Now I'll be the first to say this was inevitible. When an entire generation or two grows up with a style of music that started on the outskirts of the mainstream then it's only a matter of time before it moves into the mainstream once that audience seizes control of the marketplace, but someone's gotta find the key that fits the lock to open that door and then force it to stay open, and that was largely done with Jay-Z, who set the basic blueprint (pun intended or not) of how to have crossover success and stay legit within hip-hop.

Put it this way - in the 50's Elvis towered over his competition, everyone was trying to match him and it wasn't just music, he was the face of rock 'n' roll, the movies, TV, headlines, style, etc. In the 60's it was the Beatles. Now it's Jay-Z. He's the closest to them in stature in terms of an artist that defines the times in more ways than just musically. Not on their level, but the next step down and there's not many others on that step with him, if any. That's cultural impact.

His productions were polished gems, the hooks were massive and creative ("Annie"?!?!), the rhymes still tough and his flow impeccible.

But that's not his hook. It's Charles Strouse's.

And isn't that kind of stuff subjective, anyway? I'm pretty sure if I said that kind of stuff about The Who in a bid to get them higher, you'd (rightly) be all over me for it.

But it's still all within the realm of hip hop, which, huge as it is, is still a subgenre of rock. Elvis Presley and The Beatles weren't confined to a single subgenre of rock. They encompassed it all (or pretty close). And, according to Billboard, Jay-Z is the tenth biggest artist, and fourth biggest rapper(!), of the zeroes. The Beatles and Elvis Presley were second to none in their eras. Of course, you did say he's a step down, but still.

The point I was trying to make all along remains that when factoring in ALL of the criteria, Jay-Z is gonna wind up being in the Top Ten or damn close to it and nobody here seems like they'll see it coming. So a heads up - it's definitely coming.

Obviously nobody is on the level of Presley and The Beatles. But if you look at the figures who shaped the eras they were in, who else had that deep penetration at the time? Not Dylan. Not the Stones. Michael Jackson, briefly. James Brown? Again, briefly. Stevie Wonder? Nirvana? U2? Run-D.M.C.? Fats Domino? The Beach Boys? The Who? Zeppelin? Hendrix? The Supremes? 2Pac? All do well, but in almost every case it's much more narrowly confined to single elements. I think Madonna is the closest to Jay-Z in cultural impact, she was a punchline on Johnny Carson (the whole Sean Penn-Madonna era) in the mid-80's and you figured there were lots of artists who had that brief moment of cultural impact but would fade fast, yet a decade or two later she was still as relevant as ever. She changed fashion, women's roles, the blatant sexuality button pushing, the manipulation of the media, she went into movies, even Broadway, yet still released music everyone bought. She became bigger than a musical artist and moved into the realm of cultural figure at large, as Elvis and the Fab Four did. Jay-Z is the same way, he's everywhere culturally, yet his main occupation is still just as successful as ever. That's rare to do.

Hmm, I dunno, yet. I do have to say, though, that when it comes to "who set the basic blueprint (pun intended or not) of how to have crossover success and stay legit within hip-hop," that has to be Beastie Boys. And Eminem achieved it contemporaneously with Jay-Z, too.

I understand your argument here, I agree with almost everything. I just think you're underestimating a bit the other artists below Beatles-Elvis.

For example, you said Madonna, I agree that she has a huge cultural impact, and I put her in the top 10 in this criteria. But nobody was more important than MJ in the 80s, in all factors. His peak has always been and is compared to the Beatles and Elvis. Many reputable sources cite Jackson as a biggest phenomenon after Presley.

The Beasties had just one Top Ten hit. Love their stuff, very well respected throughout music, not just hip-hop, but by "crossover success" I meant having consistently huge hits that everybody on the boulevard or the beach knows by heart.

As for Eminem, I'd imagine he'd be fairly high. He does well across the board. Short career though (so far) especially since he hasn't been quite as active the last decade now (since 2002 all his albums went #1 but there's only a few with some big gaps between releases and they don't compete with his flurry of brilliance that kicked off his career). Tough call. If I was forced to blindly guess on where he might end up I'd say maybe 35-40, but that's only rough speculation. I probably can't see him over Pac yet, even with the Commercial Impact edge, it's probably close though and in that area of the rankings somewhere.

More hits = more commercial impact. More hit albums = more commercial impact. That said, if we're talking catalog sales with albums vs. singles artists it's gotta be put into era-specific context again. Let's say two million people buy a 25 song Fats Domino Greatest Hits collection, but two million people each buy "Are You Experienced?", "Axis: Bold As Love", "Band Of Gypsies", etc., the sheer numbers would give the clear commercial edge to Hendrix, but he benefits from being an album artist who, to properly appreciate, you need the full length albums. But add in the millions who own various Fats singles on multi-artist compilations and the numbers would start to balance out, yet we would have no way of accurately telling this because we don't have sales figures for all of those, we don't even know all of the comps his songs appeared on. I know you said you owned the Rock 'n' Roll Era Time/Life stuff and his songs are all over those. I'm assuming you paid money for them, but they don't show up in his sales figures. By contrast Hendrix's songs are notoriously not available on too many, if any, compilations, so to get anything from him you gotta buy the albums, which boosts his totals even more.

I'm not saying it's either one's fault, they can't help the era they're from, but it definitely matters and which is why when charting Commercial Impact I always take context into account. More hits, more hit albums, greater longterm sales, etc. all are going to be huge in Commercial Impact, but there are other factors worth considering when studying it closer.

As a cultural figure, absolutely MJ would be third. No question. But as for cultural impact, it was huge but centered mostly during the 82-83 period, then again (for the wrong reasons) during his gradual meltdown decline stage (child molestation charges, marriage to Lisa Marie Presley, dangling babies out the window, surgical masks and his death). His cultural impact at its peak was as big as anyone outside the top two, and bigger than Madonna, but Madonna stayed at her peak level far longer, changing herself along the way which allowed her to continually effect culture in different ways, from the early "Virgin" image that spawned countless fashion imitators to the late 80's "Prayer" controversies to the Sex book in the 90's and beyond. All new headlines and new impact. By contrast Michael just got weirder after his moment at the top of the cultural ladder.