I would flip The Marcels and Marvelettes in '61. The records are pretty even in the popularity criteria, but the Marvelettes had actual influence - particularly as it relates to solidifing the Motown sound - whereas the Marcels were more novelty doo wop at the tail end of that style.

I'd also switch Darlene Love & The Kingsmen in '63. Love gets killed in all of the areas. The Kingsmen record is one of the most enduring hits in rock history, had tremendous influence on the garage rock sound and was a far bigger record at the time than anything Love ever did or would do. I have no idea what she's doing above them. The Kingsmen might've been a flash in the pan, but it was a one big damn flash in a huge freakin' pan.

A few other things: In 1960 you have just Tina Turner mentioned when obviously it was Ike & Tina. But since Ike already recorded under his own name it might be questioned by some... I'd still keep them in, because it was clearly a new duo and Tina was the focale point, but hey both need to be mentioned.

In 1965 The Turtles were a new name for the Crossfires, who were a surf rock group that had a few decent instrumentals prior to that ("Fiberglass Jungle" in 1963). The personel, other than the rhythm guitarist, were exactly the same for both groups.

Also, for 1970, is there some reason that Curtis Mayfield isn't on the list, let alone #1. The Impressions weren't even named "Curtis Mayfield AND The Impressions", so I can't imagine that would be the reason. Am I missing something?

As for the Four Seasons, that's a judgement call. As long as you're consistant if it comes up again and spell it out, then it'd be okay either way. The really interesting thing would be the Drifters, who could make the list twice, since the Ben E. King version was entirely different than the McPhatter group. I can't imagine that would fly though.

If The Four Seasons are dropped for having 2 of the same members as the Four Lovers, would that mean that The Coasters should also be dropped for having 2 of the same members as The Robins?

This list is about recording artists, not live performers.

That seems correct, okay he's out.

The Marvelettes had just one hit in 1961 while the Marcels also had a second top ten single "Heartaches" and a third charter on the flip of one of them. The impact/influence of "Blue Moon" was all over the place from 1961 to 1963, as other groups used the bass intro and also the idea of doing uptempo doo wop versions of old standards. Neither group's album charted, but the Marcels album is a classic in doo wop circles while the Marvelettes album is typical Motown (one hit and filler) for those days. The album did not even include the followup hit single from early 1962. (Twistin' Postman). I don't see "Postman" as solidifying the Motown sound at all. It's a girl group record, not a Motown sounding record.



Are you forgetting Love's Christmas classics from 1963. In 2012 "Christmas (Baby Please Come Home)" is one of the ten best known songs that was first released in 1963.

Okay, Ike and Tina it is. I'll list it like I did on the "Debut Si ngles" list.

(Ike &) Tina Turner.

Okay, Turtles are out, replaced by Donovan.

Come on, you can't count Curtis Mayfield as a new artist in 1970 any more than you can count Paul McCartney as a new artist in 1970. I don't think those items are on the "Debut Albums" and "Debut Singles" lists, so they don't belong here either IMO.


I'll leave the 4 Seasons in for now.

I'm keeping the Seasons in, but also remember, the Robins had 5 members, the Four Lovers only had 4 members. Also, the Robins remained a recording act on their own for over 5 years after the Coasters were around. The Four Lovers were long gone before there was a Four Seasons. So it's more clear that the Robins and Coasters were separate entities than it is with the 4 Lovers and 4 Seasons.

I got yelled at by Pete Stoller for not correcting the R&R Hall Of Fame when they claimed that "The Robins became the Coasters" so I went back and fixed it.

I figured that was the explanation for Mayfield but since I didn't see anything in the criteria about it, I had to ask.

Actually, maybe the best solution would be this: Establish it so that any featured member of an artist can't have recorded earlier, that way you're not only eliminating McCartney, Mayfield, et. all, but also making it more clear-cut for groups, so the Four Seasons would be out, as would Ike & Tina Turner though. The word "NEW" implies totally new, not just new in a certain context. Of course, then you'd have to drop Zeppelin, so it becomes a problem.

If you were looking for someone to replace the Seasons if you decide to remove them from '62, throw in Arthur Alexander. I could be wrong but I don't think his first record was released in '61. If that's the case, he had three charting records and all six of the sides are classics, many of which have been covered repeatedly by big names (Soldier Of Love - Pearl Jam, You Better Move On - Stones, etc.). Plus the style helped establish the southern-soul sound, mixing country influences in with R&B.

"You Better Move On" is 1961.

I think these need to be taken on a case by case basis. If every act had to be totally new, half of them would be gone. Even Chuck Berry played guitar on some record in 1952 or 1953 and is mentioned on the 78 label.

I understand. The qualifications for lists like these are always a bitch, since artists aren't exactly concerned with how their debut will be considered decades later. I like the idea for the list though.

Thanks, I think it gives some artists that don't get much attention a chance to shine. Instead of the same Elvis-Beatles-Hendrix etc... there are other artists that end up out ranking those superstars under this format.

Artists like Larry Darnell or Faye Adams were huge for about a year but never get talked about. Here's their chance for a little recognition.

I'm sure you like my choice for the top new artist of 1961.

I don't know whether "Only You" backed with "Situation" ever came out in the US, but it was definitely the first release in the UK (and that definitely precedes any release in the US or anywhere else).

As for all the stuff about when an artist is new, I tend to give the most weight to the lead singer. So on the Debut Albums list I have kicked off Traffic since Steve Winwood is the primary lead singer and he had albums as the singer of the Spencer Davis Group, but I've kept Zep because while Jimmy Page was known as the guitarist of the Yardbirds, Robert Plant hadn't been the lead singer on an album before. Although, come to think of it, he HAD had at least one single out, so that might complicate things here.

Obviously there are limits to this approach. An established band that brings in a new lead singer isn't a new band. And there comes a point where having really big stars in the band makes them a "supergroup" or whatever even if the lead singer is new. But that seems a good rule of thumb.

In keeping with that, I didn't list Cyndi Lauper for 1985 because she had an album as lead singer of Blue Angel.

I think you should also have an overall ranked list using the year by year as the candidates, which would actually bring even more attention to the names you're talking about. Someone like Darnell or Adams would rank high overall, especially if the criteria remained focused primarily on how they did in that year and the immediate influence in the aftermath. Since usually people will look to what they know first, if you just stick to the year by year ones, most visitors will go to the usual 1965-1980 range. if you give them that first, but then have a Top 100 and they see Adams at six or something but over the Beatles, Presley, Hendrix, etc., that would probably turn a lot more heads than just the years alone. You know how people love Top 100's and sometimes that's the best way to educate them. But just so you're clear, I'm not saying ditch the year by year, that should definitely be equally featured. Just something to consider anyway.

I figured Shannon would win '61 with relative ease. I think 1955 is the strongest overall year though, the Top Four there are all monumental.

One question though, if Mayfield is not qualified because of the Impressions, why is Lou Reed there when the Velvet Underground were still his main claim to fame? I know VU wasn't very well known at the time, but they weren't completely unknown and historically are more important than Reed solo. To be consistent you should drop Reed altogether.