GREATEST ROCK ARTISTS OF THE 60'S
EDITOR: SAMPSON
http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artists60s.html

CRITERIA: Equal parts Commercial Impact, Influence, Musical Impact and Cultural Impact.

1. The Beatles
2. James Brown
3. The Beach Boys
4. The Supremes
5. The Rolling Stones
6. Bob Dylan
7. Aretha Franklin
8. Elvis Presley
9. Sam Cooke
10. The Jimi Hendrix Experience
11. Ray Charles
12. Otis Redding
13. The Temptations
14. Smokey Robinson & The Miracles
15. The Byrds
16. Marvin Gaye
17. The Four Seasons
18. The Who
19. Wilson Pickett
20. Stevie Wonder
21. The Kinks
22. Roy Orbison
23. The Impressions
24. The Shirelles
25. The Doors

26. The Drifters
27. The Four Tops
28. Led Zeppelin
29. Martha & The Vandellas
30. Dion
31. Jefferson Airplane
32. The Mamas & The Papas
33. Sam & Dave
34. Solomon Burke
35. Cream
36. Jackie Wilson
37. Creedence Clearwater Revival
38. Booker T. & The MG's
39. Sly & The Family Stone
40. The Monkees
41. The Yardbirds
42. Chubby Checker
43. Simon & Garfunkel
44. The Marvelettes
45. Joe Tex
46. Etta James
47. The Lovin' Spoonful
48. Del Shannon
49. The Ventures
50. Jan & Dean

51. The Ronettes
52. Janis Joplin/Big Brother & Holding Company
53. The (Young) Rascals
54. The Animals
55. Mary Wells
56. Ike & Tina Turner
57. The Band
58. Lee Dorsey
59. The Velvet Underground
60. Junior Walker & The All-Stars
61. The Dave Clark Five
62. The Jackson Five
63. The Righteous Brothers
64. Buffalo Springfield
65. Gary "U.S." Bonds
66. Donovan
67. The Crystals
68. The Delfonics
69. Frank Zappa & The Mothers Of Invention
70. Lesley Gore
71. Sam The Sham & The Pharoahs
72. Sonny & Cher
73. Carla Thomas
74. Tommy James & The Shondells
75. The Turtles

76. Percy Sledge
77. Rick Nelson
78. The Everly Brothers
79. Ben E. King
80. The Shangri-Las
81. Gladys Knight & The Pips
82. Gene Chandler
83. Dick Dale
84. Paul Revere & The Raiders
85. Van Morrison/Them
86. The Chiffons
87. Eddie Floyd
88. The Isley Brothers
89. The Hollies
90. Jerry Butler
91. Dusty Springfield
92. Chuck Berry
93. Major Lance
94. Johnny Rivers
95. Garnett Mimms & The Enchanters
96. Love
97. Gene Pitney
98. Steppenwolf
99. Herman's Hermits
100. The Grateful Dead

101. Pink Floyd
102. Canned Heat
103. James & Bobby Purify
104. Don Covay
105. Billy Stewart
106. Mitch Ryder & The Detroit Wheels
107. Isaac Hayes
108. The MC5
109. James Carr
110. Fats Domino
111. The Dells
112. King Curtis
113. Dr. John
114. Willie Mitchell
115. The Contours
116. Blood, Sweat & Tears
117. Chuck Jackson
118. The Stooges
119. Darlene Love
120. The Spencer Davis Group
121. Irma Thomas
122. William Bell
123. The Sonics
124. Arthur Alexander
125. The Kingsmen

126. The Association
127. Clarence Carter
128. Three Dog Night
129. Tammi Terrell
130. John Mayall's Bluesbreakers
131. Betty Everett
132. Paul Butterfield Blues Band
133. Johnnie Taylor
134. Archie Bell & The Drells
135. Moby Grape
136. Bo Diddley
137. Little Anthony & The Imperials
138. Lonnie Mack
139. Dyke & The Blazers
140. Charlie Rich
141. The Surfaris
142. Gary Lewis & The Playboys
143. The Tams
144. Barbara Lewis
145. Hank Ballard & Midnighters
146. Rufus Thomas
147. The Box Tops
148. Gerry & The Pacemakers
149. Arthur Conley
150. Blue Cheer

151. Jimmy Hughes
152. Quicksilver Messenger Service
153. Manfred Mann
154. The Zombies
155. Joey Dee & The Starliters
156. Lou Rawls
157. The Cookies
158. Country Joe & The Fish
159. ? & The Mysterions
160. The Staple Singers
161. The Orlons
162. Procol Harum
163. Sir Douglas Quintet
164. The Troggs
165. Lou Christie
166. The Moody Blues
167. Bobby Womack/Valentinos
168. Desmond Dekker & The Aces
169. Barbara Lynn
170. The Tokens
171. Aaron Neville
172. Howard Tate
173. The Electric Flag
174. Edwin Starr
175. Freddie Scott

176. Captain Beefheart
177. The Meters
178. Tommy Roe
179. The Chambers Brothers
180. Traffic
181. The Count Five
182. Iron Butterfly
183. Ruby & The Romantics
184. Ernie K-Doe
185. The Pretty Things
186. Tyrone Davis
187. The Buckinghams
188. Maurice Williams & The Zodiacs
189. The Olympics
190. Small Faces
191. The Strangeloves
192. The Electric Prunes
193. Cannibal & The Headhunters
194. The Jeff Beck Group
195. Santana
196. West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band
197. The Jive Five
198. Leonard Cohen
199. Davie Allan & The Arrows
200. O.V. Wright

I still don't get this Supremes over Dylan or the Stones. Neither do I get the Stones over Dylan.

Can I get a breakdown on the Four Seasons over The Who? Because I'm having difficulty justifying it.

I don't want to be harsh but who is in charge of these lists? The Supremes over Dylan and the Stones. You go to be joking.

Acclaimed Music

#1-The Beatles
#2-The Rolling Stones
#3-Bob Dylan
#5-Led Zeppelin
#8-The Who
#9-Elvis Presley
#12- The Beach Boys
#32-James Brown
#151- The Supremes

I agree with you on this the Who should easily be over the Four Seasons just on live performance and Tommy. The Beatles and the British Invasion made the Four Seasons reduntant.

Musicfan67,
Try not to ask for explanations for rankings right off the bat without first making an attempt to apply the criteria to determine for yourself where those rankings came from. The results of the Supremes/Stones/Dylan "showdown" are quite obvious and not really arguable when you do the required work.

As for acclaimedmusic.net's rankings, in case you weren't aware they are based solely on critics and writers opinions, and compiled from magazines and other outlets that are marketed to be sold to a very narrow and specific demographic of like-minded "music fans" who get basically what they expect to see in those publications and who pay their money to read consenting views that were written largely to appeal to their readership's tastes. This is very well known across the industry and why acclaimedmusic.net isn't really taken seriously by anybody in music. It's not that those running the site are biased themselves in any way, but their sources represent a largely one-sided perspective (those sources are listed if you doubt this) and few if any of those sources are using any verifiable criteria in establishing their own rankings and ratings that the acclaimedmusic.net lists are being based on because it's not their business to be objective, it's to sell magazines. Those placements on that site are essentially nothing more than a collection of similar people's personal favorites that happen to be published and therefore it doesn't help to bring in totally subjective evidence to support what should be a totally objective argument. That's not the way to go here, you can make your case a lot better with me if you want just by following the stated criteria, but to do that you need to credit BOTH artists accurately, not just the one or two you want higher.

But you don't seem to be off to a good start in claiming the Four Seasons were made redundant by the Beatles and British Invasion when in fact in the period immediately following that invasion (February 64-September 64) they had four consecutive TOP TEN hits and went on to score 14 Top Twenty Hits in between the time the Beatles landed on American shores and released Sgt. Pepper's before Frankie Valli began concentrating on a seperate solo career, which is what really derailed the Seasons success, four full years after you claimed.

So I guess by redundant you meant "still just as successful as ever and not really affected in any way by the Beatles", as they still released huge hits, had some of the most advanced production found on any records of the time, including far more influential production than the Beatles pre-Revolver, and had great musical impact as well. Add to it the fact that this list naturally factors in their entire career in the 60's, including their three straight #1 hits to kick off their reign in '62 (which by the way was better than the Beatles subsequent three straight chart hits when they first arrived two years later, which went to #1, #1 and #3 only, for a combined fewer weeks at the top no less), and you can see why The Four Seasons have no trouble actually earning their spot. No, they're not going to challenge the Beatles at the top obviously, but 17th is clearly where they belong based on their accomplishments and that too should be fairly self-evident for someone looking at it objectively.

It should be a totally objective argument?

I have to totally disagree, it's all subjective. DDD's list are as subjective as anything any magazine puts out. Record sales and charting positions are the only thing that are objective to do with making thiis list. The only objective list you can do in music is simply a record sales/weeks on the charts list. Saying that album x is "greater" because you decree it to have ]more influence and musical impact than album y is no different to saying album x is greater than album y, because you prefer it, or because it has a nicer looking album cover. I like making and discussing these lists, but let's not pretend we're doing something we're not here.

It has nothing to do with it not being taken seriously in music. That's to do with the lists being predictible, the whole reason people read such lists is surely for recommendations? I'm pretty sure people in music would be much happier to be listed in a album of the year list in The Wire than they would on DDD, regardless of whether the lists are to do with personal preference or are carefully compared using totally subjective criteria.

Anyway, whereas the Four Tops may have sold more records than the Who. Popularity id surely about lasting popularity as well and The Who take that by a long way? Theiy cultural impact far outweighs that of the Four Tops that it's hard to see any victory in another category making up for it. Same with The Stones/Dylan vs. The Supremes.

Avery Island,
First off yes, this is as objective as humanly possible. You can properly attribute influence, musical impact and cultural impact, and while the precise methods for doing so can be debated, the actual application of it to the proper artists, songs and albums is fairly simple to do.

The problem is, most people are so used to arguing music based solely on tastes that even in a debate like this that pushes for objectivity they still want to have their own subjective tastes used on the lists and their arguments boil down to just what you said - "because you prefer it" - and they'll manipulate the criteria to achieve that. It's human nature and has gone on since day one at DDD but that's also why the visitor's comments are not to be taken seriously, UNLESS (a big unless) they follow the specific criteria and as objectively as possible apply it to all of the artists in question.

Which brings us back to that. To start with, it's the Four Seasons, not the Four Tops, who are ten spots below the Who, and to confuse them might be an honest mistake, but I doubt the same mistake would've been made by saying The Guess Who rather than The Who. Secondly, lasting popularity is a way people who lose the commercial impact argument try and make up for it, but while that's not counted here (Commercial Impact is just that, chart hits and album hits), the Four Seasons are still just as popular as virtually any artist from that time frame. They have at least a dozen records in regular rotation on catalog radio, they had the hottest Broadway show based on their careers a few years back in "Jersey Boys" and their Greatest Hits Anthology on Amazon (a worldwide, non-demographic based mass media outlet) is ranked #165th in CD sales. By contrast The Who's best seller is ranked 1,342 overall. So even if you WERE to have lasting popularity included in the criteria, The Who lose that as well.

The Seasons influence is, or should be, obvious from the preponderance of the extreme use of the falsetto in 60's rock to their dense production and arranging to their songwriting and their musical impact at the time was extraordinarily high. The Who obviously have very strong credentials as well, but in the 60's they come up just short of the Four Seasons, even though when comparing both artist's ENTIRE career they'd win out easily. It wasn't the Who's fault the 60's came to an end just as they were in the midst of their peak stretch as artists, and therefore those years are split over two seperate decades lists, that's just the way it falls.

Supreme had more top hits in the 60s than most, but more influential than Dylan and the Stones? Nope.

Also, i don't appreciate your tone to the posters on this website, not only is it condescending and arrogant, but is riddled with logical fallacies that don't contribute to the debate ("The results of the Supremes/Stones/Dylan "showdown" are quite obvious and not really arguable when you do the required work.") All you did was discredit the criteria of influence from acclaimedmusic by claiming that it demonstrates one sided thinking in a biased industry by perpetuating a standard of popularity. Not really doing the required work..

The criteria themselves are entirely subjective though. In other lists innovation is used as a criteria, Influence is described differently in different lists, in some it is about inspiring artists, in others it is about changing music. Some lists Popularity is given a low weighting, in others acclaim is counted in other lists it is not etc. etc.

If we used different criteria the list would be entirely different. It's not an objective list when the criteria is so subjective, there's no measurement that says cultural impact is a measurement of how great something is, that's just something that's been made up on this website. Cultural impact is no more an objective to personal favourites or nicest album cover being a criteria.

And yes, that's my point about objectivity, all this is is manipulation of the criteria and no influence, musical impact or cultural impact is not objective. The only way Influence could be objective would be, say, to ask every act who ever existed who they were influenced by and there somehow to be some standard measurement of how influenced they were by them (which is impossible). Fact is, music that everyone knows about takes up about 0.001% of the total music that's made and all opinions on influence or musical impact for example are based on just famous musicians, not every musician ever. Everyone's opinions is solely based on what they read, I don't think people will manipulate them directly, but their sources certainly do.

Sampson - Firstly, you have to remember I am not American, so they may well get played constantly and remain as popular as say, The Who, in that case you may be right and you're right I got the mixed up because I'm really not familiar with their music, because they are not in my interest zone, but neither are the Who, who I've known about since the age of about 4 and have regularly heard their songs on the radio,on tv and in the media growing up, because they are far more engrained into popular culture, at least in my country.

Amazon sales are based on one week's sales, so I'm not sure how one week's sales point to lasting popularity. And amazon.com isn't a worldwide organisation. Those sales are based on amazon.com sales, which operates in the USA solely. Other countries have their own versions of amazon, which have completely different charts. The same Greatest hits album is ranked at #50,098 on amazon.co.uk for example.

And no, I do not know much about vocal styles or production, so no it's not obvious to me that the forwarded the use of the falsetto in rock music or the dense production to me as I do not know if any artists before that had used falsetto or produced records in such a way before.

Again, going back to the subjectivity thing, what are we basing their musical impact at the time being extremely high? The words of a few individuals? Certain popular musicians? What? To me that it the criteria that is so easy to manipulate when it's so loosley based on what other musicians thought of it at the time.

I never offered a view on the Supremes influence versus either of those artists. You've given a one word rejection that they both were more influential with no evidence.

Dylan clearly is more influential in the 60's than the Supremes, but the Stones weren't. They were totally derivitive musically, and they themselves admit such. They were in no way musical innovators, they were playing Chuck Berry riffs and Mick Jagger was ripping off Don Covay's vocal style... and they were FABULOUS at it. But not influential. Their biggest influence as artists comes from reinventing the touring model and that's credited to them for the 70's.

Because other artists sound like or worshipped the Stones does not make them the source of the influence when they themselves are influenced so overtly by artists preceding them. Ironically the Stones biggest 60's influence is their shabby dress, though they do get credit elsewhere obviously, certain key songs, but they're the least influential for the decade of the Top Ten here.

Spot on re Jagger & Covay - uncanny.

Let me see if I have this right... I'm supposed to conceive the lists, create the criteria (which every artist list on the site uses BTW), do all of the research on every artist, not just the 200 who makes the list but maybe another hundred or so who fail to make the cut, rank them according to that criteria, all of which takes months to do, not to mention owning and reviewing hundreds of books, CD's, interviews, etc. for accessing this information, then after it's posted and I can finally sit back and "relax", I'm supposed to cordially respond to each and every (often indignant) comment made after the poster may have looked at the list for all of five minutes and just glanced at the criteria quickly before lodging a complaint AND then I have to explain each and every point in detail while they sit back and pick it apart looking for "logical fallacies" when THEIR effort in critiquing it amounts to basically "It sucks!"????

Ummmm, no.

Look, all I've ever asked for with people commenting on my lists is two things - respect for all artists, eras and styles when comparing them (something that few people do, always attacking the usual suspects outside their own tastes - I could make money betting on which artists will be picked to move down and which will be picked to moved up) AND, most importantly, making a legitimate and nonconfrontational effort to explain to ME, the person you're trying to convince after all, why the rankings should be altered using the criteria at hand.

Instead most people think an editor should be the one to have to "convince" a poster who disagrees with the rankings. Yet the criteria is what establishes the rankings and they need to look there themselves for the explanation, which, in the case of The Supremes/Stones/Dylan is really pretty self-evident. But if someone isn't aware of the Supremes massive cultural impact then they shouldn't be trying to make the case for artists with less impact to move over them. Just as if someone is going to present acclaimedmusic.net as an objective source to try and prove influence without taking into account the fact that the information there is assembled from critics whose job it is to sell magazines to a specific demographic and even if that didn't bother you, there's not nearly equal representation across ALL demographics musically to validate it, then they shouldn't expect me to blindly accept it when it doesn't meet any of the reasonable measures that you'd demand for objectivity.

Call me arrogant all you want if my responses show the frustration of being constantly asked to re-do the work I've already done for people who are USUALLY (not always) unwilling to make an effort to study each artist in depth themselves. But to me that's the arrogant thing - expecting their demands, based almost always on personal taste and historical misconception, to be met each and everytime without justification. Sorry if I'm condecending in conveying that, but to me the responsibility of making a case for a list to be changed falls to those who are asking for that change in the first place.

For the record I'd much prefer talking music enthusiastically with other people here rather than having it always result in an argument, as the hostile and combative culture that exists here is one of the reasons I avoided the forum for five years. Yes, cases can and should be made for change in all lists, but the way in which that is done can be improved and that's what I'm hoping will happen.

I agree. I've always said that any "greatest" list is determined by whatever criteria is used, but once that criteria is laid out then any arguments made about that list is all going by the same criteria, so that everyone is using the same measuring sticks. It's not like someone can inject "nicest album cover" into the debate because it's not part of the criteria. Having that as a seperate criteria would change the results, but it'd also be the obvious flaw in that criteria because "nicest" is a subjective term unto itself, you'd then have to try and objectively define "nicest".

So in terms of objectivity, while its selection by the editor is a subjective decision on what to credit, once it is chosen the results within it should be objective in relation TO that editor or any commentor of the results. You can argue the amount of cultural impact and how much or little certain things should be credited in that regard, but the actual historical impact of certain things is not determined solely by whoever is looking at it. I've There obviously is no 100% objective way to rank greatest. Even using just popularity you'd need a mathematical formula based not just on sales, chart hits, etc., but also marketing dollars spent in relation to sales, availability of the product in every market and so on. Even Billboard's rankings, as good as they are, don't take into account fluctuation in chart length relative to the era at hand, or release schedules of major artists work. So there is no perfectly objective way and likely never will be. But the goal is still to maximize the objectivty used by selecting criteria that covers all of the ways in which an artist can make a reasonably measurable impact and then attempt to fairly apply it using verifiable evidence. Naturally when more evidence comes to light results will change, just as when human's discovered the horizon was not the edge of the world and the sky was not the limit of the universe. Somehow I don't think this is quite as important, but probably more hotly debated nonetheless.

I never claimed this criteria was perfect, only that it was the best that I was able to come up with in regards to at least trying to remain objective when applying it. But as I've always said, if anyone can come up with a better method I'd be the first to embrace it, what matters most is historical accuracy and whatever criteria can best achieve that is the one to use.