As I understand what Sampson is proposing about the process for working on the list, the way it would work when discussing a particular artist is that any of us could make comments about an artist’s accomplishments, and ask questions about or agree or disagree with comments others have made. In addition to the advantages that Sampson mentioned, this has the advantage I wouldn’t have to compare artists right away, which would mean that this list wouldn’t take so much of my time that I wouldn’t be able to also work on other lists, and yet progress could be made on this list while I continue to work on other ones.

I agree with Brett that it would be hard to talk about musical impact in this way. Statements like a given artist has high, very high, or moderately high musical impact don’t mean much if you’re not comparing that artist to another artist. Still, I think it would work for the other 3 criteria, so even if it doesn’t work for musical impact, the ideas expressed about the other 3 criteria may be enough to make it worthwhile.

Sampson, do you expect that you’ll be participating regularly in the forum for awhile? There are things about artists that you will express that none of the rest of us would have come up with. So if your participation is intermittent, the artists that we discuss when you’re here will tend to have more impressive resumes than ones that we talk about when you’re not here.

One other thing is that it will take a long time to get through all of this, even if we don’t need to look at anywhere near as many as 300 artists, as I believe is the case. That’s OK, except that there should probably be a revision on the main site long before we get that far. So what I propose, if we take this approach, is that we first look at the artists that are in positions 6-15 on the current revision (the 2nd post of this thread), and after getting them arranged as well as possible, I’ll send a revision a Lew. The list will still need a lot of work, but I think it’s fair to say that if that much is done, the revision will be a considerable improvement over the list currently posted on the main site, so posting the new one, and then posting other revisions as the list continues to improve, will be better than leaving the old list up until the entire process is complete.

Another advantage of my suggestion is that it gives the new process a trail run, which should clarify whether we want to continue with this process, or maybe continue with it with some minor adjustments.

Gminer sent me an article to throw on the evidence pile for Grateful Dead:



Eighteen charting albums for Grateful Dead since 2010 is incredible.

Whether or not it's incredible depends on how many weeks they spent on the charts.

If they count in cultural impact rather than popularity, I should amend my explanation about why Otis beats The Dead. Otis would now win everything except cultural impact. The Dead's win in cultural impact would be bigger than Otis' biggest win, in musical impact, but not as big as all three of Otis' wins combined.

I disagree.

This is interesting:

All Time Top Album Sellers (USA)

Grateful Dead are at 26,350,000. Link curtesy of gminer.

The way I'd tackle a complete overhaul is to do it in three stages. The first stage would be what we're talking about now, doing the preliminary work here on the forum, where everyone can participate. The best way is to simply do it alphabetically. Start off by saying: Here are the artists beginning with A that are being considered for the list. AC/DC, Johnny Ace, Aerosmith, Allman Brothers, Animals... whatever. Then ask if there's anyone else that should be considered. If other names are brought up, simply add them to the list, don't debate whether or not they should be included in the conversation at this stage. Then one by one open the floor for each name as a stand alone case and have people give insight into how they feel they do in each of the four criteria. You're gonna have to have some broad terms used like "Off the charts", "extremely high", "strong", "decent or average", "some", "very little" and "Not notable at all", just as starting points. But those will only mean something with evidence and context. People don't even HAVE to say what they'd give them in those terms, just present what they feel their accomplishments are in any one of the areas. If they want to rate it that way while doing so, that's fine, those words or basic levels are just more for you, as the editor, to have a starting point to place each candidate's merits in that criteria as information is presented. You can be moving them up or down in each criteria to the different levels as the conversation goes on based on the evidence presented, none of us have to even know where you have them landing within that.

I agree The Musical Impact area is harder to do in that way because the "evidence" would be people searching for quotes online, which we don't want, but with that area you could simplify at this point in the process, maybe just to three levels (high, normal and low). What you're essentially trying to do throughout all of this is compile well-rounded and accurate resumes on everyone before you get down to ranking them. The problem this site's editors always seem to have is they go into the making of a list with a rough list already in their head, then only make adjustments to the rankings incrementally, through debates and other acrimonious ways. That doesn't work, those are the least defensible lists on the site because they were done backwards. The criteria determines the list and to do that you need to start with everybody's qualifications IN that criteria and see how it shakes out, not make the list first and then try and fine tune it with the criteria after the fact. Anyway, while this process is going on, you, as the editor, don't weigh in on any of it, other than to ask for some clarification if you need it, or to warn people if the conversation goes off track or things are being offered up that aren't applicable.

Then move on to the B's, C's, etc. (and when the W's come up, make sure Clash is sedated - ). As the resumes are compiled you start making assessments on your own on what cases are strongest for each artist. Just because somebody SAYS that so-and-so deserves a really high mark in some area, even if everyone else agrees, doesn't make it so. The editor's job is to verify the veracity of the statements, check the facts and weigh the results and then compile their own dossier on each name, who does well in what and how well. When all of the resumes are compiled after Zappa and ZZ Top, you move on to step two, which DOESN'T involve forum participation.

That step is to start sorting them into rough groupings based on those overall qualifications across the board that you came up with. THIS will be where the real analytical work is done by the editor, weighing things in different areas and most importantly looking for any and all contextual variances to be applied. The majority of placements become pretty evident when looking at the qualifications laid out before you. Even the ones you're up in the air about, who could bump up to the next grouping or drop down to the grouping below, you'll at least have their final slot already determined almost. If they jump into the next grouping they'll be at the bottom of it and if they drop down one they'll be at the top of that one. Very cut and dried still at this point. Based on my experience these groupings will generally run anywhere from 5-15 artists per grouping (the higher up, the fewer names in the groupings, the lower the ranking the more candidates you'll get that will have similar resumes so much so they will almost seem interchangeable at times). It's also important to be able to remove the names or images of the artists in your mind as you do this, so you can't say "Oh, THIS artist NEEDS to be high". No, you're just looking at credentials. Obviously you'll know the names and their reputations, but it's crucial that all you're weighing is their achievements within the criteria and there should in fact be times where you are a little bit surprised that someone seems too low or too high, that shows the criteria is determining the list, not somebody's impressions.

Step three is taking those rough groupings and agonizing over the specific rankings within them by comparing artists head to head that will make up the finished list. How that's done is up to you. Personally, I think the editor should make the final decision without soliciting mass input, and simply present it "as is". No politicking or arguing that way. No giving people the idea that this is some kind of democracy where their "vote" means a damn thing. It doesn't. It shouldn't. That's a copout for an editor who doesn't want the responsibility of the job. They feel it takes the pressure and the onus off of them to let others have the last word. But the editor's name is on the list, their reputation (such as it is here) is on the line, ideally they should be the most objective one involved and have the most knowledge of the subject at hand and be the most qualified person for the job.

But everybody's different and some want to give others some input, even if they still get the final say. If that's the case, I'd keep it confined to slotting of artists in even smaller groupings, like no more than 2 or 3, and then only if you are undecided on the final specific rankings amongst them. Let's say there are three artists you have slotted from #64-66 but you aren't quite sure of their order. You may be leaning one way but want another view point. Without showing your cards, just ask for additional insight into them. I guarantee it WILL turn into a fight, but at least that way you try and keep it confined to smaller brush fires rather than raging infernos.

So would I stick around for that method of making a list? Yeah. But if it's done the way it's been going the last two weeks, where it turns hostile (not because of personal animosity, but because each side feels they're right and to be proven right they need prove their "opponent" wrong, and everyone feels they need to get the last word in, so it never ends) then absolutely not. I like music too much to argue over it. DDD's forums left unchecked have a way of making me never want to listen to music again and I can't take that. But don't let my potential participation or lack thereof factor in to whichever way YOU want to approach it. Like I said, the editor needs to be the one who does it in the way they feel most comfortable and that they think will give them the most credible list. Mine's only a suggestion.

Some more fascinating information, courtesy of gminer:

So, Sampson, do you think all that streaming is coming from the same 250,000 people who bought all those concert tickets?

They're two separate things. Despite your distaste for my "just saying the same thing", because once again I seem to be getting called out for something different than what I AM saying, I'll try to clarify again, but then I promise you, I'm done for good. Your patience is appreciated in advance.

The initial argument made by both you and Clash regarding verifiable evidence of their popularity was their tour numbers. All of these latest numbers gotten by gminer are indeed better evidence for your case. Hats off to gminer for doing what others really should've done. But that still doesn't change the veracity of the tour figures that your entire initial argument was based on and that's what I had, and still, have, the problem with. The context of those numbers, as definitively proven by further research, was that the overwhelming majority of those tickets sold were to the same core audience. We're talking three quarters of the sales roughly. It is the job of every editor to put all information gathered into context. That means the value of some figures are raised and others are lowered based on external factors that come into play. The staggering number of repeat customers that swell those totals certainly qualifies as "relevant external factors".

(Here's the repetitive part, sorry ): Therefore in the case of the Dead's touring to take the total numbers at face value and sort of "add them" to the Dead's popularity was both misleading (by not factoring in the context) and was contradicting the importance of them BEING repeat customers in the first place, which is what establishes the Dead's primary cultural impact. In essence what you were trying to do was have each ticket sold be counted as a single fan for the popularity criteria, which, when added together, represents a huge amount of popularity. A million fans buying tickets is far more impressive than a hundred thousand after all. The entire argument was based on the BIGGEST TOURING BAND claim and "biggest" can ONLY be determined by total number of tickets sold. But then in the cultural impact realm you wanted those tickets to be counted as they really were, which was a smaller hardcore group of fans who saw a dozen or more shows each tour, which bolsters the entire Deadhead subculture argument that they had such a devoted following that they'd revolve much of their life around seeing them as many times as possible. And this is where I began to lose my patience, and not for the last time I should add.

I had no problem crediting them with it in either area, but not both. The fairest way, in my estimation, was to view the tours as the Dead's cultural legacy, the symbolic evidence of their unique place in rock. It would not have HURT them in popularity because the other objective factors that are weighed, such as hit singles, albums, airplay, etc. would give an accurate assessment of their appeal to a broad base. They would've gotten credit for the base tour numbers, but not the total. After all, the popularity rankings aren't simply based on adding numbers together anyway, it's based on analyzing all the numbers in context. Taking some out of play because of context doesn't diminish the value of other numbers in another context.
(End of repeat, you can stop this and start paying attention again, kids)


At this point it really should've ended. We both made our cases, presented our evidence and should've moved on. Neither one of US even had a final say in the decision after all, so who were we trying to convince? But, as is always the case, everyone, myself included, wants to get the last point in, because to NOT do so is almost like capitulation, which is further proof as to why debating music in this fashion is harmful to the lists, to the artists and to each other. Each new post becomes increasingly hostile as frustration grows and the cycle never ends. You'll notice however that no one else has chimed in around here in a long time. Everyone's fled the scene and we're the ones responsible. That's nothing to be proud of.

I'm at the point where the ONLY reason I'm showing up here is out of respect for Brian, who is trying to do the impossible and mediate this without getting too personally involved, all while trying to compile a credible list on probably the single most important topic (Greatest Rock Artists) on the entire site. As I said before, though I may be good at it, I hate arguing music and won't take part in that anymore. Whatever junior high school cafeteria debates others want to have, leave me the fuck out. I'd like to leave this site one day and still enjoy listening to "Morning Dew" or "Touch Of Gray", not find myself throwing a brick through the speakers when they come on because it reminds me of this nonsense. Clash singlehandedly ruined my enjoyment of the Who for years and even now I can't get into them nearly as much as before I ever set foot here and that's a tragedy. Nobody seems to grasp this though, which is why the forums - for all of their good traits - can be such a cesspool. My being here and taking the rankings seriously enough to try and make these points clearly isn't helping matters when it winds up like this.

As for gminer's work, thankfully it helps expand the perspective, though some of that too still needs to be put into the all-important context, which remains the single most overlooked factor in these debates. The Dead though would indeed see their popularity totals rise with that additional information and I'm very glad he took the time to look into it more. However, once again, Redding's numbers will also improve considerably with additional contextual analysis. When I pointed out recently that Redding's biggest songs were licensed for multi-artist compilations countless times, I merely did so to show why TOTAL sales are an inaccurate method of tabulation, particularly when comparing singles artists to album artists. That remains true. But then I realized that there was another way in which to help determine popularity based on how many times their songs are licensed for multi-artist comps, which is irrefutable evidence of wide interest and strong commercial demand for them. Since the Dead also allowed their songs to be licensed they shouldn't be at a disadvantage this way. Otis has had his biggest songs licensed at twenty times the rate of the Dead's biggest songs, if not more. That's a huge margin, a much wider margin in fact than the sales totals advantage percentage wise. And as the streaming numbers are indeed relevant, so too are terrestrial radio figures and when you factor in airplay for songs like "Dock Of The Bay", the SIXTH most played song in the entire 20th century, the scales start tipping back yet again to the same place we started two weeks ago.

But see, now we're back to arguing. Each side presenting their best case, hoping to bring the other to their knees. But if there's one thing we've proven that's never gonna happen. You aren't going to change your mind no matter what club I beat you over the head with and I'm not changing mine either. So I apologize, formally and publicly. This has gone on far too long and won't go on any further, at least not with me it won't. I made my case to Brian for how to handle these lists the right way and I'd be willing to stick around for that, but not for more of this. First sign of that and you're on your own, boys.

Peace.

Well, good, I'm glad you can see that.



Well, where I begin to lose my patience is when you explain this to me for the third time without in the slightest addressing my explanation of why this is not true. You don't have to BUY my explanation, but when you ignore it and get all condescending about it, I find that hard to take.

Again, "popularity" (or, if you prefer, "commercial impact") isn't simply the number of fans. (And I think Clash illustrated that well with his point that more people bought one Hootie album than any one Beatles album--even if you could assume that no one who didn't buy the most popular Beatles album bought any other, I would argue that ten million people each buying ten albums is more popularity than fifteen million each buying one). And I count the same people in cultural impact and in popularity because I'm counting different things--the fact that these people buy so many albums and concert tickets is popularity, and the fact that they ALSO shared a culture that was directly influenced by the group is cultural impact. And, again, I think virtually ALL cultural impact is this way, because cultural impact is primarily made on people who enjoy your music. But it counts twice, if you want to see it that way, because not everyone who likes your music is impacted by it this way. If we could know that the Dead and artist X have EXACTLY the same number of fans, who bought EXACTLY the same number of albums/tickets/whatever, but the Dead's fans formed this unique subculture while the other artist's fans were not in any visible way changed by the music, then why shouldn't the Dead get more credit?

Now, you've said that you don't want to respond further, and that's fine. And this can be for Brian and anyone else whose had the patience to make it this far. But if you do address this point again, then please respond to this line of argument.



Fair enough. I know it can be frustrating. And it looks like you've "won" insofar as Brian's rankings are concerned, FWIW. But I do have a tendency to go round and round in debates past the point of any productivity. (At least here I'm arguing with someone who obviously knows what he's talking about and is mostly respectful. I'm trying to at least cut out the people who don't--you can find ridiculously epic debates I had on Usenet with remarkably clueless idiots.)



Well, I'm sincerely sorry you feel that way, For whatever reason, it doesn't work for me that way. I can get very frustrated by the debates--my fiancee just has to glance at me to see that I'm reading a response I'm not happy with in one of my ongoing debates--but it doesn't affect my enjoyment of Otis (or whomever). Wish I could teach you that.



Yes, that's a big deal.



But there are no "songs like 'Dock Of The Bay'" in this case. It's ONE song. It's a huge song, yes, but "Rhythm Of The Rain" is number nine on that list, and that doesn't mean that the Cascades do well in popularity (let alone better than the Dead). Only a couple of other Otis songs really got long-term radio play, and they probably don't reach many more people than the Dead's classic rock hits. Again, it would be different if we were discussing one of those artists with a long string of such hits.



I hope we won't lose your perspective here.

Nice idea, Sampson!

This is a good point. "Dock of the Bay" is one of those massive songs beloved by many people who don't necessarily care much about Otis Redding and his larger body of work. They love the song. They don't necessarily love the artist. In that sense, is it really unfair that Otis Redding doesn't get credit for someone buying a multi-artist hits collection that happens to include "Dock of the Bay"? Are they really a fan worth counting if they can't be bothered to actually buy something that's just Otis Redding? Sometimes artists hit that out-sized appeal for a particular moment. Would Otis have ever been that big again? We'll never know. But I don't see why Otis Redding's popularity should be wholly defined by "Dock of the Bay" any more than we think Joan Jett's popularity is defined by the gigantic success of "I Love Rock 'n' Roll".

Strange? No. Ironic? Maybe.

I've given this list to Sampson. I think that with his vast knowledge of rock history, his having developed the criteria for this list, and all the research that he has already done for the '50s Rock Artists list, the '60s Rock Artists list, and the Influential Rock Artists list, he is the best person to do this list. I also think that I'm better at other kinds of lists than I am at this one, and certainly better at seeing them through to completion. So I believe this move will make better use of both his abilities and mine.