Sampson, could you please explain to me how Run-D.M.C. is at number 6 while Little Richard is at number 13? From what I've heard, Little Richard is far more influential than Run-D.M.C.

The difference in placement can be boiled down to that when both styles crossed over Little Richard represented only part of rock's overall aesthetic, whereas Run-D.M.C. dominated their brand of rock. The direct imitators of Richard's style were fewer and less successful, though aspects of him appeared in thousands of subsequent artists. Run-D.M.C. had a greater share of their style appropriated by rappers to follow, whose popularity on the whole brought it to a higher commercial level.

I was wondering when that'd be noticed. Good job, Brian.

Yeah, influence obviously tends to become more apparent over time, as it is distilled and filters down, so there will always be more of a scarcity on recent artists on any influence list. But in today's music scene the problem becomes much more difficult due to what type of rock music is most popular and how that music is put together differently than past musical forms.

Obviously in each case I'm talking about hip-hop, where we have artists as producers as well as guest-rappers on other tracks. How much of Beyonce's work is more successful due to her husband Jay-Z appearing on her biggest hits? How much of Eminem's work is due to Dr. Dre, an artist in his own right, production techniques? How much did Kanye West's pre-artist career change the direction music took once he appeared on the scene as an artist?

I haven't been able to answer these questions to any satisfication yet and I don't know if they can be. What's great about music is it follows no rules. Prior to the 90's there was very few artists appearing on other artists records, and if they did it was a duet (Marvin & Tammi) or it went uncredited officially (Jerry Lee Lewis playing piano on Carl Perkins "Matchbox"). Nowadays guest appearances are used to sell the record as much as anything and instead of producers being independent figures outside the studio, they are now competing with the artist they're producing themselves with their own releases, yet want that competitor to do well to boost their own acclaim and spread their influence.

Clearly Jay-Z will benefit most when this gets sorted out and I start adding artists of the last decade. Eminem gets big cultural influence, so he'll make it. Kanye and Dre being dual threats will, provided their behind the scenes work is also credited to their recording careers. If not they'll face a stiffer challenge. Timbaland and Diddy too.

Outside of rap, does Britney Spears, as noxious as so many find her, make the list for igniting the whole teen sex object revival? What about those who broke that mold and (in some cases never wanted to be lumped in that realm in the first place) and could actually sing, like Christina Aguilera and P!nk? Green Day, who had influence from before '97 obviously, will have theirs increase.

Hopefully the answers to this will become clearer as these trends become even more accepted and as time passes the repercussions of their work is felt. What does anyone else feel about the proper credit for artists whose work prominently includes outside production and guest appearances?

Well back in the early days of rock and roll, there wasn't really a huge variety of different rock styles, just plain rock and roll, and Little Richard was pretty damn dominant in that respect. I still don't see why he is below Run-DMC, who are more influential in the rap genre (I know, rap is a form of rock, etc. etc. but most people wouldn't see the difference. They wouldn't immediately put Run-DMC in the same grouping as Chuck Berry or Elvis.), while Little Richard is commonly seen as the 'architect' of rock and roll. I don't really think Run-DMC blew the lid off rock music like Little Richard did.

He even played the first electric bass solo in rock history himself, for god sake!

Are you serious?

Okay, try everyway possible. There was no teenage market that was paid any attention to prior to Presley's arrival. You had products aimed at kids (toys, coonskin caps, etc.) which were obviously bought by their parents, and then products aimed at the parents themselves, adults. Madison Avenue did not believe teenagers had disposable income, nor the impulse of younger kids, nor the need of adults, to spend enough money on products to make it worthwhile to target them specifically. Presley, and rock 'n' roll in general, but primarily Presley in terms of actual dollar sales, immediately altered that. It opened the door for EVERYTHING being aimed at teenagers, which frankly has caused a huge drop in quality according to many, as television, movies, fashion, et. all, is now done with that market in mind. Capture the teenage interest and you are guaranteed to make a profit ever since. Presley was far more responsible for that than any other figure, not just musician. Not a big deal to you? It's a a multi-billion dollar deal to corporate America per YEAR since then.

He changed the way middle America had to deal with two of the most uncomfortable issues of the conservative 50's - sexuality and race. He was the most overtly sexually threatening male figure ever in popular culture in relation to his time. Remember, it was his IMAGE on television, and stories about his stage antics, that really propelled him to noteriety among those who didn't listen to his music. That's why many adults thought and hoped he was a passing fad, because they felt it was just a titillating sensationalism he was peddling. He almost literally thrust sex into the face of people who wouldn't even say the word in public. Remember at that time you couldn't even say a woman was PREGNANT on the airwaves. You couldn't show a bathroom on television. Fictional couples on TV shows slept in seperate beds. Then along comes Elvis The Pelvis doing a striptease act basically on national television on Milton Berle's Show and the cat's out of the bag, you can't put it back in. This wasn't a woman being objectified by males, as had always happened, even if what was shown was less than what later got shown, this was unbridled animal lust itself on stage for the world to see. The adult horrified reaction to Presley was mostly over the sex aspect, but as with anything sexual, once it gets into the public consciousness, be it topless women in movies, to porn on home video, to downloadable images online, there's never any turning back, you can't suddenly return to an earlier puritism and Elvis shocked America's senses to the point where the sexual revolution that followed had its pants unzipped in the first place by Presley.

Race... Elvis was white singing black music. Black artists who'd been exceedingly popular before (Nat Cole, Ink Spots, Louis Armstrong, etc.) were toned down to the point where racial connotations were either eliminated or caracitured. The black acts of early rock that crossed over were stifled with pale white cover versions and not surprisingly most of the early crossover records were nonsensical lyrically (Sh-Boom, Gee, etc.) and thus more easily passed off as gimmick. Little Richard wasn't going to be put on TV, not in 1955 American where Emmitt Till was lynched for whistling at a white woman and the school's had only been legally desegregated the year before. But Presley's popularity brought a culture that was previously unknown and unwanted by white America directly into its living rooms where they HAD to confront it and let it register in their collective consciousness. Now he achieved this BECAUSE he was white (had he been black and done the same thing, he'd have never made the airwaves), but what it did was introduce the culture from which it came to the mainstream they'd never been allowed to enter before. Once that door broke down, you couldn't nail it back up and from that point forward black culture's influence on American popular culture overall has dramatically risen. It's a shame it took a white face to get them in the door, but the point is they got in.

Presley basically established the prototype for the modern hype machine and if you don't see the cultural impact of that when you're walking through a mall or watching TV being bombarded with all sorts of things, then you must be deaf and blind. Companies don't want to settle for slowly building a product (or music) through word of mouth and gradual sales and interest, they want an explosive arrival. Movies that don't have a huge opening weekend won't be in theaters two weeks later. TV Shows that don't hit the Top Ten in the first two months will get pulled off the air. Artists that don't go gold their first time out aren't always around long enough for a follow-up. Everything is hyped to death in the effort to grab people's attention immediately. Presley started this. He was so big, so fast that it became the standard goal. He used, inadvertantly but still used, controversy to sell - sound familiar? That was copied. Visual imagery for an aural medium? Presley. Cross marketing - movies, souveniers, trinkets... Elvis. Press conferences for his every move, even when there was nothing to report... yeah, Presley, Presley, Presley. What you see, how you see it - look no further than Elvis Presley. Sickening, isn't it?

Put it this way. The Beatles cultural influence was large, and it encompassed a lot of smaller historical turning points that are noteworthy indeed, but they, or anyone else to follow, could never possibly be as large overall because all of the really huge major obstacles for affecting pop culture in the media age - race, sex, age, and how it was all presented - had been demolished by Presley once and for all. Take the next ten biggest cultural impact artists on the list and combine them and you might get halfway to Elvis Presley's total for it, but probably not.

Bill Haley & The Comets, Buddy Holly & The Crickets, Gene Vincent & The Blue-Caps, The Beach Boys, except for the Beach Boys are still groups headed by obvious front man but the were a leaderless self contained band. The Beatles weren't called Johnny and the Beatles right?

Green Day, who had influence from before '97 obviously, will have theirs increase.

Thank you, Sampson. I've been arguing this for years, in your absence. It's great to see such a massive and detailed expansion of my arguments. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Maybe because they've always lived in a time where this stuff was accepted as normal they can't fathom what it was like before he came along.

Run-D.M.C. influenced rock in more ways than Richard and more directly in terms of stylistic followers, therefore they earned a higher spot. The fact that people don't "put them in the same grouping" as Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley and Little Richard is their ignorance (unless they are just doing it for era-related reasons) and no reason to deny Run-D.M.C. their rightful spot on the list.

I honestly do not get why hip-hop/rap artists are being so highly rated here. I may be ignorant myself, you are far more knowledgeable on the subject than me, but I just don't understand how Run-DMC ranks so highly, even though they're the biggest hip-hop/rap artist of all time.

some trivia ... from the Netherlands in 1957 ... with all the usually play behind your head/back with your teeth/feet etc etc ...Take care

..live one from 1959 ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1syTpGei ... re=related



... and the Tielman Brothers live ... many suggest a young Hendrix so them live in Germany in the early 60`s ..

... and 1960 ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvC2_nsVJv0