... the imagine of Rock and Roll before the Stones was that of the bad boy beyond the comic image that came later, and it was seen as by many as the devil`s music, dangerous, often obscene or perverse .... and you missed the point of the Lord Sutch "example" ..... Take care

Clay Aiken? Pfft. Every sexually suggestive, extroverted frontperson, from Mick Jagger to Jim Morrison to Michael Jackson to Prince, from Madonna to Britney Spears to Rihanna, is influenced by Elvis Presley. The idea that his legacy is just smarmy crooners is bunk.

No way. It should be whoever has the biggest nose.

I don't know about that. This list is 100 Greatest Rock Artists, so their work as artists should be what is recognized, not their work as businessmen. Otherwise, we'd have to include the likes of Alan Freed, Ahmet Ertegun and Barry Gordy.

Why not?

How are we going to do it with bands then? Take the average nose size or just add 'em all up?

I have to contest this. What sort of vocal harmony group do you think has enough mass appeal to fill a stadium, but doesn't because their music doesn't translate well to such venues? Jay-Z and Eminem played stadiums as a double bill.

Naah, just go with the member who has the biggest one.

I see where you're getting at. This will settle Zep vs. Who forever.

I'm talking about musical influence. Somebody who doesn't write songs but just interprets other people's songs.

Filling stadiums was not about mass appeal. It's about having the type of act that will attract young people, teenagers and early 20s, who come to get high and party. The Who did not have as much mass appeal as the Supremes, for instance, but the Supremes style of music didn't lend itself to performing a full show in front of 18,000 people.

One of the issues of Record World that I have has an article about an upcoming stadium show for Grand Funk. This was 1971. I would not put Grand Funk high on a list of artists with "mass appeal" but yet they were filling stadiums in those days. I think in those days people wanted to get an idea of what it was like at Woodstock, and these stadium shows were the closest that they could come to that.

That's bullshit. Elton John and Billy Joel filled stadiums in the 00s. What do you think the average audience age of those gigs were? How about The Eagles? You think that's a young crowd?



No, it means more people want to buy Supremes singles than want to buy Who singles, but more people want to see Who concerts than want to see Supremes concerts. It's two different kinds of popularity. And it's not as though The Supremes didn't even try to fill such venues.



Yes, they were hugley popular at their peak. It simply didn't last very long.



And it had nothing whatsoever to do with the live concert appeal of the artists in question, eh? That's ridiculous.

They were the same people who were 18 in 1971-1973, so they were used to stadium concerts. You weren't gonna get people in their 40s to go to a stadium concert in 1971. Did you ever look at who was in the crowd for the Beatles at Shea?





Not in their prime they didn't. And lots more people bought Supremes albums in the 60s than bought Who albums, it wasn't just singles.






Of course it had something to do with it, but the artist's "mass appeal" was not a huge factor. Stadium concerts were mainly for real loud hard rock bands, as opposed to Ray Charles or Barbra Streisand.

What's the criteria? Commercial success, or commercial success in the 60s?



It hasn't been that way for a long time. I reject absolutely the notion that selling a lot of singles is more worthy than selling a lot of concert tickets when it comes to popularity. Especially since a single is far less expensive than a concert ticket.

It's not just selling a lot of singles (or albums).

It's that the general public is much more familiar with artists that have big hits. In those days everybody got their music from the radio. There was no internet, MP3s. no walkmans, no cassettes tapes even. No MTV. The hit records were heard everywhere.

Another part of that review of the Who concert at Forest Hills said that many of the people in the crowd would not even have heard of the Who if not for a certain Pinball Wizard. In other words, before the Tommy album the Who were not a major act in the USA. Before "Pinball Wizard" they had opnly had one top 20 single and before "Tommy" they had not had a big hit mainstream album either here. They were not a major act here until the second half of 1969.