I pretty much agree with everything you said there.

I'm not the biggest fan of The Clash, but they are one of the cornerstone bands of punk. But then The Doors were something else entirely, revolutionary in a whole other way.

Here's where these 4 artists rank on the Most Influential Artists list:

36. R.E.M.
48. Cream
51. The Clash
89. The Doors

The Clash probably also beat the Doors in musical impact, but the Doors beat the Clash in popularity. That one could go either way.

If Cream doesn't beat R.E.M. in influence, they can't be ahead of them, because R.E.M. beats them in popularity comfortably, and considering that R.E.M. was one of the most respected bands in rock for close to 15 years and Cream was only together for 2 years, I don't think there's much doubt that R.E.M. also takes musical impact. Actually Cream is probably too high. They're entirely a '60s artist, and they're #35 on the '60s list, with criteria nearly the same as this list, and they're #54 here. The '60s are rock's strongest decade, but they're just one decade out of six.

"Creative" and "powerful" are subjective, and not part of the criteria.

You'd really put R.E.M, for greatest of all time, that high? And The Doors at 89? Really? Okay.

What I think is unfair in the general grading criteria here, is popularity is a major thing, but in the 90's, there were very few pure 'rock' bands that were widely popular, where the 60's and 70's had hundreds of amazing bands, so many, that many got overwhelmed by powerhouses like Zeppelin/Who/Floyd/Beatles etc. Chicago was an amazing band, and same with Bad Company, most people don't even know of those bands today at all, you say Chicago, and they'll ask 'do you mean Kansas?', and they only know Kansas due to Dust in the Wind and Carry on my Wayward Son. Look at CCR, one of, in my opinions, should be in the top 40 bands of all time, along with bands like The Eagles, but CCR was never that popular compared to other bands at the time, and thus, are dwarfed. Same with their influence in comparison to R.E.M's, doesn't mean they didn't make better music IMO.

My point is, since there were so few bands early/late 90's that were really popular in rock, it was easy to gain popularity. In the 90's, you really only had the 4 major grundge bands (of which Soundgarden was not that big), R.E.M, Radiohead, and maybe a few others, so you have about 10 total major 'rock' bands. 60's/70's? I could cough up about 200, all of which were AMAZING in their own right, but too much good music leads to some not getting noticed. So, I don't like 'popularity' as a criteria for bands spanning 'decades' because that immediately puts ever non 60's/70's (possibly 50's) band at an advantage.

I don't think how long a band was together can prove anything about musical impact. Beatles were together for 7 years, half the time R.E.M was together, and of those years, they only performed live for about 4 of them. The Who, and equally powerhouse rock legend, was around for 20+ years of creating music, and are still playing. Beatles together for that long, yet they're the most 2nd most influential band and the greatest band of all time (according to this sites list).

Point: I don't think being together 2 years dwarfs their influence, however I'm sure there are plenty of other valid reasons you could list.

The way you describe ir CRJ makes it sound like it's harder to become popular for a rock band in the 90s compared to the 60s/70s as there was a much smaller market for them and other genres (I know you don't mean the rock definition on here) were much more popular.

That's true, and honestly, rock was a significantly smaller market, compared to pop, hip-hop, and fusion taking major steps in the later 90's, what I'm saying is in the ROCK VENUE. Rock was MUCH larger in the 60's/70's, no doubt about it. However, it was so large that other bands didn't get their screen time. When the venue is smaller, and there are less bands, strictly the popularity as rock artists, was much easier to make a definitive statement.

Here's an example of what I mean (just some bullshit numbers I'm coming up with btw). K, so let's say, only looking at popularity among rock bands, so if a pop band was more popular than the most successful rock band of the era, it's irrelevant because the rock band was the most popular 'rock' band. K.

There are only 15 major rock bands in the 90's, and there are, let's say, 250 in the 70's. Band A is the 15th most popular rock band of the 90's, and it's also the least popular rock band around. Then, let's say you have Band B that's around the 30-35th in the 70's. So, someone could say "Band A was the 15th most popular band of the 90's, where Band B was only in the 35th area in the 70's, hence Band A, by decade, was more popular than Band B". But one could also say "Band B was in the top 10 percentile or whatever for popular bands in the 70's, only 9% of the bands did better, where Band A was the least popular band around, 100% of the remaining bands did better than them.", in which case, Band B was clearly more popular.

I don't know the numbers, and I'm not dwarfing any specific band, this is just an example to show that popularity is speculative and depends on how you look at it. The most popular band of the 90's might not even be as popular as the 10th most popular band of the 70's was.

Also, to get this off my chest, Lyrics are subjective, so that everyone to some extent is bias on, but for the instruments and playing styles, I know enough about music composition, skill, creativity, etc. to make logical standpoints on a relatively high level and not be bias, and make sense, since it's how the play/use the instrument, not the music they play. So, from that standpoint, I am great for discussions and make logical, unbias points. HOWEVER, when it comes to best artists/song/album, my name should give it away. Classic Rock Junkie (though I like Jazz and Classical A LOT, and I respect some 80's/90's bands). I will always have a bias towards bands/songs/albums from that era, and I know that's unfair for the criteria. However, the problem with this bias, is it goes beyond "I really like these bands so I'm bias towards them". I'm bias because in my honest opinion, I hundreds of bands in the 60's/70's created better composed, emotional, and well designed music than bands of the 90's+ (with the exception of Dream Theater, Coldplay, and Tool). So for these discussions, I will always have some bias, but it's not because I just like them more, I really believe they were better musicians, songwriters, and composers. I honestly think, one day, hundreds of years from now, 'Losing My Religion' and 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' will be forgotten and not played. But hundreds of years from now, I'm sure, Beatles songs, Stones songs, Zeppelin and Who songs will be remembered and played always. I can't imagine Stairway to Heaven and Can't get no Satisfaction will be forgotten. I just can't.

/rant

I didn't mean that an artist who's together for 2 years necessarily has more musical impact than one who is together much longer. The reason I said that Cream was only together for 2 years is that a brief career limits the amount of time possible to acquire musical impact. For an artist to have more musical impact than one with a much longer period of musical impact, the artist with the much shrter career would have to have a much higher peak of musical impact, and I don't think that's the case here. Also, it sounds like you're confusing musical impact for influence. Here's the definition of musical impact we use (quoting from Sampson, who created the criterion):

It was chosen simply to show the overall response within the industry to an artist's work. It's not necessarily relegated to only their initial output either, though many do get their biggest shot from that, especially if they don't evolve much over time. But I felt that it was necessary to take into account how an artist impacts their field, beyond just how many records they sell or how many subsequent artists copy their approach.

For example, take something like the Beach Boys "Pet Sounds" album. It was successful (Top Ten), but less so than their previous LP's, so its Commercial Impact was good, but not to the extent of stuff that was not nearly considered as highly. It was hugely influential, and yet there's still something that's not reflected in those other criteria that allowed it to be considered among the greatest things ever done.

That "something" is its overall musical impact. In 1966 that was the album that had everyone in music talking. Cream, who didn't play in nearly the same style and thus couldn't very easily be influenced directly by it, called it the album of all-time and Clapton said "it encompasses everything that's ever knocked me out and rolled it into one". Every artist at that time had a copy of it and were just floored by it, changing how people literally THOUGHT of rock music at the time. In other words, it was what the music world itself reacted to most strongly.

What I attempted to do with the four different criteria was take into account each distinct way music has an impact. Commercial success has to do with how an audience reacts and what they're willing to spend their money on, that's the business side of music, their job in other words - to sell records, to wrack up hits. Influence reflects the longterm changes that music has on others, taking into account the innovations that become commonplace. Cultural Impact goes beyond music into how that artist effects popular culture as a whole.

That leaves Musical Impact, which is an attempt to distill the overall reaction to the work by those most closely associated with the field of music - their peers. Sometimes Musical Impact is seen in shortlived fads (different from influence, in that it is more of a quick response to something, rather than a deep seated alteration brought about by it), other times it is the buzz surrounding something fresh and innovative, while other times it is the merely the consensus musical opinion of the steadiness of an artist's contribitions (think Stones, circa 1968-1972, hardly groundbreaking stuff in terms of approach most of the time, and derivitive stylistically of their own influences, but clearly they were at the forefront of the musical community at that time). The four point criteria on the Artist list was designed to show all of the primary ways artists have impact through their work. Commercial Impact is the business side of the equation reflected in the popularity of their music. Musical Impact is the creative side of that music reflected in the response to that work by their peers at the time. Influence is the way in which their innovations of that work alters musical approaches down the road (this can be in any of the three forms seen in more detail here, on this list). Cultural Impact is simply how big of a dent they make in the larger overall popular culture of that time.

The list that I was quoting from was the Most Influential Artists list, not the Greatest Artists list.

The idea that there was more good music in the 60s/70s than in any other era is completely subjective. And I think you're greatly exaggerating the degree to which rock bands declined as a percentage of the market from Cream's time to R.E.M.'s time. But even if it were true, it wouldn't make any difference. I assess the popularity of each artist primarily by their numbers on the pop charts, which include artists of all subgenres of rock, and some non-rock. So R.E.M. isn't getting a break in popularity criterion from whatever decline in the popularity of rock bands that might have taken place, because they're competing with all artists, including pop and hip hop, for those chart numbers.

Understandable. Also, didn't know that was the influence list, makes sense. And thanks for the 'musical impact' explanation, I have a better idea of it now. And yeah it's subjective, but I still think those bands are better, but that's an opinion. I think the 90's (now this will sound very rude, possibly condescending, but it's an opinion so don't take it too seriously) were a time where the general public lost the ability to have good taste in music, mainly shown by how the Beastie Boys and Britney Spears were so popular. At one point, this kid name Aaron Carter was a pop hit, and everything spewed out by him was rubbish. The good music in the 90's, as far as I'm concerned, was not even that popular, because people had bad taste in music and couldn't care otherwise. And I'm talking about I guess after the grundge movement, from around 94-2000. Also, this isn't saying all 90's bands were bad, I'm saying since the general public's taste in music was so low and unrefined, when someone REALLY good comes along, they get overhyped. I've heard all of R.E.M's work, ALL OF IT, and I like it, but I don't think it's anything really special. Now saying that, I've listened to all of the Door's works again, along with Yes', Genesis, CCR, and Queen recently, and REM, IMO can't even compare, the other bands, as far as I"m concerned are lightyears ahead in musical creativity and genius. But that's just how I feel.

Were you actually around in the sixties and seventies? Do you know how much crap was popular back then? You know what stellar pop act kept "My Generation" from #1 in the UK? The Singing Nun.



David Cassidy.

There were a lot of stupid things back then that kept stuff from number 1, look at how Beatles songs/albums got nerfed, even in the grammies, along with other bad songs, I know that. I'm saying in the rock world, because pop is what's 'popular', it tends to design itself to appeal to the masses and be popular, it should be flashy, catchy, and attractive, but not deep or complex enough to scare people away, it needs to be plain and simple for everyone, but likable for those who want more.

What I'm saying is look at it like this, how many songs in the 60's/70's and artists have ridiculous lasting appeal that were popular? Too many too mention. Does anyone remember The Singing Nun? No. Do people remember My Generation? YES. I think that song, along with many more from then, will last forever, while the shitty ones die out. However, I think nearly all of the 90's hits will die out at some point long before all the 60's/70's hits, I really do. Some will make it, but Losing My Religion, Paranoid Android, Lithium, and maybe Teen Spirit, will dissipate long before Won't Get Fooled Again, Baba O'Reily, My Generation, Stairway to Heaven, Light My Fire, 60% of the Beatles songs, Good Vibrations, California Girls, Layla, Sunshine of My Love, Bohemian Rhapsody, We are the Champions, even Foreplay/Long Time I believe may survive longer than those 90's songs, and it's nowhere near the tier of the songs previously listed. I just don't think the 90's music was good/appealing/deep enough to last the test of time. But this is all an opinion, I'm not asking about list changes here :)

please explain being popular or having lasting appeal , all this surviving and everything you are mentioning, what are you basing it on ? I am quite sure if you have a poll between especially the youth, you shall (unfortunately so) see that most of these 'unforgettable gems' mentioned do not even exist as far as they are concerned ..... so where do we draw the line sir ?

Wow, whatever "ClassicRockJunkie" took, I want some of it.

Seriously pal, you're living in a fantasy world.

Do you have any idea the incredile wealth of music being created even today? Take off your 60s/70s tinted glasses.

I could care less about Losing My Religion, but I SINCERELY doubt that Smells Like Teen Spirit will be "forgotten" 100 years from now.