Only two versions ever charted and the Turner was one of them.

Look a little further, at the bottom there is this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:B ... rner_songs

Sounds like that Wikipedia page needs some editing, then.

Is there then a place in the criteria for peer recognition that occurs late?

Can people please stop using Wikipedia as a reference source? You'd all honestly be much better off saying "My dentist tells me that so and so was a big rock artist back in 1923..." or "According to the fortune cookie I opened last night, such and such is not a rock song".

Naah. It's pretty good as long as you check the footnotes.

The problem with that is the recognition that occurs much later has been filtered over the years through its influences, so you'd be crediting the same thing twice. Someone like VU had enormous influence over time, but no real impact among their contemporaries, so artists who came along years later, when that influence has been distilled and recognized, are simply going back to find the root of that influence, but that's not the same as Musical Impact/peer recognition. When it takes that long to be recognized it's gotta be felt in influence.

Remember, the criteria are supposed to all reflect different aspects of an artist's career achievements, not the same ones viewed in different ways.

Phooey. It's little more than Cliff Notes for the internet age, but written by people who spend way too much time online.

Besides, since Big Joe Turner is unquestionably a rock artist and since Wikipedia claims otherwise, they're factually wrong, footnotes or not. Yet by using them as a source to claim Turner is not qualified for a Top 100 spot means you're essentially giving credence to someone else's entirely subjective (and inaccurate) "opinion" of what constitutes rock 'n' roll music. That's hardly something that should be encouraged around here considering how long it's taken for people to actually view rock from an historically correct perspective.

Wikipedia doesn't claim otherwise. It says his genres are jump blues, rock 'n' roll and swing music. I pointed out that some of the songs in Bruce's list are not classified as rock 'n' roll.



I'm not saying Big Joe Turner isn't rock 'n' roll. I'm saying he's not a top 100 rock 'n' roll artist.

Should we use you instead, the guy who said that Sam Cooke was the first rock artist to own a record label?

Pretty interesting, Eric. I would like to see your perspective as to why.

Like it or not, the fact that rock artists of the past 30-40 years have been fully expected to write their own songs points towards Berry, Brown and the Beatles and away from Presley. If you wanna say that Presley's modern legacy is Clay Aiken and his ilk that would be fair.

Personally I don't care who writes the songs, I only care what the finished product sounds like, but most people differ from me in that they care very much about lyrics and what they are saying, and who wrote them.

That comment was more about The Beatles. It's just a pretty interesting viewpoint that he doesn't see The Beatles as #1 or #2 in the influence category.

There were several "bad boys" before the British Invasion, such as Little Willie John, Gene Vincent, etc., but The Rolling Stones get some cultural impact to their name for their "bad boy" image and controversies.

Screaming Lord Sutch, a fan of Screamin' Jay Hawkins, worked off a template that people like Hawkins pioneered in rock as far as ghoulish stage props are concerned, and in the "screaming" department, worked off of Little Richard, who he was a big fan of. Artists such as blues-R&B Guitar Slim and Sonny Burgess dyed their hair, and others had "wild" hairstyles for their day as well.

Yeah, I can definitely see that.