On Kanye v. Guns, I think Guns wins popularity and cultural impact, and Kanye wins musical impact and influence. To me, it looks like Kanye wins his 2 criteria by slightly more than Guns win their 2 criteria.

Let's compare RHCP and EWF with the artist that I thought was last of the 8 that I mentioned, Wilson Pickett. In the first comparison, it looks to me that popularity and cultural impact are about tied, with Pickett having a slightly bigger lead in musical impact than what RHCP has in influence. For Pickett v. EWF, I'd think Pickett's advantage in musical impact is just barely big enough to top EWF's advantages in popularity and influence. But in both cases, it looks very close to a tie.

Tell me more.

I'm being a little silly, but he toured with Chicago, or Chicago Transit Authority as they then were, in 1969 and is supposed to have waxed lyrical about their guitarist Terry Kath. It falls into the rather large collection of Hendrix urban legend quotes about other guitarists, although I think he probably did say it as it is reported by a third party (the Chicago sax player, Walter Parazaider). As I say though, I'm being a little silly. It's a cute story though.

Re: Chicago, Joel, Clapton.
I'd give the nod overall to Billy Joel. His musical impact I think is being underrated considerably. He had a good fifteen year period where everything he did was well regarded. His songwriting was always very respected because he pulled off so many stylistic transititions and still kept his own musical identity intact - the movie-like "Scenes From An Italian Restaurant" to the refried doo wop of "The Longest Time" to the melodramatic shmaltz of "Just The Way You Are" to the funky It's Still Rock 'n' Roll To Me" to the synth-rock of "Pressure" to the gospel-infused "River Of Dreams". All of it was seen, not as someone jumping on whatever trend of the moment that might get him airplay, but just another facet of his own style and artists respected that he was so versatile. He was always viewed as a musical peer by the big names - teaming up with Ray Charles, duetting in concert with Bruce Springsteen at the height of the Born In The U.S.A. era and getting a huge reception (it was one of those - "Holy shit, is that Billy Joel?!" moments that you wouldn't have gotten with Peter Cetera or Eric Clapton at the time jumping on stage with the Boss), doing a mega-tour with Elton John, he was prominent in the We Are The World event (though, then again so was Kenny Rogers...), marrying THE supermodel of the time (maybe all-time). He's somebody who you knew on sight, on sound, without having to be a fan. Some of that is cultural, but that counts too. Clapton's presence still stems from his work with the 60's bands, Chicago seems like they were bland hitmakers without personality (many casual listeners of the era probably couldn't identify by sight one of their members before someone like Cetera went solo), but Billy Joel just seems like a much more prominent figure on the musical landscape.

It should be noted too that Joel was a touring giant, with huge concerts and epic performances, especially for his style. I dunno, it just seems his stature looms larger than the others. Whether that's enough to squeak him into the Top 100, I don't know, one hundred people over 65 years isn't much, but if one these names was at #100 I'd immediately question it for Chicago because they do relatively poorly for all three other criteria (one of the few big hitmakers who left a very little footprint behind them other than the sales, most of which, as Bruce pointed out, are long since forgotten), and if Clapton was there I'd say somebody overrated him because of his name recognition. But if it was Joel, I might look at who he bumped off and make an argument for someone else to replace him, but I wouldn't do an immediate double-take and think it was incomprehensible. I think he wins the criteria, great in popularity, good in musical and cultural impact, a little influence. More well-rounded overall it looks like.

I think influence is the weak area of the criteria for both of those artists. It seems to me most of Kanye's influence has to be credited to his prior production work for Jay-Z and others.

But in cultural, Kanye does very well. Sampson mentioned his ability to tour in the suburbs. I would also give him credit as a fashion trendsetter as he was ahead of the dapper/nerdy "Urkel look" which is still the rage. So I'm not sure he loses in cultural.

Hold on. I merely pointed out that "Color My World" is not humongous anymore like it used to be into the early 80s or so. Chicago still has several songs that are well remembered.

Make Me Smile
Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is
25 Or 6 To 4
Saturday In The Park
Beginnings
If You Leave Me Now

There are numerous youtube videos on these things and all total well over a million plays.

Rolling Stone's blurbs are known to be exaggerations at times, more like attention-grabbing headlines.

I have all of their first 40 years of issues in digital format.

Their "America's Best" or "America's hottest" or "America's whatever" isn't a new label.

They said the same thing about Fall Out Boy.

And the Talking Heads were not the "only one with the blurb America's Best Rock Band." R.E.M. graced the Rolling Stone cover that same year, in 1987, actually the December 3, 1987 issue where R.E.M. are called "America's Best Rock and Roll Band."

Do we consider Kraftwerk rock? Because I could argue that they are among the 20 most influential bands on the whole list, probably higher. Not sure about anything else though,

Why no ABBA on this list?

They beat everybody but the Beatles, Elvis and maybe MJ in commercial impact.

Yeah, it is among the eight best-selling artists of all time.

They are more rock than some people on the list too, like Joni Mitchell and Mariah Carey.

Yes, they are rock.

I'm pretty sure Kraftwerk are considered for the list, but I think you are exaggerating their influence. I think they were too contemporary with a lot of other electronic experimentation to rank top 20. Not that they weren't genuinely innovative, but so were a bunch of others in that era.



Brian says he is going 80/20 US/UK for commercial impact. So four top 10 hits and one #1 in US doesn't help that case.

I understand they had 20+ different #1s around the world.

I must clarify that many times I post like "devil advocate" and I did that with Clapton when I was making my comparison of him against Lennon. I think Clapton scores really high on direct influence, popularity and musical/cultural impact. He is surly top 50.

Just one example (and we can be here discussing Clapton´s legacy for many pages), when was the first time that you heard reggae? In my case it was Clapton's cover of I Shot the Sheriff.

For me it's "Israelites" by Desmon Dekker and the Aces. A huge hit in the USA in 1969. And there were earlier reggae hits in the USA too, like "Hold Me Tight" by Johnny Nash.

Giving Clapton influence for doing "I Shot The Sheriff" is like giving Pat Boone influence for doing "Tutti-Frutti." Just because you were not hip enough to know real reggae already before you heard Clapton's thievery doesn't mean he deserves ant positive credit any more than if some geek in Iowa first heard (what he thought was) rock and roll through Pat Boone.