I ahte The Stones, they're boring, unemotional dad-rock!! Haha, oml;y joking, but seriously i don't like them. Dylan is amazing though, much better than The Beatles & The Stones put together.

Although if this was a perfect world Radiohead would be the top artist, as they're clearly the best act of all-time :P

I've always thought if you consider the Stones and Dylan level up to the end of the 70's surely Dylan's last three and Oh Mercy would but him ahead, obviously Henrik's explanation clears that up to an extent though.

Henrik - you write that only the 5 most acclaimed albums and songs are taken into account for the artist score. Then why is Dylan among the most acclaimed artists in the 80s, 90s and 00s? All his top albums and songs are from the 60s and 70s.

The 5 albums & 5 songs method is applied within each decade as well. So for an artist who has 10 songs on AM from the 1980s, only the 5 most acclaimed songs will be counted for in the top artist of the 80s list. Then, none of these 5 songs may be among the 5 best of the artist's whole career and counted for in the all-time artists list.

Maybe this was a complicated answer, but the method makes perfect sense. At least to me!

Makes excellent sense to me too, but, gee, am I glad I'm not the one figuring out how to make the calculations! You're a statistics guy by trade, Henrik, right?

Thanks for the clarification! It indeed seems like the right method - your site really is flawless.