Which artists are more popular, which artists are more influential, or which artists that are behind them could be ahead of them? I think you meant the latter. If so, they are likely to be some of the new entries.

To clarify again (if there is confusion over this at all) - I wanted to show DIFFERENT things in each area of the criteria (though there's going to be incidental overlap at times), and the difference between Musical Impact and Influence, though you did nail the short-term and long-term differences of the two, was that not all artists who are blown away by something musically can be musically influenced by it, if their styles are radically different, or simply are too independent to ever consciously adapt something prominent that another artist does, even though they're impressed by it. As for the negative response, it's not that I'm ignoring it at all, it's just that there's no numerical sum total of impact that I'd be able to subtract from. It just doesn't work that way. But I agree that in some cases - Sex Pistols for example - the impact they're after is one of disdain at times and that should get factored in somewhat.

As for the reason why musical impact is interested in the reactions when current, it's simple logic - when a song or album is released their peers at the time respond to it viscerally,. There's usually no separation between its release and the reaction, whereas if we're trying to factor in artists views on it from a decade or more later then there's lots of separation. There's been dissecting in the press, there's been the various stuff it's influenced also making an impact on that artist's reaction, and just the fact it's not longer current means how it's received by later generaitons won't be taking into account the same things. Something totally new and different in 1966 that's responded to favorably at the time will be old hat by 1976 or 2006 and so the reaction to it won't be at all the same, even though it might be liked just as much as it was when it first appeared.

Again, hopefully all four criteria show something different - all of the ways an artist CAN make an impact. That means with the public (commercial), the musical landscape at the time (musical impact), the evolution of the music down the road (influence) and society at large (cultural impact).

I had mentioned that I wanted to work on positions 6-15, and as the first step, look positions 9-15, the ones currently occupied by Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, The Beach Boys, Aretha Franklin, Fats Domino, Michael Jackson, and Madonna. In this post, I'll say how it looks to me each of them line up in each criterion. After there has been some time for comments, then I'll look at what would be the best order for them.

Popularity
MJ > Madonna > Stevie > Beach Boys > Aretha > Ray > Fats

All 7 do very well here, and there is a fairly small difference between any 2 artists who are right next to each other in this grouping. I’d say the last 3 comparisons (starting with Beach Boys vs. Aretha) are especially small, virtual ties.

Influence
Ray > Fats > Aretha > Beach Boys > MJ > Madonna > Stevie

But again, all of them are influential.

Musical Impact
Ray = Stevie > Aretha > Beach Boys > Fats = MJ > Madonna

I’d say the first 4 are extremely high, and the next 2 aren’t far behind.

Cultural Impact
Madonna > Stevie = Aretha > Fats > MJ > Beach Boys > Ray

You think Stevie and Aretha have more cultural impact than MJ?

According to this, Aretha belongs ahead of the Beach Boys. In 3 out of 4 of those she comes out on top with a small victory in each case.

Yes, I noticed that too McMurphy, and I don't know of anyone who expected Aretha to come out ahead of The Beach Boys, myself included. But if my analysis is correct, she should be.



As I think about it some more, that's probably about a tie. The way it looks to me is that the 2 most important changes MJ made in culture were in integrating MTV and in bringing attention to world hunger by co-writing "We Are the World". Aretha's "Respect" was a civil rights and feminist anthem, and both of those movements brought more important changes than what MJ did, but on the other hand, MJ's role in the 2 things he did was probably a more important role than Aretha's role in hers. I'd say Stevie played a bigger role in the MLK national holiday than Aretha played in her areas, and a smaller role than MJ in his, but the importance of the holiday is probably greater than the importance of MJ's changes and smaller than the importance of civil rights and feminism. So it now looks to me like about a tie.

Nearly everything about MJ has become so ingrained into our culture that I think we take it for granted. His high-pitched vocal style, dance moves, effeminate persona, the fashion, etc., he had a huge effect on culture that hasn't waned in over 30 years.
He's also the undisputed king of the music video and he helped it reach a whole new level of appreciation.
I think I agree with Clash on the MLK holiday for Stevie. That's definitely some cultural impact, but not really a lot because he was using his status as an artist to put it into effect.
As for Aretha, if one song constitutes her cultural impact, then I dont see it being more significant than MJ.

All the same stuff applies with the short-term and long-term reaction of the public! Anything that was a hit 40 years ago has been filtered through 40 years of music and culture since then, and for it to be relevant with the public both then and now requires it to be a little "greater" than something that is only a hit initially or something which only rises to prominence with time.

Here's where I think I'm going with this... The balancing point of the criteria should be sales; the commercial relationship between the artist and the customers. Equal weight should be given to the musicians and the customers, with the commercial relationship between them.

So there would be three segments of the criteria.

The first segment is Musical Achievements/Accomplishments/Importance (pick one). Under this I would group influence and musical impact. In order to de-emphasize musical impact to the degree I think is appropriate, I would double-weight influence within this segment. To do this I would separate your primary and secondary influence into Innovation and Propagation, each of them equal with Peer Recognition. The two portions of influence represent long-term evaluations of what was important and peer recognition would represent the short-term evaluation.

The third segment is Cultural Achievements. Under this would be short-term and long-term evaluations of pop culture penetration, including influence on fashion or language or tropes in general, or becoming culturally representative of certain artists/figures/styles/movements/trends. The third segment would go beyond pop culture, for the few artists who influence attitudes or beliefs. Once again, this amounts to one short-term and two long-term evaluations.

The second segment, which completes the spectrum between the other two, would be Commercial Achievements. In this, the short-term and long-term success of the artist would be separated, and a third portion would be added for commercial influence. Artists who change the business of how music is produced, packaged and sold, including within particular subgenres, would be given special credit. This is a little better than the "account for the context of the times" argument. Once again, one short-term and two long-term.

In summary:

Musical Achievements, including:
-Contemporary recognition from fellow artists
-Propagating, modifying or combining existing styles or techniques in music, performance and production
-Innovating new styles or techniques in music, performance and production

Commercial Achievements, including:
-Contemporary sales, chart and touring success, weighted towards the number of customers reached
-Long-term popularity as seen by catalog sales and prominence on radio playlists
-Changing the business of how music is produced, packaged and sold, including within particular subgenres

Cultural Achievements, including:
-Contemporary pop culture penetration; influencing short-term trends
-Long-term pop culture status
-Changing the attitudes or beliefs of the public at large

Here's what I like about this breakdown:

-It attempts to balance the criteria. With Sampson's criteria, he repeatedly says "each criterion tries to show something different," but there is no explanation of why they are given equal weight. It is as if he glosses over the all-important question: "What is greatness?" In the field of pop musicians, the one thing uniting them across all of time is that they are trying to sell music. I did not make sales the primary determination in this criteria, but made it the inflection point, effectively answering the question. A little philosophical, but there should be some reasoning for WHY some particular combination of criteria is used as the definition of "greatness."

-Reduces things from four to three criteria. When making the argument for an artist, you only have to list their achievements in three areas, and hopefully presenting them as a spectrum instead of four semi-compatible viewpoints will be helpful.

-At the same time, increases things from four to nine criteria. If an artist only does well in the most banal pop culture penetration, or only does well in recognition from peers, or only had a flash-in-the-pan commercially, it can't be painted as being profoundly important. Some accomplishments will register across many segments, but this is okay when there are so many areas. It takes the focus off of "where does it register?" and onto "what is the achievement, in particular?" If an achievement can be described in a variety of ways with impact on music itself, the public at large, and their commercial relationship, then that achievement is more important.

I agree with Neg. In cultural impact I can see MJ in a top 4, along with Madonna, Elvis and Beatles.

Anyway, that's my take on this bunch:

Popularity
MJ > Madonna > Stevie > Beach Boys > Aretha > Ray > Fats

Influence
Ray > Fats > Aretha > MJ = Madonna > Beach Boys > Stevie

Musical Impact
Stevie > Ray > Beach Boys > MJ = Aretha > Fats > Madonna

Cultural Impact
MJ = Madonna > Stevie = Aretha > Beach Boys > Ray = Fats

IMO, possibly five of these artists may belong to the top 10.

Yeah, the latter.

Here's how I see it...

Commercial Impact:
1. MJ
2. Stevie
3. Madonna
4. Beach Boys
5. Aretha
6. Ray
7. Fats

Cultural Impact:
1. MJ/Madonna
2. Fats
3. Aretha
4. Ray
5. Stevie
6. Beach Boys

Musical Impact (this is damn near impossible):
1. Ray
2. Stevie
3. Beach Boys
4. MJ
5. Fats
6. Aretha
7. Madonna

Influence:
1. Fats
2. Ray
3. Aretha
4. Madonna
5. Stevie
6. Beach Boys
7. MJ

I don't think it matters how many songs the impact results from, what matters is the importance of the impact. That is, what matters is the total effect/change in culture caused by Aretha, not how many songs are the source of the change.

I think that Clash was saying that he disagreed with the way that the cultural impact criterion is defined. My concern is, given the criterion as it is, how much cultural impact does he have? I think that to give less credit to Stevie because the cultural impact didn't come directly from his music is to change the criteria. My view is that the MLK holiday is pretty big, at least when compared to the cultural impact that most rock artists have (not much), because it affects every American at least in a small way. When it's MLK day, there are no mail deliveries, and things such as banks, libraries, and schools are closed. Many Americans get the day off as well. So Stevie played an important role in bringing about a change in the lives of a large number of people.

However, I appreciate that you gave an explanation on MJ. That helps more than just showing how you would rank the artists without explaining why your placements are different from mine, though I don't mean that as a criticism of you or Bruno. I do understand that it's not always easy to explain, and especially with musical impact.

As for "commercial impact" here's the top 50 artists of the 1950s:

The 50 highest revenue generating artists for the period of
1950-1959, including any money made from records, TV, movies, live appearances, songwriting royalties, etc.....

I've color coded the rock artists.

Amazing who #50 is. He must have toured like a motherfucker for those 10 years.

1: Frank Sinatra
2: Elvis Presley
3: Nat King Cole
4: Miles Davis
5: Thelonious Monk
6: Perry Como
7: Ella Fitzgerald
8: Patti Page
9: Fats Domino
10: Louis Armstrong
11: Bill Haley & His Comets
12: Duke Ellington
13: Sonny Rollins
14: Doris Day
15: Sarah Vaughan
16: Frankie Laine
17: Eddie Fisher
18: Hank Williams
19: Pat Boone
20: Billie Holiday
21: Bud Powell
22: Dizzy Gillespie
23: Art Blakey
24: Dave Brubeck
25: Tony Bennett
26: Harry Belafonte
27: Chet Baker
28: Charles Mingus
29: Dean Martin
30: Gerry Mulligan
31: Les Paul & Mary Ford
32: Johnny Mathis
33: Four Aces
34: Chuck Berry
35: Erroll Garner
36: Little Richard
37: Oscar Peterson
38: Johnnie Ray
39: The Platters
40: Stan Kenton
41: Kay Starr
42: Rosemary Clooney
43: Lee Konitz
44: Dinah Washington
45: The Everly Brothers
46: Clifford Brown & Max Roach
47: Ray Charles
48: Ricky Nelson
49: Peggy Lee
50: Lightnin' Hopkins

Yeah, that's why I don't like it. I agree with Bruce's analogy of Ronald Reagan being launched up a Greatest Actors list because he was the 40th President of the United States. MLK Day seems just as irrelevant to a rock artists list, to me. I think the kind of cultural impact that should matter for this list is the sort that comes about as a direct result of a rock artist's work as a rock artist. Not as a lobbyist. Chubby Checker popularizing the twist? Now that's the sort of cultural impact this list should take into account.

Yes, "The Twist" was a huge cultural phenomenon. The whole country was twisting, from little kids to grandmas.

I agree that MLK Day has nothing to do with ranking a musician. It would be like moving Al Franken up to top ten on the all time comedians list because he's a senator, or moving Jesse Ventura up to top 5 on the all time wrestler's list because he was a governor. Or moving Bill Bradley up on to an all time NBA list because he was a senator.