Well, if so ... Zep has Led Zeppelin II, Led Zeppelin IV, Led Zeppelin I and Physical Graffiti.

I think only IV is really in the same league. The others are close, but not quite on the same level.

Also, there's a lot more difference between those Who albums. What Tommy did was very different from what Live At Leeds did, and you also had those early singles which were still another thing. I think that makes for a bigger impact.

In the current list of site they are close:

21. Who's Next (1971) - The Who
22. Led Zeppelin II (1969) - Led Zeppelin
23. Songs In The Key Of Life (1976) - Stevie Wonder
24. The Joshua Tree (1987) - U2
25. Rumours (1977) - Fleetwood Mac
26. The Beatles (The White Album) (1968) - The Beatles
27. I Never Loved A Man the Way I Love You (1967) - Aretha Franklin
28. Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music (1962) - Ray Charles
29. Blue (1971) - Joni Mitchell
30. Tapestry (1971) - Carole King
31. Raising Hell (1986) - Run-D.M.C.
32. Tommy (1969) - The Who
33. Led Zeppelin IV (1971) - Led Zeppelin
34. The Velvet Underground & Nico (1967) - The Velvet Underground
35. Appetite For Destruction (1987) - Guns N Roses
36. Paranoid (1970) - Black Sabbath
37. There's A Riot Goin' On (1971) - Sly & The Family Stone
38. Ziggy Stardust (1972) - David Bowie
39. Let It Bleed (1969) - The Rolling Stones
40. Bringing It All Back Home (1965) - Bob Dylan
41. Goodbye Yellow Brick Road (1973) - Elton John
42. Saturday Night Fever Soundtrack (1977) - Various Artists
43. Ten (1991) - Pearl Jam
44. Led Zeppelin I (1969) - Led Zeppelin
.
.
.
95. Live At Leeds (1970) - The Who

Well, that's not just in musical impact. But I think that ranking for Led Zeppelin II is ridiculous.

Since musical impact is the one criterion which ought to be most balanced across eras, I think it's doubtful either the Who or Led Zeppelin rank in the top 20 in musical impact. Even if you parse things to their advantage, like counting just musical impact from 1965-1973 for the Who, or 69-75 for Zeppelin, they still don't rank #1 among all artists over those periods. When you then account for 65 years of Rock, how can we presume either are in the top 20?

I know that over the 1955-67 period rock artists were more unified in a single community, so artists from that period might seem to get more than their fair share of spots, but I think these lists being posted go too far in that regard. There are plenty of artists with large crossover recognition since the early 70s. It's Baby Boomer Bias. (I'm guessing Sampson would attribute it to Rolling Stone magazine.)

Prince, Public Enemy, Eminem and Jay-Z are four names that immediately come to mind as more deserving for top 20 considerations in the musical impact category.

Furthermore, all of that hate for Zeppelin should count in their favor. That stuff doesn't read like vocal indifference to me; it sounds like Zeppelin were a burr in the saddle of other musicians, and I don't know how that could possibly be interpreted as a negative. Their music had an impact on other musicians. They received recognition from their peers. That's what the category is for. This is Rock'n'Roll; new music is SUPPOSED to rub the establishment the wrong way.

I don't see that at all, especially for PE. In those days there were still many more musicians who hated rap then those who respected it. I would think that there were loads of white guitar oriented musicians who never even heard a PE song during their heydey.

I fully support this.
That's a big part of what makes Elvis #1 in musical impact overall, imo.

I agree. Negative criticisim is still impact. For example, Punk music and the Sex Pistols were hated when they showed up (and still are hated by many). But you can't say they don't have impact or something. Everyone hated Elvis when he became famous, Ray charles got a lot of criticism for using "using religious music to worship satan" or something, Elvis hated the Beatles when they came, people hated grunge, etc,etc,etc. That's probably the biggest kind of impact and it's almost the definition of Rock&Roll

Until you come up with twenty names convincingly superior in musical impact, I'll presume it quite easily.



I'm Generation X. Most on this website are Generation X and Generation Y.



Sixteen to go. But I will note that all of those artists' achievements are far more recent than either The Who's or Led Zeppelin's, so they are fresher in your mind. And I'll also say that thinking Public Enemy in particular has more musical impact than either The Who or Led Zeppelin is ridiculous. Have you forgotten what those two bands achieved in their day? The musical impact of Keith Moon and John Bonham alone is gigantic, and those are just the drummers!



Now I've heard everything. Musical Impact is about PRAISE, RESPECT, REVERENCE. It is not about thinking an artist is crap.

Ridiculous. Let's get Pat Boone and Nickelback on the list while we're at it.

Somebody besides me, thinks that Radiohead could be higher in a possible next update?

I don't see what makes Van Morrison or Cream greater than them, at least.

The Stones were considered by many the greatest rock 'n' roll band in the world, and Stevie and Ray were widely considered geniuses. But yes, all 8 of the artists I listed are extremely high.

You couldn't tell that by looking at the lists of names people assume are top 10-20 in musical impact. Once again, I believe because the musical community was more united during the earlier years of rock after 1955, that artists from that era will seem to get undue credit at the top of that criterion. But it can't be to the extent of the lists people are posting. There's been about 15 names thrown out, and among those only Michael Jackson made their largest impact after 1975.



I have the Who and Led Zeppelin higher than Prince, PE, Eminem and Jay-Z overall. But we're talking JUST in musical impact. Unlike the other three areas of the criteria, musical impact focuses on JUST an initial reaction. Therefore the top achievements in all eras have to be given roughly equal weight.



For certain artists, getting called crap is part of their legacy. For other artists praise and respect is part of their legacy. We cannot favor one type of artists or there's no point in doing the list.

It sounds to me like Townshend was jealous of Zeppelin more than anything else in that quote you posted from him. It's a pretty twisted list if the Who being jealous of Zeppelin counts against Zeppelin. I'm sure the guys in Zeppelin all cried about Townshend's comments.

Musical impact cannot be used to rig the criteria. If we judge almost the entire top 20 artists in musical impact to all be from the same 20 year period 1955-75, and not from the other 45 years of rock history, that's not a fair evaluation. If furthermore we're only counting the artists who made it into some kind of mutual admiration club in that period, instead of the artists who flipped the bird to the club and got away with it and reveled in being outcasts, then musical impact is being used to rig the criteria.

You think the Who and Led Zeppelin beat Prince, PE, Eminem and Jay-Z in musical impact. So you have 18 more to name.

Here's the definition of musical impact:



The way I read it, there's no such thing as negative musical impact. If artists don't respond in a positive way to an artist's music, it's not musical impact. It would also be hard to measure otherwise, because it's often hard to distinguish between disinterest and disdain.

The 4 artists that Eric named are all good examples of recent artists with high musical impact. Usually, the artists that rank the highest in musical impact would be ones that have both a high peak of it and a long period of it. By that standard, I think Prince would have the most of the artists Eric named. Some other more recent ones would be Bruce Springsteen, U2, R.E.M., and Beastie Boys.