where is this list available on the web?

blackboab said:

I'd seriously question that considering that I've seen many lists of this sort before and never seen Prince ranked so high.

And exactly what has Prince done in a live performance that James Brown hasn't done before?

violator said:

Peek-A-Boo Pants!

BinaryJustin said:

And for that, I suppose, we are grateful.

Actually, I've been reading up on how this list was compiled and its made-up of critics' lists from the U.K. and U.S. The compiler of the list is completely non partisan.

Its very interesting.

http://hem.bredband.net/b..._and_a.htm

BinaryJustin said:

jerked off his guitar!

As usual with these lists, Nirvana is way too high and overrated. I think Chuck Berry, SLy Stone, and Micheal Jackson deserve to be higher. Prince is where he should be.
[This message was edited Sat Nov 22 15:58:01 PST 2003 by undulatingacrobat]

AaronUniversal said:

I was implying something meaningful.

Nirvana is definitely way too high in this list, as they always always always are. I don't get that. And, I'm not a big MJ fan, but I was definitely expecting him to be no. 1 or 2 for greatest pop act of all time.

Prince being number 5, I'm impressed, but I want it at number 1.

The converse of that, is that if Prince is at No. 5 or No. 1 this list loses all credibility for me...

And then... if he is in middle of the road (21 - 40), I would say he deserves higher, or shouldn't be mentioned at all...

And then... if he's not mentioned at all, I would say the list is crap once again.

So... in conclusion it really DOES NOT matter where Prince or any other artist is put on this list, there is no way I would ever be happy.

So my opinion is worthless on this issue.

savoirfaire said:

Nirvana, as well as the Sex Pistols, are ranked as high as they are not based on limited output but rather on the basis of their influence. Also, Nirvana's effect on popular music cannot be understated. Before Nirvana, alternative music was a sub-genre. They brought that music to the mainstream and have paved for the way for every grungy wanna-be with a guitar since.

violator said:

You mean like play the guitar, keyboards, bass etc and sing well?

p.s i love James Brown but come on.

bkw said:

And yet, it was Prince who lifted at least a third of his stage show from James Brown. Not the other way around.
[This message was edited Sat Nov 22 16:44:50 PST 2003 by violator]

bkw said:

And furthermore, great musicianship does not equal great stage presence. And many vital parts of Prince's stageshow in this regard can be traced directly back to Brown.

U R mad right?

1999 changed the entire 'scape of pop and R&B music in the 80 and 90's. Some may argue that even in this current decade of Pop music (that still sounds 80-90ish) his influrnce is still strong, and I'm not just talking about synth. manipulation, but the entire sound itself. Don't fool yourself into believing just because he currently does not release truly inovative music, that he no longer has influence. Jimi is the "electric"guitar GOD and James the "Godfather of soul", but they are confined to the genre, one genre of the music scheme. Prince has always been "out the box."

2 my friends VIOLATOR and GYPSYFIRE. With Luv
[This message was edited Sat Nov 22 17:29:22 PST 2003 by lmas]

lmas said:

This is a man who knows what he's talking about.

Number23 said:

Merci

Number23 said:

lmas said:

Hendrix, one genre?

I won't argue with you because for you to have made this statement shows that you haven't even listened to Jimi. You're a Prince fan and you're speaking with a fan's heart.

well, once again Nirvana ends up on yet another list they have absolutley no buisness being on, the beastie boys should never rank higher than MJ,Sex Pistols, or Sly on any list, REM should not be that high, MJ & James Brown should be in top 5, in fact, other than Prince I don't agree with the top 5 at all The Beatles (with their increasingly oevrrated selves), The Rolling Stones, and Bob Dylan are NOT that exciting live, Bowie, well, Bowie should be in top 10, not 5.
Other than those things I think this is a pretty good list, and for the people's above posts remember this list is based a stage presense, NOT how good their music is or if it's better than Prince's.

lovebizzare said:

It is? I never saw anything in the above post that indicated this list was based on stage presence.

violator said:

OK give it 2 me. Hendrix Blues, (4 Violator)Soul, Rock? okay 2
[This message was edited Sat Nov 22 19:46:11 PST 2003 by lmas]

lmas said:

Blues and soul are not the same thing. By that definition Prince couldn't possibly exceed rock and soul.

EddieVanHalen said:

Yeah, The Who suck big time.

Number23 said:

fuckin right

violator said:

oh damn put a (/) instead of a (,). U cats are so superficial when a argu...discussion is not going your way. I will go back and edit that just "4 U" (Prince 1978) Violet....oops did it again, damn keyboard
[This message was edited Sat Nov 22 19:47:49 PST 2003 by lmas]

lmas said:

How on earth is it not going my way? I could care less how many of you agree or disagree with me.

violator said:

Man the look on this guy's face. I'm just fuckin with U dude.

lmas said:

I think you're fucking with yourself.

violator said:

U did it again, I'm laughing so hard I just split my pants...

Prince ain't #1?