There's actually some adults and some boys who dig his music, however anyone wants to take that.



I would venture to say that Bruce Springsteen has a wider demographics base as a live performer and a recording artist; his music is essentially updated "straight rock and roll," not really fitting into special markets (hard rock, soul, hip-hop, etc.).

On James Brown, he was one of the favorite live performers of the British Invasion alone (including by acts such as The Rolling Stones and The Who) and won the praise of Elvis Presley and The Beatles. To top that off, his performance impacted Michael Jackson to Prince to so many hip-hop and R&B acts of the ensuing decades, the reigning genres of the world as we speak. He has a wide demographic influence and impact that way.

Again, this is only touching on a variety of demographics.



I think it depends more on the person, but that's not to say it can't be a problem.

Believe it or not, Bruce is still performing 3+ hour shows to huge crowds with tons of energy, even at 60+. In fact, he's on tour right now with the E Street band, and he's getting terrific reviews all around. I would go so far as to say he's never been "down". As recently as 2008, he performed a show in St. Louis that hardcore fans consider one of his best shows ever.

The drug thing is waaay overstated in terms of the effect it had on the Dead at their peak. In the beginning, they gained exposure playing at the acid tests in '66, and later, declined due to Garcia's heroin use in the 80s and especially 90s. In between, they played high quality rock and roll and improvisational music while doing no more or less drugs than most of their contemporaries. I'd argue that from 72 to 77, they were one of the most consistent bands ever (not that they weren't consistent in other years near that time period, that's just when they really hit their stride).

That's just false. The Who were praised for their performance. The artists that fared poorly included: The Mamas and The Papas, Laura Nyro, The Grateful Dead, The Byrds, etc. Not The Who. Their set is (and was) considered one of the best of the festival.

By your criteria, it appears The Grateful Dead ought to be rated higher than Led Zeppelin.

Shockingly, I agree with that.

Yeah, they could be. Zep's hard to peg. They do well in everything, but with a few (influence and impact) there's wild debate over how well. I kinda split the difference and wound up with them there. It could change.

Queen and MJ should be higher.

No, that's in retrospect. The actual audience at the Monterey Pop Festival were aghast at them smashing instruments. That was a peace, love and flowers crowd, the love crowd as Otis Redding put it. They basically assaulted the crowd and the faces of the audience look as though they had just been raped or something. People who were there said the Who went over as poor as anybody but Nyro.

Now looking back, taking it out of the context of the specific scene, it's a classic performance AS WE'VE COME TO KNOW THE WHO. Therein lies the key. You, being a Who fan, looks at it and says "I'd have loved to been there, they kicked ass". But it'd be like Richard Pryor doing an unedited stand up routine at a Girl Scout banquet. The jokes may still be funny in another context, but not there. The Who's problem was they were still not all THAT well known in America, their live routine wasn't familiar to people, the audience didn't know what to expect, then when they went ahead with their usual routine the crowd just wanted them to stop. They couldn't help but be poorly received. I think that falls under them not understanding the audience, but their reception at Monterey at the time was bad. Same exact show at a different venue three years later and the reception would've been far better most likely.

Based on???? What exactly in the criteria...

MJ scores very well on Influence and impact. He is considered a showman and is recognized for that, since young was noted for their outstanding performances and be the greatest dancer of all time in his style.

Queen, by reputation and by his great and classic shows. Full interaction with the public.

Michael is someone I think I might have too high. His peak performances were very limited, he wasn't a touring machine like so many others. Specific moments on stage though are as iconic as any, and that's what I credited him with, but going by the criteria he could be a little high.

I'm comfortable with Queen's spot. They got credit for everything, and I don't feel as if anything they did was too tough to properly quantify that would lead me to wonder if they should be given more or less credit for something.

Sampson,
Seems to me that The Allman Bros. should fairly beat a band like AC/DC as far as this list goes.

They certainly take influence over AC/DC, at least it seems evident to me anyway.

What influence does AC/DC have over the evolution of live rock concerts? The Allmans may not have started the jam-band concept (you could say Cream did that), but they are more often than not considered to be the yardstick by which all others are measured in this aspect.
Their improvisational jams were the stuff of legend, melding jazz, blues, rock, r&b and whatever else all together to leave their crowds totally speechless.
Of course AC/DC had the energy and the attitude, I just dont think they can beat the Allmans by criteria.

I could see a switch. The Allmans though are getting too much credit for the jam band influence. Bo Diddley was actually the first to consistently do extended forays into unwritten areas of songs potential (though even that was an offshoot of Big Jay McNeely going through the crowd, honking away on his saxophone without letting up, just jamming away). Diddley was doing that closing Alan Freed Shows back in the fifties (which is why his absence from the Jam Band list, let alone from the Top 5, is a travesty), when he'd just come out, do one or two structured songs then launch into another and let it go wherever he wanted. Something to remember is that the evolution of the concert changed so much, from multi-artist bills to a featured performer, to more improvisational playing in general by the end of the 60's. Quicksilver Messenger's Service, who obviously worshipped Bo, were at the forefront of that as well. So the Alllman's do very well in Reputation and maintaining consistency, but their influence is lower than you think. Even the dual drummer set up they became known for was already done by James Brown years earlier.

Limited? How? You should know that Jackson has always been a perfectionist artist, and their touring it was very evident. In the documentary This Is It becomes clear how much he cared for who left everything perfect for the audience. On stage the man was insane and absurd. After a show, came to lose 2-4 pounds, a real machine on stage.

A fact about his Bad Tour: