Looks liks it does give a blurred image of the actual popularity of albums but so do the RIAA and all charts you will come across. I know that gminer has more exact sources at his proposal. I don't. So if I want to determine an artist's overall popularity I look at all those things I mentioned to get a general impression. But yes, many genres outside the fringes of the big pop market (e.g. metal, indie rock) may be underrepresented in comparison to their actual popularity in these sources (though their is a recent trend to also include some of these genres in mainstream listings such as Billboard).

Dmille, this is a hard rock list. Only the greatness of each artist's hard rock output is weighted. If the artist's hard rock output influenced non-'hard rock' artist as well I think that is a great achievement and should be taken into consideration, as well as acclaim of an artist's hard rock output from non-'hard rock' musicians/critics/publications and popularity of an artist's hard rock output in non-'hard rock' circles. Yet I think that influence is the criterion most closely tied to the style of the source material. If a hard rock artist clearly influenced another artist, it is likely that that other artist played in a hard rock style as well. But I do agree with you. That criterion should be extended to include influence on styles outside of hard rock as well (but only the influence that actually comes from hard rock material).

I'm pretty indifferent about including Pink Floyd. If we want to include The Kinks maybe it would make sense to include other artists with a very small hard rock output as well (e.g. PF, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Doors).

So we keep using the same method...only...

Influence (both in and out of hard rock)
Popularity
Acclaim (both in and out of hard rock)

This coming from someone who needs to be told that Lou Reed was a part of the original glam era? You're moderating this list and you didn't already know in the first place?

EDIT: A mere two songs? A mere two songs that you seem to have never heard before. Which IMFO says a hell of a lot more about you than it does about Pink Floyd.

Jesus Christ, no wonder nobody likes you around here.

You're gonna come in 30 pages late and start criticizing me and telling me what I have and haven't heard.

Yes I've heard those Floyd songs. How does that change the fact that they are still only TWO songs out of the band's catalogue?
They are not known for riff-based hard rock, they're psych/prog. Why is that so hard to grasp.

Oh wait, I forgot, "you were there", so you know more than all of us combined.

If you dont like the list, then dont comment on it. Seems simple to me.

I am going to comment as I see fit. When I hear bullshit, I'm gonna call it. And I don't give a d@mn who likes it or who likes me.

Popularity also has to be put into context of the time frame and the radio formats. There was a time when James Brown, Johnny Cash, Sinatra, Presley, Beatles, Supremes, Hendrix, etc would all be played on the same radio station. That time has past.

There was no mainstream rock chart during the so-called classic rock era. Album sales and chart positions should outweight hit singles. The UK chart should be considered as much as Billboard. Austrailian, Canadian, German charts etc. should be factored in (on a secondary basis) for bands from those countries as well.

The charts weren't always a measure of pure sales. An album could go gold or platinum in a month or for some it could take a decade. Concert ticket sales are just as much of a measure of popularity as record sales.



But the acclaim that many have now is complete bullshit. Because those same publications and critics praising them now, were trashing bands like Zep and Sabbath in 70. I would hear the music and there was a major disconnect when I read the reviews. If they got it wrong them, what else did they get wrong and what else are they getting wrong now?



Whether or not the Kinks are hard rock, has nothing to do with Pink Floyd.

.. another example is the RIAA my friend, when Gold was the biggest certification an album could receive ... Machine Head by Deep Purple was certified Gold by the RIAA after selling 2 million units up to 1974 and had spent 118 consecutive weeks on the charts - Platinum certification did not exist until 1976 .... when Machine Head was recertified in 1986 with Platinum, it was a certification based on the 1976 rule and the sales from 1972-74, not for further sales up to 1986 .... Take care

DEEP PURPLE MACHINE HEAD August 02, 1974 November 06, 1972 WARNER BROS. Standard GOLD

DEEP PURPLE MACHINE HEAD August 02, 1974 October 13, 1986 WARNER BROS. Standard PLATINUM

DEEP PURPLE MACHINE HEAD August 02, 1974 October 13, 1986 WARNER BROS. Standard 2.00x MULTI PLATINUM

Note the same thing was done with Made in Japan

DEEP PURPLE MADE IN JAPAN March 30, 1973 May 31, 1973 WARNER BROS. Standard GOLD ALBUM

DEEP PURPLE MADE IN JAPAN March 30, 1973 October 13, 1986 WARNER BROS. Standard PLATINUM

All good points and it would be very valid to add the German, Canadian and Australian charts. Germany historically has been an equal or greater market to the UK for music sales, concerts etc especially hard rock... and the German charts are as good as those found in the UK ... Take care

So now we have to rework the list just because dmille has a stick up his ass?

Fuck that. Maybe if you went about it the right way, instead of being the condascending asshole that you usually are. But then you're probably the type of guy who takes that as a compliment (I'd lay money on it), so whatever.

The criteria stays as it is. If you dont like it, then edit it yourself or contact Lew and have it deleted.

True, all true. Yet most of the lists on the site focus on the greatness of the artists in the US and (to a lesser degree) UK. It would be almost impossible to gather information from all parts of the world. The Russian market is also very big but some of the artists that are extremely popular there are unmentioned in most English reference sites/books. Nobody outside of Russia knows them, why would they matter to an American reference site? The same goes for Germany. There are many very popular German artists who never made any impact in non-English-speaking countries.

I also agree about concert ticket sales being important for determining an artist's popularity but the figures you will find will probably be even less reliable than the ones for record sales.


I don't get how somebody can get acclaim wrong. There's no objective measure for judging the correctness of an artist's acclaim. It's true that the acclaim of an artist may change over time. I think lasting acclaim should be given a bigger weighting than initial acclaim because it is a current list but I know that some editors would disagree.


Both were artists with a rather small hard rock output compared to their overall body of work.

Allow me to clarify. Rock & roll is an English language phenomenon. Johnny Halladay (for example) is a huge rock star, in France. There might be some Russian band that is every bit as kick@ss as any American or British band, but unless they're singing in english; I don't care to hear it.

So to be more specific, when a band like the Scorpions is considered for this list; IMO their German chart success should be taken into account as well the US and UK charts. Their success shows every German (and European) band, what is possible.

Some earlier in the thread were talking about: who did AC/DC influence? They influenced almost every hard & heavy guitar band to come out of Australia. Before AC/DC became international superstars, to most Americans, Australian "rock" was Air Supply & Little River Band. Just as with the Scorps, AC's Aussie chart numbers should be considered.



There was once a time when Rolling Stone magazine was the gold standard for rock & roll magazines. The 1st edition of the Rolling Stone Record Guide was published in 1979. They rated every Black Sabbath album as worthless, their lowest rating. Now any acclaim that they'd give to Sabbath or Ozzy, how can I take it seriously?

It's only one example, but that kind of thing was the rule - not the exception.

Now "Some Might Say" that this is only a mere three songs.

Janis Joplin was not always a solo artist. She was once the lead singer of a band called Big Brother and the Holding Company.







"Janis [Joplin isn't] hard rock in any way"

Good point.

The quickest way to become a legend in rock & roll is to die. AC/DC has sustained a nearly 40 year career. We don't know if Nirvana or Cobain would still be stars today.



IMO the idea that their wardrobes were influenced by transvestism is a hang over from the original glam rock era. Aerosmith, Halen and the rest of glam/hair metal crowd aren't trannies, they're dandies.


IMO the musical roots of hair metal come from the mid-to-late 70s heavy metal & hard rock.

Without going into a huge discourse on the history of hard & heavy rock, during the mid-60s it seemed as if most bands were riding the same wave of inspiration and experimentation. Some time around 68 or so, there was a split were certain bands rejected many of the pretenses and excesses of psychedelia and replaced them with the traditional rock dynamics of blues, folk and country. That to me is the fundamental difference between late 60s heavy metal (Blue Cheer, for example) and late 60s acid rock (Iron Butterfly). Others replaced them with the dynamics of classical and jazz resulting in the emergence of progressive rock.

By the mid-to-late 70s, there was a major cross-pollination taking place between the hard & heavy styles of the early 70s. Some bands were combining progressive rock and heavy metal (Rainbow, Judas Priest, Rush), some mixed elements of glam rock and heavy metal (KISS, Aerosmith, Halen), one combined all three (Queen). Others worked on a border where hard rock & heavy metal were virtually indistinguishable in their sound (AC/DC, Nugent, Scorpions, UFO).

But the last and IMO most important part of the hair metal sound equation was the corporate arena bands like Boston, Journey, Foreigner, Styx and REO Speedwagon. They also combined many of those same elements into their music and then over-produced it the point of castration.

"Amigo, the only thing in this world that gives orders is balls. You got that? Balls."

That line from Scarface encapsulates the clear difference between glam metal (has them) and hair metal (doesn't).