Greatest Rock Albums Of The '80s

Machine Head · **Posted:** Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:28 am

Yeah I thought I had messed something up
And wouldn't the 2nd thing be innovation not influence?

Deany · **Posted:** Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:42 am

By this site's rules, innovation > popularization, in influence.

pauldrach · **Posted:** Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:44 am

Deany wrote:

By this site's rules, innovation > popularization, in influence.

Interesting. I currently have the feeling that innovation and popularization form the influence criterion in about equal measures. It's just inspiration that's not allowed in it.

Deany · **Posted:** Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:22 am

I always thought innovation was more important than popularization, because if you think about it, the innovators influenced the artists who popularized said innovation, thus every subsequent artist influenced by the popularizing artist is also indirectly influenced by the innovators, which, unless the popularizers had a massive number of followers, would outweigh the lead in direct influence the popularizing artist would hypothetically hold.

John G · **Posted:** Tue Aug 23, 2011 8:33 am

Machine Head wrote:

who, me?
I dunno, I think that neither have all that much musical influence, as the style of pop/R&B that was on Thriller had already been done by Michael and others before him, but U2 hadn't really made a significant departure from the sound of their previous albums. I'd say it's close but I would probably lean slightly towards Thriller.

Influence is also pretty close. U2 may have influenced a lot of alternative bands with Tree, but MJ had a definite influence on pop/R&B acts after him. I'd lean slightly towards Thriller here as well, too.

Popularity is pretty much a given.

I'm probably wrong on all accounts, that's just my take on it tho.

I actually agree that thriller wins the categories, massive popularity, more than any other album ever, impact was huge, influence was reasonbable. JT is a huge album but cant compete in the criteria in comparison.

pgm · **Posted:** Tue Aug 23, 2011 8:52 am

pauldrach wrote:

Interesting. I currently have the feeling that innovation and popularization form the influence criterion in about equal measures. It's just inspiration that's not allowed in it.

That always bugged me about the way this site ways influence.

pauldrach · **Posted:** Tue Aug 23, 2011 9:50 am

Yes, me too. But while it seems at least possible to achieve certain changes on most of the lists through the forum discussion, the criteria as established by St. Sampson seem to be engraved in stone for centuries to come.

pauldrach · **Posted:** Tue Aug 23, 2011 9:53 am

Deany wrote:

I always thought innovation was more important than popularization, because if you think about it, the innovators influenced the artists who popularized said innovation, thus every subsequent artist influenced by the popularizing artist is also indirectly influenced by the innovators, which, unless the popularizers had a massive number of followers, would outweigh the lead in direct influence the popularizing artist would hypothetically hold.

That would make sense which doesn't say a lot about the actual status quo regarding the reading of the influence criterion.

Deany · **Posted:** Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:00 am

Here's my (hypothetical) formula for the influence criterion (only works in comparisons)

Influence = 0.7 x (direct influence) + 0.3 x (indirect influence) + (innovator bonus = wild card; dependent on how much did the artist innovate)

Of course, it's much more abstract than that, but when I do my calculations, that's usually the system I use.

Brett Alan · **Joined:** Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:17 pm **Posts:** 2854

pauldrach wrote:

Yes, me too. But while it seems at least possible to achieve certain changes on most of the lists through the forum discussion, the criteria as established by St. Sampson seem to be engraved in stone for centuries to come.

I'm really not sure it is. Where, exactly, are these rules spelled out? There's no question that that's how Sampson does HIS lists, and I don't think there's much chance that he's going to change his mind. But that doesn't mean that anyone else has to comply. I know that's not what I think of when I do my lists, and no one has told me otherwise. I don't think any editor should feel bound to accept Sampson's definitions if he or she doesn't agree.

Negative Creep · **Joined:** Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:21 pm **Posts:** 11721

Deany wrote:

I always thought innovation was more important than popularization, because if you think about it, the innovators influenced the artists who popularized said innovation, thus every subsequent artist influenced by the popularizing artist is also indirectly influenced by the innovators, which, unless the popularizers had a massive number of followers, would outweigh the lead in direct influence the popularizing artist would hypothetically hold.

YES, finally someone else who agrees!

pgm · **Posted:** Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:14 pm

That's mostly true. But if artist X influences artist Y and artist Y popularizes it and influences artist Z, but artist Z never heard of artist X, is it fair to say artist X influenced artist Z?

Deany · **Posted:** Thu Aug 25, 2011 7:10 am

We can't really always be sure whether an artist has or has not heard of the innovator, so we must take it at face value.

Negative Creep · **Joined:** Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:21 pm **Posts:** 11721

pgm wrote:

That's mostly true. But if artist X influences artist Y and artist Y popularizes it and influences artist Z, but artist Z never heard of artist X, is it fair to say artist X influenced artist Z?

You're getting too much into semantics, I think.
Yes, it is totally fair. While the influence may not be "direct", it's still an influence, and without artist X, there would be nothing to popularize.

Brett Alan · **Joined:** Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:17 pm **Posts:** 2854

Negative Creep wrote:

pgm wrote:

That's mostly true. But if artist X influences artist Y and artist Y popularizes it and influences artist Z, but artist Z never heard of artist X, is it fair to say artist X influenced artist Z?

You're getting too much into semantics, I think.
Yes, it is totally fair. While the influence may not be "direct", it's still an influence, and without artist X, there would be nothing to popularize.

I agree. I would say that Artist Y had influenced Artist Z more, but Artist X also influenced Artist Z.

Greatest Rock Albums Of The '80s

Who is online