Sampson, let me see if I understand your basic method...

1. Come up with some criteria that you don't extensively explain outside of various disconnected, rambling forum posts.
2. Follow that criteria diligently to make a list after months or years of research.
3. Post the list, by itself, with no attached writing.
4. Wait for people to complain about the list, and only then start to explain why artists have their placements, again in disconnected, rambling forum posts.
5. In the course of explaining placements, go off on long tangents complaining about the complainers who don't understand the (totally unexplained) list placements.
6. Repeat steps 2-5 forever.

What purpose does this serve? If you have a great list of the 100 greatest rock artists of the 50s, and you claim it's totally accurate according to the criteria, but the only way anyone can judge your claim is by pestering you enough to get an extensive explanation of the criteria and then do years of independent research, again, what purpose does this serve? Who is helped?

The only thing the resulting list is worth is a quick read-through. You can glance at the criteria and judge it to mean that this is one man's attempt to judge historical importance and accomplishments. And then you can read the list and use it as some kind of template to discover historically significant music. Great. You could do the same thing with the artists grouped by tiers, or by years of activity, or by looking at historical Billboard charts, or by some other far easier, but only marginally less effective means. You have reached the point of diminishing returns and then gone 6 or 8 more years. If that's a labor of love, more power to you. I think your 50s and 60s lists are great.

But now you're not even the one making the list, and you're basically saying that it should take years of research to do it right, and that the results ought to be very similar no matter who does the list... C'mon. Give it a rest. Nobody should be asked to do that much research unless they're writing a book. You say the new editor should throw out the list... I agree, but they should start by throwing out the criteria. Replace the criteria with something simpler, which acknowledges that this is an imperfect process, and then work on some actual content to go along with the placements and make the whole thing more worthwhile to readers.

The stuff that Chris F. started years ago was great. Even though the list itself was more of a grab bag than your stuff, there was actual write-ups... Actual content along with the list.

Sampson sees Screamin' Jay Hawkins as a top 50 artist from the 50s. I don't even see him as a top 200 artist from the 50s.

I wouldn't call this exactly "hopping." The Rock Artists thread has always been one of the most active threads in DDD history. It has its moments of activity. Even this thread doesn't hold a candle to the "Led Zeppelin vs Who" spectacle of yesteryear

Apparently he was pretty much a commercial failure, but I hear his stage act was and is very influential. Other than that I know nothing other than he made 'I put a spell on you'

Stick with music, Brian.

The primary reason that DiMaggio was better than Kaline is because he was a much better offensive player.

CAREER OPS+
Dimaggio - 155
Kaline - 134

DiMaggio was 55% above average as a hitter, kaline only 34%.

Al Kaline won 10 gold gloves, including one as a CFer. According to defensive WAR Kaline was a much better fielder than DiMaggio.

CAREER DEFENSIVE WAR
Kaline - 16.3
DiMaggio - 4.7

What if we're talking Dom?

This is the tentative revision of the list as it currently stands:

55. Joni Mitchell
56. The Drifters
57. Metallica
58. Eagles
59. Fleetwood Mac
60. Creedence Clearwater Revival

Dom's Defensive WAR is 3.3

That's a flaw in DWAR, if it's less than Joe.

Why would Joni Mitchell beat out huge acts like CCR and the Eagles?

I've only heard 4 or 5 songs by her in my life, and it's not like she's some modern artist that I never paid attention to or something. What makes her so much more significant than say....Carole King?

At least Sampson tied a song ("Happy Birthday") to an American cultural milestone (a holiday representing an important historical figure). That song was a basis that helped sign this national holiday into existence.

Cultural Impact is very simply the impact they have on culture in general as a direct result of their careers as artists. Steveland Morris, a blind civics teacher in Saginaw, Michigan is not going to have any effect on getting a holiday named for Martin Luther King, no matter how many speeches he gives, or petitions he signs. Stevie Wonder, one of the biggest rock icons in the world has enormous influence in this way, and considering he devoted a good deal of his time, energy and money to see to it that this was done that equates to IMPACT ON CULTURE as a direct result of his career as an artist. There's no two ways around it.

Bob Dylan's songs in the Civil Rights protests is what gets Dylan his cultural impact. Take that away and Dylan plummets out of the Top Ten most likely and yet everyone here will try desperately to keep him in there for some unknown reason and it will center around his status as an "iconic figure", only they'll have no category to fit it into.

As popular as Elvis and The Beatles are, they're not really all that much bigger than Bing Crosby in terms of popularity, or even influence, relative to their times, but it's the way they radically changed the culture around them that makes them far bigger figures. Everybody wants to have that acknowledged when talking greatness, but when it comes to actually designating a criteria for it, especially when it gives certain artists that some may not want to see above some others an advantage in the criteria, then people want to see it eliminated.

Some things around here never really change, and sadly it's still largely about people having their tastes validated by positions on a stupid list. Clash's love of the Who shouldn't be affected any if they're 8th all-time or 88th but he takes it so personally that he'll resort at times to disparaging other artists, including even artists he LIKES (saying the Beach Boys FAILED to keep up with the Beatles, when in fact they were seen by the Beatles as the one group who did keep up and challenge them creatively,

or using the Who's album success post-1968 when that helps their cause, but then turning around and trying to claim that a #1 hit in 1988 shouldn't matter as much for the Beach Boys as the Who selling out concerts should matter for the Who.... it's so blatantly hypocritical

but he's too blinded with his zeal for seeing the Who finish higher that he fails to realize it) because anything that threatens their placement is viewed as some kind of danger that has to be discredited or dismissed. Is everybody really so insecure that seeing their favorite artist in a different spot on a list is going to cause them so much distress that they'll lose their mind over it? It's like a kindergarten class around here sometimes.

How many people bought a ticket to The Who's 1989 tour?

How many people bought at least one of those number one hits?

Not to mention how many more wanted to hear them on the radio (reflected in requests, research, and the other means that radio uses to figure out what to play)?

In short, "commercial impact" doesn't equal amount of money made.

And if it did, I don't think The Who would make the top ten, anyway.

I doubt it. It didn't even make the Hot 100. Does anyone think "Happy Birthday" is Stevie Wonder's greatest song? Did anyone here even know it existed until this discussion?