100 Greatest Rock Artists Of The 2000's

pave · **Posted:** Wed Dec 29, 2010 4:29 am

i think i am going to move Tool into the top 100. i was doing a lot of research for the top 100 albums list that Rob has so i could make some suggestions there and ended up convincing myself that Tool should be here (by the way, Lateralus is a top 25 album of the decade based on what i'm seeing)

beyonddeities · **Posted:** Wed Dec 29, 2010 2:39 pm

Hmm. An issue I've been thinking about is that with cultural impact... well, not every artist wants that, they have their own reasons for writing/performing music... and might not want that sort of influence at all. They could still be immensely skilled and popular, but I guess they wouldn't be considered 'great'?

Brian · **Joined:** Wed Oct 06, 2010 1:52 pm **Posts:** 2329

pave wrote:

Brian wrote:

I agree, pave. Sometimes an artist can do so well in a single criterion that that alone can give them a top 100 spot.

On considering sales v. peak chart positions, it's ideal to consider both. And if the peak chart position is considered than so should be weeks on the chart, or weeks in the top 40, or both. An album with a not very high peak but lots of weeks on the chart will sometimes outsell one with a high chart peak and not very many weeks on the chart.

i dont see why. why does peak position even matter if we have the complete sales to look at? peak position is relative. different times of the year have better sales.

imagine the 00s movie list treating a March number 1 movie the same as it treated Lord of the Rings or Pirates of the Caribbean just because it peaked at the same number. we don't do that. we look at total grosses. having a number 1 album that sales a million copies is not as good as an album that sold 7 million but peaked at 3 or 4.

If we do have complete sales to look at, that's probably right, but do we? In past decades, RIAA certification very often wasn't up-to-date, because some record companies don't always file to update certification for every record that's released. Also, even when certifications are up to date, they don't tell as much for singles as for albums, because singles don't sell as well as albums, and there's a bigger proportional difference between records at the same level of certification for lower levels than for upper levels.

gminer · **Joined:** Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:17 pm **Posts:** 2439

as Brian is pointing out ... and just for trivia a small snapshoot of Tool in the US ..... a comparison of certifications and actual sales which shows the certifications are 3 million units behind the actual sales total which is not all that unusual for many Artists .... Take care

United States - RIAA certifications:

Opiate: Platinum
Undertow: 2xPlatinum
Aenima: 3xPlatinum
Lateralus: 2xPLatinum
10.000 days: Platinum

Total: 9.000.000 units

... and actual sales in the US as of Oct 2010 - Soundscan

Opiate: 1,155,000
Undertow: 2,910,000
AEnima: 3,429,000
Salival: 273.000
Lateralus: 2,609,000
10,000 Days: 1,736,000

Total Sales: 12.112.000

pave · **Posted:** Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:25 pm

none of those look behind at all, unless im seeing something wrong. the RIAA just certifies at each million sold. they don't have 2.5x platinum or something.

gminer · **Joined:** Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:17 pm **Posts:** 2439

pave wrote:

none of those look behind at all, unless im seeing something wrong. the RIAA just certifies at each million sold. they don't have 2.5x platinum or something.

.. it shows exactly the point, if basing sales totals on certifications, the numbers can be quite different than the actual totals ... in this case for Tool it is 25% less ... a better example would be to look at a band like Pink Floyd.... or their album Dark Side of the Moon which has over 8 million more sales than the last time it was certified in the US .....

Dark Side of the Moon released in 1973
Last certified in 1998 by the RIAA - 15 million units
Sales since last certification up to 2008 - 8,487,000 units

... further to that example Pink Floyd`s entire catalogue has US sales that are 35,000,000 units more than their certification totals .... Take care

lukat93 · **Joined:** Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:20 pm **Posts:** 6

Eminem, Kanye West, Jay Z, Britney Spears, Beyonce, Justin Timberlake, Alicia Keys, Usher, 50 Cent, all in the top 15. :what?:

Are you sure this is greatest ROCK artists list? If it is, then no wonder I hear people saying rock's become rather...miserable music.

pave · **Posted:** Fri Dec 31, 2010 7:35 pm

do they make these people in a fucking factory and send them to my thread?

sorry if i come off harsh, its not really your fault. you just have been preceded by dozens of people with that same misguided post.

piper · **Posted:** Fri Dec 31, 2010 7:42 pm

Pave, I was gonna chime in with my usual "Rock isn't just white males with guitars" paragraph, but your post does the trick rather well.

lukat93 · **Joined:** Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:20 pm **Posts:** 6

So you still stand behind those people being "rock"?

Ace of Spades · **Posted:** Sat Jan 01, 2011 1:59 pm

Yes, we do, and before this repeats itself any more, read:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=260

gminer · **Joined:** Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:17 pm **Posts:** 2439

lukat93 wrote:

So you still stand behind those people being "rock"?

... would you consider this tune from 1971 by Deep Purple to be rock ..... Take care

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0xHTszwbWk

lukat93 · **Joined:** Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:20 pm **Posts:** 6

I didn't know Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake were rap artists. Actually, I didin't even know they were artists, I just thought they were more like just pop celebrites. Pop celebrities singing cheap pop music which was not even made by them, which is made only for money and media, which is made for people shallow as their music to enjoy. Absolutely shallow music.(so shallow that I even AAA discussing it, as it is so obvious how (not) good this music is...and what bugs me is that it is rock, a genre so beautiful, now so down and low that it has Timberlake as one of the Greatest...I see you're trying to be liberal here, but you've gone to far with your history of contemporary mainstream music, not considering the music itself at all. At least it seems so) (Yet, when I think about it, there's a lot of music labeled "rock" that's crap, and I don't consider it rock, but it seems to be rock...but just bad rock. So maybe Britney can even be on the list as rock, but surely not among the greatest.)

I saw Tool mentioned - it's poor to have a list with a band like that more than 100 places behind Britney Spears - 10,000 Days alone is enough to nullify all of Britney's career. They maybe haven't sold more, but that means absolutely nothing. Their music is better, and it seems you don't take too much care of that, do you? A case with most listmakers.

This is all probably very wrong, so I'm looking forward to you correcting me.

piper · **Posted:** Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:37 am

Justin Timberlake's last album had a large amount of critical acclaim and I see his name as a co-writer for each of the songs on that album.

We had a discussion on Spears a couple pages ago.

Popularity (and by extension, sales) is one of our criteria, but I believe its the least important of all of them.

Pave should be able to explain this better, seeing as its his list.

Ace of Spades · **Posted:** Sun Jan 02, 2011 3:29 pm

lukat93 wrote:

. Their music is better, and it seems you don't take too much care of that, do you? A case with most listmakers.

Do you see the word "best" anywhere in the title of this list/thread?

100 Greatest Rock Artists Of The 2000's

Who is online