Yeah, I know. I think both could be part of the top 200.

The one thing that I am doing with the lower part of the list (the part Chris did) right now is elevating those artists who, because of what they've acomplished in the 6 years since that part was done, should now be in the part of the list that I made, which is the part higher than Cher. In Oasis' case, I think that's pretty minimal. They've had a popular album in the UK, and a popular compilation there, but little in the US, and little in any part of the criteria besides popularity. Coldplay has continued to release big albums, however, so maybe it is time to move them up above Cher. Mary J. Blige is another one who could be moved up into that range, and possibly Nas.

Well, I agree with the promotion of Blige.

I think some artists that are in the 201-300 group also deserve attention, in the case of ABBA (ridiculous popularity), Sade (a pretty solid career since the 80s), and Tina Turner. Maybe Soundgarden and Alice In Chains.
I suggest that Lauryn Hill should be combined with The Fugges and a possible inclusion of The Cranberries, and Celine Dion in the top 300.

The thing about the Fugees is that they had 2 members, Lauryn Hill and Wyclef Jean, who both had significant solo careers, so I'm not sure about combining one of those careers with The Fugees.

The Cranberries had 2 very popular albums, but I'm not sure that's enough since I think they register in a fairly small way in the rest of the criteria besides popularity.

I would question whether Celine Dion should be considered rock. One might say the same about Dionne Warwick, but she might come off.

I think both can be considered, Brian. Actually, Celine was very influenced by the soft-rock.

Maybe you're right about The Fugges.

How about Big Star for the list? They're kinda the Velvet Underground phenomenon (lack of popularity but lots of influence), though not on the same scale. Could still get a placement outside the top 100 perhaps, seeing that all their 3 albums are very highly acclaimed and their innovation of power pop is considered very influential.

The way it looks to me is that Big Star doesn't have much besides influence, and their influence isn't enough to get them on the list if that's by far their strongest criterion.

May be true.. What about Brian Eno? He's abnormally high on musical impact, and his influence in decent.. His influence within production is probably pretty big I'd say.. Probably not that high a placement, but perhaps a placement none the less..

Maybe. I haven't looked very much at the lower part of the list, there are other artists that I think should be added first, but there are a few that should be dropped, so I don't know whether there are enough artists that should be droped to permit making room for Eno.

I think Eno would definitely belong. If his influence on ambient music is relevant for a rock list, he would probably be more influential than most of the top 100.

Lately I'm thinking that Boyz II Men would be a good choice for the top 300.

One question: Why Wynonie Harris is on the list and Louis Jordan not?

It's a tough call drawing the line in jump blues between what is pre-rock and what is rock, but Harris represents a later development of it. Perhaps Bruce could explain in more detail than that.

Please note that there's a separate thread for 101-300.

Yes, it's here.

Sorry, I didn't know what thread I was in.