Man alive, after the R&RHoF set aside Steve Miller's Band and only inducted Steve Miller. . . .
. . . and let me say, I saw the vidclip where Miller lipped off about how he didn't like the ceremony and he didn't care for the R&RHoF. One, he didn't say anything about that until after he was inducted and two, if the R&RHoF bothered to go through the 13 musicians who were involved with at least two albums or more of Miller's, and inducted maybe a half dozen of them, Miller would have seen how much it meant to some of them and would have wanted to let them enjoy it. That's another reason to not accept shoddy work from one's experts. . . .
. . ., and not induct Laudir DeOliveira with Chicago, and not induct Nick Simper with Deep Purple. . . .
. . . not induct Nick Simper with Deep Purple? When they inducted Rod Evans, who was on the same albums? Even though, without Simper, Deep Purple would never have recorded "Hush", the single most of those experts value as much as if not more than "Smoke On The Water"?. . .
. . . I had to take a break, especially with all the guff I had to deal with in my real life.
One of the things I laid aside even longer than that was my list. I was trying out a new method of compiling the updated list, and although I was pleased with how the top 50 turned out for the most part, I quickly found trying to rank 51 to 500 was unworkable. It just was taking too long and the end result repulsed my sense of rock history.
This past week, I had to take off work because of a symptom from a stomach flu decided to linger on way too long (hint: Immodium AD only slowed it down. . .). Had to go to the doctor, who prescribed me some Lomotil, an industrial strength approach which made me whoozy and sleep a lot like it was no one's business, and after upping the dose once, gave me a slight headache behind the pituitary gland but otherwise knocked the beejeebers out of that symptom in 24 hours after the uppage. In any case, I wound up losing weight, gaining energy, feeling like I have a whole new perspective on everything, not wanting to eat half as much as I used to. . .
. . . in other words, reality hasn't set in yet. . . .
So, I picked up my list, looked at it, and asked myself - what was so wrong with the old method that you couldn't use it again? The old method gave you a great 250, after all.
> So, I went over the first 50 using the old method, only tweaked a few positions as it turned out, and then dove right into it. I've ranked over 1400 acts so far, but in keeping how I was doing this back in January 2016, I'm only sharing the current top 1000. Understand, these could change as I re-evaluate other acts I've ranked so far and evaluate acts I have yet to look at.
So, if you're going to ask where is such-and-such an act, odds are I just answered your question above.
As before, the rankings are based on how I perceived an acts influence through rock history. You may see that acts previously listed by the old 250 positions have changed their rankings greatly. What changed? What changed is what I've read and what today's music is being influenced by. Rap, electronica, country, disco, prog and pop acts seem to fare better than most others.
Please give me feedback, though, as I'm processing way too much information and may have had a V8 moment here or there. On the other hand, don't go fanboy on me. That's not very convincing. And don't try to assert a criteria different from the one I'm using. If you go fanboy on me or insist on me using some different criteria, I may tell you to go make your own damn list.
An example of how to ask: Why is this act ranked at that position? What did you factor into your decision?
An example of how not to ask: Why is this act ranked so low when it deserves to be ranked above this other act?
> For example of how I approached this, let's hone in on the J.B.'s at #98.
If I had to evaluate this on, say, quality, I'd want them a whole lot higher than that. In fact, I just want them a whole lot higher than that. In fact, I hope UD puts them on his list a whole lot higher than that, because UD's list is all about quality. You don't get better musicians than the J.B.'s.
On the other hand, when I look at influence, isn't it true that James Brown told them what to do and determined whether what they were doing was what he wanted?
On the other hand, Bill G. has regaled us with plenty of stories of stolen glory about the Famous Flames, where James Brown took the credit and the money rightly owed to the members of that vocal group. If Brown did that to the vocal group, wouldn't he have done that even more with the musicians? In fact, we know he did, as the whole reason the J.B.'s came about was because James Brown stole the whole credit for "Funky Drummer" and the James Brown Band quit shortly after that.
So, absent a blow-by-blow description of who actually came up with what and how it was incorporated into rock history, 97 is as best as I can come up with.
The J.B.'s were the hardest act for me to gauge. Ugh.
In any case, enjoy the list.
And Pope Charming, this may not be the final list, but I'd be interested in reading how many acts you and I have in common with our top 100 so far.