.. you might be surprised at some of the music he produced (thousands of tunes) and a very wide and diverse group of artists ... many such as noted rock historian John Peel called his early recordings of Blackmore with the Outlaws and Heinz and the Wild Boys the birth cry of heavy metal ... and besides Blackmore for guitarists he also used Jimmy Page, Steve Howe, Big Jim Sullivan, Ray Fenwick, the absolutely extraordinary Joe Brown and may others ... Take care

... a note of trivia Joe Brown toured with Del Shannon ...

When people got lazy. That's why nicknames are so popular, anything to not have to use more than a single syllable.

... the top charting artists in the UK for the 50`s .... Take care

1 Frankie Laine
2 Elvis Presley
3 Pat Boone
4 Lonnie Donegan
5 David Whitfield
6 Perry Como 1
7 Guy Mitchell
8 Bill Haley and his Comets
9 Johnnie Ray
10 Nat 'King' Cole
11 Doris DayFrankie Laine
12 Dean Martin
13 Everly Brothers
14 Frank Sinatra
15 Winifred Atwell
16 Connie Francis
17 Frankie Vaughan
18 Ruby Murray
19 Eddie Fisher
20 Ronnie Hilton

Echoes, I don't know if you're familiar with DDD's Artist Tribute pages in general, but there are links to all of them on the Main Music Page, about two thirds of the way down:

http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/music0.html

There are several for '50s artists. Besides Domino, there's one each for Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Clyde McPhatter, Jerry Lee Lewis, Johnny Ace, and Little Richard.

... just to tie a couple of items together .... Moondog as an interesting 50`s artist and then Kenny Graham and his Satellites from the UK and his progressive elements for that time period as well ... followed by Kenny Graham recording an album in 1956 called "Moondog and Suncat Suites." with 16 tracks .... Take care

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnskASlKlsA



The Personnel:

Kenny Graham (tenor, percussion, whistle)
Stan Tracey (piano, vibes, accordion, celeste)
Phil Seamen (drums, percussion)
Ivor Slaney (oboe)
Sammy Stokes (bass)
Don Lawson (percussion, drums)
Danny Moss (bass clarinet)
Jack Ellory (flute)
Eddie Taylor (Percussion)
Martin Slavin (xylo, marimba, vibes)
Sammy Stokes (bass)
Vic Ash (clarinet)
Yolanda (vocals)

Recorded between 02.07.56 and 11.07.56

Engineer on all sessions JOE MEEK

Thanks. There are under Tributes. (However, I have to say it’s a little difficult to find them).

.... another wonderful vocalist from the 50`s in the UK ... Ottilie Patterson .... from my estimation the greatest female blues singer from the UK ...Take care

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cptq3_OHEC8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1cEuSZ7KZo

Great list, but I'm not so sold on Fats above Chuck.
Fats was certainly one of the VERY earliest pioneers, but Berry played such a huge role in making the guitar a lead instrument. His riffing and soloing style was just mega, mega influential. Still being felt to this day, actually.

On an aside, I'd like your opinion on something. Do you think Presley could overtake the Beatles for #1 on the Greatest Rock Artists list? I've been campaigning for a while, but I need more support.

Berry beats Domino in influence, but Domino had much more Commercial Impact and Cultural Impact, and they were damn close in Musical Impact with a slight edge to Berry. Domino wins overall.



Presley wins in the criteria, that's what the list is supposedly based on so he'd finish at the top if it was objective and going strictly by criteria. There's no reason, other than personal tastes of most of the visitors who prefer the Beatles, why he wouldn't be #1. But they're obviously the only two that could finish 1 or 2.

Yeah, nobody could POSSIBLY come to a different conclusion than you and be objective.

You realize that rankings should have absolutely nothing to do with the editor, only the criteria. That's the whole point - the criteria determines the rankings. The editor should be irrelevant if the same criteria is being used. It's only when people start dismissing criteria that there are wild fluctuations in the results.

Except that none of the criteria are exactly objective. It's not like applying a mathematical formula.

But that wasn't even my point. My point was that you were announcing that your conclusion was right, and the conclusion of the list editor was wrong, and not providing anything to back that up. Just because someone came to a different conclusion that you did doesn't mean that the other person is biased.

No, it was unfair of me to imply that. However I was the one who came up with the criteria for all of the artist lists (Commercial Impact, Influence, Musical Impact and Cultural Impact) and am therefore as well versed in applying it as anyone and the results of this debate overall have been examined as much as any two artists and they don't change unless the criteria changes. It's not like comparing #101 to #102, this is #1 and #2 overall in rock history, so it's going to be the most heavily scrutinized positions on the list. Therefore even though I had nothing to do with that particular list I still applied the criteria to the top aritsts there more than any other, just because I was curious to see who'd win myself, after all, that's the biggest question in listmaking, who's the greatest artist ever? Chris F. and I did this again when we were working together on his overall Pop Music list. Comparing them everyway possible within the criteria we both always came to the same conclusion and with the same relative distance between them. Change the criteria to favor something else the positions may very well change.

I'm with Brett and Brian here. The Beatles are CLEARLY the top artist of all time. Their musical influence over the years is far greater than Presley's influence, and they now beat him in commercial impact as they are the top selling artist of all time now.

Their impact on the record industry is much bigger than Presely's over the years too. Although I don't like what they started, making albums more important than singles, that did happen.

Many more people have become musicians because of the Beatles than because of Elvis. That may not have been true in 1967, but it certainly is now. The Beatles were even huge in Russia mainly on the strength of bootleg albums that found their way there.

Elvis fans are dying off every day, while the Beatles are gaining new fans all of the time, as evidenced by their CD sales over the past few years.

I don't even see this as particularly close at this point in history.

As long as the criteria is one quarter musical influence, one quarter cultural impact, one quarter commercial impact and one quarter musical impact, I don't see how the Beatles can top Elvis all-time. The cultural shift that Elvis Presley represents dwarfs that of the Beatles. It's such a huge margin, that even if the Beatles take the other three criteria, I can't see it being by enough to make up for that huge cultural impact gap. Elvis' commercial impact remains massive, and he was probably even more dominant in his era commercially than the Beatles were in their own era. Even at the peak of the Beatles' popularity, they were being outsold 2-1 by Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass. At Elvis' peak, there was no one in his rearview mirror, let alone outselling him 2-1. As for musical influence, yeah, maybe the Beatles take that, but Elvis Presley is the King of Rock 'n' Roll. He made Rock 'n' Roll the music of the masses more than any other artist. He also inspired virtually everyone who followed in his wake. John Lennon himself said, "Before Elvis, there was nothing." And for musical impact, they're both at the top of the heap. There just isn't enough wiggle room in the other three criteria for the Beatles to make up the enormous advantage that Elvis has in cultural impact. That's the way I see it.