I think those placements are enough to conclude they have a very different evaluation of his importance.

Sampson's influence list includes "cultural, musical and performance influence" among only rock artists.
Bruce's list says "popularity, influence and impact in popular music" among all pop artists of the recording era.

Just by common sense, Marley does better within the scope of the first criteria, not the second criteria.

Sure, they're well regarded, but not Talking Heads level. At acclaimedmusic.net Blondie is #118 all-time. Very respectable. But Talking Heads are #25. That's huge.

The acclaimedmusic's ranking is very bad.

I already said the Sex Pistols don't belong anywhere near the Top 100, so I didn't think I had to reiterate it. VU is all influence, nothing more. How big that is compared to more well rounded artists remains to be seen.

As for The Talking Heads musical impact... it was good, but they weren't considered the best band around by unanimous consensus. You had lots of American rock bands that were just as revered if not more so - just to name three concurrent ones, Earth, Wind & Fire, who musically were as well regarded as anyone, Van Halen were re-writing metal and hard rock with EVH's renown virtuosity on guitar, you had Chic who were WAY more universally respected for their collective talents (writing, playing and producing) than the Talking Heads.

Since I know you love the Talking Heads this seems a little preferential subjectivity to me, Clash. Tell you what, make a strong argument for Blondie over the Talking Heads and see how fairly you credit them.

Good post.

Not when you're comparing two artists of the exact same genre and era, which is what Blondie and Talking Heads are.

Maybe, but Talking Heads in 25# is a joke.

Actually, in the 1980s, (American or not), The Police were much more highly regarded in the early 1980s, and then U2 for the latter portion of the decade. Other much more highly regarded rock bands were Van Halen, Guns 'N Roses, etc., and in rock history, Public Enemy and Run-D.M.C. for the '80s alone.

What nationality the band is should have no bearing here.

Do we REALLY need to go over the flaws in acclaimedmusic.net again? Let's just illustrate it this way - Radiohead is their fifth most "acclaimed" artist ever. Little Richard is at #112. That says enough. Acclaimedmusic.net is a good idea done in by the overwhelmingly subjective sources they compile.

Acclaimedmusic is incomplete, selective, and has many errors.

It's a good attempt in that it gauges some of the most acclaimed records and artists.

I could name many mainstream, important documents that are not even in the Website's rankings, including from Billboard's to Cashbox's critics lists to all sorts of lists compiled by Vibe, Goldmine, Jet, The Source, Blues & Soul, etc.

The criterion are broad to begin with. You could apply criteria such as this to a series of contexts and come to different results. Doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.

Not to mention it overloads on the same sources. There's almost 50 lists taken from Q and MOJO which are sister publications, so not only do those lists overlap each other, but they're the exact same viewpoints (and a prime reason why Radiohead does so well, since they were worshipped by the editors of both magazines, same with The Sex Pistols, who both British mags view as the most important thing since the Beatles... until Oasis came along). Not surprisingly, look at the rankings of those artists and you can see the correlation.

What acclaimedmusic.net wanted to do was fairly admirable and they've gone to great lengths to come up with a system of compiling it and have used tons of sources, but the problem is IN THE SOURCES. They lean so heavily towards certain areas and are almost exclusively opinion based (subjective) that you essentially just get a handful of critics personal favorites, of which apparently the Talking Heads were one of. That's not significant.

Their musical impact among other artists was indeed very strong, but not to the extent they trounce every other artist of their time. Blondie's respect among their peers was just as strong and they were more popular and influential.

No one ever is. Not even The Beatles. But Talking Heads did get some consensus:





Well, I won't make an argument for them over Talking Heads (there's no "the"), but I'll do a comparison and you can tell me how accurate it is.

Popularity

Blondie has higher peaks with two top ten albums, but Talking Heads have seven albums that hit the top 30 to Blondie's four. Blondie also has a hits collection that hit #30, but Talking Heads also have a live album that hit #31. On the singles chart Blondie outperforms Talking Heads dramatically, but when a song of the stature and enormous airplay of "Once in a Lifetime" only charted at #103 on the Hot 100, that tells you something about the limitations of going by the charts. Still, four #1 singles is a huge achievement and easily gives Blondie the win in this criteria.

Musical Influence

Both are guiding lights of the New Wave movement. Blondie's "Rapture" coda helped break rap music into the mainstream, Talking Heads similarly helped launch world music with the African rhythms of "I Zimbra" and Remain in Light. Radiohead also took their name from a Talking Heads song.

Cultural Influence

Neither act has much, but Debbie Harry's model features and bleach-blonde locks helped them permeate the culture, as did David Byrne's artsy contributions like the "big suit", memorable music videos and the Stop Making Sense concert film.

Musical Impact

Here's where I think Talking Heads pull ahead of Blondie. I don't think there's any question that Talking Heads are the most highly regarded New Wave act, although Blondie are probably #2. Parallel Lines is one of the most well-regarded albums of its era. But Remain in Light is even more so. At acclaimedmusic.net Parallel Lines is #121, putting it in the realm of Aftermath, Nebraska and Bridge Over Troubled Water. Remain in Light is #35, putting it in the realm of The Joshua Tree, Let it Bleed and Who's Next.

So the question is whether Blondie's edge in popularity exceeds Talking Heads' edge in musical impact. And... you know what... it might.

EDIT: Yeah, I know musical impact is about impact on your fellow rock musicians, not critical acclaim.

Just for the sake of interest the year end chart positions for the Police, U2 and the Talking Heads for singles and albums in the UK and US during the 80`s .... Take care

The Police

UK ALBUMS
1980: 104-6-19-26-15-5-*1*-14-14-36

UK SINGLES
1980: 0-78-104-171-273-*14*-47-0-432-549

US ALBUMS
1980: 274-104-195-109-182-27-18-364-286-420

US SINGLES [AT: #875]
1980: 341-229-0-295-0-*32*-69-0-0-0

U2
UK ALBUMS
1980: 0-123-315-9-4-3-30-*2*-17-24

UK SINGLES
1980: 0-166-277-101-77-175-0-*20*-64-67

US ALBUMS
1980: 0-134-410-26-14-6-51-*1*-10-75

US SINGLES
1980: 0-194-137-221-0-*3*-59-109-0-161

The Talking Heads

UK ALBUMS [AT: #214]
1980: 195-97-197-152-187-38-*23*-0-79-0

UK SINGLES
1980: 0-120-0-0-263-*94*-107-349-396-0

US ALBUMS [AT: #228]
1980: 147-210-222-46-72-10-*8*-191-128-0

US SINGLES
1980: 0-0-0-*71*-308-163-120-263-0-0