Bruce,
For me, the term Commercial Impact was just so it fit in with the other two impact areas of the criteria, Musical and Cultural. Symmetry, that's all. It always meant how their records did at the time of release, or if a record re-charted.

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.

What I was thinking on Otis was that he was highly respected, had a lot of top 10 R&B hits, mostly during the era before R&B crossed over to the pop charts, and he's very influential, #24 on Sampson's influential atists list. So he looks like a top 100 to me as a performer alone. I have reservations about the non-performer accomplishments. Carole King's placement in the 2nd 100 was brought up a couple weeks ago. That placement is based on her accomplishments as a performer. If she were also credited with all the songs she wrote before the '70s for other artists, she would be a lot higher.

The difference between you and me, though, is I say "tough shit" to the context. I say it to The Who and I say it to the black artists. Tough shit. That's the way it went down. Maybe it isn't fair, but that's the way it is. I don't come in here trying to give a handicap to The Who saying that they weren't on a level playing field with The Beatles and The Rolling Stones in the USA and all their huge UK hits should count for more. But that's basically exactly what you're saying when it comes to a black artist charting poorly in the UK. It's a double standard. And so is your concerts argument.

Is Smokey Robinson credited for all the songs he wrote for other artists?

Not under popularity, but because he wrote those songs at he same time that he was a performer, maybe he should under musical impact. I'd be interested in Sampson's take on that.

Yeah, I also brought up Johnny Otis before, including today. He's the most diverse figure in rock history...

lol

lol

Something stuck in your throat Machine Head?

Here's the Top Fifty Artists in Concert Revenue for the Decade 2000-2009.



One black artist - Tina Turner, near the bottom, who since the mid-80's has attracted virtually an entirely white audience. Now look again at those acts, singling out the rock artists, and ask yourself if any of them have had any real MUSICAL impact on the decade just finished. How many have? Maybe five and even they didn't have a whole helluva lot on it. Why is that? Because selling tickets in great volume is an entirely different thing than what you're suggesting.

Do we go strictly by dollars, or do we go by number of people who like an artist's music?

I think having the term describe what it is measuring is much more important than any symmetry.

You should change it to "chart performance" if that's what it actually is.

I guess you have O.C.D. Why else would symmetry mean anything here?

No wonder your criteria is "four parts weighed equally." Your OCD has forced you to always make everything symmetric.

You say the most important thing is the criteria, and seem to think your own criteria are basically flawless, but you named them as symmetrically as possible instead of as accurately and descriptively as possible.