Bruce do you think Hendrix guitar playing was a bad thing for rock music? If anything I think he expanded what you can do with the instrument. Interesting I think Eric Clapton in many ways was the better technical player out of the two.

My point was that you can't call someone a "fan boy" when you're doing the exact same thing.

Also, I do find you at times to be "all over the place" because it's hard to read some of your posts. At least you're attempting to clean them up, as I've seen your many edits.

And Sampson is not an "Elvis fan boy." Maybe if you talked about other artists most of the time instead of essentially focusing on the Beatles, you'll see what I mean.



Who thought so otherwise?

You're mistaking me for the wrong person in regards to "collection"...although I have some songs from them.



Well, geez, then talk about these artists more. That would add much more to the conversation than incessantly focusing on the Beatles all the time, which makes you the biggest "Beatles fan boy" here.

You may not agree with Sampson's placement of the Beatles, but it's ultimately his list. That's the point Sampson is trying to make with you, aside from wishing to talk about other artists on his lists.

Who's talking about the world? These lists are based on the USA and UK. The USA and UK charts are how we determine commercial impact. The vast majority of the artists on these lists come from one of those two countries. They are all singing in English on everything, with very few exceptions. If you don't capture the whites in the USA and UK you can't be the biggest.

Did you mean to say that Buddy Holly has substantially less influence than Sabbath? I'll agree that Elton John and Queen do. Pink Floyd and the Everlys have less influence, but I don't know if I'd say substantially. I'd say not in the same ballpark but on the same planet, if that helps. But Sabbath is getting a lot of credit for influence. If you imagine an artist who's identical with Sabbath in the criteria except with no influence, such an artist wouldn't be in the top 100, and probably not in the top 200.



Here's a quote from Sampson on what musical impact is:

Now as far as the overall Artist criteria, Musical Impact has nothing to do with critics. It was chosen simply to show the overall response within the industry to an artist's work. It's not necessarily relegated to only their initial output either, though many do get their biggest shot from that, especially if they don't evolve much over time. But I felt that it was necessary to take into account how an artist impacts their field, beyond just how many records they sell or how many subsequent artists copy their approach.

For example, take something like the Beach Boys "Pet Sounds" album. It was successful (Top Ten), but less so than their previous LP's, so its Commercial Impact was good, but not to the extent of stuff that was not nearly considered as highly. It was hugely influential, and yet there's still something that's not reflected in those other criteria that allowed it to be considered among the greatest things ever done.

That "something" is its overall musical impact. In 1966 that was the album that had everyone in music talking. Cream, who didn't play in nearly the same style and thus couldn't very easily be influenced directly by it, called it the album of all-time and Clapton said "it encompasses everything that's ever knocked me out and rolled it into one". Every artist at that time had a copy of it and were just floored by it, changing how people literally THOUGHT of rock music at the time. In other words, it was what the music world itself reacted to most strongly.

What I attempted to do with the four different criteria was take into account each distinct way music has an impact. Commercial success has to do with how an audience reacts and what they're willing to spend their money on, that's the business side of music, their job in other words - to sell records, to wrack up hits. Influence reflects the longterm changes that music has on others, taking into account the innovations that become commonplace. Cultural Impact goes beyond music into how that artist effects popular culture as a whole.

That leaves Musical Impact, which is an attempt to distill the overall reaction to the work by those most closely associated with the field of music - their peers. Sometimes Musical Impact is seen in shortlived fads (different from influence, in that it is more of a quick response to something, rather than a deep seated alteration brought about by it), other times it is the buzz surrounding something fresh and innovative, while other times it is the merely the consensus musical opinion of the steadiness of an artist's contribitions (think Stones, circa 1968-1972, hardly groundbreaking stuff in terms of approach most of the time, and derivitive stylistically of their own influences, but clearly they were at the forefront of the musical community at that time).



Joel Whitburn's singles guide has the Everly Brothers as the #42 singles artist of all time and Sabbath as the #137 albums artist. Granted, Sabbath is more popular in the UK than the US, but that's not enough to close the gap. The Everlys actually do considerably better in popularity than Buddy Holly.

Twenty years? How about last month?

http://thetvrealist.com/gossip/Minogue- ... 99185.html



IMO, rockabilly is a legitimate genre of music. Country rock isn't.

Says who?

Why not Canada, Australia, Japan, etc...

That's why Bruce thinks Jimi Hendrix ruined rock guitar.

Yes, like Charlie Parker with his bebop tricks, Hendrix's guitar tricks got musicians too busy with trying to duplicate his licks when they should just have been concentrating on coming up with better songs. Every sax player in the world was trying to sound like Charlie Parker, when most could not handle it, and it led to a lot of annoying bad music IMO. Same thing with Hendrix on guiatr. Guitar players were all enamored with trying to play like Hendrix when most did not have the chops.....leading to a lot of annoying noise.

Sampson and Brian, if I recall correctly.



Probably wouldn't change things much. I guess Rush might get boosted a couple spots. Have to draw the line, somewhere, right? Drawing the line at the USA and UK makes the most sense, to me.

I hear you. The fear of substandard immitators shouldn't dissuade visionary artists from pushing the boundaries of their instrument, though. What do you think of punk rock? Some think that helped right the balance a bit.

If Sampson counts the UK charts where is Cliff Richard on his 1960s artist list?

Not to mention several other huge artists.

I like The Ramones and the Clash and many other punk artists and records. Can't stand the Sex Pistols though. Only decent thing is their version of "Rock Around The Clock."

I agree with you on the debate but why don't you think country rock is a legitimate genre?

I guess it was pretty short-lived but some great music came out of it.

Yeah sure rock was getting pretty big but in a largely faddish sort of way. It doesn't change my point at all though.