Discussion:
Interesting Site
(too old to reply)
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-01 02:44:18 UTC
Permalink
It combines the original worldwide chart performance with the other
honors that each record has gotten, such as grammys, grammy hall of
fame, listings on RYM, acclaimedmusic, etc....and there's a top 100
for each year, each decade, etc....

http://tsort.info/music/index.htm
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-01 02:51:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
It combines the original worldwide chart performance with the other
honors that each record has gotten, such as grammys, grammy hall of
fame, listings on RYM, acclaimedmusic, etc....and there's a top 100
for each year, each decade, etc....
http://tsort.info/music/index.htm
They have a separate list for the biggest artists with individual
songs, and one for the biggest artist with albums. Laine is #28 of all
time on the songs list. Fats Domino is #41. Muddy Waters is #218.
Michael Pendragon
2013-05-01 14:43:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
It combines the original worldwide chart performance with the other
honors that each record has gotten, such as grammys, grammy hall of
fame, listings on RYM, acclaimedmusic, etc....and there's a top 100
for each year, each decade, etc....
http://tsort.info/music/index.htm
They have a separate list for the biggest artists with individual
songs, and one for the biggest artist with albums. Laine is #28 of all
time on the songs list. Fats Domino is #41. Muddy Waters is #218.
Frankie Laine rules! :-D

Poor old Johnnie Ray didn't do quite as well though. Nor did a lot of
may other favs.

But when I searched the site for Howlin' Wolf, this turned up:
http://tsort.info/music/9yvzha.htm
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-01 16:42:15 UTC
Permalink
The top 100 worldwide music acts of all time, including songs and
albums:

# Artist Peak Year
1 The Beatles 1964
2 Elvis Presley 1956
3 Frank Sinatra 1957
4 The Rolling Stones 1965
5 Paul Whiteman 1924
6 Bing Crosby 1933
7 Elton John 1973
8 Madonna 1990
9 Bob Dylan 1965
10 Duke Ellington 1933
11 Louis Armstrong 1932
12 Glenn Miller 1940
13 U2 1987
14 Guy Lombardo 1937
15 David Bowie 1983
16 Billy Murray 1907
17 Queen 1991
18 Nat King Cole 1952
19 Michael Jackson 1982
20 Bruce Springsteen 1984
21 Prince 1984
22 Al Jolson 1920
23 Rod Stewart 1979
24 Bee Gees 1978
25 Cliff Richard 1963
26 Abba 1976
27 Pink Floyd 1973
28 The Beach Boys 1966
29 Tommy Dorsey 1937
30 Perry Como 1946
31 Henry Burr 1919
32 Ben Selvin 1921
33 Arthur Collins & Byron G Harlan 1914
34 Bon Jovi 1986
35 Peerless Quartet 1915
36 Stevie Wonder 1973
37 REM 1991
38 Led Zeppelin 1969
39 Barbra Streisand 1980
40 Miles Davis 1959
41 Eric Clapton 1992
42 Neil Young 1972
43 Santana 1970
44 Phil Collins 1989
45 Benny Goodman 1936
46 Depeche Mode 1990
47 Mariah Carey 1993
48 Ray Charles 1962
49 Celine Dion 1996
50 Whitney Houston 1992
51 Harry MacDonough 1901
52 Genesis 1983
53 John Lennon 1971
54 Fleetwood Mac 1977
55 Dire Straits 1985
56 Billy Joel 1979
57 Marion Harris 1922
58 American Quartet 1912
59 The Who 1971
60 Prince's Orchestra 1916
61 Ella Fitzgerald 1950
62 Jimmy Dorsey 1941
63 Bessie Smith 1923
64 Neil Diamond 1973
65 Fats Waller 1935
66 John McCormack 1916
67 Paul McCartney 1971
68 Simon & Garfunkel 1970
69 Wings 1974
70 Billie Holiday 1937
71 Deep Purple 1973
72 Isham Jones 1923
73 Metallica 1996
74 AC/DC 1980
75 Iron Maiden 1990
76 Chicago 1976
77 Ted Lewis & His Orchestra 1931
78 Sammy Kaye 1946
79 Roy Orbison 1963
80 The Andrews Sisters 1938
81 Eagles 1976
82 The Pet Shop Boys 1988
83 Johnny Cash 1969
84 Donna Summer 1979
85 George Michael 1987
86 Johnny Mathis 1958
87 Bryan Adams 1991
88 Status Quo 1975
89 The Cure 1989
90 Aerosmith 1993
91 Electric Light Orchestra 1979
92 Sting 1985
93 John Coltrane 1964
94 Diana Ross 1980
95 Jethro Tull 1972
96 Creedence Clearwater Revival 1970
97 Jimi Hendrix 1967
98 Eminem 2002
99 Frankie Laine 1949
100 Aretha Franklin 1968
Michael Pendragon
2013-05-01 16:52:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
The top 100 worldwide music acts of all time, including songs and
# Artist Peak Year
1 The Beatles 1964
2 Elvis Presley 1956
3 Frank Sinatra 1957
What's this list from, DDD?
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-01 16:53:31 UTC
Permalink
On May 1, 12:52 pm, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
The top 100 worldwide music acts of all time, including songs and
# Artist Peak Year
1 The Beatles 1964
2 Elvis Presley 1956
3 Frank Sinatra 1957
What's this list from, DDD?
No, from TSORT.

http://tsort.info/music/faq_greatest_act.htm
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-01 17:04:14 UTC
Permalink
Their top 50 worldwide acts of the 50s:

Notice #24, 25 and 28.

#1: Elvis Presley #2: Frank Sinatra #3: Nat King Cole #4: Miles Davis
#5: Perry Como

#6: Harry Belafonte #7: Bill Haley & his Comets #8: Johnny Mathis #9:
Thelonious Monk #10: Frankie Laine

#11: Doris Day #12: Pat Boone #13: Fats Domino #14: Eddie Fisher #15:
Ella Fitzgerald

#16: Patti Page #17: Louis Armstrong #18: The Platters #19: Dean
Martin #20: Dave Brubeck

#21: Tony Bennett #22: The Kingston Trio #23: Four Aces #24: Little
Richard #25: Chuck Berry

#26: Sonny Rollins #27: Art Blakey #28: Johnnie Ray #29: Duke
Ellington #30: Sarah Vaughan

#31: Mitch Miller #32: Hank Williams #33: Mantovani #34: Bing Crosby
#35: Rosemary Clooney

#36: Mario Lanza #37: The Everly Brothers #38: Guy Mitchell #39:
Charles Mingus #40: Chet Baker

#41: Paul Anka #42 : Les Paul & Mary Ford #43: Buddy Holly #44: Jo
Stafford #45: Jackie Gleason

#46: Ray Charles #47: Ricky Nelson #48: Tennessee Ernie Ford #49:
Claudio Villa #50: Kay Starr
Frank
2013-05-01 17:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Notice #24, 25 and 28.
#1: Elvis Presley #2: Frank Sinatra #3: Nat King Cole #4: Miles Davis
#5: Perry Como
Thelonious Monk #10: Frankie Laine
Ella Fitzgerald
#16: Patti Page #17: Louis Armstrong #18: The Platters #19: Dean
Martin #20: Dave Brubeck
#21: Tony Bennett #22: The Kingston Trio #23: Four Aces #24: Little
Richard #25: Chuck Berry
#26: Sonny Rollins #27: Art Blakey #28: Johnnie Ray #29: Duke
Ellington #30: Sarah Vaughan
#31: Mitch Miller #32: Hank Williams #33: Mantovani #34: Bing Crosby
#35: Rosemary Clooney
Charles Mingus #40: Chet Baker
#41: Paul Anka #42 : Les Paul & Mary Ford #43: Buddy Holly #44: Jo
Stafford #45: Jackie Gleason
Claudio Villa #50: Kay Starr
Bruce, I was unaware Miles Davis was that big in the 50s, #4? Was he big internationally? I don't even necessarily think of him as a'50s act.
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-01 18:21:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank
Bruce, I was unaware Miles Davis was that big in the 50s, #4? Was he big internationally? I don't even necessarily think of him as a'50s act.
It's based on more than just the charts of the day. It's also based on
gold records, platinum records, acclaim, chart positions on all time
lists, etc...

Here's the miles davis page:

http://tsort.info/music/ffv0ef.htm
Frank
2013-05-01 19:38:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by Frank
Bruce, I was unaware Miles Davis was that big in the 50s, #4? Was he big internationally? I don't even necessarily think of him as a'50s act.
It's based on more than just the charts of the day. It's also based on
gold records, platinum records, acclaim, chart positions on all time
lists, etc...
http://tsort.info/music/ffv0ef.htm
thanks for the link. That clears some things up but raises another question:
Are Davis' Grammys the "Manstream" ones or just for jazz?
Michael Pendragon
2013-05-01 20:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by Frank
Bruce, I was unaware Miles Davis was that big in the 50s, #4? Was he big internationally? I don't even necessarily think of him as a'50s act.
It's based on more than just the charts of the day. It's also based on
gold records, platinum records, acclaim, chart positions on all time
lists, etc...
http://tsort.info/music/ffv0ef.htm
Are Davis' Grammys the "Manstream" ones or just for jazz?- Hide quoted text -
He's not on VF Music's 1000 All-Time Greatest Artist List:

http://www.musicvf.com/all.artind

VF's list is based on US and UK charts.

I tried searching the site for his name and turned up *no* results.
Not one.

I next tried scrolling through the list of artists whose names begin
with "M" (it goes by first name). I had to stop about halfway through
because a script froze up my screen. No sign of Miles, which makes
him even less of a success than Mr. Hankey (whose name did turn up).
Can't get much lower than that.
Sharx35
2013-05-01 21:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Frank
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by Frank
Bruce, I was unaware Miles Davis was that big in the 50s,
#4? Was he big internationally? I don't even necessarily
think of him as a'50s act.
It's based on more than just the charts of the day. It's also based on
gold records, platinum records, acclaim, chart positions on
all time
lists, etc...
http://tsort.info/music/ffv0ef.htm
thanks for the link. That clears some things up but raises
Are Davis' Grammys the "Manstream" ones or just for jazz?- Hide quoted text -
http://www.musicvf.com/all.artind
VF's list is based on US and UK charts.
I tried searching the site for his name and turned up *no*
results.
Not one.
I next tried scrolling through the list of artists whose names
begin
with "M" (it goes by first name). I had to stop about halfway
through
because a script froze up my screen. No sign of Miles, which
makes
him even less of a success than Mr. Hankey (whose name did turn up).
Can't get much lower than that.
Mr. Hankey? That friend of Cartman's on that TV cartoon show? Or
was that "Mr. Hinky"?
Michael Pendragon
2013-05-01 21:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharx35
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by Frank
Bruce, I was unaware Miles Davis was that big in the 50s,
#4? Was he big internationally? I don't even necessarily
think of him as a'50s act.
It's based on more than just the charts of the day. It's also based on
gold records, platinum records, acclaim, chart positions on all time
lists, etc...
http://tsort.info/music/ffv0ef.htm
Are Davis' Grammys the "Manstream" ones or just for jazz?- Hide quoted text -
http://www.musicvf.com/all.artind
VF's list is based on US and UK charts.
I tried searching the site for his name and turned up *no*
results.
Not one.
I next tried scrolling through the list of artists whose names begin
with "M" (it goes by first name).  I had to stop about halfway
through
because a script froze up my screen.  No sign of Miles, which
makes
him even less of a success than Mr. Hankey (whose name did turn up).
Can't get much lower than that.
Mr. Hankey? That friend of Cartman's on that TV cartoon show? Or
was that "Mr. Hinky"?- Hide quoted text -
That's the one!

Apparently his Christmas song charted.
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-01 23:20:28 UTC
Permalink
On May 1, 4:09 pm, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by Frank
Bruce, I was unaware Miles Davis was that big in the 50s, #4? Was he big internationally? I don't even necessarily think of him as a'50s act.
It's based on more than just the charts of the day. It's also based on
gold records, platinum records, acclaim, chart positions on all time
lists, etc...
http://tsort.info/music/ffv0ef.htm
Are Davis' Grammys the "Manstream" ones or just for jazz?- Hide quoted text -
http://www.musicvf.com/all.artind
VF's list is based on US and UK charts.
But VF's list is only based on singles charts. Davis didn't make
singles. He had 28 different albums that charted and Whitburn lists
him among the 200 biggest artists ever on the albums charts.
Mark Dintenfass
2013-05-01 18:49:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank
Bruce, I was unaware Miles Davis was that big in the 50s, #4? Was he big
internationally? I don't even necessarily think of him as a'50s act.
"Kind of Blue" (1959) was, um, kind of successful.
--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply
Michael Pendragon
2013-05-01 18:27:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Notice #24, 25 and 28.
#1: Elvis Presley #2: Frank Sinatra #3: Nat King Cole #4: Miles Davis
#5: Perry Como
Thelonious Monk #10: Frankie Laine
Ella Fitzgerald
#16: Patti Page #17: Louis Armstrong #18: The Platters #19: Dean
Martin #20: Dave Brubeck
#21: Tony Bennett #22: The Kingston Trio #23: Four Aces #24: Little
Richard #25: Chuck Berry
#26: Sonny Rollins #27: Art Blakey #28: Johnnie Ray #29: Duke
Ellington #30: Sarah Vaughan
#31: Mitch Miller #32: Hank Williams #33: Mantovani #34: Bing Crosby
#35: Rosemary Clooney
Charles Mingus #40: Chet Baker
#41: Paul Anka #42 : Les Paul & Mary Ford #43: Buddy Holly #44: Jo
Stafford #45: Jackie Gleason
Claudio Villa #50: Kay Starr
Well, they're not exactly the model of accuracy. Patti Page was the
#1 female artist of the 1950s; Kay Starr was the #2.
Frankie Laine and Eddie Fisher were tied with Elvis Presley for #3
among the men.

And Miles f**k**g Davis shouldn't be within 1000 yards of the list!
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-01 18:30:54 UTC
Permalink
On May 1, 2:27 pm, Michael Pendragon
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Notice #24, 25 and 28.
#1: Elvis Presley #2: Frank Sinatra #3: Nat King Cole #4: Miles Davis
#5: Perry Como
Thelonious Monk #10: Frankie Laine
Ella Fitzgerald
#16: Patti Page #17: Louis Armstrong #18: The Platters #19: Dean
Martin #20: Dave Brubeck
#21: Tony Bennett #22: The Kingston Trio #23: Four Aces #24: Little
Richard #25: Chuck Berry
#26: Sonny Rollins #27: Art Blakey #28: Johnnie Ray #29: Duke
Ellington #30: Sarah Vaughan
#31: Mitch Miller #32: Hank Williams #33: Mantovani #34: Bing Crosby
#35: Rosemary Clooney
Charles Mingus #40: Chet Baker
#41: Paul Anka #42 : Les Paul & Mary Ford #43: Buddy Holly #44: Jo
Stafford #45: Jackie Gleason
Claudio Villa #50: Kay Starr
Well, they're not exactly the model of accuracy.  Patti Page was the
#1 female artist of the 1950s; Kay Starr was the #2.
Frankie Laine and Eddie Fisher were tied with Elvis Presley for #3
among the men.
That's on USA singles chart entries, this is based on worldwide charts
and acclaim and all time lists and grammy halls of fame, gold and
platinum records and other achievements.
And Miles f**k**g Davis shouldn't be within 1000 yards of the list!
He's got the single most acclaimed album of the decade. Nothing else
is close.
Michael Pendragon
2013-05-01 18:43:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 1, 2:27 pm, Michael Pendragon
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Notice #24, 25 and 28.
#1: Elvis Presley #2: Frank Sinatra #3: Nat King Cole #4: Miles Davis
#5: Perry Como
Thelonious Monk #10: Frankie Laine
Ella Fitzgerald
#16: Patti Page #17: Louis Armstrong #18: The Platters #19: Dean
Martin #20: Dave Brubeck
#21: Tony Bennett #22: The Kingston Trio #23: Four Aces #24: Little
Richard #25: Chuck Berry
#26: Sonny Rollins #27: Art Blakey #28: Johnnie Ray #29: Duke
Ellington #30: Sarah Vaughan
#31: Mitch Miller #32: Hank Williams #33: Mantovani #34: Bing Crosby
#35: Rosemary Clooney
Charles Mingus #40: Chet Baker
#41: Paul Anka #42 : Les Paul & Mary Ford #43: Buddy Holly #44: Jo
Stafford #45: Jackie Gleason
Claudio Villa #50: Kay Starr
Well, they're not exactly the model of accuracy.  Patti Page was the
#1 female artist of the 1950s; Kay Starr was the #2.
Frankie Laine and Eddie Fisher were tied with Elvis Presley for #3
among the men.
That's on USA singles chart entries, this is based on worldwide charts
and acclaim and all time lists and grammy halls of fame, gold and
platinum records and other achievements.
And Miles f**k**g Davis shouldn't be within 1000 yards of the list!
He's got the single most acclaimed album of the decade. Nothing else
is close.
Only because music critics are all jazz snobs. I've probably listened
to more of his music than 99.9% of the population -- and my total
listening experience is limited to 2 or 3 15-second snippets of his
songs before deciding *not* to include them among the tracks I was
ripping from a jazz cd.
Mark Dintenfass
2013-05-01 18:52:52 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Michael Pendragon
Only because music critics are all jazz snobs. I've probably listened
to more of his music than 99.9% of the population -- and my total
listening experience is limited to 2 or 3 15-second snippets of his
songs before deciding *not* to include them among the tracks I was
ripping from a jazz cd.
Open-minded as usual. Here's what Wikipedia says.

"Though precise figures have been disputed, Kind of Blue has been
described by many music writers not only as Davis's best-selling album,
but as the best-selling jazz record of all time. On October 7, 2008, it
was certified quadruple platinum in sales by the Recording Industry
Association of America (RIAA). It has been regarded by many critics as
the greatest jazz album of all time and Davis's masterpiece.
The album's influence on music, including jazz, rock, and classical
music, has led music writers to acknowledge it as one of the most
influential albums ever made. In 2002, it was one of fifty recordings
chosen that year by the Library of Congress to be added to the National
Recording Registry. In 2003, the album was ranked number 12 on Rolling
Stone magazine's list of the 500 greatest albums of all time."
--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply
Michael Pendragon
2013-05-01 19:15:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Dintenfass
In article
Only because music critics are all jazz snobs.  I've probably listened
to more of his music than 99.9% of the population -- and my total
listening experience is limited to 2 or 3 15-second snippets of his
songs before deciding *not* to include them among the tracks I was
ripping from a jazz cd.
Open-minded as usual. Here's what Wikipedia says.
Unlike Mr. Berry, I got a kick against modern jazz. :-)
Mark Dintenfass
2013-05-01 21:16:28 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by Mark Dintenfass
In article
Only because music critics are all jazz snobs.  I've probably listened
to more of his music than 99.9% of the population -- and my total
listening experience is limited to 2 or 3 15-second snippets of his
songs before deciding *not* to include them among the tracks I was
ripping from a jazz cd.
Open-minded as usual. Here's what Wikipedia says.
Unlike Mr. Berry, I got a kick against modern jazz. :-)
You have a right to your own taste, not to your own facts.
--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply
Michael Pendragon
2013-05-01 21:18:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Dintenfass
In article
Post by Mark Dintenfass
In article
Only because music critics are all jazz snobs. I've probably listened
to more of his music than 99.9% of the population -- and my total
listening experience is limited to 2 or 3 15-second snippets of his
songs before deciding *not* to include them among the tracks I was
ripping from a jazz cd.
Open-minded as usual. Here's what Wikipedia says.
Unlike Mr. Berry, I got a kick against modern jazz.  :-)
You have a right to your own taste, not to your own facts.
??? Are you saying that Chuck Berry didn't like Miles Davis music
either?
RWC
2013-05-02 08:00:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Dintenfass
You have a right to your own taste, not to your own facts.
A keeper phrase, thanks :-)
Sharx35
2013-05-02 09:07:51 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 01 May 2013 16:16:28 -0500, Mark Dintenfass
Post by Mark Dintenfass
You have a right to your own taste, not to your own facts.
A keeper phrase, thanks :-)
Something for ALL of us to remember, including myself, of course.
Sharx35
2013-05-01 21:09:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Notice #24, 25 and 28.
#1: Elvis Presley #2: Frank Sinatra #3: Nat King Cole #4: Miles Davis
#5: Perry Como
#6: Harry Belafonte #7: Bill Haley & his Comets #8: Johnny
Thelonious Monk #10: Frankie Laine
Ella Fitzgerald
#16: Patti Page #17: Louis Armstrong #18: The Platters #19: Dean
Martin #20: Dave Brubeck
Little
Richard #25: Chuck Berry
#26: Sonny Rollins #27: Art Blakey #28: Johnnie Ray #29: Duke
Ellington #30: Sarah Vaughan
#31: Mitch Miller #32: Hank Williams #33: Mantovani #34: Bing
Crosby
#35: Rosemary Clooney
Charles Mingus #40: Chet Baker
#41: Paul Anka #42 : Les Paul & Mary Ford #43: Buddy Holly #44: Jo
Stafford #45: Jackie Gleason
#46: Ray Charles #47: Ricky Nelson #48: Tennessee Ernie Ford
Claudio Villa #50: Kay Starr
Well, they're not exactly the model of accuracy. Patti Page was the
#1 female artist of the 1950s; Kay Starr was the #2.
Frankie Laine and Eddie Fisher were tied with Elvis Presley for #3
among the men.
And Miles f**k**g Davis shouldn't be within 1000 yards of the
list!
With all due respect, Michael, I think you do Mr. Davis a
disservice. He was far, far, more pleasant to listen to than the
stuff that many here "do their thing" to, if you know what I mean.
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-01 17:07:41 UTC
Permalink
Their top songs of the 50s:

http://tsort.info/music/ds1950.htm
Sharx35
2013-05-01 21:11:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
http://tsort.info/music/ds1950.htm
Wow! Now THAT list represents TRULY what 50's music was all about,
NOT what so many here CLAIM it was about.
Sharx35
2013-05-01 21:04:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
The top 100 worldwide music acts of all time, including songs and
Edited to remove flash-in-the-panners, groups/artists with no
staying power, I.e. in 20 years they will be forgotten, and other
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
# Artist Peak Year
1 The Beatles 1964
2 Elvis Presley 1956
3 Frank Sinatra 1957
4 The Rolling Stones 1965
5 Paul Whiteman 1924
6 Bing Crosby 1933
7 Elton John 1973
9 Bob Dylan 1965
10 Duke Ellington 1933
11 Louis Armstrong 1932
12 Glenn Miller 1940
14 Guy Lombardo 1937
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
16 Billy Murray 1907
18 Nat King Cole 1952
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
22 Al Jolson 1920
23 Rod Stewart 1979
25 Cliff Richard 1963
26 Abba 1976
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
28 The Beach Boys 1966
29 Tommy Dorsey 1937
30 Perry Como 1946
31 Henry Burr 1919
32 Ben Selvin 1921
33 Arthur Collins & Byron G Harlan 1914
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
35 Peerless Quartet 1915
36 Stevie Wonder 1973
39 Barbra Streisand 1980
40 Miles Davis 1959
45 Benny Goodman 1936
46 Depeche Mode 1990
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
48 Ray Charles 1962
51 Harry MacDonough 1901
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
57 Marion Harris 1922
58 American Quartet 1912
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
60 Prince's Orchestra 1916
61 Ella Fitzgerald 1950
62 Jimmy Dorsey 1941
63 Bessie Smith 1923
64 Neil Diamond 1973
65 Fats Waller 1935
66 John McCormack 1916
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
68 Simon & Garfunkel 1970
70 Billie Holiday 1937
72 Isham Jones 1923
77 Ted Lewis & His Orchestra 1931
78 Sammy Kaye 1946
79 Roy Orbison 1963
80 The Andrews Sisters 1938
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
83 Johnny Cash 1969
86 Johnny Mathis 1958
93 John Coltrane 1964
94 Diana Ross 1980
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
96 Creedence Clearwater Revival 1970
99 Frankie Laine 1949
100 Aretha Franklin 1968
Now, that REVISED list REALLY represents the music greats of the
last approx. 100 years, not the discordant/drugged spewers of
overmodulated racket.
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-01 23:22:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharx35
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
The top 100 worldwide music acts of all time, including songs and
Edited to remove flash-in-the-panners, groups/artists with no
staying power, I.e. in 20 years they will be forgotten, and other
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
16 Billy Murray 1907
Billy Murray will still be remembered in 20 years but Madonna will be
forgotten?

Dave, I think you're back on the sauce.
Sharx35
2013-05-01 23:26:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by Sharx35
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
The top 100 worldwide music acts of all time, including songs and
Edited to remove flash-in-the-panners, groups/artists with no
staying power, I.e. in 20 years they will be forgotten, and
other
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
16 Billy Murray 1907
Billy Murray will still be remembered in 20 years but Madonna
will be
forgotten?
Dave, I think you're back on the sauce.
Hah. No, however that is just to show how much I despise much of
what has been recorded since the mid to late 60's. I absolutely
LOATHE the great majority of what has been released since that
time. Even Wynonie and Mr. H. Wolf sound better, no question, than
pretenders to talent such as Springstreen or Madonna.
Michael Pendragon
2013-05-02 03:30:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharx35
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by Sharx35
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
The top 100 worldwide music acts of all time, including songs and
Edited to remove flash-in-the-panners, groups/artists with no
staying power, I.e. in 20 years they will be forgotten, and
other
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
16 Billy Murray 1907
Billy Murray will still be remembered in 20 years but Madonna will be
forgotten?
Dave, I think you're back on the sauce.
Hah. No, however that is just to show how much I despise much of
what has been recorded since the mid to late 60's. I absolutely
LOATHE the great majority of what has been released since that
time. Even Wynonie and Mr. H. Wolf sound better, no question, than
pretenders to talent such as Springstreen or Madonna.
Agreed (in spirit)! Although Madonna cut a couple of good songs on
her Dick Tracy album, and Mr. H. Wolf is situated much lower on my
list than many of today's artists.

But the question of talent aside, I really can't fathom the idea of
placing post-60s artists on any "all-time greatest" lists. I don't
care how many records The Bee Gees, Jacko or U2 have sold (and I still
maintain their sales numbers need to be adjusted for the increase in
world population), they simply haven't been around long enough to
compare with a true musical legend.
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-02 03:54:18 UTC
Permalink
On May 1, 11:30 pm, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
But the question of talent aside, I really can't fathom the idea of
placing post-60s artists on any "all-time greatest" lists.  I don't
care how many records The Bee Gees, Jacko or U2 have sold (and I still
maintain their sales numbers need to be adjusted for the increase in
world population), they simply haven't been around long enough to
compare with a true musical legend.
The Bee Gees have been around for 50 years now. Thier first single was
released in 1963.

Elvis started in 1954, 59 years ago. How many years are required for a
true musical legend?
Michael Pendragon
2013-05-02 04:02:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 1, 11:30 pm, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
But the question of talent aside, I really can't fathom the idea of
placing post-60s artists on any "all-time greatest" lists.  I don't
care how many records The Bee Gees, Jacko or U2 have sold (and I still
maintain their sales numbers need to be adjusted for the increase in
world population), they simply haven't been around long enough to
compare with a true musical legend.
The Bee Gees have been around for 50 years now. Thier first single was
released in 1963.
Elvis started in 1954, 59 years ago. How many years are required for a
true musical legend?
But the Bee Gees had the bulk of their success in the 70s. But it
isn't so much a matter of how many years so-and-so has been performing
as it's a matter of how many *more* years other artists have.
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-02 04:07:57 UTC
Permalink
On May 2, 12:02 am, Michael Pendragon
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 1, 11:30 pm, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
But the question of talent aside, I really can't fathom the idea of
placing post-60s artists on any "all-time greatest" lists.  I don't
care how many records The Bee Gees, Jacko or U2 have sold (and I still
maintain their sales numbers need to be adjusted for the increase in
world population), they simply haven't been around long enough to
compare with a true musical legend.
The Bee Gees have been around for 50 years now. Thier first single was
released in 1963.
Elvis started in 1954, 59 years ago. How many years are required for a
true musical legend?
But the Bee Gees had the bulk of their success in the 70s.  But it
isn't so much a matter of how many years so-and-so has been performing
as it's a matter of how many *more* years other artists have.
Since you quoted one of his song titles (How Many More Years), Howlin'
Wolf started making records in 1951 and was performing for more than a
decade before that.
Sharx35
2013-05-02 04:42:17 UTC
Permalink
On May 2, 12:02 am, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
On May 1, 11:30 pm, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
But the question of talent aside, I really can't fathom the idea of
placing post-60s artists on any "all-time greatest" lists.
I don't
care how many records The Bee Gees, Jacko or U2 have sold
(and I still
maintain their sales numbers need to be adjusted for the
increase in
world population), they simply haven't been around long
enough to
compare with a true musical legend.
The Bee Gees have been around for 50 years now. Thier first
single was
released in 1963.
Elvis started in 1954, 59 years ago. How many years are
required for a
true musical legend?
But the Bee Gees had the bulk of their success in the 70s. But it
isn't so much a matter of how many years so-and-so has been
performing
as it's a matter of how many *more* years other artists have.
Since you quoted one of his song titles (How Many More Years),
Howlin'
Wolf started making records in 1951 and was performing for more than a
decade before that.
But not charting, even if there had been more appropriate charts
available.
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-02 05:14:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharx35
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Since you quoted one of his song titles (How Many More Years), Howlin'
Wolf started making records in 1951 and was performing for more than a
decade before that.
But not charting, even if there had been more appropriate charts
available.
Oh yes it charted, it was a top 5 R&B chart hit, and if you're gonna
tell me that the R&B chart doesn't count, I'm gonna go back and
reinstate all the number one R&B songs that you've shitcanned in the
current contest.
Sharx35
2013-05-02 05:48:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
messagenews:864a57cf->
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Since you quoted one of his song titles (How Many More Years), Howlin'
Wolf started making records in 1951 and was performing for
more
than a
decade before that.
But not charting, even if there had been more appropriate charts
available.
Oh yes it charted, it was a top 5 R&B chart hit, and if you're
gonna
tell me that the R&B chart doesn't count, I'm gonna go back and
reinstate all the number one R&B songs that you've shitcanned in the
current contest.
Bruce, no way would I tell you, or anyone else, that the R&B chart
"doesn't count". It should count as much as the Pop chart, no more,
no less.
There are some here (not you, of course) who shitcan primarily on
genre, totally ignoring the inherent greatness of a record.
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-02 05:57:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharx35
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
messagenews:864a57cf->
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Since you quoted one of his song titles (How Many More Years), Howlin'
Wolf started making records in 1951 and was performing for
more
than a
decade before that.
But not charting, even if there had been more appropriate charts
available.
Oh yes it charted, it was a top 5 R&B chart hit, and if you're gonna
tell me that the R&B chart doesn't count, I'm gonna go back and
reinstate all the number one R&B songs that you've shitcanned in the
current contest.
Bruce, no way would I tell you, or anyone else, that the R&B chart
"doesn't count". It should count as much as the Pop chart, no more,
no less.
Even I don't think it should count "as much" as the pop chart, but it
certainly counts for something, even though your friend Mike says it
doesn't count for anything.

I bet he'd like to have the receipts that the record company made from
just one of those number one R&B hits. It would be more than he ever
made in a year.
Sharx35
2013-05-02 07:31:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by Sharx35
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
messagenews:864a57cf->
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Since you quoted one of his song titles (How Many More
Years),
Howlin'
Wolf started making records in 1951 and was performing for
more
than a
decade before that.
But not charting, even if there had been more appropriate
charts
available.
Oh yes it charted, it was a top 5 R&B chart hit, and if you're gonna
tell me that the R&B chart doesn't count, I'm gonna go back
and
reinstate all the number one R&B songs that you've shitcanned
in
the
current contest.
Bruce, no way would I tell you, or anyone else, that the R&B
chart
"doesn't count". It should count as much as the Pop chart, no
more,
no less.
Even I don't think it should count "as much" as the pop chart,
but it
certainly counts for something, even though your friend Mike says it
doesn't count for anything.
I bet he'd like to have the receipts that the record company made from
just one of those number one R&B hits. It would be more than he ever
made in a year.
Now, now, where's that "good buddy Bruce" gone to?
Tim
2013-05-03 03:19:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharx35
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by Sharx35
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
messagenews:864a57cf->
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Since you quoted one of his song titles (How Many More
Years),
Howlin'
Wolf started making records in 1951 and was performing for
more
than a
decade before that.
But not charting, even if there had been more appropriate charts
available.
Oh yes it charted, it was a top 5 R&B chart hit, and if you're gonna
tell me that the R&B chart doesn't count, I'm gonna go back and
reinstate all the number one R&B songs that you've shitcanned
in
the
current contest.
Bruce, no way would I tell you, or anyone else, that the R&B chart
"doesn't count". It should count as much as the Pop chart, no more,
no less.
Even I don't think it should count "as much" as the pop chart, but it
certainly counts for something, even though your friend Mike says it
doesn't count for anything.
I bet he'd like to have the receipts that the record company made from
just one of those number one R&B hits. It would be more than he ever
made in a year.
Now, now, where's that "good buddy Bruce" gone to?
Good buddy Bruce acquired a small farm, then went out late one night
to shit in his outhouse, and the hogs ate him.
Sharx35
2013-05-03 04:50:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by Sharx35
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by Sharx35
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
messagenews:864a57cf->
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Since you quoted one of his song titles (How Many More Years),
Howlin'
Wolf started making records in 1951 and was performing for
more
than a
decade before that.
But not charting, even if there had been more appropriate charts
available.
Oh yes it charted, it was a top 5 R&B chart hit, and if
you're
gonna
tell me that the R&B chart doesn't count, I'm gonna go back and
reinstate all the number one R&B songs that you've
shitcanned
in
the
current contest.
Bruce, no way would I tell you, or anyone else, that the R&B chart
"doesn't count". It should count as much as the Pop chart, no more,
no less.
Even I don't think it should count "as much" as the pop chart, but it
certainly counts for something, even though your friend Mike
says
it
doesn't count for anything.
I bet he'd like to have the receipts that the record company
made
from
just one of those number one R&B hits. It would be more than
he
ever
made in a year.
Now, now, where's that "good buddy Bruce" gone to?
Good buddy Bruce acquired a small farm, then went out late one
night
to shit in his outhouse, and the hogs ate him.
Then, Tim, WHO is posting on behalf of Good Buddy Bruce?
Michael Pendragon
2013-05-02 15:45:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by Sharx35
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
messagenews:864a57cf->
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Since you quoted one of his song titles (How Many More Years), Howlin'
Wolf started making records in 1951 and was performing for
more
than a
decade before that.
But not charting, even if there had been more appropriate charts
available.
Oh yes it charted, it was a top 5 R&B chart hit, and if you're gonna
tell me that the R&B chart doesn't count, I'm gonna go back and
reinstate all the number one R&B songs that you've shitcanned in the
current contest.
Bruce, no way would I tell you, or anyone else, that the R&B chart
"doesn't count". It should count as much as the Pop chart, no more,
no less.
Even I don't think it should count "as much" as the pop chart, but it
certainly counts for something, even though your friend Mike says it
doesn't count for anything.
I never said that it didn't count for anything. I put its (cultural)
significance at roughly 10% of the pop chart (based on demographics
regarding the market it served).
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-02 16:13:57 UTC
Permalink
On May 2, 11:45 am, Michael Pendragon
I never said that it didn't count for anything.  I put its (cultural)
significance at roughly 10% of the pop chart (based on demographics
regarding the market it served).
It has to be more than that because the pop chart did not serve every
non white person in the country. There was also a country chart which
served most whites in the south.

For the 50s I'd put the R&B chart at about 25% (1/4) the importance of
the Pop chart and the country chart at about 17% (1/6) the importance
of the pop chart. There were far more big R&B hits that became big pop
hits than big country hits that became big pop hits. Most of the #1
R&B songs starting in 1956 were also big pop chart hits. Not so for
country.
Michael Pendragon
2013-05-02 18:12:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 2, 11:45 am, Michael Pendragon
I never said that it didn't count for anything.  I put its (cultural)
significance at roughly 10% of the pop chart (based on demographics
regarding the market it served).
It has to be more than that because the pop chart did not serve every
non white person in the country. There was also a country chart which
served most whites in the south.
For the 50s I'd put the R&B chart at about 25% (1/4) the importance of
the Pop chart and the country chart at about 17% (1/6) the importance
of the pop chart. There were far more big R&B hits that became big pop
hits than big country hits that became big pop hits. Most of the #1
R&B songs starting in 1956 were also big pop chart hits. Not so for
country.
In the early 50s, I the amount of Country and R&B songs that hit on
the Pop charts seem about even (probably a little more Country, but I
haven't ever counted).

I also think you're mistaken in assuming that Country listeners didn't
also listen to Pop (not as much as they listened to Country, perhaps,
but enough to hear all the top songs).
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-02 18:23:48 UTC
Permalink
On May 2, 2:12 pm, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 2, 11:45 am, Michael Pendragon
I never said that it didn't count for anything.  I put its (cultural)
significance at roughly 10% of the pop chart (based on demographics
regarding the market it served).
It has to be more than that because the pop chart did not serve every
non white person in the country. There was also a country chart which
served most whites in the south.
For the 50s I'd put the R&B chart at about 25% (1/4) the importance of
the Pop chart and the country chart at about 17% (1/6) the importance
of the pop chart. There were far more big R&B hits that became big pop
hits than big country hits that became big pop hits. Most of the #1
R&B songs starting in 1956 were also big pop chart hits. Not so for
country.
In the early 50s, I the amount of Country and R&B songs that hit on
the Pop charts seem about even (probably a little more Country, but I
haven't ever counted).
But each year as the decade moved along there were more and more R&B
items that were becoming big pop hits, By 58 and 59 there were loads
of R&B hits that were also top ten pop chart hits, even several
numbers one hits, like "Stagger Lee" and "Yakety Yak" and "Get A Job"
and "Kansas City."
Post by Michael Pendragon
I also think you're mistaken in assuming that Country listeners didn't
also listen to Pop (not as much as they listened to Country, perhaps,
but enough to hear all the top songs).
No one is saying that country listeners don't listen to pop. I'm
saying that the sales and impact of country music then was about 1/6
of what the sales and impact of the pop hits were natiionally. There
were lots of places in the south where all you would hear is country
everywhere, just as there were lots of neighborhoods in big cities
where all you would hear was R&B.

Essentially a really big pop hit that was a million seller was
equivelent to an R&B hit that would sell about 250,000 copies and to a
country hit that would sell about 165,000 copies.

The biggest pop records of the decade would sell 3-5 million copies
and the biggest R&B hits of the decade (Lawdy Miss Clawdy, Work With
Me Annie, Sixty Minute Man) would sell a million copies.
Michael Pendragon
2013-05-02 19:30:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 2, 2:12 pm, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 2, 11:45 am, Michael Pendragon
I never said that it didn't count for anything.  I put its (cultural)
significance at roughly 10% of the pop chart (based on demographics
regarding the market it served).
It has to be more than that because the pop chart did not serve every
non white person in the country. There was also a country chart which
served most whites in the south.
For the 50s I'd put the R&B chart at about 25% (1/4) the importance of
the Pop chart and the country chart at about 17% (1/6) the importance
of the pop chart. There were far more big R&B hits that became big pop
hits than big country hits that became big pop hits. Most of the #1
R&B songs starting in 1956 were also big pop chart hits. Not so for
country.
In the early 50s, I the amount of Country and R&B songs that hit on
the Pop charts seem about even (probably a little more Country, but I
haven't ever counted).
But each year as the decade moved along there were more and more R&B
items that were becoming big pop hits, By 58 and 59 there were loads
of R&B hits that were also top ten pop chart hits, even several
numbers one hits, like "Stagger Lee" and "Yakety Yak" and "Get A Job"
and "Kansas City."
Because R'n'R temporarily blurred the lines btw R&B and Pop (since
many R'n'R songs crossed over into both categories).
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by Michael Pendragon
I also think you're mistaken in assuming that Country listeners didn't
also listen to Pop (not as much as they listened to Country, perhaps,
but enough to hear all the top songs).
No one is saying that country listeners don't listen to pop. I'm
saying that the sales and impact of country music then was about 1/6
of what the sales and impact of the pop hits were natiionally. There
were lots of places in the south where all you would hear is country
everywhere, just as there were lots of neighborhoods in big cities
where all you would hear was R&B.
Essentially a really big pop hit that was a million seller was
equivelent to an R&B hit that would sell about 250,000 copies and to a
country hit that would sell about 165,000 copies.
Okay. R&B would constitute 25% of total record sales.

But this higher ratio of sales doesn't in any way show that it also
constituted 25% of popular culture. It merely shows that black
audiences purchased 15% more records than white ones.
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
The biggest pop records of the decade would sell 3-5 million copies
and the biggest R&B hits of the decade (Lawdy Miss Clawdy, Work With
Me Annie, Sixty Minute Man) would sell a million copies.
See above.

The only way you could convince me, would be to provide documented
data clearly showing that 15% of these sales were to white audiences.
Mark Dintenfass
2013-05-02 22:40:40 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Michael Pendragon
Okay. R&B would constitute 25% of total record sales.
But this higher ratio of sales doesn't in any way show that it also
constituted 25% of popular culture. It merely shows that black
audiences purchased 15% more records than white ones.
Add arithmetic to the things you don't bother to think hard about.

To make it as simple as possible, let's pretend you had one thousand
eggs to sell to one hundred people. If ten of these people bought 250
of them, that would leave 750 eggs for the rest. So you've got 90
people splitting 750 eggs, which comes to 8.33 eggs each, and 10 people
splitting 250 eggs, which comes to 25 eggs each. The 10 people are
buying three times as many eggs as the 90. The percentage you groped
for is therefore 300%. Your guess was off by a factor of 20.

You appear to have been born with a good mind. Too bad you have it
walled off from even the simplest forms of reality.
--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply
Sharx35
2013-05-02 23:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Dintenfass
In article
Post by Michael Pendragon
Okay. R&B would constitute 25% of total record sales.
But this higher ratio of sales doesn't in any way show that it also
constituted 25% of popular culture. It merely shows that black
audiences purchased 15% more records than white ones.
Add arithmetic to the things you don't bother to think hard
about.
To make it as simple as possible, let's pretend you had one
thousand
eggs to sell to one hundred people. If ten of these people
bought 250
of them, that would leave 750 eggs for the rest. So you've got 90
people splitting 750 eggs, which comes to 8.33 eggs each, and 10 people
splitting 250 eggs, which comes to 25 eggs each. The 10 people
are
buying three times as many eggs as the 90. The percentage you
groped
for is therefore 300%. Your guess was off by a factor of 20.
You appear to have been born with a good mind. Too bad you have it
walled off from even the simplest forms of reality.
Look in the mirror, buddy. Look in the mirror.
Post by Mark Dintenfass
--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply
Michael Pendragon
2013-05-03 01:44:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Dintenfass
In article
Post by Michael Pendragon
Okay.  R&B would constitute 25% of total record sales.
But this higher ratio of sales doesn't in any way show that it also
constituted 25% of popular culture.  It merely shows that black
audiences purchased 15% more records than white ones.
Add arithmetic to the things you don't bother to think hard about.
To make it as simple as possible, let's pretend you had one thousand
eggs to sell to one hundred people.  If ten of these people bought 250
of them, that would leave 750 eggs for the rest. So you've got 90
people splitting 750 eggs, which comes to 8.33 eggs each, and 10 people
splitting 250 eggs, which comes to 25 eggs each. The 10 people are
buying three times as many eggs as the 90. The percentage you groped
for is therefore 300%.  Your guess was off by a factor of 20.
You appear to have been born with a good mind. Too bad you have it
walled off from even the simplest forms of reality.
Thanks for the (half) compliment. :-)

I've always had trouble with percentages.
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-02 23:12:00 UTC
Permalink
On May 2, 3:30 pm, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 2, 2:12 pm, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 2, 11:45 am, Michael Pendragon
I never said that it didn't count for anything.  I put its (cultural)
significance at roughly 10% of the pop chart (based on demographics
regarding the market it served).
It has to be more than that because the pop chart did not serve every
non white person in the country. There was also a country chart which
served most whites in the south.
For the 50s I'd put the R&B chart at about 25% (1/4) the importance of
the Pop chart and the country chart at about 17% (1/6) the importance
of the pop chart. There were far more big R&B hits that became big pop
hits than big country hits that became big pop hits. Most of the #1
R&B songs starting in 1956 were also big pop chart hits. Not so for
country.
In the early 50s, I the amount of Country and R&B songs that hit on
the Pop charts seem about even (probably a little more Country, but I
haven't ever counted).
But each year as the decade moved along there were more and more R&B
items that were becoming big pop hits, By 58 and 59 there were loads
of R&B hits that were also top ten pop chart hits, even several
numbers one hits, like "Stagger Lee" and "Yakety Yak" and "Get A Job"
and "Kansas City."
Because R'n'R temporarily blurred the lines btw R&B and Pop (since
many R'n'R songs crossed over into both categories).
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by Michael Pendragon
I also think you're mistaken in assuming that Country listeners didn't
also listen to Pop (not as much as they listened to Country, perhaps,
but enough to hear all the top songs).
No one is saying that country listeners don't listen to pop. I'm
saying that the sales and impact of country music then was about 1/6
of what the sales and impact of the pop hits were natiionally. There
were lots of places in the south where all you would hear is country
everywhere, just as there were lots of neighborhoods in big cities
where all you would hear was R&B.
Essentially a really big pop hit that was a million seller was
equivelent to an R&B hit that would sell about 250,000 copies and to a
country hit that would sell about 165,000 copies.
Okay.  R&B would constitute 25% of total record sales.
But this higher ratio of sales doesn't in any way show that it also
constituted 25% of popular culture.  It merely shows that black
audiences purchased 15% more records than white ones.
You're not too good in math. If blacks are 10% of the population that
means there are nine times as many non-blacks. If blacks buy 25% as
many totyal records as whites that would mean that they buy 250% more
than whites buy.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
The biggest pop records of the decade would sell 3-5 million copies
and the biggest R&B hits of the decade (Lawdy Miss Clawdy, Work With
Me Annie, Sixty Minute Man) would sell a million copies.
See above.
The only way you could convince me, would be to provide documented
data clearly showing that 15% of these sales were to white audiences.
Like I give a shit about convincing you. You've had your head up your
ass about this stuff ever since you got here. My gandfather only had a
handful of records that ever made the pop charts on Savoy but he had
loads of R&B chart hits and he made millions of dollars, and that was
a ton of money in those days. And there were several R&B labels that
were much more successful than Savoy. He also made lots of money
selling gospel records. James Cleveland sold millions of albums on
Savoy.
Sharx35
2013-05-02 23:47:04 UTC
Permalink
On May 2, 3:30 pm, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
On May 2, 2:12 pm, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
On May 2, 11:45 am, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
I never said that it didn't count for anything. I put its (cultural)
significance at roughly 10% of the pop chart (based on demographics
regarding the market it served).
It has to be more than that because the pop chart did not serve every
non white person in the country. There was also a country chart which
served most whites in the south.
For the 50s I'd put the R&B chart at about 25% (1/4) the importance of
the Pop chart and the country chart at about 17% (1/6) the importance
of the pop chart. There were far more big R&B hits that
became big pop
hits than big country hits that became big pop hits. Most of the #1
R&B songs starting in 1956 were also big pop chart hits. Not so for
country.
In the early 50s, I the amount of Country and R&B songs that hit on
the Pop charts seem about even (probably a little more
Country, but I
haven't ever counted).
But each year as the decade moved along there were more and
more R&B
items that were becoming big pop hits, By 58 and 59 there were loads
of R&B hits that were also top ten pop chart hits, even
several
numbers one hits, like "Stagger Lee" and "Yakety Yak" and "Get A Job"
and "Kansas City."
Because R'n'R temporarily blurred the lines btw R&B and Pop
(since
many R'n'R songs crossed over into both categories).
Post by Michael Pendragon
I also think you're mistaken in assuming that Country
listeners didn't
also listen to Pop (not as much as they listened to Country, perhaps,
but enough to hear all the top songs).
No one is saying that country listeners don't listen to pop. I'm
saying that the sales and impact of country music then was
about 1/6
of what the sales and impact of the pop hits were natiionally. There
were lots of places in the south where all you would hear is country
everywhere, just as there were lots of neighborhoods in big
cities
where all you would hear was R&B.
Essentially a really big pop hit that was a million seller was
equivelent to an R&B hit that would sell about 250,000 copies and to a
country hit that would sell about 165,000 copies.
Okay. R&B would constitute 25% of total record sales.
But this higher ratio of sales doesn't in any way show that it also
constituted 25% of popular culture. It merely shows that black
audiences purchased 15% more records than white ones.
You're not too good in math. If blacks are 10% of the population that
means there are nine times as many non-blacks. If blacks buy 25% as
many totyal records as whites that would mean that they buy 250% more
than whites buy.
Post by Michael Pendragon
The biggest pop records of the decade would sell 3-5 million copies
and the biggest R&B hits of the decade (Lawdy Miss Clawdy,
Work With
Me Annie, Sixty Minute Man) would sell a million copies.
See above.
The only way you could convince me, would be to provide
documented
data clearly showing that 15% of these sales were to white
audiences.
Like I give a shit about convincing you. You've had your head up your
ass about this stuff ever since you got here. My gandfather only had a
handful of records that ever made the pop charts on Savoy but he had
loads of R&B chart hits and he made millions of dollars, and that was
a ton of money in those days. And there were several R&B labels that
were much more successful than Savoy. He also made lots of money
selling gospel records. James Cleveland sold millions of albums on
Savoy.
I certainly have the greatest respect for both your and Peter's
relatives in the music business. They accomplished a lot and
profited for it, deservedly so. However great their success, I
don't think that it proves anything in this current discussion.
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-02 23:58:26 UTC
Permalink
When a record sold a million copies in the 1950s, that does not mean
that a million people bought copies. A very significant percentage of
those million copies were bought by jukebox companies. A big jukebox
operator might buy 100 or more copies of a real big hit like
"Blueberry Hill" or "Tennessee Waltz."

I would estimate that something like 20% of all sales of singles in
the 50s were to jukebox operators.
Sharx35
2013-05-03 00:08:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
When a record sold a million copies in the 1950s, that does not mean
that a million people bought copies. A very significant
percentage of
those million copies were bought by jukebox companies. A big
jukebox
operator might buy 100 or more copies of a real big hit like
"Blueberry Hill" or "Tennessee Waltz."
I would estimate that something like 20% of all sales of singles in
the 50s were to jukebox operators.
That applies to all genres, of course, so therefore can't be used
as ammo against the success of pop records.
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-03 00:14:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharx35
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
When a record sold a million copies in the 1950s, that does not mean
that a million people bought copies. A very significant
percentage of
those million copies were bought by jukebox companies. A big
jukebox
operator might buy 100 or more copies of a real big hit like
"Blueberry Hill" or "Tennessee Waltz."
I would estimate that something like 20% of all sales of singles in
the 50s were to jukebox operators.
That applies to all genres, of course, so therefore can't be used
as ammo against the success of pop records.
The point is that if an R&B record sold a million copies that doesn't
mean that a million people each bought a copy. A lot of those copies
were bought by jukebox operators.
Sharx35
2013-05-03 00:22:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by Sharx35
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
When a record sold a million copies in the 1950s, that does
not
mean
that a million people bought copies. A very significant
percentage of
those million copies were bought by jukebox companies. A big jukebox
operator might buy 100 or more copies of a real big hit like
"Blueberry Hill" or "Tennessee Waltz."
I would estimate that something like 20% of all sales of
singles
in
the 50s were to jukebox operators.
That applies to all genres, of course, so therefore can't be
used
as ammo against the success of pop records.
The point is that if an R&B record sold a million copies that
doesn't
mean that a million people each bought a copy. A lot of those
copies
were bought by jukebox operators.
But, once IN the jukeboxes, surely they made a good profit for SOME
of the people involved?
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-03 00:27:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharx35
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by Sharx35
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
When a record sold a million copies in the 1950s, that does
not
mean
that a million people bought copies. A very significant
percentage of
those million copies were bought by jukebox companies. A big jukebox
operator might buy 100 or more copies of a real big hit like
"Blueberry Hill" or "Tennessee Waltz."
I would estimate that something like 20% of all sales of
singles
in
the 50s were to jukebox operators.
That applies to all genres, of course, so therefore can't be used
as ammo against the success of pop records.
The point is that if an R&B record sold a million copies that doesn't
mean that a million people each bought a copy. A lot of those copies
were bought by jukebox operators.
But, once IN the jukeboxes, surely they made a good profit for SOME
of the people involved?
Absolutely.
Mark Dintenfass
2013-05-03 00:11:50 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
I would estimate that something like 20% of all sales of singles in
the 50s were to jukebox operators.
And since the jukebox business was substantially controlled by the Mob,
that was a big advantage for Italian singers. :-)
--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply
Sharx35
2013-05-03 00:20:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Dintenfass
In article
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
I would estimate that something like 20% of all sales of singles in
the 50s were to jukebox operators.
And since the jukebox business was substantially controlled by
the Mob,
that was a big advantage for Italian singers. :-)
Ah, yes, get ready folks..here it comes....in other words, IF the
jukebox business WASN'T "controlled by the Mob", black artists and
other non Casa Nostra type R&B artists would have done a lot better
Post by Mark Dintenfass
--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply
Michael Pendragon
2013-05-03 01:54:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharx35
Post by Mark Dintenfass
In article
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
I would estimate that something like 20% of all sales of singles in
the 50s were to jukebox operators.
And since the jukebox business was substantially controlled by the Mob,
that was a big advantage for Italian singers. :-)
Ah, yes, get ready folks..here it comes....in other words, IF the
jukebox business WASN'T "controlled by the Mob", black artists and
other non Casa Nostra type R&B artists would have done a lot better
Well the mob didn't control the R&B juke boxes. "That's My Desire"
was pulled from all the R&B jukes overnight when one of the jukebox
operators (an African-American) found out Frankie Laine was white.
(Mr. Laine wrote of this in his autobio.)
Mark Dintenfass
2013-05-02 23:58:02 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by Michael Pendragon
But this higher ratio of sales doesn't in any way show that it also
constituted 25% of popular culture.  It merely shows that black
audiences purchased 15% more records than white ones.
You're not too good in math. If blacks are 10% of the population that
means there are nine times as many non-blacks. If blacks buy 25% as
many totyal records as whites that would mean that they buy 250% more
than whites buy.
Closer, but see my post. (
--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply
Michael Pendragon
2013-05-03 01:49:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 2, 3:30 pm, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 2, 2:12 pm, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 2, 11:45 am, Michael Pendragon
I never said that it didn't count for anything.  I put its (cultural)
significance at roughly 10% of the pop chart (based on demographics
regarding the market it served).
It has to be more than that because the pop chart did not serve every
non white person in the country. There was also a country chart which
served most whites in the south.
For the 50s I'd put the R&B chart at about 25% (1/4) the importance of
the Pop chart and the country chart at about 17% (1/6) the importance
of the pop chart. There were far more big R&B hits that became big pop
hits than big country hits that became big pop hits. Most of the #1
R&B songs starting in 1956 were also big pop chart hits. Not so for
country.
In the early 50s, I the amount of Country and R&B songs that hit on
the Pop charts seem about even (probably a little more Country, but I
haven't ever counted).
But each year as the decade moved along there were more and more R&B
items that were becoming big pop hits, By 58 and 59 there were loads
of R&B hits that were also top ten pop chart hits, even several
numbers one hits, like "Stagger Lee" and "Yakety Yak" and "Get A Job"
and "Kansas City."
Because R'n'R temporarily blurred the lines btw R&B and Pop (since
many R'n'R songs crossed over into both categories).
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by Michael Pendragon
I also think you're mistaken in assuming that Country listeners didn't
also listen to Pop (not as much as they listened to Country, perhaps,
but enough to hear all the top songs).
No one is saying that country listeners don't listen to pop. I'm
saying that the sales and impact of country music then was about 1/6
of what the sales and impact of the pop hits were natiionally. There
were lots of places in the south where all you would hear is country
everywhere, just as there were lots of neighborhoods in big cities
where all you would hear was R&B.
Essentially a really big pop hit that was a million seller was
equivelent to an R&B hit that would sell about 250,000 copies and to a
country hit that would sell about 165,000 copies.
Okay.  R&B would constitute 25% of total record sales.
But this higher ratio of sales doesn't in any way show that it also
constituted 25% of popular culture.  It merely shows that black
audiences purchased 15% more records than white ones.
You're not too good in math. If blacks are 10% of the population that
means there are nine times as many non-blacks. If blacks buy 25% as
many totyal records as whites that would mean that they buy 250% more
than whites buy.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
The biggest pop records of the decade would sell 3-5 million copies
and the biggest R&B hits of the decade (Lawdy Miss Clawdy, Work With
Me Annie, Sixty Minute Man) would sell a million copies.
See above.
The only way you could convince me, would be to provide documented
data clearly showing that 15% of these sales were to white audiences.
Like I give a shit about convincing you. You've had your head up your
ass about this stuff ever since you got here. My gandfather only had a
handful of records that ever made the pop charts on Savoy but he had
loads of R&B chart hits and he made millions of dollars, and that was
a ton of money in those days. And there were several R&B labels that
were much more successful than Savoy. He also made lots of money
selling gospel records. James Cleveland sold millions of albums on
Savoy.
I'm not denying that he made millions (in 1950s dollars). Even if he
made trillions, it wouldn't change the fact that the sales were
largely limited to 10% of the population who's musical culture was
separate from that of the other 90% (mainstream culture).
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-03 01:57:54 UTC
Permalink
On May 2, 9:49 pm, Michael Pendragon
I'm not denying that he made millions (in 1950s dollars).  Even if he
made trillions, it wouldn't change the fact that the sales were
largely limited to 10% of the population who's musical culture was
separate from that of the other 90% (mainstream culture).
Like you said, you've always had trouble with percentages.

Not every non-black person was white, and not every white person was
part of mainstream culture, especially when it came to music. Think
about Charles Emerson Winchester on MASH, listening only to classical
music and rudely mocking any pop music that was mentioned.

It's unlikely that even 50% of the American population was aware of
the popular music of the day in the early 50s. There were lots of pre
school kids who were too young to care, lots of senior citizens who
longed for their Jolson and Billy Murray records, lots of immigrants
who listened to their own cultural music, whether it be Latin, Opera,
Italian or whatever. Not to mention all the whites in most of the
south who were more interested in Webb Pierce and Hank Williams and
Ernest Tubb and Roy Acuff then they were in Tony Bennett and Frank
Sinatra and Frankie Laine. The Grand Ole Opry WAS mainstream culture
for millions of peoiple in the south.
Michael Pendragon
2013-05-03 04:35:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 2, 9:49 pm, Michael Pendragon
I'm not denying that he made millions (in 1950s dollars).  Even if he
made trillions, it wouldn't change the fact that the sales were
largely limited to 10% of the population who's musical culture was
separate from that of the other 90% (mainstream culture).
Like you said, you've always had trouble with percentages.
Not every non-black person was white, and not every white person was
part of mainstream culture, especially when it came to music. Think
about Charles Emerson Winchester on MASH, listening only to classical
music and rudely mocking any pop music that was mentioned.
Yes, I know, but I like to round numbers off -- makes it easier for my
mathematically challenged mind to grasp.
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
It's unlikely that even 50% of the American population was aware of
the popular music of the day in the early 50s.
I think you mean "it's likely."

I disagree. It was on the radio, on the tv, on Broadway, in
nightclubs, dinner theater, and in the movies. Apart from going to
baseball games, it was a big part of any available form of
entertainment.
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
There were lots of pre
school kids who were too young to care, lots of senior citizens who
longed for their Jolson and Billy Murray records, lots of immigrants
who listened to their own cultural music, whether it be Latin, Opera,
Italian or whatever.
I discount the pre-schoolers and seniors -- both in Pop and R&B
groups, so it evens out.
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Not to mention all the whites in most of the
south who were more interested in Webb Pierce and Hank Williams and
Ernest Tubb and Roy Acuff then they were in Tony Bennett and Frank
Sinatra and Frankie Laine. The Grand Ole Opry WAS mainstream culture
for millions of peoiple in the south.
They may have been more interested in the hillbilly singers, but if
they participated in society, they were repeatedly exposed to Pop.
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-03 04:44:26 UTC
Permalink
On May 3, 12:35 am, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 2, 9:49 pm, Michael Pendragon
I'm not denying that he made millions (in 1950s dollars).  Even if he
made trillions, it wouldn't change the fact that the sales were
largely limited to 10% of the population who's musical culture was
separate from that of the other 90% (mainstream culture).
Like you said, you've always had trouble with percentages.
Not every non-black person was white, and not every white person was
part of mainstream culture, especially when it came to music. Think
about Charles Emerson Winchester on MASH, listening only to classical
music and rudely mocking any pop music that was mentioned.
Yes, I know, but I like to round numbers off -- makes it easier for my
mathematically challenged mind to grasp.
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
It's unlikely that even 50% of the American population was aware of
the popular music of the day in the early 50s.
I think you mean "it's likely."
I disagree.  It was on the radio, on the tv, on Broadway, in
nightclubs, dinner theater, and in the movies.  Apart from going to
baseball games, it was a big part of any available form of
entertainment.
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
There were lots of pre
school kids who were too young to care, lots of senior citizens who
longed for their Jolson and Billy Murray records, lots of immigrants
who listened to their own cultural music, whether it be Latin, Opera,
Italian or whatever.
I discount the pre-schoolers and seniors -- both in Pop and R&B
groups, so it evens out.
They count.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Not to mention all the whites in most of the
south who were more interested in Webb Pierce and Hank Williams and
Ernest Tubb and Roy Acuff then they were in Tony Bennett and Frank
Sinatra and Frankie Laine. The Grand Ole Opry WAS mainstream culture
for millions of peoiple in the south.
They may have been more interested in the hillbilly singers, but if
they participated in society, they were repeatedly exposed to Pop.
In society of places like Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South
Carolina, etc....The Grand Ole Opry was it. Haven't you ever watched
"The Waltons?" Yes, they were aware of Bing Crosby, but they were also
well aware of Roy Acuff and Ernest Tubb and especially Jimmy Davis's
"You Are My Sunshine."

The Grand Ole Opry is a weekly country music stage concert in
Nashville, Tennessee, that has presented the biggest stars of that
genre since 1925. It is also among the longest-running broadcasts in
history since its beginnings November 28, 1925, as a one-hour radio
"barn dance" on WSM.[1][2] Dedicated to honoring country music and its
history, the Opry showcases a mix of legends and contemporary chart-
toppers performing country, bluegrass, folk, gospel, and comedic
performances and skits.[3] Considered an American icon, it attracts
hundreds of thousands of visitors from around the world and millions
of radio and Internet listeners. The Opry is "the show that made
country music famous"[4] and has been called the "home of American
music" and "country’s most famous stage."[3] The Grand Ole Opry is
owned and operated by Ryman Hospitality Properties, Inc.

In the 1930s, the show began hiring professionals and expanded to four
hours; and WSM, broadcasting by then with 50,000 watts, made the
program a Saturday night musical tradition in nearly 30 states.[5] In
1939, it debuted nationally on NBC Radio. The Opry moved to a
permanent home, the Ryman Auditorium, in 1943. As it developed in
importance, so did the city of Nashville, which became America's
"country music capital".[6]

Membership in the Opry remains one of country music's crowning
achievements.[7] Such country music legends as Hank Williams, Patsy
Cline, Roy Acuff, the Carter family, Bill Monroe, Ernest Tubb, Kitty
Wells and Minnie Pearl became regulars on the Opry's stage (although
Williams was banned in 1952 due to frequent drunkenness). In recent
decades, the Opry has hosted such contemporary country stars as Dolly
Parton, Garth Brooks, Reba McEntire, Josh Turner, Carrie Underwood,
Brad Paisley, Rascal Flatts, Dierks Bentley, Kellie Pickler and the
Dixie Chicks. Since 1974, the show has been broadcast from the Grand
Ole Opry House east of downtown Nashville and performances have been
sporadically televised in addition to the radio programs.

The Grand Ole Opry started as the WSM Barn Dance in the new fifth-
floor radio studio of the National Life & Accident Insurance Company
in downtown Nashville on November 28, 1925. On October 18, 1925,
management began a program featuring "Dr. Humphrey Bate and his string
quartet of old-time musicians." On November 2, WSM hired long-time
announcer and program director George D. "Judge" Hay, an enterprising
pioneer from the National Barn Dance program at WLS in Chicago, who
was also named the most popular radio announcer in America as a result
of his radio work with both WLS and WMC in Memphis, Tennessee. Hay
launched the WSM Barn Dance with 77-year-old fiddler Uncle Jimmy
Thompson on November 28, 1925, which is celebrated as the birth date
of the Grand Ole Opry.[8]

Some of the bands regularly on the show during its early days included
Bill Monroe the Possum Hunters (with Dr. Humphrey Bate), the Fruit Jar
Drinkers, the Crook Brothers, the Binkley Brothers' Dixie Clodhoppers,
Uncle Dave Macon, Sid Harkreader, Deford Bailey, Fiddlin' Arthur
Smith, and the Gully Jumpers.[9]

Judge Hay, however, liked the Fruit Jar Drinkers and asked them to
appear last on each show because he wanted to always close each
segment with "red hot fiddle playing." They were the second band
accepted on Barn Dance, with the Crook Brothers being the first. When
the Opry began having square dancers on the show, the Fruit Jar
Drinkers always played for them. In 1926, Uncle Dave Macon, a
Tennessee banjo player who had recorded several songs and toured the
vaudeville circuit, became its first real star.[9]

[edit] NameOn December 10, 1927 the phrase 'Grand Ole Opry' was first
uttered on-air.[10] That night Barn Dance followed the NBC Red
Network's Music Appreciation Hour, which consisted of classical music
and selections from the Grand Opera genre with Walter Damrosch as
Master of Ceremonies (MC). That night Damrosch remarked that “there is
no place in the classics for realism,” In response Hay said

"Friends, the program which just came to a close was devoted to the
classics. Doctor Damrosch told us that there is no place in the
classics for realism. However, from here on out for the next three
hours, we will present nothing but realism. It will be down to earth
for the 'earthy'."
Hay then introduced DeFord Bailey, the man he had dubbed the
"Harmonica Wizard", with

"For the past hour, we have been listening to music taken largely from
Grand Opera. From now on, we will present the 'Grand Ole Opry'."
Bailey then stepped up to the mike to play "The Pan American Blues",
his song inspired by the Pan American, a L&N Railroad express/
passenger train.[10][11]

[edit] Larger venuesAs audiences for the live show increased, National
Life & Accident Insurance's radio venue became too small to
accommodate the hordes of fans. They built a larger studio, but it was
still not large enough. After several months with no audiences,
National Life decided to allow the show to move outside its home
offices. In October 1934, the Opry moved into then-suburban Hillsboro
Theatre (now the Belcourt); and then on June 13, 1936, to the Dixie
Tabernacle in East Nashville. The Opry then moved to the War Memorial
Auditorium, a downtown venue adjacent to the State Capitol. A 25-cent
admission was charged to try to curb the large crowds, but to no
avail. On June 5, 1943, the Opry moved to the Ryman Auditorium.


Roy Acuff
Ryman Auditorium, the "Mother Church of Country Music"Top-charting
country music acts performed during the Ryman years, including Roy
Acuff, called the King of Country Music, Hank Williams, Webb Pierce,
Faron Young, Martha Carson, Lefty Frizzell, and many others.

One hour of the Opry was nationally-broadcast by the NBC Red Network
from 1939 to 1956; for much of its run, it aired one hour after the
program that had inspired it, National Barn Dance. The NBC segment,
originally known by the name of its sponsor, The Prince Albert Show,
was first hosted by Acuff, who was succeeded by Red Foley from 1946 to
1954. From October 15, 1955 to September 1956, ABC-TV aired a live,
hour-long television version once a month on Saturday nights
(sponsored by Ralston-Purina), pre-empting one hour of the then-90-
minute Ozark Jubilee. From 1955–57, Al Gannaway owned and produced
both The Country Show and Stars of the Grand Ole Opry, filmed programs
syndicated by Flamingo Films.[12]

On October 2, 1954, a teenage Elvis Presley made his only Opry
performance. Although the audience reacted politely to his
revolutionary brand of rockabilly music, after the show he was told by
Opry manager Jim Denny that he ought to return to Memphis to resume
his truck-driving career, prompting him to swear never to return. In
an era when the Grand Ole Opry represented solely country music,
audiences did not accept Presley on the Opry because of his infusion
of rhythm and blues as well as his infamous body gyrations, which many
viewed as vulgar. In the 1990s, Garth Brooks was made a member of the
Opry and was credited with selling more records than any other singer
since Presley. Brooks commented that one of the best parts of playing
on the Opry was that he appeared on the same stage as Presley.
Sharx35
2013-05-03 04:49:07 UTC
Permalink
On May 2, 9:49 pm, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
I'm not denying that he made millions (in 1950s dollars). Even if he
made trillions, it wouldn't change the fact that the sales were
largely limited to 10% of the population who's musical culture was
separate from that of the other 90% (mainstream culture).
Like you said, you've always had trouble with percentages.
Not every non-black person was white, and not every white person was
part of mainstream culture, especially when it came to music.
Think
about Charles Emerson Winchester on MASH, listening only to
classical
music and rudely mocking any pop music that was mentioned.
It's unlikely that even 50% of the American population was aware of
the popular music of the day in the early 50s. There were lots of pre
school kids who were too young to care, lots of senior citizens who
longed for their Jolson and Billy Murray records, lots of
immigrants
who listened to their own cultural music, whether it be Latin,
Opera,
Italian or whatever. Not to mention all the whites in most of the
south who were more interested in Webb Pierce and Hank Williams and
Ernest Tubb and Roy Acuff then they were in Tony Bennett and
Frank
Sinatra and Frankie Laine. The Grand Ole Opry WAS mainstream
culture
for millions of peoiple in the south.
We are NOT talking about the entire population--we are talking
about that part of the population who is physically and mentally
capable of making buying decisions re music. THAT narrows it down.
Some of you continue to argue in a manner that can best be
described as SOPHISTRY. Look it up. Google IS your friend...or,
perhaps, enemy, if discounting prevarication and emphasizing truth
is what results.
BobbyM
2013-05-03 05:16:52 UTC
Permalink
We are NOT talking about the entire population--we are talking about
that part of the population who is physically and mentally capable of
making buying decisions re music.
Since when does anyone have to be physically & mentally capable to buy
anything? For most purchases of a commodity, there is no physical or
mental requirement, unless so stipulated by law such as minimum age
(technically based on mentality) or mental capacity (such as to buy a
gun, but unfortunately only sometimes required by law and/or enforced).
Sharx35
2013-05-03 06:15:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by BobbyM
We are NOT talking about the entire population--we are talking about
that part of the population who is physically and mentally
capable of
making buying decisions re music.
Since when does anyone have to be physically & mentally capable
to buy anything? For most purchases of a commodity, there is no
physical or mental requirement, unless so stipulated by law such
as minimum age (technically based on mentality) or mental
capacity (such as to buy a gun, but unfortunately only sometimes
required by law and/or enforced).
Typical liberal gobbledygook. 10 to 1 he voted for Nobama!

Sharx35
2013-05-02 23:43:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
On May 2, 11:45 am, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
I never said that it didn't count for anything. I put its
(cultural)
significance at roughly 10% of the pop chart (based on
demographics
regarding the market it served).
It has to be more than that because the pop chart did not serve every
non white person in the country. There was also a country chart which
served most whites in the south.
For the 50s I'd put the R&B chart at about 25% (1/4) the
importance of
the Pop chart and the country chart at about 17% (1/6) the
importance
of the pop chart. There were far more big R&B hits that became big pop
hits than big country hits that became big pop hits. Most of the #1
R&B songs starting in 1956 were also big pop chart hits. Not so for
country.
In the early 50s, I the amount of Country and R&B songs that hit on
the Pop charts seem about even (probably a little more Country, but I
haven't ever counted).
I also think you're mistaken in assuming that Country listeners didn't
also listen to Pop (not as much as they listened to Country,
perhaps,
but enough to hear all the top songs).
Up here in Edmonton, in the late 50s and early 60s there were a LOT
of country hits crossing over to the pop chart and vice versa.
Michael Pendragon
2013-05-02 15:39:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by Sharx35
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Since you quoted one of his song titles (How Many More Years), Howlin'
Wolf started making records in 1951 and was performing for more than a
decade before that.
But not charting, even if there had been more appropriate charts
available.
Oh yes it charted, it was a top 5 R&B chart hit, and if you're gonna
tell me that the R&B chart doesn't count, I'm gonna go back and
reinstate all the number one R&B songs that you've shitcanned in the
current contest.
That'd be cheating.

I'm guessing I shitcanned one of your favorites?
Sharx35
2013-05-02 04:41:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
On May 1, 11:30 pm, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
But the question of talent aside, I really can't fathom the
idea of
placing post-60s artists on any "all-time greatest" lists. I don't
care how many records The Bee Gees, Jacko or U2 have sold (and I still
maintain their sales numbers need to be adjusted for the
increase in
world population), they simply haven't been around long enough to
compare with a true musical legend.
The Bee Gees have been around for 50 years now. Thier first
single was
released in 1963.
Elvis started in 1954, 59 years ago. How many years are required for a
true musical legend?
But the Bee Gees had the bulk of their success in the 70s. But it
isn't so much a matter of how many years so-and-so has been
performing
as it's a matter of how many *more* years other artists have.
Elvis probably earned at least 10 times more "iconic status" than
the Bee Gees did.
Sharx35
2013-05-02 04:40:21 UTC
Permalink
On May 1, 11:30 pm, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
But the question of talent aside, I really can't fathom the idea of
placing post-60s artists on any "all-time greatest" lists. I
don't
care how many records The Bee Gees, Jacko or U2 have sold (and I still
maintain their sales numbers need to be adjusted for the
increase in
world population), they simply haven't been around long enough to
compare with a true musical legend.
The Bee Gees have been around for 50 years now. Thier first
single was
released in 1963.
If I hear "Stayin' Alive" any more, I'll surely hurl.
Elvis started in 1954, 59 years ago. How many years are required for a
true musical legend?
Elvis IS an icon.
Tim
2013-05-03 03:38:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharx35
On May 1, 11:30 pm, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
But the question of talent aside, I really can't fathom the idea of
placing post-60s artists on any "all-time greatest" lists.  I don't
care how many records The Bee Gees, Jacko or U2 have sold (and I still
maintain their sales numbers need to be adjusted for the
increase in
world population), they simply haven't been around long enough to
compare with a true musical legend.
The Bee Gees have been around for 50 years now. Thier first
single was
released in 1963.
If I hear "Stayin' Alive" any more, I'll surely hurl.
Elvis started in 1954, 59 years ago. How many years are required for a
true musical legend?
Elvis IS an icon.
So's Jim Morrison, only Morrison chose a Bathtub rather than a
Porcelain Throne, to embarrass and taint his prescription drug addict
image as an icon.
Sharx35
2013-05-03 04:51:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by Sharx35
On May 1, 11:30 pm, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
But the question of talent aside, I really can't fathom the
idea
of
placing post-60s artists on any "all-time greatest" lists. I don't
care how many records The Bee Gees, Jacko or U2 have sold
(and I
still
maintain their sales numbers need to be adjusted for the
increase in
world population), they simply haven't been around long
enough
to
compare with a true musical legend.
The Bee Gees have been around for 50 years now. Thier first
single was
released in 1963.
If I hear "Stayin' Alive" any more, I'll surely hurl.
Elvis started in 1954, 59 years ago. How many years are
required
for a
true musical legend?
Elvis IS an icon.
So's Jim Morrison, only Morrison chose a Bathtub rather than a
Porcelain Throne, to embarrass and taint his prescription drug
addict
image as an icon.
I understand that Jim's gravesite in Paris is quite the tourist
attraction.
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-03 04:52:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharx35
I understand that Jim's gravesite in Paris is quite the tourist
attraction.
Yes, many thousands of people go there every year.
x***@gmail.com
2013-05-02 16:35:46 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 1 May 2013 20:30:22 -0700 (PDT), Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
But the question of talent aside, I really can't fathom the idea of
placing post-60s artists on any "all-time greatest" lists. I don't
care how many records The Bee Gees, Jacko or U2 have sold (and I still
maintain their sales numbers need to be adjusted for the increase in
world population), they simply haven't been around long enough to
compare with a true musical legend.
Like Edith (Rice) Piaf?
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-02 16:39:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@gmail.com
On Wed, 1 May 2013 20:30:22 -0700 (PDT), Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
But the question of talent aside, I really can't fathom the idea of
placing post-60s artists on any "all-time greatest" lists.  I don't
care how many records The Bee Gees, Jacko or U2 have sold (and I still
maintain their sales numbers need to be adjusted for the increase in
world population), they simply haven't been around long enough to
compare with a true musical legend.
Like Edith (Rice) Piaf?
They rank her at #463 of all time on the song list amd they list 25
different songs by her as being popular, which includes one duet.

http://tsort.info/music/qsue9u.htm
Tim
2013-05-03 03:10:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharx35
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by Sharx35
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
The top 100 worldwide music acts of all time, including songs and
Edited to remove flash-in-the-panners, groups/artists with no
staying power, I.e. in 20 years they will be forgotten, and
other
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
16 Billy Murray 1907
Billy Murray will still be remembered in 20 years but Madonna will be
forgotten?
Dave, I think you're back on the sauce.
Hah. No, however that is just to show how much I despise much of
what has been recorded since the mid to late 60's. I absolutely
LOATHE the great majority of what has been released since that
time. Even Wynonie and Mr. H. Wolf sound better, no question, than
pretenders to talent such as Springstreen or Madonna.
Only a complete reversal of your LOATHING of mid to late 60's music
shall set you free.
Sharx35
2013-05-03 04:50:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by Sharx35
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by Sharx35
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
The top 100 worldwide music acts of all time, including
songs
and
Edited to remove flash-in-the-panners, groups/artists with no
staying power, I.e. in 20 years they will be forgotten, and other
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
16 Billy Murray 1907
Billy Murray will still be remembered in 20 years but Madonna will be
forgotten?
Dave, I think you're back on the sauce.
Hah. No, however that is just to show how much I despise much of
what has been recorded since the mid to late 60's. I absolutely
LOATHE the great majority of what has been released since that
time. Even Wynonie and Mr. H. Wolf sound better, no question,
than
pretenders to talent such as Springstreen or Madonna.
Only a complete reversal of your LOATHING of mid to late 60's
music
shall set you free.
Ah, you are so droll! The TRUTH shall set YOU free, Tim.
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-02 03:57:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
The top 100 worldwide music acts of all time, including songs and
99 Frankie Laine 1949
I would think you'd be ecstatic that Laine is still in the top 100 at
this point. There's only a handful of male vocalists who started
before him that are on the list. Considering that his career was over
more than 40 years ago, for him to still rank this high is amazing.
Michael Pendragon
2013-05-02 04:05:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
The top 100 worldwide music acts of all time, including songs and
99 Frankie Laine 1949
I would think you'd be ecstatic that Laine is still in the top 100 at
this point. There's only a handful of male vocalists who started
before him that are on the list. Considering that his career was over
more than 40 years ago, for him to still rank this high is amazing.
I'm happy that he's on the list -- but I was happy with the list that
put him at #28.

What bothers me about the list is the lack of ... just about everyone
else from the 40s and early 50s.
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-02 04:09:49 UTC
Permalink
On May 2, 12:05 am, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
The top 100 worldwide music acts of all time, including songs and
99 Frankie Laine 1949
I would think you'd be ecstatic that Laine is still in the top 100 at
this point. There's only a handful of male vocalists who started
before him that are on the list. Considering that his career was over
more than 40 years ago, for him to still rank this high is amazing.
I'm happy that he's on the list -- but I was happy with the list that
put him at #28.
What bothers me about the list is the lack of ... just about everyone
else from the 40s and early 50s.
Sinatra is on there. Nat King Cole is on there. Guy Lombardo is on
there. How many acts do you think are gonna be there from one 5 to 8
year period?
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-02 04:21:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 2, 12:05 am, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
The top 100 worldwide music acts of all time, including songs and
99 Frankie Laine 1949
I would think you'd be ecstatic that Laine is still in the top 100 at
this point. There's only a handful of male vocalists who started
before him that are on the list. Considering that his career was over
more than 40 years ago, for him to still rank this high is amazing.
I'm happy that he's on the list -- but I was happy with the list that
put him at #28.
What bothers me about the list is the lack of ... just about everyone
else from the 40s and early 50s.
Sinatra is on there. Nat King Cole is on there. Guy Lombardo is on
there. How many acts do you think are gonna be there from one 5 to 8
year period?
Here's everybody who was popular in both the 40s and early 50s,

3 Frank Sinatra 1957
6 Bing Crosby 1933
10 Duke Ellington 1933
11 Louis Armstrong 1932
14 Guy Lombardo 1937
18 Nat King Cole 1952
30 Perry Como 1946
61 Ella Fitzgerald 1950
70 Billie Holiday 1937
78 Sammy Kaye 1946
80 The Andrews Sisters 1938
99 Frankie Laine 1949

12 names out of 100 is a lot, considering the kist civers over 100
years.
Michael Pendragon
2013-05-02 04:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 2, 12:05 am, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
The top 100 worldwide music acts of all time, including songs and
99 Frankie Laine 1949
I would think you'd be ecstatic that Laine is still in the top 100 at
this point. There's only a handful of male vocalists who started
before him that are on the list. Considering that his career was over
more than 40 years ago, for him to still rank this high is amazing.
I'm happy that he's on the list -- but I was happy with the list that
put him at #28.
What bothers me about the list is the lack of ... just about everyone
else from the 40s and early 50s.
Sinatra is on there. Nat King Cole is on there. Guy Lombardo is on
there. How many acts do you think are gonna be there from one 5 to 8
year period?
Here's everybody who was popular in both the 40s and early 50s,
3 Frank Sinatra 1957
6 Bing Crosby 1933
10 Duke Ellington 1933
11 Louis Armstrong 1932
14 Guy Lombardo 1937
18 Nat King Cole 1952
30 Perry Como 1946
61 Ella Fitzgerald 1950
70 Billie Holiday 1937
78 Sammy Kaye 1946
80 The Andrews Sisters 1938
99 Frankie Laine 1949
12 names out of 100 is a lot, considering the kist civers over 100
years.
I would add the following (at the expense of the later acts):

Patti Page
Kay Starr
Johnnie Ray
Eddie Fisher
Guy Mitchell
Judy Garland
Pat Boone
Connie Francis
Bobby Darin
Patsy Cline
Jim Reeves
Doris Day
Rosemary Clooney and
Peggy Lee

for starters.
Sharx35
2013-05-02 04:59:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 2, 12:05 am, Michael Pendragon
On May 1, 11:57 pm, The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
The top 100 worldwide music acts of all time, including songs and
99 Frankie Laine 1949
I would think you'd be ecstatic that Laine is still in the top 100 at
this point. There's only a handful of male vocalists who started
before him that are on the list. Considering that his
career was over
more than 40 years ago, for him to still rank this high is amazing.
I'm happy that he's on the list -- but I was happy with the list that
put him at #28.
What bothers me about the list is the lack of ... just about everyone
else from the 40s and early 50s.
Sinatra is on there. Nat King Cole is on there. Guy Lombardo is on
there. How many acts do you think are gonna be there from one 5 to 8
year period?
Here's everybody who was popular in both the 40s and early 50s,
3 Frank Sinatra 1957
6 Bing Crosby 1933
10 Duke Ellington 1933
11 Louis Armstrong 1932
14 Guy Lombardo 1937
18 Nat King Cole 1952
30 Perry Como 1946
61 Ella Fitzgerald 1950
70 Billie Holiday 1937
78 Sammy Kaye 1946
80 The Andrews Sisters 1938
99 Frankie Laine 1949
12 names out of 100 is a lot, considering the kist civers over 100
years.
Patti Page
Kay Starr
Johnnie Ray
Eddie Fisher
Guy Mitchell
Judy Garland
Pat Boone
Connie Francis
Bobby Darin
Patsy Cline
Jim Reeves
Doris Day
Rosemary Clooney and
Peggy Lee
for starters.
Okay, agreed. However, Michael, who would you remove to make room
for the above?
Michael Pendragon
2013-05-02 15:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharx35
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 2, 12:05 am, Michael Pendragon
On May 1, 11:57 pm, The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
The top 100 worldwide music acts of all time, including songs and
99 Frankie Laine 1949
I would think you'd be ecstatic that Laine is still in the top 100 at
this point. There's only a handful of male vocalists who started
before him that are on the list. Considering that his
career was over
more than 40 years ago, for him to still rank this high is amazing.
I'm happy that he's on the list -- but I was happy with the list that
put him at #28.
What bothers me about the list is the lack of ... just about everyone
else from the 40s and early 50s.
Sinatra is on there. Nat King Cole is on there. Guy Lombardo is on
there. How many acts do you think are gonna be there from one 5 to 8
year period?
Here's everybody who was popular in both the 40s and early 50s,
3 Frank Sinatra 1957
6 Bing Crosby 1933
10 Duke Ellington 1933
11 Louis Armstrong 1932
14 Guy Lombardo 1937
18 Nat King Cole 1952
30 Perry Como 1946
61 Ella Fitzgerald 1950
70 Billie Holiday 1937
78 Sammy Kaye 1946
80 The Andrews Sisters 1938
99 Frankie Laine 1949
12 names out of 100 is a lot, considering the kist civers over 100
years.
Patti Page
Kay Starr
Johnnie Ray
Eddie Fisher
Guy Mitchell
Judy Garland
Pat Boone
Connie Francis
Bobby Darin
Patsy Cline
Jim Reeves
Doris Day
Rosemary Clooney and
Peggy Lee
for starters.
Okay, agreed. However, Michael, who would you remove to make room
for the above?- Hide quoted text -
Here's 14 I'd drop in a second:

84 Donna Summer 1979
85 George Michael 1987
87 Bryan Adams 1991
88 Status Quo 1975
89 The Cure 1989
90 Aerosmith 1993
91 Electric Light Orchestra 1979
92 Sting 1985
93 John Coltrane 1964
94 Diana Ross 1980
95 Jethro Tull 1972
97 Jimi Hendrix 1967
98 Eminem 2002
100 Aretha Franklin 1968

And there are plenty more I'd gladly give the boot.
Sharx35
2013-05-02 17:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by Sharx35
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 2, 12:09 am, The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 2, 12:05 am, Michael Pendragon
On May 1, 11:57 pm, The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 1, 12:42 pm, The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
The top 100 worldwide music acts of all time,
including
songs and
99 Frankie Laine 1949
I would think you'd be ecstatic that Laine is still in
the
top 100 at
this point. There's only a handful of male vocalists
who
started
before him that are on the list. Considering that his career was over
more than 40 years ago, for him to still rank this high
is
amazing.
I'm happy that he's on the list -- but I was happy with
the
list that
put him at #28.
What bothers me about the list is the lack of ... just
about
everyone
else from the 40s and early 50s.
Sinatra is on there. Nat King Cole is on there. Guy
Lombardo
is on
there. How many acts do you think are gonna be there from
one
5 to 8
year period?
Here's everybody who was popular in both the 40s and early
50s,
3 Frank Sinatra 1957
6 Bing Crosby 1933
10 Duke Ellington 1933
11 Louis Armstrong 1932
14 Guy Lombardo 1937
18 Nat King Cole 1952
30 Perry Como 1946
61 Ella Fitzgerald 1950
70 Billie Holiday 1937
78 Sammy Kaye 1946
80 The Andrews Sisters 1938
99 Frankie Laine 1949
12 names out of 100 is a lot, considering the kist civers
over
100
years.
Patti Page
Kay Starr
Johnnie Ray
Eddie Fisher
Guy Mitchell
Judy Garland
Pat Boone
Connie Francis
Bobby Darin
Patsy Cline
Jim Reeves
Doris Day
Rosemary Clooney and
Peggy Lee
for starters.
Okay, agreed. However, Michael, who would you remove to make
room
for the above?- Hide quoted text -
84 Donna Summer 1979
85 George Michael 1987
87 Bryan Adams 1991
88 Status Quo 1975
89 The Cure 1989
90 Aerosmith 1993
91 Electric Light Orchestra 1979
92 Sting 1985
93 John Coltrane 1964
94 Diana Ross 1980
95 Jethro Tull 1972
97 Jimi Hendrix 1967
98 Eminem 2002
100 Aretha Franklin 1968
And there are plenty more I'd gladly give the boot.
Agreed. I'd already forgotten most of that NON talent.
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-02 05:54:50 UTC
Permalink
On May 2, 12:56 am, Michael Pendragon
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 2, 12:05 am, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
The top 100 worldwide music acts of all time, including songs and
99 Frankie Laine 1949
I would think you'd be ecstatic that Laine is still in the top 100 at
this point. There's only a handful of male vocalists who started
before him that are on the list. Considering that his career was over
more than 40 years ago, for him to still rank this high is amazing.
I'm happy that he's on the list -- but I was happy with the list that
put him at #28.
What bothers me about the list is the lack of ... just about everyone
else from the 40s and early 50s.
Sinatra is on there. Nat King Cole is on there. Guy Lombardo is on
there. How many acts do you think are gonna be there from one 5 to 8
year period?
Here's everybody who was popular in both the 40s and early 50s,
3 Frank Sinatra 1957
6 Bing Crosby 1933
10 Duke Ellington 1933
11 Louis Armstrong 1932
14 Guy Lombardo 1937
18 Nat King Cole 1952
30 Perry Como 1946
61 Ella Fitzgerald 1950
70 Billie Holiday 1937
78 Sammy Kaye 1946
80 The Andrews Sisters 1938
99 Frankie Laine 1949
12 names out of 100 is a lot, considering the list covers over 100
years.
Patti Page
Kay Starr
Johnnie Ray
Eddie Fisher
Guy Mitchell
Judy Garland
Pat Boone
Connie Francis
Bobby Darin
Patsy Cline
Jim Reeves
Doris Day
Rosemary Clooney and
Peggy Lee
for starters.
The list has nothing to do with who you like. It's strictly based on
numbers, how big singles and albums were in all countries, how much
acclaim those singles and albums have, how many awards those singles
and albums have. It's not about who likes what, it's about an
objective measure of who were the most popular acts.

Jim Reeves only had four singles that even made the top 40. How can he
possibly be more popular than Madonna or U2 ?
Sharx35
2013-05-02 07:30:05 UTC
Permalink
On May 2, 12:56 am, Michael Pendragon
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 2, 12:05 am, Michael Pendragon
On May 1, 11:57 pm, The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 1, 12:42 pm, The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
The top 100 worldwide music acts of all time,
including songs and
99 Frankie Laine 1949
I would think you'd be ecstatic that Laine is still in the top 100 at
this point. There's only a handful of male vocalists who started
before him that are on the list. Considering that his
career was over
more than 40 years ago, for him to still rank this high is amazing.
I'm happy that he's on the list -- but I was happy with
the list that
put him at #28.
What bothers me about the list is the lack of ... just
about everyone
else from the 40s and early 50s.
Sinatra is on there. Nat King Cole is on there. Guy Lombardo is on
there. How many acts do you think are gonna be there from
one 5 to 8
year period?
Here's everybody who was popular in both the 40s and early
50s,
3 Frank Sinatra 1957
6 Bing Crosby 1933
10 Duke Ellington 1933
11 Louis Armstrong 1932
14 Guy Lombardo 1937
18 Nat King Cole 1952
30 Perry Como 1946
61 Ella Fitzgerald 1950
70 Billie Holiday 1937
78 Sammy Kaye 1946
80 The Andrews Sisters 1938
99 Frankie Laine 1949
12 names out of 100 is a lot, considering the list covers over 100
years.
Patti Page
Kay Starr
Johnnie Ray
Eddie Fisher
Guy Mitchell
Judy Garland
Pat Boone
Connie Francis
Bobby Darin
Patsy Cline
Jim Reeves
Doris Day
Rosemary Clooney and
Peggy Lee
for starters.
The list has nothing to do with who you like. It's strictly based on
numbers, how big singles and albums were in all countries, how
much
acclaim those singles and albums have, how many awards those
singles
and albums have. It's not about who likes what, it's about an
objective measure of who were the most popular acts.
Jim Reeves only had four singles that even made the top 40. How can he
possibly be more popular than Madonna or U2 ?
Because the "music Gods" prefer the mellow sounds of Gentleman Jim
to the hussy Madonna or the screechings of U2 and bonehead,
hypocrite Bono.
Michael Pendragon
2013-05-02 15:43:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 2, 12:56 am, Michael Pendragon
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 2, 12:05 am, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
The top 100 worldwide music acts of all time, including songs and
99 Frankie Laine 1949
I would think you'd be ecstatic that Laine is still in the top 100 at
this point. There's only a handful of male vocalists who started
before him that are on the list. Considering that his career was over
more than 40 years ago, for him to still rank this high is amazing.
I'm happy that he's on the list -- but I was happy with the list that
put him at #28.
What bothers me about the list is the lack of ... just about everyone
else from the 40s and early 50s.
Sinatra is on there. Nat King Cole is on there. Guy Lombardo is on
there. How many acts do you think are gonna be there from one 5 to 8
year period?
Here's everybody who was popular in both the 40s and early 50s,
3 Frank Sinatra 1957
6 Bing Crosby 1933
10 Duke Ellington 1933
11 Louis Armstrong 1932
14 Guy Lombardo 1937
18 Nat King Cole 1952
30 Perry Como 1946
61 Ella Fitzgerald 1950
70 Billie Holiday 1937
78 Sammy Kaye 1946
80 The Andrews Sisters 1938
99 Frankie Laine 1949
12 names out of 100 is a lot, considering the list covers over 100
years.
Patti Page
Kay Starr
Johnnie Ray
Eddie Fisher
Guy Mitchell
Judy Garland
Pat Boone
Connie Francis
Bobby Darin
Patsy Cline
Jim Reeves
Doris Day
Rosemary Clooney and
Peggy Lee
for starters.
The list has nothing to do with who you like. It's strictly based on
numbers, how big singles and albums were in all countries, how much
acclaim those singles and albums have, how many awards those singles
and albums have. It's not about who likes what, it's about an
objective measure of who were the most popular acts.
Jim Reeves only had four singles that even made the top 40. How can he
possibly be more popular than Madonna or U2 ?- Hide quoted text -
He's a legendary figure in Country music.
Sharx35
2013-05-02 04:42:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
The top 100 worldwide music acts of all time, including songs
and
99 Frankie Laine 1949
I would think you'd be ecstatic that Laine is still in the top
100 at
this point. There's only a handful of male vocalists who started
before him that are on the list. Considering that his career was over
more than 40 years ago, for him to still rank this high is
amazing.
A true sign of just how good he was.
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-01 17:23:35 UTC
Permalink
On May 1, 10:43 am, Michael Pendragon
But when I searched the site for Howlin' Wolf, this turned up:http://tsort.info/music/9yvzha.htm
He's got their #62 of 1956:

http://tsort.info/music/yr1956.htm
Michael Pendragon
2013-05-01 18:31:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 1, 10:43 am, Michael Pendragon
But when I searched the site for Howlin' Wolf, this turned up:http://tsort.info/music/9yvzha.htm
http://tsort.info/music/yr1956.htm
Yeah. I see that they included DDD as a source. Btw DDD & RYM you
may be personally responsible for his inclusion.
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-01 18:34:34 UTC
Permalink
On May 1, 2:31 pm, Michael Pendragon
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
On May 1, 10:43 am, Michael Pendragon
But when I searched the site for Howlin' Wolf, this turned up:http://tsort.info/music/9yvzha.htm
http://tsort.info/music/yr1956.htm
Yeah.  I see that they included DDD as a source.  Btw DDD & RYM you
may be personally responsible for his inclusion.
I have nothing to do with RYM's ratings.

"Smokestack Lightning" has a lot more going for it then a #44 listing
on the DDD 1956 list. It even charted pop in the UK in 1964.

Grammy Hall of Fame in 1999 (1956), RYM 21 of 1956, UK 42 - Jun 1964
(5 weeks), DDD 44 of 1956, Scrobulate 89 of blues, Rolling Stone 285,
Acclaimed 349 (1956), one of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 500
Sharx35
2013-05-01 21:12:28 UTC
Permalink
On May 1, 10:43 am, Michael Pendragon
Post by Michael Pendragon
But when I searched the site for Howlin' Wolf, this turned
up:http://tsort.info/music/9yvzha.htm
http://tsort.info/music/yr1956.htm
Well, I have to admit that no one in this newsgroup made it that
high, in ANY year!!
Sharx35
2013-05-01 20:59:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Pendragon
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
It combines the original worldwide chart performance with the other
honors that each record has gotten, such as grammys, grammy
hall of
fame, listings on RYM, acclaimedmusic, etc....and there's a
top 100
for each year, each decade, etc....
http://tsort.info/music/index.htm
They have a separate list for the biggest artists with
individual
songs, and one for the biggest artist with albums. Laine is #28 of all
time on the songs list. Fats Domino is #41. Muddy Waters is
#218.
Frankie Laine rules! :-D
Poor old Johnnie Ray didn't do quite as well though. Nor did a lot of
may other favs.
http://tsort.info/music/9yvzha.htm
In the interests of obtaining "peace in the valley", I shall say no
more.
Sharx35
2013-05-01 06:12:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Bloomfield Buddy
It combines the original worldwide chart performance with the
other
honors that each record has gotten, such as grammys, grammy hall of
fame, listings on RYM, acclaimedmusic, etc....and there's a top 100
for each year, each decade, etc....
http://tsort.info/music/index.htm
Great site. I've bookmarked it.
stargazer267@gmail.com
2013-05-02 17:47:50 UTC
Permalink
This is useful and interesting....up to a point.

Repeat, up to a point, I said.

Oh...well...let's take one for instance, as regards this list:

Marvin Gaye's landmark "I Heard It Through The Grapevine", so vastly a significant record at the end of the 60's, is ONLY # 859. At that rate, it wouldn't make the cut for 500 Greatest Popular Records of all time.

NNK
Sharx35
2013-05-02 18:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
This is useful and interesting....up to a point.
Repeat, up to a point, I said.
Marvin Gaye's landmark "I Heard It Through The Grapevine", so
vastly a significant record at the end of the 60's, is ONLY #
859. At that rate, it wouldn't make the cut for 500 Greatest
Popular Records of all time.
NNK
well, everyone has their PERSONAL faves, eh? I can't see what was
especially significant about it, though. Not iconic.
Michael Pendragon
2013-05-02 18:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sharx35
Post by ***@gmail.com
This is useful and interesting....up to a point.
Repeat, up to a point, I said.
Marvin Gaye's landmark "I Heard It Through The Grapevine", so
vastly a significant record at the end of the 60's, is ONLY #
859. At that rate, it wouldn't make the cut for 500 Greatest
Popular Records of all time.
NNK
well, everyone has their PERSONAL faves, eh? I can't see what was
especially significant about it, though. Not iconic.
Me either -- aside from having been part of a memorable Raisin Bran
commercial.
The Bloomfield Buddy
2013-05-02 18:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
This is useful and interesting....up to a point.
Repeat, up to a point, I said.
Marvin Gaye's landmark "I Heard It Through The Grapevine", so vastly a significant record at the end of the 60's, is ONLY # 859. At that rate, it wouldn't make the cut for 500 Greatest Popular Records of all time.
It apparently was not big in many countries like some other records
were. It seems to have only been big in the english speaking
countries.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...