIRST glam rock band, without whom there may not have been a Bowie, a Kiss, 80's hair metal, grunge and punk.
The Dead Kennedy's, the Clash, Richard Hell and the Voidoids, Black Flag, and then the more mainstream T-Funk Heads and Blondie (vastly under-acted band) all happen with or without the SexPistols floating down the Thames.
I know what your point is. Rock n Roll is leather jackets, sex, rebellion, the Beatles in Hamburg, etc. and to a certain extent, the Hall more than welcomes that. It's the Madonna's, James Taylor's and their ilk that rub me the wrong way. Yes, Genesis, Rush, and ELP were monstrously huge bands that were fathered by Sargent Pepper. To deny them recognition in the Hall because they don't fit the jingle-jangle, leather jacket, rebellion mode is silly.
Music at some point has to be about music. These bands incorporated actual musicianship into the craft. Not everyone started their musical journey by picking up Strat copy and some decent headphones. Some of us started with musician parents and piano lessons and a father's massive collection of jazz albums. To hear rock played with the same intricacy, care, masterful musicianship as a Billy Cobham or Buddy Rich was indeed a revelation and a rebellion all it's own.