Acclaim was never part of any criteria on any list until Brian made it part of HIS criteria for his 1970s lists. Acclaim just means that rock critics liked it. I don't think that rock critics are very important myself. They shit out of their assholes just like the rest of us. What makes their personal taste more important that the personal taste of anybody else?
If anything, to me, their taste is LESS important, since they are not spending their money to acquire the music they write about.
I don't see the point of the ones in bold, but for the overall statement, rock critics are nothing but glorified fans, but their opinions do hold clout in the musical community. Not saying that they should, but they do. It's a reality of life that we have to consider in list-making.
Also, acclaim can also mean musicians liked it, and I think that's pretty important to an artist or work's greatness.
I don't agree that the opinions of critics hold clout. They never did with anybody i knew.
Besides, if their opinion does have clout that will be relected in better marks in other parts of the criteria (popularity, impact). If people go out any buy it because a critic likes it, that's fine, but the record should not get double credit for that.
If a musician likes it, that part of "Impact," not acclaim.
That's anecdotal evidence, which is really what you have against critics, so I don't think that's a sound foundation to build on. I agree with you partially, but I'm just saying...
Anyway, there's lots of pieces of art that never hit it big with the public but impressed critics and the musical community. If I remember correctly, musical impact used to be a criterion in a lot of lists, but was changed into acclaim in some due to the ambiguous nature of the word "impact" (and subsequent propensity to be confused with "influence"). Can't we just fuse impact and critical opinion under the "acclaim" title? It's sort of simplifies proceedings.