I'd like to know about this as well.

No, she's known also for "Heartbreaker" and "We Live For Love" from her first album, which was on the Billboard album chart for a 122 weeks.

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 like the acclaim criterion, but really I'm just curious about why we can't have the same criteria for all the album lists.

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.

Impact holds less weight to me than acclaim does. If I remember correctly that impact is just musician's opinions, that is.

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.

So you think it's more significant if critics like it than if other musicians like it?

That's absurd.

Musicians aren't necessarily an authority on anything. More the reason I support the acclaim criterion over impact, however, is just how much more practical it is to use.

I figured that the Hendrix having the same title might make it a different case. Please Please Me is an important album even without counting the American sales of The Early Beatles.

If acclaim isn't part of the criteria, then The Modern Lovers is another that could be dropped, as I think acclaim is the primary thing it has going for it.

I don't think the Dylan debut is either. Is being played on AOR stations really a good way to determine what's rock? Black artists, which of course Whitney and Mariah are, are largely excluded from that format.

No, I agree, musicians are not necessarily an authority on other people's records, but they stand a better chance of being an authority on other people's records than some journalism major rock critic who doesn't even no a chord change from a b flat.

It is for most white music. You would hear Pete, Paul an Mary on AOR stations, but not, for instance, Engelbert Humperdinck or Dave Brubeck.

I suppose how credible a random person from either camp is bound to be a crapshoot. A knowledgeable musician is probably best actually. I'd rather read a music review from a true artist who knows something about something than any critic when I think of it.