COMMENTARY : Why It’s a Rock(y) Hall of Fame : With Cleveland’s showcase opening next weekend, this is an excellent time to rethink the criteria for admission.

There will be more stars than you can count onstage during the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Museum concert next weekend at Cleveland Stadium. The lineup for the show, which celebrates the opening of the $92-million facility in downtown Cleveland, ranges from Chuck Berry, Little Richard and other Hall of Fame members to such guaranteed future inductees as Bruce Springsteen and Prince.

Hall of Fame directors can feel justly proud of their 10-year effort to build the museum. With its 150,000 square feet of fascinating exhibits and invaluable educational opportunities, the museum is the cornerstone in a campaign to showcase rock ‘n’ roll music as powerful cultural force and valuable art form.

But the directors’ work isn’t over.

They now need to refocus attention on their most important duty: making sure the right artists are inducted each year. At present, too many marginal artists are being honored. Of the 79 recording artists voted into the Hall of Fame during the past 10 years, a third clearly have questionable credentials. While most are appealing, even creditable figures, they simply lack the originality and impact of the essential musicians of the rock era.

Or do you think Ricky Nelson and the Four Seasons are in a class with Elvis Presley and the Jimi Hendrix Experience?

Or that the Platters and Duane Eddy should be treated as equals with Bob Dylan and the Beatles?

At the same time, some towering artists--including Joni Mitchell, David Bowie, the Velvet Underground and Leonard Cohen--have been snubbed, often repeatedly.

Unless something is done to correct matters, the Grammys may end up as only the second most embarrassing awards ritual of the recording industry.

The problem with the Hall of Fame selection process involves both quantity and quality. The issue of too many artists being inducted can be easily addressed: The Hall of Fame directors should immediately revise rules that now encourage the induction of seven new members a year. This number wouldn’t be an issue if there were seven essential candidates a year, but there aren’t--and there haven’t been since the first year of voting.

The second matter is more difficult: The only way Hall of Fame voters can more accurately pinpoint the truly great rock artists is to define more carefully the criteria for choosing inductees. The standard should be excellence, not merely an accumulation of hits or--worst of all--careless voter nostalgia.

Quantity: One reason Hall of Fame directors began electing seven artists a year was to make sure the annual induction dinners had flash--to guarantee, if you will, enough industry excitement at the annual affairs to make them a must. The fear, apparently, was that the dinners wouldn’t be glamorous enough if there were only one or two inductees a year. This was a valid consideration, perhaps, in the early days of the Hall of Fame, when industry support was essential if the project was going to become a reality.

The more-the-merrier policy should now be discarded because it does a disservice to the truly great artists. In an industry that all too often measures artists chiefly by the number of records sold, the Hall of Fame is a chance to salute those artists whose work truly mattered--artists whose vision and craft reshaped the boundaries of the music and inspired those who followed. These are, in the simplest of grade-school terms, the A artists.

What glory does the Hall of Fame offer to the best artists, and what inspiration does it serve to young musicians, when the door is opened too wide? Low standards corrupt the whole process.

At present, we are seeing B- and, in some case, C-level artists inducted.

The Hall of Fame is sufficiently established by now that the issue of a glamorous dinner should no longer color the voting process. Besides, you could guarantee plenty of star power through a new induction dinner category: an honor roll of landmark singles or albums.

This way artists could be saluted for invaluable contributions to rock history without having to be falsely praised as being equal to the music’s most vital figures. A score of current inductees could have been more appropriately saluted in this manner: Bill Haley, for instance, for “Rock Around the Clock” or Carl Perkins for “Blue Suede Shoes” or Martha & the Vandellas for “Dancing in the Street” or the Platters for “My Prayer.”

Quality: It is scandalous that reggae great Bob Marley was passed over for three years before being inducted last year and that songwriting master Mitchell was not inducted when she first became eligible in 1993. The suspicion is that Mitchell--along with Cohen, whose confessional style is cited as an influence by scores of today’s most admired young artists--are considered more “folk” artists than rock artists.

But that’s like saying Hall of Fame voters were wrong in inducting Al Green because he is really a “soul” artist or Johnny Cash because he’s a “country” artist or B.B. King because he’s a “blues” artist. The concept of rock ‘n’ roll, mercifully, has moved beyond the concept of (literally) four guys with guitars, bass and drums.

Just as women have become an equal creative force in the ‘90s, the rock world has embraced and benefited from the best of folk, country, blues and, now, rap. Rather than a narrow genre, rock ‘n’ roll should be seen as an umbrella term that embraces the most passionate and liberating music of our time.

The mystery of why the Velvet Underground and Bowie have been passed over for years is even more perplexing. Thanks chiefly to Lou Reed’s songwriting, the Velvets opened doors in rock with both their arty musical textures and the sometimes unsettling social realism of their themes. In turn, Bowie, who was greatly influenced by the Velvets, brought both a liberating theatricality and a compulsive sense of creative experimentation into a passive, pre-punk ‘70s rock world.

To measure his influence, you need to look no further than Kurt Cobain singing Bowie’s “The Man Who Sold the World” on Nirvana’s celebrated “MTV Unplugged” appearance or to Trent Reznor’s delight at touring this fall with Bowie.

While you can eliminate most of the B- and C-level musicians by reducing the number of inductees, there is no simple rule change that will make sure that the 600 or so Hall of Fame voters (recording executives, musicians and journalists) recognize all the A-level artists when these artists’ names appear on the ballot.

The only way to achieve that goal is for the voters to take their responsibility more seriously. Making the induction process more selective by limiting the number of inductees could be an important step in encouraging voters to weigh their choices more carefully. This more intense voting process might even stir some industry debate each year over the qualifications of the different artists. There is very little of that debate now.

In all the hoopla next weekend over the Hall of Fame Museum opening, it’s important to remember that the new structure itself represents simply the body of the Hall of Fame. It’s the artists who are inducted into the Hall of Fame and their legacy that represent the institution’s soul.