No prob. Top fifteen or so is fine. It depends on what you value in terms of rock importance/worthiness. You, Bruce and I agree on the top three, but we each have them in a different order.

Stevie Wonder.

These things are always silly (no offense Bruce). Everyone takes a few basic objective standards, then totally redefines them to favor their own tastes. Bruce says he leans towards earlier acts because they made later acts possible. Valid maybe, but not surprising in his case because he personally likes the 50's styles more than later ones. But couldn't he use that same definition to claim that Run-D.M.C. is one of the top ten, since they literally broke down so many doors for the most popular, influential and impactful style of rock over the past thirty years? Of course, but he wouldn't and I wouldn't expect him to.

Clash takes the same approach, but tweaks it differently to find ways to credit the Who, all of which may also be valid when using his POV, but which favor them over others with better credentials which is what he wants. Neither one has done anything wrong or deceitful, just predictable based on their personal tastes.

Then we just have Taupin-Certera saying he doesn't care about objectivity at all and will go with the hitless, influence-less Leonard Cohen. Though if he did it to piss off Bruce, I say VOTE COHEN!

Popularity contests aren't a way to decide anything other than who's most popular among the people voting. That can't be helped, but the results, whatever they turn out to be, are flawed by the very thing that taints the real HOF - personal taste factors in too much.

I was counting on either him or Ray Charles as the mention.

Stevie Wonder has great credentials, too, but I think the importance of The Who's studio work versus Stevie Wonder's is comparable, while The Who destroy Stevie Wonder in importance in the live arena.

That's a fair assessment. But, while The Who were only about a third as successful as singles artists in comparison to The Rolling Stones, they still achieved comparable success on the road and in album sales while pushing rock much further forward than The Rolling Stones ever did. Everyone knows that in the aftermath of The Beatles' demise, The Rolling Stones are 'The World's Greatest Rock 'n' Roll Band'. But everyone also knows that The Who were their only real competition for the title.

But you just totally proved my point - "importance in the live arena" is not something found in any criteria that I know of, yet you injected it into the proceedings because the Who absolutely beat Stevie live (he's not bad either, just not in their league).

Everyone does this and I always used to love pointing it out. I could always tell what artist someone liked by what they emphasized in their points, because they'd always match. If someone was a good songwriter they'd insist that songwriting had to be credited seperately, even though it already figures in many ways, to their songs being popular (commercial), or influential (duh, influence) to having others in music be impressed with their work (musical impact). Yet they'd want it as a totally seperate crtiera just to further boost that artist - it's mnever enough that an artist is being fairly credited, they want them given extra credit just so they can be able to say their favorite is somehow objectively greater, even though they just removed a measure of objectivity in refiguring the criteria to get them there. Same with live performance. The Who kick ass in it obviously, so you'll find ways to inject it more than it already is (influence with the Marshall stacks, etc.) and musical impact. Same with Bruce for an artist coming first, benefitting the era he likes.

Perfectly natural, but still wrong to do in every case.

I see your point, but I just can't understand live performance not being an important factor in determining Rock 'n' Roll greatness. From Elvis Presley's swivel hips to Chuck Berry's duck walk to Little Richard and Jerry Lee Lewis playing piano standing up to the mops tops bobbing their heads to Pete Townshend windmilling his guitar, rock has been defined by images that are about performance. The Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame is in Cleveland because of the Moondog Coronation Ball of 1952. That's not a single. It's not an album. It's a concert. Elvis Presley didn't scandalize with his albums and singles, he scandalized with his live performances.

If you make Rock 'n' Roll greatness all about the singles and albums, maybe The Who don't rate the top ten. But how can Rock 'n' Roll greatness not also be about the concert?

Look at my last post again - these things, whether songwriting or live performance - ARE already factored into the existing criteria but in an OBJECTIVE way. Saying that the Who or James Brown or Springsteen were "great" live is totally subjective. Put an eighty year old grandmother in the front row at a Who concert and she'd be appalled. It's subjective. The fans of the artist are blown away while others are left indifferent. That was the main reason why the Who at Monterey didn't go over well - great set in retrospect knowing their performing style, but absolutely the wrong place to do that. Peace, love and flowers it was NOT. That crowd was made up of rock fans, but they were aghast at them. Same with Elvis in 1956 in Las Vegas. He bombed because it was the wrong atmosphere for that type of show. That's why simply saying someone is great live can not possibly be counted fairly, because it's still just opinion.

So naturally people think, "Well, that's not fair to the Who, or Brown, or Elvis, who were such dynamic live performers. Their reputations are built on that and not having it be part of the criteria unfairly punishes them." Wrong. It counts, it just factors in differently. Presley's cultural impact is built largely on his performances. The shock middle America had to seeing that style of performing was revolutionary. So it gets credit, but in a much more objective fashion. Same with his influence on performing with that much raw sexuality. Musical impact is another area that live performers benefit. Ike & Tina Turner were not big sellers, they had some hits, but weren't exactly burning up the charts. Yet their reputation, built almost entirely on their live act, elevated them into stardom. Other artists were amazed by them, they were the must-see show when it came to town. The Who had the same reputation among artists - don't try and beat them on stage. James Brown was legendary in this regard. Nobody wanted anything to do with him on the same stage, yet every artist wanted to witness it just the same. The Stones after getting blown away by him on The T.A.M.I. Show went to the Apollo to see him while licking their wounds, simply because they couldn't believe he was always that good, they had to see it for themselves again. Elvis, Prince, Michael Jackson all watched The T.A.M.I. Show constantly to absorb James on stage. That's huge musical impact, making other legendary artists sit in awe. But it's factored in with more objectivity in Musical Impact than saying, "this artist is great live". It's not wrong to say that, it's just wrong to try and add it separately into the criteria to elevate them even more, whoever it is.

But that's why it's good to get a bunch of different opinions. Any one person will indeed have biases, myself included. But if you can get a large and diverse enough group of knowledgeable people, those biases can somewhat cancel out. I don't know how large a group we're going to end up with, but I think even just the four of us (Bruce, Clash, you, and me) could come up with a better list than any one of us alone. (Presuming, of course, that you and Bruce and Clash and I don't all kill each other or something. B^)

I just think it's interesting to look at the almost-greatest group. I think there's pretty much no question that the Beatles and Elvis are the top two (although there's certainly question about which order). But then it becomes really difficult. The next ten to fifteen artists are all really close and have varied strengths and weaknesses, which is why I can see the merit in an argument to put The Who--or Fats Domino, or The Supremes--in the top five, even though none of those artists made my top twelve.

That was in 1964 though. The Stones were still pretty embryonic at that point, they had been together for barely two years. They didn't really peak as live performers until the latter end of the 60's.
I know the story though, James bragged about it in his autobiography. But then James wasn't exactly the most humble guy in the world...
I remember him saying something about Elvis "copying his gospel sound for Heartbreak Hotel"...I still can't understand that one for the life of me.

Now obviously Brown is the greatest live artist in rock history, but to say he blew away the Stones in 64 isn't really saying much, imo.

Led Fucking Zeppelin

Live performances can be seen as part of popularity, imapct, influence, etc....if they are not than why does Sampson overrate that schmuck Screamin' Jay Hawkins so much? Nobody would even know about him if they hadn't depicted his act in the Alan Freed movie. The guy was not all that popular with his live shows. He wasn't even getting all that many gigs, and even when he did they were in very small venues. Is not like Hawkins was doing 300 shows a year like fats Domino or something.

Sampson is not gonna participate. He's just gonna make comments about everybody else's list, but not vote himself.

1. Elvis Presley
2. The Beatles
3. James Brown
4. Bob Dylan
5. The Rolling Stones
6. Chuck Berry
7. Ray Charles
8. The Beach Boys
9. Stevie Wonder
10. Aretha Franklin

I used chronology as a tie-breaker in some cases. I don't think the order matters that much in this round or the next one because there are more than 20 artists who are undeniably deserving of a spot in the Hall, so if that's the case, I'm reluctant to say that any of them are more deserving than any others.

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame groundbreaking ceremony.