100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)

Sampson · **Joined:** Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:35 pm **Posts:** 1657

Brian wrote:

The way I want to approach this is to determine who are the most deserving artists not in the top 100 and who are the least deserving artists who are in the top 100. I prefer this approach to picking an artist outside the top 100 and arguing that artist is more deserving than one within the top 100, because that approach doesn't tell you much. Even if the artist that is outside is more deserving than one that is inside, it could be that both should be in the top 100, or neither should be.

Here is the current 88-100:

88. The Shirelles
89. The Allman Brothers Band
90. The Ramones
91. Frank Zappa
92. Janis Joplin
93. Chicago
94. Yes
95. The Band
96. N.W.A.
97. Talking Heads
98. The Velvet Underground
99. Billy Joel
100. The Sex Pistols

Any thoughts on the order of these 13 artists? And would anyone like to make a case for moving an artist from higher up down into this range?

Well the top spot is right, the Shirelles are clearly the best out of this grouping. The do well in all areas, whereas most of the others have one or two areas they suffer in. I'd drop Chicago because they were, for the lion's share of their career, adult contemporary artists, but I understand that if you are to include them under the rock banner, which they clearly began as, their success is enormous.

The Talking Heads don't seem like they belong this high. Never had a Top ten album, just one Top Ten song, the other new wave groups not in the top 100 (Blondie, Cars, Go-Go's, B-52's) were all more successful.

The others look as though they're in roughly the company they belong, but whether that means there aren't others outside the Top 100 that aren't more worthy than some of them (I suspect there'll be a few) remains to be seen.

Echoes · **Joined:** Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:43 am **Posts:** 4564

J.B. Trance wrote:

I agree. I hope Echoes realizes this.

All I was trying to do is to show that the difference between Clapton and Lennon in terms of popularity is not that huge and I used Imagine as an example.

Now that Brian has said that Derek and the Dominoes counts as Clapton´s solo career, I accept that Clapton should be higher that Lennon, but not by so much. What about the other elements of the criteria? How Clapton vs Lennon score?

J.B. Trance · **Joined:** Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:04 pm **Posts:** 733

Sampson wrote:

I'd drop Chicago because they were, for the lion's share of their career, adult contemporary artists, but I understand that if you are to include them under the rock banner, which they clearly began as, their success is enormous.

"Adult contemporary" can be tricky because many rock artists charted and have their songs played in that arena. The title alone has fluid definitions, unsurprisingly...One of the main reasons why Billboard decided to dispense with the title "easy listening" chart.

gminer · **Joined:** Mon Oct 11, 2010 6:17 pm **Posts:** 2949

gminer wrote:

... that is the same with Layla ... but you will see if multiple versions added together the spread does not change by any significant amount ... I would suggest looking at the most popular version is the one over time most folks gravitate towards .... it would be like looking at Smoke on the Water live has over 22 million views v/s 3 million or so for the studio version ... the numbers simply suggest the more popular version and no doubt a good portion of those who viewed the studio probably gravitated to the live version .... Child in Time by Deep Purple is just the opposite with over 13 million views on the studio version v/s 3 million or so for live ... I would suggest this simply demonstrates an unofficial vote of the best versions by those looking to view a specific song ... Take care

J.B. Trance wrote:

Yes, "Imagine" was just one example I provided. This goes beyond "Layla" and "Imagine."

Whether live or not or whatever format, it's still the same song, so we still have to look at the other variables to get a clearer picture.

... I don`t disagree, as I mentioned this is unscientific nor would I suggest it is a proven formula it is merely another source that can be used to somewhat gauge lasting popularity particularly for artists or material from 30 or 40 or more years ago .... and with the Imagine and Layla example you can see both starting points for each views are roughly from the beginning of Youtube ..... Take care

Sampson · **Joined:** Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:35 pm **Posts:** 1657

J.B. Trance wrote:

Sampson wrote:

I'd drop Chicago because they were, for the lion's share of their career, adult contemporary artists, but I understand that if you are to include them under the rock banner, which they clearly began as, their success is enormous.

"Adult contemporary" can be tricky because many rock artists charted and have their songs played in that arena. The title alone has fluid definitions, unsurprisingly...One of the main reasons why Billboard decided to dispense with the title "easy listening" chart.

True, but when in doubt always go with the artist's intended audience. I think by the late 70's at the very latest they were unconcerned with cultivating a rock audience and were aiming squarely at the middle of the road adult crowd.

Echoes · **Joined:** Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:43 am **Posts:** 4564

Brian wrote:

I was originally planning on looking for one artist to add to the top 100 to replace the Sex Pistols, but as it now appears that there is likely more than one artist that should be added to the top 100, I'm now looking to do so. The way I want to approach this is to determine who are the most deserving artists not in the top 100 and who are the least deserving artists who are in the top 100. I prefer this approach to picking an artist outside the top 100 and arguing that artist is more deserving than one within the top 100, because that approach doesn't tell you much. Even if the artist that is outside is more deserving than one that is inside, it could be that both should be in the top 100, or neither should be.

IMO, most deserving artists not in the top 100:

1. John Lennon
2. Guns N Roses
3. RHCP
4. Santana
5. Paul McCartney / Wings

Least deserving artists who are in the top 100 (in no particular order):
Frank Zappa, Janis Joplin, Talking Heads, The Velvet Underground and The Sex Pistols.

Nothing bad about them, but I feel they could be better placed between 101 and 115.

J.B. Trance · **Joined:** Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:04 pm **Posts:** 733

gminer wrote:

... I don`t disagree, as I mentioned this is unscientific nor would I suggest it is a proven formula it is merely another source that can be used to somewhat gauge lasting popularity particularly for artists or material from 30 or 40 or more years ago .... and with the Imagine and Layla example you can see both starting points for each views are roughly from the beginning of Youtube ..... Take care

OK, glad we agree, then.

J.B. Trance · **Joined:** Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:04 pm **Posts:** 733

Sampson wrote:

J.B. Trance wrote:

Sampson wrote:

I'd drop Chicago because they were, for the lion's share of their career, adult contemporary artists, but I understand that if you are to include them under the rock banner, which they clearly began as, their success is enormous.

"Adult contemporary" can be tricky because many rock artists charted and have their songs played in that arena. The title alone has fluid definitions, unsurprisingly...One of the main reasons why Billboard decided to dispense with the title "easy listening" chart.

True, but when in doubt always go with the artist's intended audience. I think by the late 70's at the very latest they were unconcerned with cultivating a rock audience and were aiming squarely at the middle of the road adult crowd.

I agree. But even with an act such as Chicago, one could argue that they were trying to appeal to the "adult rock" crowd in their later career and just happened to find success with a larger spectrum of the population. The same thing with "soft rock" artists in general, where even that definition gets shaky. Sometimes the demographic the artist intends to appeal goes to a different route or goes to multiple routes. BTW, I'm not opposed at all to including Chicago on this list.

Eric Wood · **Joined:** Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:22 pm **Posts:** 122

Sampson wrote:

True, but when in doubt always go with the artist's intended audience. I think by the late 70's at the very latest they were unconcerned with cultivating a rock audience and were aiming squarely at the middle of the road adult crowd.

And from the very start, the Platters fought to get their records released with the black pop label instead of the purple R&B label, and their records were certainly pop and not rock stylistically. So weren't they aiming down the middle of the road? But they were part of the rock movement despite their style and no one questions drawing the circle around the Platters.

Rock has to be treated as a movement and not as a genre, if you get my meaning. The definition of a "rock audience" changes over time, and as long as it's an expansion of the audience and not a shifting away from the original audience that's okay.

gminer · **Joined:** Mon Oct 11, 2010 6:17 pm **Posts:** 2949

J.B. Trance wrote:

OK, glad we agree, then.

To explain, I just use this as a gauge along with chart positions and sales in different countries, radio play, downloads etc to create a small picture of lasting popularity for tunes and artists ..... when you start combining all those available sources it can create an interesting snapshot for artists and/or tunes coming out the 50`s, 60`s. 70`s as it relates to their material at this particular moment in time .. Take care

J.B. Trance · **Joined:** Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:04 pm **Posts:** 733

Sampson,

An example of an artist even surpassing his intended demographic is Chubby Checker.

His records were aimed squarely at the pre-teen/teen/rock crowds, but it unexpectedly found huge favor with adults, especially "The Twist." While "The Twist" isn't his creation, it no doubt played a monumental role in rock n roll history.

Brian · **Joined:** Wed Oct 06, 2010 2:52 pm **Posts:** 4300

Sampson wrote:

The Talking Heads don't seem like they belong this high. Never had a Top ten album, just one Top Ten song, the other new wave groups not in the top 100 (Blondie, Cars, Go-Go's, B-52's) were all more successful.

They might not belong this high, but I think their popularity is more than their lack of top 10 albums would suggest. They had 5 top 20 albums, and 3 more that made the top 40, and albums that spent 118, 77, 51, and 42 weeks on the charts. I think that they do well in musical impact, so that combined with their significant though not massive album success is why they haven't been dropped yet. But they may well be among the least deserving of those still in the top 100.

Sampson · **Joined:** Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:35 pm **Posts:** 1657

Brian wrote:

Sampson wrote:

The Talking Heads don't seem like they belong this high. Never had a Top ten album, just one Top Ten song, the other new wave groups not in the top 100 (Blondie, Cars, Go-Go's, B-52's) were all more successful.

They might not belong this high, but I think their popularity is more than their lack of top 10 albums would suggest. They had 5 top 20 albums, and 3 more that made the top 40, and albums that spent 118, 77, 51, and 42 weeks on the charts. I think that they do well in musical impact, so that combined with their significant though not massive album success is why they haven't been dropped yet. But they may well be among the least deserving of those still in the top 100.

Blondie's far more popular and arguably influential, just for "Rapture" alone. I also think they had a bigger impact overall, certainly they were very well regarded. Since they're from the same subgenre I think Blondie would be the more deserving new wave candidate (I know you didn't want to do this artist vs. artist thing, but to make the point of The Talking Heads being slightly undeserving of a Top 100 spot I had to use a comparable artist to illustrate why... sorry).

Eric Wood · **Joined:** Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:22 pm **Posts:** 122

Brian, I think if you went ahead and split up the Impressions and Curtis Mayfield, their individual placements would still each be higher than Frank Zappas. So you could split them up, slot them both in the back 25 for the time being, and move Zappa out.

I also think you should split up Smokey and the Miracles as I mentioned before... The Miracles 2nd biggest hit was "Love Machine" which came without Smokey, so even if you dropped Smokey out and instead gave them credit for that and their other later hits, their position wouldn't change much. Smokey solo would probably drop out of the top 100.

ClashWho · **Posted:** Sat May 12, 2012 5:26 pm

Sampson wrote:

The Talking Heads don't seem like they belong this high. Never had a Top ten album, just one Top Ten song, the other new wave groups not in the top 100 (Blondie, Cars, Go-Go's, B-52's) were all more successful.

Talking Heads dominate them all in musical impact. They're easily the most highly-regarded American rock band of the late seventies and well into the eighties. Certainly the most highly regarded New Wave act. And, geez, Sex Pistols and The Velvet Underground are in that same grouping. How many Top Ten albums and songs did they have?

100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision)

Who is online