Musical artists being inducted into the Rock Hall should be a number of things all at once or they need to exceedingly stand out in one important way. Artists need to have a lot of success artistically, which can lead to influencing a whole generation of bands (not three or four) that want to take their sound and make it their own. The artists also need to be commercially successful over a long stretch of their careers. This means touring well, sure, but also selling records.
And those aren't my criteria. They are the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's, based on their voting history. A musical artist must have an important impact on the music industry and cultural influence. While one can point to Phish having an influence on culture as far as being referenced on specific television shows and movies, the same argument can be made for other bands.
The cultural impact of Iron Maiden, globally speaking, and Maiden's influence on heavy metal, far outweigh Phish's impact on a global scale. Iron Maiden also is not in the Rock Hall yet, and they were not even nominated this year. I am not a greater fan of Iron Maiden than I am of Phish, so that observation is not bias-based.
Phishheads have a right to be upset
The entire idea of a Rock Hall is a little odd, to be fair. The idea of anyone putting a ranking to an art form will always lend itself to argument and inconsistency.
With Phish, it gets complicated when it comes to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. The band is one of the most successful touring acts over the last four decades, and they have earned that. They do the hard work of putting together constant tours, staying healthy and available to do the shows, and then giving people a good enough time that fans want to see them again.
But the band has not been overly successful in terms of selling records, at least for a musical artist that has been together for 40 years. According to Best Selling Albums, the group has sold just a bit over four million records in the United States. The group has little presence on a global stage as far as selling albums.
The fact is that selling records is not the only mark of whether a band is good or not. Phish makes good music. Not great, but good. They care about their fans, too, and that matters.
The reason this is all brought up is that I recently wrote an article about Phish being "unworthy" of topping the vote-getters through the first week of voting for the 2025 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame ballot. That appears to have made many Phishheads upset, and those fans have a right to be upset about anyone seemingly disrespecting their favorite band.
I admit my use of "unworthy" might have been too harsh. I do not dislike Phish. Do I think they deserve to be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? No, but I accept that other people disagree with me.
Ultimately, though, why does anyone care if Phish (or Iron Maiden) makes the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? That is certainly not why the band started off making music. They make music that they enjoy and their fans enjoy, and that should be the entire point of creating art. Phish does that well.
The same band associated with cutting-edge technology, like the Sphere in Las Vegas, might be viewed by some as a really good version of a Grateful Dead wannabe. Phish has merit on their own, of course, but their comparisons to the Dead will be never-ending.
And yes, Phish has had an impact on how some musical festivals have been run. The way the band held their concerts was a better example than what some festivals were doing so the festivals changed to be better.
One bit that is often pointed out about why Phish should be inducted into the Rock Hall is misleading, however. The band has been exceedingly successful in the amount of money made while touring. The amount of dollars is not apples to apples when compared to many other bands, though.
Phish has had more than 1,800 concerts and grossed $595,859,900. One Direction (a less-quality musical artist than Phish) has grossed $570,704,406 on tours. But they only played a little over 300 concerts.
Having a higher dollar amount on all-time tour grosses when one has played a lot more shows is like a baseball fan making the argument that Pete Rose was a better player than Ted Williams because Rose had more hits but played in 1,200 more games. The truth is that Rose and Williams were both great, though one was greater.
Again, though, what really matters is the quality of music that Phish has produced. It is high quality. If they haven't sold 100 million records that is not their fault, it is the greater general public missing out on a good thing. If I somehow miswrote and implied Phish wasn't a good group, I apologize. They are. (And so are the Smiths and they aren't in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame either.)