Okay, then is Jimi really not as popular as Fats? I find that very questionable. Both Jimi's initial AND lasting popularity are gigantic.

Neg, I think you're exaggerating Jimi's initial popularity. He wasn't a singles artist at all, and only his debut album was huge. He had other albums that were popular, but not any more so than a lot of artists. Fats is the 2nd most popular rock artist of the '50s. Jimi isn't one of the 10 most popular rock artists of the '60s. I'm not sure he's even one of the 20 most popular in terms of initial popularity.

But his lasting popularity is huge.

I do think its fair to say Jimi dominates Fats in lasting popularity.

Great post by Eric breaking everything down.

To elaborate a little more on the Influence vs. Musical Impact specifically between Little Richard and Jimi Hendrix. I think people are slightly overstating Little Richard’s influence, but drastically underrating his musical impact. For influence he was vital in bringing an even more uninhibited style to the mainstream. The screams, the whoops, the wild archaic lyrics and flamboyant persona were his biggest influences. Nobody who followed quite lived up to that, but the precedent was set forever after. That influence is big, but not quite as big as Hendrix, who changed the guitar, specifically in the use of studio effects, and the emphasis on it in a far different way than the previous Chuck Berry model (intro, riffs, break, riff and close), Hendrix was way more free form and that clearly took hold after that and while those who followed never quite lived up to him either, the influence was in the way the guitar’s possibilities were altered. It's really close, but I see Jimi's as being more condensed and focused than Richard by a hair.

As for musical imapct though Richard beats Hendrix. You have to remember the times in which they both performed. Hendrix came along as rock was splitting along stylistic and demographic lines, as a result he had his strongest appeal to only one segment of rock – the guitar playing lyrical side. There were others who definitely admired him, Ernie Isley who actually was taught by Jimi when Hendrix was backing the Isley Brothers, but there also were huge realms of rock in the late 60’s where Hendrix was nothing more than a name to other artists because they played in such different styles and to totally different audiences.

Richard on the other hand came along as rock was crossing over and at that moment ALL of rock ‘n’ roll was lumped together and even different styles, such as doo wop and rockabilly, were sharing stages with guys like Richard. In 1956, Presley’s biggest year, it may not be an exaggeration to say Little Richard was, in the eyes of other artists, Elvis’s equal if not slightly greater. If you look at the songs of his that were covered by other legendary contemporary artists it is staggering. Presley covered a bunch, Eddie Cochran, Buddy Holly, Jerry Lee Lewis, Larry Williams, Bill Haley, The Everly Brothers. He was like the Bob Dylan of the 50’s in that way, every artist wanted his songs – way more than Chuck Berry or Fats Domino. Then you had guys of the next generation, Bob Dylan himself for example, who’s stated goal was to “play in Little Richard’s band”. Otis Redding began as a Little Richard imitator. Paul Kantner of Jefferson Airplane wrote in the introduction to an Airplane bio that Richard was the king of rock. His stature was above Berry, The Everlys, Holly, you name it. Artists worshipped Richard for the wild freedom he brought.

Hendrix had tons of musical impact, but it’s not close to Little Richard, comparatively speaking. Even Jimi himself said, “I want to do with my guitar what Little Richard does with his voice”. I don't think there's any debate on Musical Impact, Richard is one of the most dominant in that area ever.

That said, I don’t think either one quite makes the Top Ten overall. Their peak careers are too short to get them close to the Commercial Impact of others who beat them in at least another category, if not two. Look at the decades lists and see who’s above them both and realize that both Richard and Hendrix had virtually their entire output of note in that decade and so if artists beat them in THOSE decades, such as the Supremes, Sam Cooke or Fats Domino, they have to beat them overall, especially since all of those examples were successful in other decades much more so than the two in question. It might seem like heresy to say it, but Michael Jackson and Madonna are both FAR greater artists historically in purely objective terms than Jimi Hendrix or Little Richard.

Here's all you need to know:

Jimi Hendrix - I want to do with my guitar what Little Richard does with his voice (1966).

Not according to Johnny Otis:

Johnny Otis - Little Richard is twice as important as the Beatles and Stones put together.

Yep. I agree with that conclusion. I also think both MJ and Madonna beat Fats, but Madonna vs. Fats is probably a good argument.

The one other question raised was "lasting popularity." Lasting popularity is valid if the goal is to get a view of total popularity. We can't just say Fats wins initial popularity and Jimi wins lasting popularity, and therefore they are a tie. One of the goals of the list has to be to erase historical revisionism in the form of impressions of who is more popular based on name recognition. In this case, I don't think Jimi's probably superior lasting popularity tilts the results significantly.

Fats Domino is frequently reported to have 65 million record sales, and I believe this represents mostly his initial run and very little of his lasting popularity. I can't find when the number was first reported, but Imperial reported to Fats in August 1958 that he had sold 47 million records (as seen in his box set). At this point, he had only charted 15 of his eventual 37 top 40 pop hits. In the early 70s, after all his comeback attempts failed, Fats basically decided to retire on his ongoing royalties and focus on performing for his fans. You can't really say he's lacking in lasting popularity with all of that in mind.

When writing the bio a few years back for Fats on this site the total Domino record sales as reported to the RIAA had been updated to 110 million.

The problem I have with figuring lasting popularity remains its inaccuracies. Someone like Domino, who came of age in the singles era, is naturally going to not sell as much longterm as an album era artist of fairly equal stature for the simple reason that the singles artist will invariably have his best songs leased to countless multi-artist anthologies, for which he gets absolutely no official credit. How many millions of people own Blueberry Hill, Ain't That A Shame, I'm Walkin, etc., and paid money for those songs, yet none of them count towards his popularity because other artists were packaged with them? Secondly, you can buy 25 Domino singles on a Greatest Hits package, getting the cream of the crop over his entire career, and that accounts for just one sale. By comparison in order to hear Hendrix as he was originally appreciated - with full length albums - you need to buy three or four of them, giving him multiple sales.

It's neither one's fault, just a reflection on the era in which they came of age, but again it will favor one era or style over another and that taints the results.

Another question is, why does "lasting popularity" mean after their career has ground to a halt? Domino's success as a CURRENT artist lasted fourteen solid years, whereas Hendrix lasted four. That's a huge difference. Granted Jimi died, but I think it is far harder to sustain the level of interest with consistently new audiences over time such as Fats did than it is to have a brief flurry of acclaim such as Hendrix and just have that endlessly recycled. He never faced the inevitable artistic decline, changing tastes and loss of interest that would ultimately cost someone in longterm popularity. He's always viewed at his peak because that peak was so short. This is actually true of almost all tragic rock figures, but while again it's not their fault per say, it taints the way we see longterm popularity. That said, it is impressive what Hendrix has done after his death, the way he's remained a fixture in rock histories, so that should get some credit, but I'm not a fan of removing all context from the circumstances, which seems to happen all too often.

It's no more inaccurate than things like "cultural impact" and "influence" and "impact" (as you describe it). The best you are doing with those things is an educated estimate. At least with "Lasting Popularity" you have things like radio station survey lists, lifetime grammys, Greatest Hits albums on the charts, Youtube plays, etc.....

It doesn't.

If "Blueberry Hill" is still huge in 1961 while Fats is still having hits, that counts as "Lasting Popularity."

A song like "Shout" had much better "Lasting Popularity" than "Initial Popularity" and lots of its "Lasting Popularity" was taking place while the Isley Brothers were still having hits.

Fair point. I guess the issue then is the fact that there are "numbers" attached to it and those are trotted out as definitive. Something though like the American Graffiti soundtrack went triple platinum and hit #10 on the album charts, a good decade after the most recent song on it, and in some cases twenty years later, and those artists, including Domino, got no official credit for it, even though it was their music that people were buying. That seems to throw a huge crimp in the individual artist numbers thrown around when it comes to lasting popularity and that's only one prominent example.

But like with any criteria, as long as people are conscientious about applying the proper context and looking into everything, then its flaws can be better managed I suppose.

Yeah, that along with the 47 million number from 1958 supports the idea that the 65 million number represents his initial run as reported by Imperial in 62 or 63, instead of later bookkeeping updates. And it also gives us a good idea of Fats' true "lasting popularity" if he has sold 45 million records in the US since the end of his heyday.

Jimi has sold more than 15 million albums in the US during the soundscan era (1991-present). Considering that's a 50 year number for Fats and a 20 year number for Jimi, it sounds to me like they have very similar lasting popularity, despite the difference in 21st century name recognition among 18-34 year olds males.

I agree that figuring lasting popularity is messy, but the more important question is whether it is relevant to "greatness." If it is, then you just admit it when you make a decision based on messy numbers.

I think it is. Initial popularity is more important because it actively supports the artist during their ongoing career. However, lasting popularity represents older material effectively competing with newer artists who now need active support for their own ongoing careers. That's what it means.

I agree, lasting popularity does matter, but the main issue for me remains the difference between singles-era artists and album-era, because of the aforementioned leasing of individual songs to multi-artist compilations, for which the artists on it get absolutely no sales credit (see American Graffiti Soundtrack example above), and the difference between artists whose career can be comfortably distilled into a Greatest Hits collection, which satisfies all but the most passionate fan but requires just one purchase, and the artists whose careers was defined by the broader portrait of albums which necessitates even the casual fan to buy more than one title. Those factors skew the numbers greatly, cuts into them enormously on one hand and boosts them on the other.

Some other interesting examples: In 2002, the soundtrack to Disney's Lilo & Stitch was full of Elvis Presley songs, the whole movie was about Presley really, aimed at kids obviously, and it went to #11 on the Album Charts and sold millions, but Presley got no sales credit at all. Or how many teenage girls in the late 80's were turned onto older music by the Dirty Dancing soundtrack? Only one song from it, The Contours "Do You Love Me", recharted on its own as a result, but Solomon Burke and others received huge boosts in familiarity as a result, millions bought it to hear those artists, but it doesn't have any way of being reliably credited for each one. All of that is lasting popularity, or renewed popularity, yet unless you know this firsthand (and every other example like this for every other artist), it'll never figure into the rankings. Then there's The Big Chill soundtrack, which gave the Motown catalog a huge revitalization, but it doesn't help them in their own sales figures. Then add in all of those popular "Rock 'n' Roll Era" or Sounds Of The 70's Time/Life collections that compile huge singles from artists whose catalogs are being leased to anyone with a nickle, while other artists have labels who see the value in not leasing individual songs to boost their own sales. One artist sells their music to just as many listeners but gets no credit for it while the other does. It becomes a nightmare, especially when people like claiming these numbers, because they're written in black and white, are argument settlers unto themselves. UGH!

The end result is all of those factors actually matters MORE in the numerical totals than which artists are still appealing to listeners, so it kind of overrides its own purpose in a way at times. There's no way around it maybe, but it makes a messy problem even messier.

I'm not so sure that initial popularity is more important. It only encompasses a short time for most artists while lasting popularity can consist of decades.

Very few records ever make any of my lists on the site merely because they had great initial popularity. For instance, "In The Year 2525" is nowhere to be found on the top 120 of 1969, despite the fact that it was a number one single for 6 weeks in 1969. The record became dated almost immediately and was seldom played on the radio after its initial run. Did not sell much as an oldie either, and is routinely listed on lists of the worst records of the rock era.

I'd much rather list a record that was not a big hit initially but that has become a cult classic over time, like "Open My Eyes" by The nazz from 1968 or "The Train Kept-A-Rollin'" by the Johnny Burnette Trio from 1956, than to list some record that was huge for a few months one year but died out after that.

And it's essentially the same with artists although not as easy to calculate.

On the singles chart Paul Anka has more initial popularity than the Miracles or Sam Cooke, but who the hell listens to Paul Anka anymore in the past 30 years....especially his shitty RCA records from the early 60s or his stupid 1970s hits?

I think lasting popularity is a better indication of greatness than initial popularity, which is much more affected by things like what record label an artist is on and how much money is behind promoting the act.