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.

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.

The tiebreaker is really good choice.

Yeah, I also brought up Johnny Otis before, including today. He's the most diverse figure in rock history, but even as Clash just mentioned him being inducted into the R&R HOF as a non-performer, he wore so many hats during his career that his role was always as far more than just a performer, even from the very beginning. I think that's a credit for Johnny and one reason he should make this list.

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

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

In terms of concerts not all artistic styles are created equal. A vocal harmony group, no matter how popular, won't fill stadiums because their music doesn't translate well to the venue. Rap is harder to duplicate live.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.