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.