Look, at least tell me why this is not valid.

How are we defining "impact" here?

I think this criteria is kinda redundant...

I'm getting kind of tired of "what does durrdurr really mean" when it comes to talking about criteria so I propose a change in our approach:

Sales
Influence
Originality
Reception

All equally weighed

I just meant that impact is pretty much synonymous with influence. Their definitions are NOT different enough to warrant being two different criterion.

But I support your new criteria suggestion.
Impact can fuck off.

impact = initial effect (ie how much of a splash the release made within, say, a year of its release)
influence = lasting effect (ie how many bands/musicians claim it as an influence in the years after its release)

pretty simple really

So basically we're talking about musical impact, as used in the Greatest Rock Artists thread.
If it's gonna be used, it should really be called 'acclaim' or something similar to that, because the word "impact" tends to be a little confusing (there are many ways to interpret it).

how? we're talking about music, so it kinda figures that we would be talking about musical impact...

I understood impact and influence just fine personally.

I'm not really sure how we would determine sales and reception for non-single songs like Exciter. I mean was it well received? Well it was the first song on the album and usually the first song determines how much you should invest into the rest of it. And it frequently shows up as a track on greatest hits albums. As for sales, Exciter wasn't a single, and I feel like people back then bought it because they liked Sin After Sin or because the band was starting to make a buzz. The quality of that album can be part of that buzz, i.e. word of mouth, but not always.

So for Exciter

Originality = 4.5 (Call for the Priest)
Influence = 5
Sales = 2-3
Recpetion = 4

Well we could use "charts" instead of "sales" because that's a lot easier to measure.

Beacuse there are different kinds of impact, as shown by many other lists on ddd -
commercial impact, cultural impact, musical impact, etc.

Overall I can agree with musical impact though.



Agreed.
That's the problem with ranking individual songs instead of albums and artists. Many more variables and many things are harder to trace.
However, you'll be happy to know that if we add originality, that will certainly help Exciter's case quite a bit.
In fact I might still give it a 5 for originality, because even though Call For The Priest came first, the circumstances were a little different. It was a wicked song but made virtually no splash at all, and in fact hardly anyone even mentions it (aside from true diehards like us).
Exciter could get a 5 for originality, for the reasons I cited in that long post at the bottom of page 43.

So joe, what do you say about Exciter above Painkiller and Electric Eye for all the reasons NC and I have listed?

joe doesnt post in this thread very much....it seems to be just you, me, Sherick, and Nesquik.

And holy SHIT, we've spent nearly 10 pages arguing this fucking Judas Priest list...

Now in all honesty, Dissident Aggressor should drop to #10 probably. It kills in originality and influence, but does poorly in sales and reception. It's honestly probably the first real thrash song though - the first speed metal song and first thrash metal song both on the same album...?!

1. Victim Of Changes (Sad Wings Of Destiny)
2. Beyond The Realms Of Death (Stained Class)
3. Breakin The Law (British Steel)
4. You Got Another Thing Comin' (Screaming For Vengeance)
5. Exciter (Stained Class)
6. Electric Eye (Screaming For Vengeance)
7. Painkiller (Painkiller)
8. Hell Bent For Leather (Hell Bent For Leather)
9. Tyrant (Sad Wings Of Destiny)
10. Dissident Aggressor (Sin After Sin)

Hell Bent For Leather and Tyrant could switch, but other than that looks fine.

Works for me.

Nesquik's old list was better, sorry guys.