Thank you JB, and I agree that there's no advantage to starting over. I've done many lists from scratch, and they always start as complete messes, with lots of things nowhere near where they end up. I'm too far along in the process for that to be advantageous.

That said, it is about time that I addressed the lower part of the top 10. It appears to me that the 3 artists outside of the top 6 that do the best in the criteria are Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, and The Beach Boys, so they should occupy positions 7-9, unless one of them can dislodge Chuck Berry from #6. If that's true, the next question is what order these 3 should be in. To me, they appear to be very close.

There's actually a big difference between the two as album artists. Black Sabbath ranked as the #132 LP artist of all time in the US as of 1996, Sly was only at #369. I'm no Black Sabbath expert, but I think they may even have had chart albums after 1996, and Sly has not. Then moving on to the rest of the world, Sabbath is much bigger than Sly. BS had 11 albums in the top 20 on the UK chart through 1981, most of them in the top ten. Sly only has one LP chart in the UK (Riot) and it did not even break the top 30.

Even with Sly's big advantage on the US singles charts, I would say that Sabbath is easily more popular wordwide.

Sabbath is listed with 70 million records sold worldwide.

I've got them pretty close on the "300 Greatest Popular Artists" list"

111. Sly and the Family Stone
112. Neil Young
113. Conway Twitty
114. AC/DC
115. Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions
116. Four Tops
117. Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons
118. George Clinton / Parliament / Funkadelic
119. Ozzy Osbourne / Black Sabbath

w00t for Beach Boys top 10! And Sly beating Sabbath in Musical Impact? Maybe....

You should also realize though where funk was large and where metal is large, Europe has an unspeakably larger number of metal bands than funk bands, and worldwide I'd say Sabbath has a good amount larger musical impact too. I've also heard in Sweden, they chant for Paranoid instead of Freebird. Worldwide, I can't see Sabbath lose to Sly in much other than Cultural Impact, which Sly destroys in IMO (I really can't say much about the 'metal' culture that came from Sabbath, I believe it came up later from many of the other metal bands, and Sabbath has little to do with the culture other than being the founding father, but not the 'start' of the culture, as far as I know). And I know Sly did far more than funk and affected far more genres, but if we're taking worldwide into account (though with a primary focus on NA apparently), I'd think Sabbath takes musical impact now that I think of it.

I have never said anything about not mattering in rock music. I'm not sure what would even prompt you to say that, or you should have picked a better choice of words.

The point is, when you look at things from a popular music perspective, from a historical perspective, an African American history, US history, world history, and technological viewpoint, you get a clearer picture, a clearer assessment.

If you're only limited in scope of a particular field, you're bound to create some inaccuracies and distortions, especially when you try to apply them to a bigger context (ex: the society of a nation). If you want a greater view of rock music in general, you can't ignore the parallels going on, whether those are other musical, technological or socio-political factors, among others. You also cannot ignore the impact it has the world over.

Musical genres aren't apple and oranges when you apply them in a musical context. It's still relevant because it is being discussed in a musical setting, an entertainment setting. It's been done many times, through all sorts of print for centuries. African American music is no different. And a fundamental aspect of African American music history is the "shared experience" musically and culturally, which rock music is a part of. I cannot overstate the significance of how central this is.

A lot of rock music historians only focus on rock music with scant knowledge of other musical genres (and even within) and keep it to a Western sphere. This is where the problem arises. Recycling old myths such as "The Beatles were the group that made albums important" to "Elvis single-handedly brought rock and roll to the masses" to "everyone knows who The Beatles are" are prime examples of this. There is a world out there, where millions don't care for music, much less know who these artists are.



You have to look at the factors in all of this, as I've mentioned earlier, whether that is socio-political or technological to give two.

Television, for one, managed to visualize and bring rock and roll to the masses (technological). Events and processes such as the desegregation of the armed forces by World War II's end to the monumental landmark of Jackie Robinson were catalysts for the civil rights movement in this country (socio-political).

Jazz in the first half of the century even had a tougher time than rock, and the fact that they broke through with a wealth of achievements, not only racial, and to rise as "America's classical music" is a much more impressive deal. It is important to acknowledge its contributions and trailblazing manner not only to black music but to black history.

Not only that, but the facts of Marian Anderson making her debut at the Metropolitan to Igor Stravinsky praising and incorporating jazz music to Jospehine Baker garnering the adulation from arts figures such as Ernest Hemingway and Pablo Picasso shows the remarkable strides blacks have come with in the mainstream world. That's a key central idea that Martin Luther King, Jr., expressed, the shared experience of blacks, and how music played a vital role in giving blacks that global opportunity. We cannot ignore these precedents.





Music in general played a role in desegregation and other factors, but no single musical artist can be attributed with effectively ending segregation in this country, not even Fats Domino, that's what my issue was about. The idea of kids of different races being barred isn't shocking given the climate of the time. It's not like when rock broke through, the civil rights movement reached its apex.

You overstated Fats' contributions without looking at the other factors, thereby disrespecting blacks and black history. It's not like Fats came on the scene and then all of a sudden the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. Now he does get credit as I've been saying from day one for integrating rock audiences, but not the exaggerated credit you bestow upon him.

Even in a rock context, Louis Jordan vastly appealed to whites and blacks. That is significant in itself, and significant enough to want Fats Domino to experience that same success and idolize him.



Where did I say this wasn't important? I did mention "significant" in two posts, have I not?

Did I not make a tribute page to Sly & The Family Stone years ago?

Yes, there were other female musicians in rock before Cynthia, as I have stated. I'm not sure what you were trying to get at here.

It looks like you're going solely by a cumulative tabulation, which isn't exactly the best way to go about it. Artists have far different career lengths which accounts for the disparity in lifetime album rankings. By comparison their peak years were roughly the same length of time and even overlapped as well (which means the market was roughly the same during Sly's second half run) and in that regard Sly does better than Sabbath on the U.S. album charts. Sabbath's only Top Ten entry (#8) would only rank fourth highest of the two groups for albums. Sly's got the only chart topper, plus a #2 with their greatest hits, showing their overall music was significantly more popular. You can even make the valid argument that the first few albums Sly released came at a time when all of black rock focused less on LP's and the core constituency wasn't in the habit of buying full length albums if you want, whereas by the early 70's the album-oriented release was in full swing and that's when Sabbath appeared to take advantage of it.

Obviously as you say the singles charts are heavily in Sly's favor, but even more so look at the number of universally known songs by the two groups, regardless of hit or not. Sabbath has just two songs which would approach the universally known level - Iron Man and Paranoid - whereas Sly's got more than a half dozen that are bigger than both (Dance To The Music, Everyday People, Stand, I Want To Take You Higher, Hot Fun In The Summertime, Family Affair, Don't Call Me Nigger Whitey, Thank You Felletinme Be Mice Elf Agin) and Sabbath's second tier songs respectively (War Pigs, NIB, Black Sabbath, Sweet Leaf) don't match the more widespread familiarity of Sly's (M'Lady, You Caught Me Smilin, Que Sera Sera, If You Want Me To Stay, Babies Makin Babies, Fun, Runnin' Away, Everybody Is A Star). If at their peaks Sly & The Family Stone were clearly more popular, then stopped recording altogether, while Sabbath saw their initial popularity fall off at much the same time (mid-70's) yet soldiered on and continued selling in moderate numbers to their core fanbase without ever reaching the broad audience that Sly had, I just fail to see how Sabbath could possibly get a nod in Commercial Impact.

It's similar to sports where players hang on accumulating loftier career stats without ever bolstering their actual star credentials. Is Robin Yount or Rafael Palmiero better than Joe DiMaggio simply because they surpassed his lifetime statistics due to longer careers?

It seems like that's what you're saying, which doesn't sound like you at all.

You've worked hard, so continue the good work. It's not easy making these lists that strive to be as objective as possible, so I totally understand where you're coming from.

While there might not be as many funk bands and funk radio stations today as metal bands and metal music stations, and while Sly may not be as big as Black Sabbath in a worldwide setting, the importance of funk music is far-reaching, and Sly played a huge part in that.

Look at how huge disco was and how huge hip-hop is. In addition, Sly impacted R&B/soul, which is another leading musical genre of the world.

I always thought that Aretha and MJ should be in top 10. Replacing The Who and Stevie Wonder or Beach Boys. Aretha is the greatest female singer of all time, and MJ has popularity and Cultural Impact enough, in whole world, to be in the top 10.

This list just considers EUA and Uk, in the popularity criteria?

If that's the case, they should put the Rock&Roll Hall Of Fame in Stockholm...

Yount surpasses Joe D. in hits, doubles and runs scored, but not in triples, HRs, RBIs, batting average, OBP or SLG%.

Palmeiro is not even among the 100 most valuable players. And that's without deducting anything for his use of PEDs.

Your analogy is bad, because Joe D. beats both Yount and Palmeiro in career value.

But Al Kaline, for instance, has more career value than Joe DiMaggio. Al Kaline contributed more wins to his team over his career than Joe D. over his career.

CAREER WINS ABOVE REPLACEMENT PLAYER
34. Al Kaline+ (22) 91.0 R
49. Joe DiMaggio+ (13) 83.6 R
61. Robin Yount+ (20) 76.9 R
109. Rafael Palmeiro (20) 66.0 L


But these analogies don't work for selling records. Part of being a great artist is having a long career, which Sly did not do, mainly because of his personal problems.

Kaline is Black Sabbath, DiMaggio is Sly and the Family Stone. Joe D had greater individual seasons (bigger hits) but Kaline had the more valuable career (total records sold).

When it comes down to it, do you want Sly's royalty checks from record sales, or Sabbath's royalty checks for record sales. More money is more money.

Black Sabbath is clearly more successful commercially than Sly. Numbers are numbers, and they sold more records worldwide by far. Their win is even bigger if you include Ozzy's solo stuff.

That being said, despite the win in commercial sales, I still saw Sly as the greater artist, especially on a pop list as opposed to a rock list. The fact that they appealed to more different types of people means something. The average rock fan knows more Sly songs than Sabbath songs.

My bad it's in Finland. Paranoid is apparently a request song at nearly every concert, regardless of genre. Though that has not much to do with black sabbath's placement, just an interesting tid bit.

Also taking into black sabbath's international popularity, their singles did far better in mid-northern Europe then anywhere else, by a gigantic margine. Like making top 10's and quite a few number 1's in countries like Germany, Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark etc.

Sabbath clearly wins in worldwide commercial impact, to me it's not even debatable.

You're forgetting that metal is big in places such as South America and Japan.

But you're also forgetting just how big hip-hop and R&B are in Europe and other parts of the world.

And yes, Black Sabbath beats Sly & The Family Stone in worldwide popularity, so you're right there.

I do not think that is accurrate at all. Specially considering you used the words "universally known songs". Sly & The Family Stone are nowhere near Black Sabbath in the countries outside US and UK in terms of song and album popularity, what they represent, their influence and the members of the band. I think if you ask some random person in South America who Sly Stone is, he very probably won't know and maybe (MAYBE) he could recognize 'Dance To The Music'. But ask somebody if they know who Ozzy Osbourne is and it's a completely different answer. They will also recognize Paranoid and Iron Man easily. And that is not even debatable.