100 Most Important People in Popular Music

[Guest Van Mundegaarde]

ehh... i was bored so i tried my hand at one of these lists. It's about as comprehensive as I care to make it at 6:30 in the morning. So comment if you will, make some suggestions, keep in mind four things:

 

1.) I tried to give every major genre of music a little consideration

2.) Jazz does not qualify as popular music and to do it justice i'd have to make an entire list just for it

3.) These are for individual acheivements including individual contributions to a band, which is why you'll note the only group listed collectively is The Beastie Boys and, well, thems the brakes...

3.) Outside of the top ten, there is no particular order

 

Here Goes...

 

1. John Lennon

2. Bob Dylan

3. Tom Waits

4. Neil Young

5. Paul McCartney

6. Paul Simon

7. David Bowie

8. Elvis Costello

9. Prince

10. Leonard Cohen

11. Keith Richards

12. George Harrison

13. Dr. Dre

14. Stevie Wonder

15. Brian Eno

16. David Byrne

17. Trent Reznor

18. Tom Petty

19. Frank Black

20. Lou Reed

21. John Cale

22. Pete Townshend

23. Joe Strummer

24. John Lydon

25. Mick Jagger

26. The Beastie Boys

27. George Clinton

28. Stephen Malkmus

29. Kurt Cobain

30. Henry Rollins

31. James Hetfield

32. Jeff Hanneman

33. Steve Harris

34. Sting

35. Elvis Presley

36. Joni Mitchell

37. Jimi Hendrix

38. Iggy Pop

39. Ray Charles

40. Chuck Berry

41. Buddy Holly

42. Elton John

43. Billy Joel

44. Bruce Springsteen

45. Nick Cave

46. Van Morrison

47. Jimmy Page

48. Nick Drake

49. Warren Zevon

50. Johnny Cash

51. Thom Yorke

52. Eddie Vedder

53. Roger Waters

54. Syd Barrett

55. Richard D. James

56. Mike Patton

57. Dave Mustaine

58. Brain Wilson

59. Bjork

60. Beck

61. P.J. Harvey

62. Liz Phair

63. Kim Deal

64. Patti Smith

65. James Brown

66. Otis Redding

67. Marvin Gaye

68. Chuck D

69. Frank Zappa

70. Mark Mothersbaugh

71. Wayne Coyne

72. Peter Gabriel

73. Woody Guthrie

74. Sam Phillips

75. George Martin

76. Michael Jackson

77. Ray Davies

78. Paul Westerberg

79. Steven Morrissey

80. Bob Marley

81. Ian Curtis

82. Andy Partridge

83. Will Oldham

84. Willy Nelson

85. The Notorious B.I.G.

86. Tony Iommi

87. Michael Stipe

88. Peter Buck

89. Neil Peart

90. Jeff Tweedy

91. Lucinda Williams

92. Aretha Franklin

93. Hank Williams Sr.

94. Rick Rubin

95. Brian Jones

96. Freddie Mercury

97. John Petrucci

98. Tori Amos

99. Bono

100. DJ Shadow

[caboose 0]

The position of John Lennon at the top of your list will be frowned upon and rightly so. Death does not make someone great. For me your list was instantly dismissed, but really now, The Beastie Boys more important than Elvis?

I don't know what your smoking but I'd like to try it...

[Guest Van Mundegaarde]

but really now, The Beastie Boys more important than Elvis?

I don't know what your smoking but I'd like to try it...

3.) Outside of the top ten, there is no particular order

[caboose 0]

Sorry my bad.

 

But now you've brought my attention to Prince being in your top ten ahead of Elvis, Harrison, Berry, Hendrix and Jackson. Thats just wrong.

[Kinetic 0]

Well, then it's not an enormous stretch to say that Elvis should be included in the top ten. I'm no huge Elvis fan, but as far as influence is concerned, his importance to the development of popular music in the latter half of the 20th century and beyond is inestimable.

[Guest Van Mundegaarde]

personally, i think Prince, as a songwriter, is better than all of the artists you mentioned. It's a preference thing.

 

I can't rightfully give Elvis that high a ranking when he never wrote a song. Music is at heart, an artistic enterprise and as such, I believe measures of artistic merit take precedence over commercial influence which I believe was Elvis' greatest contribution. He made rock 'n roll marketable and made other people want to do it. For that I respect him. But not enough to place him in the top ten.

[caboose 0]

Your list is titled 'Top 100 Most MOST IMORTANT People In Popular Music', not 'Top 100 Most deserving/talented'

 

Therefore Elvis is above and beyond Prince by far.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

Michael Jackson single-handed changed the entire music world in the 1980's and revolutionised the way music videos are presented and marketed to the public.

 

Biased as I may be, I see no person in music history that rivals the King of Pop's influence and importance to modern music.

 

UYI

[Kinetic 0]

Biased as I may be, I see no person in music history that rivals the King of Pop's influence and importance to modern music.

 

UYI

Well, that's wrong, but he definitely deserves to be in the top ten. I think the problem we're running into here is with the word "important."

[Guest Van Mundegaarde]

Your list is titled 'Top 100 Most MOST IMORTANT People In Popular Music', not 'Top 100 Most deserving/talented'

 

Therefore Elvis is above and beyond Prince by far.

You assume then that everyone shares your same values in defining "importance"?

 

Which is not to say that I don't understand your argument, if anything I knew I'd get pegged for ousting Elvis from the top ten. But, as I said, I think creative output is more important than media exposure. Perhaps if I were a record executive I'd feel differently. Certainly Elvis helped with making popular music a viable source for revenue and his exposure did make a lot of future musicians more aware of the genre; also, the Sun Recordings are good for what they are (easier-to-swallow interpretations of a less accessible art form) but I think most of us can agree that even that aspect of Elvis' legend was kaput when he came back from the war.

 

And I don't really see how Michael Jackson did anything for popular music that Prince didn't do better, aside from selling more records and even then, not by a margin significant enough to give him any sort of precedence. Prince is only an example of course, I could argue any other artist's top ten cred over Jackson's just as well.

 

And to backtrack in a major way I propose to Caboose that he explain how John Lennon is only as revered as he is because of his untimely death. Surely being one half of the greatest songwriting duo (and arguably the more talented of the two) of all time had something to do with it, as did his extremely productive, if somewhat short, solo career. Changing the way every person after him composed and performed music seems like a fairly important acheivement to me.

[k thx 0]

I'd have put Phil Spector in the top 100, but outside that: good list.

[caboose 0]

I define important as being talented, influential, successful and leaving a lasting impression on fans and fellow musicians. Jackson has outdone Prince in every one of those categories except maybe talent which is left open to personal opinion.

 

As for Lennon. His solo career pre-death is eclipsed by both Paul McCartney and George Harrison. His death gave him a large legendary status his music didn't deserve. Theres no way of successfully arguing that had Lennon died he would not be so highly regarded. But his untimely death has had a massive influence on his legend.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

As for Lennon. His solo career pre-death is eclipsed by both Paul McCartney and George Harrison. His death gave him a large legendary status his music didn't deserve.

See also Cobain, Kurt.

[Guest Van Mundegaarde]

As for Lennon. His solo career pre-death is eclipsed by both Paul McCartney and George Harrison. His death gave him a large legendary status his music didn't deserve.

See also Cobain, Kurt.

I must say I cringed at a comparison between John Lennon and Kurt Cobain.

 

However, to directly address your greivances. First and foremost Lennon's solo career dwarfed his Beatles cohorts in terms of quality. McCartney's solo career is the most infamously inconsistent of almost anyone who came from as prestigious background as he had; and George put out one great album of material that was collected over a five year period. John on the other hand put out two albums that were on par in terms of quality with most Beatles albums (Plastic Ono Band, Imagine) and managed to explore all the necessary thematic ground that the Beatles failed to address. Even his pop compositions outshined all other post-Beatles solo offerings aside from two McCartney tracks (Maybe I'm Amazed, Band on the Run, maybe, maaaaybe Jet) And when it comes down to it, John Lennon was a BEATLE. He was destined to be viewed as a legend no matter how long he lived. Heck, even Ringo will be viewed as such, and he's 63 years old already.

 

and Michael Jackson released two great albums and made a whole lot of money. His wide appeal came in large part to his more wholesome *snicker* image. Prince released no less than four great albums, numerous other good albums, possesses more singing talent than Jacko and immeasurably more instrumental talent, he broke more ground for pop music and the visual representation thereof and he did it with an edge that has allowed for the more contraversial artists of recent years to find easier acceptance. Plus when Prince wigged out it was invariably cooler than when Jacko did.

 

Meaningless, incoherent philosophy and assless pants > child molestation and oxygen mask

[Use Your Illusion 0]

Meaningless, incoherent philosophy and assless pants > child molestation and oxygen mask

*yawn*

[caboose 0]

McCartney's solo career is the most infamously inconsistent of almost anyone who came from as prestigious background as he had.

Whose to say that Lennon wouldn't have had a similar inconsistent record had he not died?

 

John on the other hand put out two albums that were on par in terms of quality with most Beatles albums

and Michael Jackson released two great albums and made a whole lot of money.

 

So Lennon has two good records and you dub him the most important musicican of the last 50 years. While at the same time you dismiss Jackson when he also had two great albums, as you put it.

 

he broke more ground for pop music and the visual representation thereof

 

And the video to 'Thriller' was just another video?

 

Plus when Prince wigged out it was invariably cooler than when Jacko did.

Not that it makes a difference but Prince's wig out was pure attention seeking bullshit. He is just as insecure as Jackson.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

Wern't Jackon's videos the first to feature fully-fledged dance routines, ala those imitated by every boyband/pop star of today?

 

And to dismiss 'Bad' as not of of the greatest pop records of the modern era is ridiculous, however I will not get ahead of myself and begin ranting here.

 

UYI

[Sonic Reducer 0]

As for Lennon. His solo career pre-death is eclipsed by both Paul McCartney and George Harrison. His death gave him a large legendary status his music didn't deserve.

See also Cobain, Kurt.

Despite the fact that Nirvana basically single-handedly got us out of the 80's hair-band bullshit ... and the fact that Nirvana created two of the most critically acclaimed albums of all time .. Kurt changed the face of music. He wrote all the songs except for a couple. Kurt was Nirvana.

[Guest Van Mundegaarde]

McCartney's solo career is the most infamously inconsistent of almost anyone who came from as prestigious background as he had.

Whose to say that Lennon wouldn't have had a similar inconsistent record had he not died?

 

John on the other hand put out two albums that were on par in terms of quality with most Beatles albums

and Michael Jackson released two great albums and made a whole lot of money.

 

So Lennon has two good records and you dub him the most important musicican of the last 50 years. While at the same time you dismiss Jackson when he also had two great albums, as you put it.

 

he broke more ground for pop music and the visual representation thereof

 

And the video to 'Thriller' was just another video?

 

Plus when Prince wigged out it was invariably cooler than when Jacko did.

Not that it makes a difference but Prince's wig out was pure attention seeking bullshit. He is just as insecure as Jackson.

ok, if you would please listen to me this time around

 

First things first, Paul's record was inconsistent during the period in which both men were still alive. McCartney was a good album, Ram was acceptable, Wings first two albums sucked, Band on the Run was great, everything else was a song here and a song there, this was by 1973 mind you.

 

Yes, both Michael Jackson and John Lennon put out two great solo albums (John's were better mind you). But I wonder, did Michael Jackson precede that success by being part of The Beatles? If I remember correctly, he did not. Plus, putting Jackson on a top 100 important artists of all time is hardly a dismissal, let's be a little less extreme shall we?

 

Jackson's videos can hardly be attributed solely to him can they? I highly doubt you'd push for John Landis to be included on the list. When I talk visually I speak mainly to the sexuality and risque personality that Prince exuded which was unprecedented before him. Yes, even Madonna took a contraversy stirring lesson or two from Prince.

 

And I'm not even going to comment on your comment on my "wigging out" comment as it's a non issue meant to lighten the mood (though what good it did seems debatable)

 

And, let's face it, Bad was not an Off the Wall or a Thriller or even a Jackson 5 album.

[caboose 0]

Prince played the same card Elvis played decades before with the use of sexuality as a tool for stirring attention.

 

Comparing Lennon and Jackson's pre-solo is unfair. Jackson had to carry four stiffs. While Lennon had McCartney and George Harrison.

[Guest Van Mundegaarde]

Prince was i dare say more daring in his approach as he knew his image would be met with considerable backlash, but yeah, on a base level you're right. Too bad Elvis never wrote a song or even played all the instruments he claimed to play.

 

And yeah, you can't compare the jackson 5 and The Beatles, The Beatles wrote amazing music without any precedent for what they were writing, the jackson5 were the jackson 5. And Michael didn't carry anyone, until he proved it later on, he was just as unspectacular as the rest of his family.

[Kinetic 0]

I'd actually argue that the inclusion of Elvis Costello in the top ten (ahead of Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, Stevie Wonder, Chuck Berry, Mick Jagger, etc.) is a bit of a joke. While I'm a big fan of Costello's early work (and scattered portions of everything since), he really never innovated much of anything and his actual importance to music as anything other than a good songwriter who owes a tremendous debt to his influences is debatable. I don't think it'd be all that difficult to think of at least 25 musicians to emerge since the dawn of the rock and roll era who are more important than he is.

[Guest Van Mundegaarde]

Though I do think that Costello has a deceptively large influence on music and that his body of work, though obviously flawed rivals almost any output of any one man, I think I might make a concession and replace Costello with David Byrne. My initial impulse was to put someone in the top ten to represent that "golden age of radio in the late seventies/early eighties" when all the most talented bands were acheiving mainstream success. Upon further consideration, Byrne is a better representation of this.

[godthedog 0]

i think the argument for lennon at the top for most people (and i think most people probably would put lennon at the top of their list) goes something like this:

 

beatles=most important group ever

 

lennon=most talented member of said group, judging from his songwriting contributions & his solo work

 

therefore, lennon=most important person

 

the "oh, people just think he's so great because he's dead" argument does NOT apply to lennon, because:

a) he didn't die while he was still peaking, which is essential to the myth of any dead rock star's greatness (see cobain, morrison, hendrix, joplin); if people were only praising him so highly because he's dead, then the people previously mentioned would be praised more highly. the man faded away, he didn't burn out.

b) his greatness was already grounded before he was dead. people were singing the praises of "norwegian wood," "strawberry fields forever" and 'sgt pepper' long before he got shot.

 

but there's still problems with the "lennon=most important person" argument, because, although 'plastic ono band' soundly blows away any other solo beatle's work, it's really hard to gauge his importance within the beatles. the beatles' key contributions were their innovations & their songwriting. i don't think it can be argued that lennon was the most innovative of the group, paul came up with just as many new ideas as he did. it's also very debatable that lennon was the better songwriter; for every "julia" or "happiness is a warm gun," there's an "eleanor rigby" or "hey jude."

 

in the end, i think it's more fair to give the #1 nod to dylan, because although he wasn't quite as innovative & his albums aren't as consistently mind-blowing as the beatles, he certainly rivals them in importance & everything he did can pretty much be attritubed to him and him alone.

 

it would be much easier if we were dealing with 100 most important artists in general, & not 100 most important individuals (although it would probably make for a much more boring list).

 

hendrix should easily crack the top ten, probably the top five. putting paul simon above him is blasphemous.

 

i like the inclusion of rick rubin.

 

Jackson had to carry four stiffs.

don't you talk about tito like that.

 

Beatles wrote amazing music without any precedent for what they were writing

you need to lay off the lofty claims. a statement like this, that what the beatles were doing had NO precedent, is not only almost impossible to prove, it's also just wrong; they weren't making music in a vacuum, & to assume they just fell from the sky without any influence is ridiculous. dylan was the precedent for a lot of what lennon was writing & playing after 64, 'pet sounds' was the precedent for 'sgt pepper', etc.

[Guest Van Mundegaarde]

i'll argue two things:

 

1.) Paul Simon is more important to music than Jimi Hendrix, as he is as important to songwriting as hendrix is to guitar playing plus his career was far more expansive and yielded much more positive output. Had hendrix lived five years longer, he might have a good case for inclusion.

 

2.) The Beatles might have been influenced. But influence and precedent are wholly different things. Lennon might have been influenced by Dylan, but Dylan never had the pop sensibility that Lennon had and as such was not a precedent in any other way than to say he wrote moodier more personal songs therefore inspirinbg John to do so. The way John did it hadn't been done before. As is the case with most of the Beatles later output. Even Brian Wilson was inspired by Rubber Soul (largely spearheaded by John as the stories go) to make Pet Sounds which then inspired Sgt. Pepper and so on and so forth. It is a lofty statement, but by no means unfounded.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Wern't Jackon's videos the first to feature fully-fledged dance routines, ala those imitated by every boyband/pop star of today?

 

And to dismiss 'Bad' as not of of the greatest pop records of the modern era is ridiculous, however I will not get ahead of myself and begin ranting here.

 

UYI

No, it really isn't. Rant all you want. Off the Wall and Thriller are impeccable, and Bad is very good with a bunch of great songs, but that's it. It lacks the coherence, conviction, and simple songwriting of those two albums. This is not to say I won't listen to "The Way You Make Me Feel" or "Liberian Girl" any day of the week; it's just to say that there's no way I'm listening to the whole album over one of the others.

 

On the Prince/MJ issue - these are two guys who are pretty hard to pit against each other. They both covered a lot of similar territory in the musical mainstream and had more charting hits apiece than any other artist of their era. I'm a Prince man myself, but I find it difficult to gauge the influence of either. Prince is the keynote speaker of explicit sexuality in pop, and MJ is the lord of the dance. It's often not cited, but I'd also say that Prince had a fair effect on the whole DIY (do-it-yourself) approach to music - the man was a machine on much of his work, often playing every instrument and writing every track himself. If I had to pick, I'd go with Prince, because from 79-92 he experimented with a lot of different styles and managed to succeed with the vast majority of them, moreso than MJ. There are at least 4 utterly different Prince albums I can't live without, and I've never come up with more than the 2 monsters for MJ. I really can't make a statement on how influential that is, but I'm always impressed that the same guy put "When You Were Mine," "Raspberry Beret," "Let's Go Crazy," and "7" into the top 10.

[B. Brian Brunzell 0]

I would put Sam Phillips, George Martin, and Clive Davis on my top 100. Granted, they weren't musicians(at least popular ones, they may have played stuff), but their work as producers/record execs speaks for itself.

 

I would still put(even though you said Jazz doesn't count) Miles Davis on the list, as he changed EVERYTHING with one album.

[haVoc 0]

I don't have a problem with this list. It's only one persons opinion. I do think it's funny that Liz Phair, DJ Shadow and Tori Amos is on the list before Aerosmith. But hey, to each their own.

[Nighthawk 0]

Speaking of producers/record execs, I'd have probably mentioned Berry Gordy and Russell Simmons.

[Kinetic 0]

I absolutely believe that Barry Gordy should be on this list, but I can sort of understand why he's not. With the way the Motown structure was set up, it can be fairly difficult to figure out who did what, and it's probably impossible to prove that Barry Gordy had more to do with developing the Motown sound than x person. So if you're including him, you'd need to include Smokey Robinsons, Holland/Dozier/Holland, and countless others who had an equal or greater part in creating that deal.

 

I'd probably have one spot labelled "Motown" and leave it at that.