I don´t know why is that relevant. Mercury has been also mentioned and I don´t see any point of comparison.

Santana is an unique and special case and it should be judge as such.

Its relevant in that it is the exact same thing you said in your last post. Iommi was the only constant in Black Sabbath, so does everything after Geezer leaves make Sabbath no longer Sabbath?
Santana is the band; it just so happens to have the namesake of the band's founder. Plenty of other bands have come down to a single original member, does that make them completely different acts?

And Echoes, before you mention Alice Cooper, that's a very unique case.

Also, I'd really like to get back to discussing the actual list.

One last word. Echoes, I am not at all trying to dismiss Santana's importance on the evolution of rock music, and I really think you should have understood that by now. Santana do not qualify for the list since they were formed in San Francisco which has been part of the USA for quite a while now. It's as simple as that. Unless you provide further arguments that differ from what has already been said, I will ignore your posts.

Concerning the other Rock en Español artists you mentioned: I invited you to compare these artists with the artists currently on the list using the criteria to support your opinion. Unless you prove yourself to be able to do that, I will definitely not trust you with the Latin American bands.

Look, Santana classic line up where peers, that is a band, everything was divided equally between them.

After the original members left, Santana has been Carlos Santana + paid musicians. That is not a band.

Brian just posted an answer in the Greatest Rock Artists thread, that actually makes me consider putting Carlos Santana in the Top 10 now. I'll get back to you guys on that.

That will be great!!!!!

One thing I can tell you right away: I am not going to divide the band Santana into two different artists. Either everything counts for a single entry under Carlos Santana, which would put him into the Top 10 quite comfortably, or only his actual solo recordings count, which wouldn't be enough to get him onto the list at all.

The way it's supposed to work, though it probably doesn't always, is that musical impact is immediate and short term, while influence is long term.

I think I never really understood the "musical impact" part. So do I understand correctly that "musical impact" is the acclaim of an artist's work relatively short after the time of its release as judged by other musicians?

I am probably going to add Carlos Santana/Santana to the list at #8. Also I was infused with an evil spirit and am going to add Justin Bieber, probably somewhere in the the 100-150 range.

You evil bastard, you! ;)

Yeah, he deserves a spot based on popularity alone.

And according to Allmusic he also was highly influential on Rebecca Black!

EDIT: How about #123? Any objections?

Also has had a pretty big cultural impact. You can't deny it.

And then of course the plain fact that everybody likes him so much.