Absolutely lol. There are so many greats I think everything should be a factor

Yes. This is another reason why MJ will never be surpassed by anything.

no doubt. why I’ll always rate Cole highly

Your ability as a live entertainment adds soo much value to the overall brand as an artist. There's a certain type of reverence and respect from the institution/musical peers that catapults someone's starpower to unimaginable heights solely on their talents/gifts on a live stage.. MJ, Prince, Stevie, Whitney, Madonna and now Beyonce and Kendrick are cut from a different cloth and held to a much higher regard largely due to them being generational talents as performers.

For example, artists like Taylor dwarfs Beyonce in commericial success (record sales/accolades/streaming/radio), yet she'll never be as revered and celebrated by her peers and the industry to the extent of a Beyonce who's reached a deity like status in popular culture, not because her music is so popular or she has the most fans or record sales, but because what she does on stage is a transcendental experience that NO one else can do. This presence and 'aura' comes from her gifts as a performer alone. Beyonce can be in a sea of other celebs that has outsold her many times over at an award show, yet she'll be the only one with a line wrapped around the corner filled with artists that we all stan clamouring for her attention.. Only extremely talented entertainers seem to get this treatment.

it should be considered whether they are kanye west or not

imo no but its reasonable. i just think it should be based on music. "objective" lists suuuck and are so boring.

you can be a legend but you definitely cant be a goat. drake a good example.

legend status f*** no goat status its fair i guess. i think its a good plus but to use it to discredit kinda dumb.

how are Thuggers live shows

no clue but hes top 5 alltime

Absolutely

like bob dylan wasnt exactly a great live performer but who gives a f*** yknow its bob god damn dylan

mick jagger was known for kinda sucking at singing live but no one is using it against the rolling stones to say they arent one of the best bands ever. same to dif extents goes for iggy pop, neil young, jimi hendrix, bruce springsteen.

Duh

if I had a time machine to go back and catch one tour in would be Bob in '66

I know you not denying the power on display here

they were considered to be great live but ngl I havent heard one recording that convinces me

this is a good performance but bob was at the time kinda known for what im saying in his shows, the main criticism against him was the way he sung live. beautiful performance though i love it.

Explain this

billboard 100 entries are all that matter

bro go listen to Rust Never Sleeps immediately

im not personally saying neil young is a bad singer, im saying he was one of others known for being relative to his time not the best at singing live, he was p controversial for that. but see how we point to his music, cuz it rly doesnt matter. technical performing ability doesnt really mean s***, ur shows in the future are all about what u do to the crowd, the music, and the aura basically lol. someone like ccarti isnt like a crazy good performer vocally, but his shows when u watch them are undeniable blasts of energy. or someone like yougn thug, idek how good his shows are but hes still a goat.

He also can't sing and is ugly

thank you for reminding me to listen to this song btw i forgot how good it is

Lets start putting handsomeness in our top 10 rankings