Erm, this list is totally random. As are the rankings. What was their criteria? Artistic achievement? Influence? Most albums sold? Madonna is way too high, though she should be on there. Beyonce? Are you kidding me? She and Timberlake could be somewhere around 90, I suppose, for dominating the Pop Charts of the decade. Anything higher is a travesty. And I like Timberlake.
Most of the people on the list are not wrong, only it seems like they threw dices to decide the placements. Notice how the top 15 are all male artists/groups? Much too heavy on rock bands, too. And even not particularly interesting rock bands. It all makes no sense. Michael Jackson was out in 1998 and is in after his death. He was arguably too low then, now he's IMO too high.
And, yeah, Eminem probably damaged his reputation somewhat during his addiction, though he's redeeming himself nicely at the moment IMO. He's still way too low. Putting people like Sade, Whitney Houston, Billy Joel, Beyonce, Timberlake etc. above him just defies all reason. Their output might be your taste or not, but objectively they have nothing on him when it comes to influence or artistic merit. His highest heights are light-years ahead of theirs. He's also still selling quite well, I hear.
ETA: I just noticed that there's no Sex Pistols. WTF?!? Yeah, The Clash are IMO better musically, but they had massive, massive influence. And if you put people like Rage Against The Machine there who are mostly known for their Agit-Prop...Or Green Day, but not the band who made Punk explode....
