Oh. I thought it was about rock artists.

Most artists performed live for years before they even made a record. Are you suggesting that rank artists based on that?

The Beatles played some gigs already in the late 50s as the Quarrymen. Should they be on the "Greatest 50s Artists" list?

Mayfield was the leader and well known name of a major act for over 10 years before he went "solo."

Reed was the vocalist for a band for 4 years that barely was known before he went solo. At the time he went solo they were not even close to being as historically important as he became right away with "Walk On The Wild Side." I heard "Walk" on the radio late in 1972, and I had no idea who Reed was, but even as a 14 year old I knew who Mayfield was when I first heard his solo records.

"Walk" is higher on the RS Top 500 list than all but one VU song.

Yes, Chuck barely noses out Bo because "Thirty Days" was such a big hit, but Bo only loses by a cunt hair with the influence of the songs he released that year. Plus, I think Bo's impact came a little later when his album came out. many people missed those songs in 1955 but picked up on them on the album.

1972 is strong for one of the later years I have done.

Just did 1976, it's super strong with four legendary debut albums and one really legendary debut single.

I would add Sonny Thompson

Sonny's first record is from 1946:

I don't know. How do they do in the criteria for their fifties work?

Okay, just sent the list in to Lew as it looks now in the first post in this thread. Also some great pictures of the top artist of each year.

I have to agree about Lou Reed not belonging. The fact that you didn't know who he was is irrelevant. He had been the lead singer of a band with two charting albums, one that had been written about in the rock press and associated with a major art-world figure.

I think it's a simple line to draw that if a solo artist had been lead singer of a recording act before, he's not a new artist. Again, see the Cyndi Lauper situation. Blue Angel was a lot more obscure than the VU.

It's a reasonable debate, but those "two charting albums" got to #199 and #171. If the albums had come from before April of 1967 they would not have charted, as that is when the chart went from a top 150 to a top 175, and then to a top 200 in May of 1967. So while they technically "charted," it's not like they were really big. Most stores that carried the current rock LPs did not stock them. They never came close to a chart single either. I would count the Lauper album for sure.

If I take Reed out Gary Glitter will get the last spot for 1972.

Ha! There's nothing Bruce would like better than getting rid of Lou Reed. That's one artist we completely disagree on.

I like a couple of Lou's solo records.

It's the VU I hate.

Lew got the first page (1946-1959) up.

http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_ ... -1959.html

Okay, I told Lew to omit Reed and add Gary Glitter in 1972.