Most of the bands that make the greatest of all time list (Beatles, Stones, Zep) are English or mostly English (props to the other side of the pond). I and my musicphile friends have been wrestling with this question for over a year: What is the greatest AMERICAN band? Any ideas? Suggestions so far include Aerosmith, Creedence Clearwater Revival, and (my personal vote) Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band.
Oooh! That's a toughie...
Off the top of my head I'd nominate one of three, and I do have to say these are personal choices:
The Beach Boys - how much of the BB's success is due to the band or Brian Wilson is debatable but they had and amazing string of hits which starting from early rock 'n' roll riffs went on to redefine what songwriting and recording meant. They (or Brian Wilson) re-wrote music history.
Velvet Underground - I just love 'em to bits (although Cale was welsh not American so this may disqualify them). may not have sold lots in their lifetime but the bands they influenced are legion.
Grateful Dead - may be an odd choice but being a British and in love with American music they embody something quintessentially (sp?) American. i.e. the road-trip - and what a crazy road trip it was!!
Just my thoughts for what they're worth.
Those are all excellent options, but while I love two out of three (never really like the Dead, but understand why many do), those bands have a certain limited appeal.
It's probably harder to find the "quintesential" American band just because America is so much larger than Britain. A lot of bands seems to have regional appeal: The Beach Boys are perhaps the ultimate California rock band, Lynard Skynard the ultimate Southern rock band, etc. I don't know if you're going to find something that appeals to the whole country.
Spinal Tap!
Ah...never mind
That's why I said...never mind.
And isn't Aerosmith originally from Canada? I could be way wrong about that though.
Personal taste aside, in terms of popularity, longevity and influence, I'd say E Street Band or Aerosmith (I don't think they're from Canada).
I'll throw my hat into the ring of CREEDENCE CLEARWATER REVIVAL.
John Fogerty can write the hell out of a song. Look at their greatest hits...
PROUD MARY, BAD MOON RISING, LODI, DOWN ON THE CORNER, WHO'LL STOP THE RAIN, RUN THROUGH THE JUNGLE, LONG AS I CAN SEE THE LIGHT, HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THE RAIN, HEY TONIGHT.... all absolutely fantastic.
CCR has a broad appeal... appealing to rockers as well as country fans. Also, many of their songs are very soulful... I wish I could sing just like John Fogerty.
Yep. I vote CCR.
Gotta agree with Lash on this!!!!! CCR
Aerosmith was formed in Boston. All of the members are from the U.S. (Steven Tyler was born in New Hampshire, I believe.)
Some other candidates:
THE EAGLES -- Even their name is "American." They came to personify the California-style disillusionment of the '70s, but they also fused rock and country into an extremely popular style that lives on.
KISS -- Don't laugh. Kiss began with two guys from New York with a dream and a whole lot of chutzpah. They wanted to give fans more for their buck, so they invented a whole stage show, characters and gimmicks to go along with their uncomplicated sound. What could be more American than capitalism in high heels and makeup?
FLEETWOOD MAC -- Okay, the band at its height was three-fifths British, but who says you have to be born in America to be American or to represent what America is all about? "Don't Stop" was a Presidential campaign theme, for crying out loud. And with Americans Stevie Nicks and Lindsey Buckingham (along with Brit Christine McVie) having written most of the band's hits, they left an idelible mark on American music.
Hmmm. THE EAGLES are very good candidates indeed. They also appeal to a wide range of tastes (country, easy-listening, rock, singer/songwriter).
KISS? I dunno. The appeal is more limited there.
FLEETWOOD MAC didn't *really* make their mark until Nicks and Buckingham... so they -might- qualify, I dunno...
I still go with CCR and THE EAGLES in a close second place.
There are the bands from the grunge scene, though I admit they don't seem to have longevity. I really liked Pearl Jam and Nirvana.
I must submit for consideration: REM!
Also, I'm a big B52's fan!
CCR
Buddy Holly & The Crickets
The MC5
The Ramones
The Beach Boys
The Byrds
Some of my picks, anyway.
I personally love THE RAMONES... they wrote some of the catchiest, funniest songs ever. I have to pull their Greatest Hits out every so often for kicks. But I think they fall into the KISS camp of limited mass appeal...
This might make a wonderful POLL if someone wants to set one up... we already have some great nominees...
I think longevity should factor so, I do think Aerosmith gets my vote.
Gotta add NO DOUBT as another choice, though I know they have a kinda chick-band thing going against them.... I still think they're cool.
Here's my nominees
Buddy Holly & The Crickets
Johnny Burnette Rock and Roll Trio
The Beach Boys
The Rascals
CCR
The Doors
X
The Replacements
CCR, even if the band broke up after only a few years and was really the "John Fogerty" show most of the time. I rank Fogerty's BLUE MOON SWAMP as his BEST album ever!
BLUE OYSTER CULT, who've been "on tour 4ever" and continue to play bars & biker events. Their last 2 new studio albums were among the best they ever did. These guys were the first (possibly only) band where (apart from one "off" album) I came to like EVERY song on EVERY album.
I would also like to nominate HEART Ann and Nancy Wilson ROCK!!!!!!
indeed!
darumm darumm darumm darumm weeeeheeee
Barracuda!
I think the Eagles have a pretty good claim, though personally I find most of their stuff incredibly tedious.
REM are an interesting choice, though I think it remains to be seen if their appeal is more generational.
Originally posted by Eryk Davis Ester:
I think the Eagles have a pretty good claim, though personally I find most of their stuff incredibly tedious.
I hate them with a passion. Can't help it.
I have to agree with many of you:
Creedence
Beach Boys
Airplane/Starship (ok, nobody mentioned that one)
Springsteen
Eagles
They all capture a part of America. No one group could probably do it all.
But you're forgetting another whole major group of American bands - the Motown and Philadelphia sound groups. I think, growing up near Detroit, they had a more profound influence on my music taste than any of the others, save Creedence and the Beach Boys.
So this thread has been on my mind! Here's what I've been thinking!
REM and B-52S: I like the idea that they would be nominated because they have that "alt group that reached mass appeal then went back to being alt" feel to 'em... SO I like 'em being nominated although both bands know they probably wouldn't "win".
THE DOORS: Probably not to "win" but I bet they would make the Top 5. Top 10 for certain!
NO DOUBT: Tragic Kingdom and Return of Saturn had great moments and so-so moments. Rock Steady is beyond a doubt the best CD I've bought in the past year and a half. A couple more CDs like Rock Steady and we are talking a serious contender here.
I throw another band into consideration. They made their mark in disco, in calypso, in rap, in punk, in rock, in pop and were certain insprations for bands such as No Doubt: BLONDIE.
Someone should do a poll already!!!!
Other nominees:
The Go-Go's (not the greatest but the greatest femle)
How are you gonna classify it - just a first past the post? How about people with multiple personalities - are they allowed multiple votes?
Although more of a joke these days, Bon Jovi must be in with a shout.
Originally posted by Semi Transparent Fellow:
But you're forgetting another whole major group of American bands - the Motown and Philadelphia sound groups.
Totally agreed that this is brilliant stuff. I just wasn't thinking of them in terms of "rock and roll", those these artists certainly exerted an influence on the form.
I myself wouldn't look at the Motown and Philly acts as "bands" but as "vocal groups".
For instance, if we were doing a "Top American Vocal Groups", The Supremes would be wAAAAAy up there...!
REM is my choice as well...
I think I'm too tired to really get into this and make much sense, so let me say that to me CCR is the definitive American Rock and Roll band.
They were down to earth, the lyrics could range from topical to humorous without coming off as condescending, pretentious or ironic, and the musicianship was precise without calling overmuch attention to itself.
Filing this under the "thinking out loud" dept., it occurs to me that one reason we're having trouble reaching a consensus is that, for American rock 'n' roll at least, individual performers seem to have a greater or more lasting impact than groups.
Consider: If the question was who was the "Greatest American Rock and Roll Performer," probably an overwhelming number of votes would go to Elvis Presley. Some other candidates might be Bruce Springsteen, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, or Little Richard. But none had the overwhelming success or multi-generational appeal of Elvis.
Personally, I like bands. But when armsfalloffboy began this thread, he pointed out that most of the groups with lasting impact in rock have been British. Is there some difference in American/British sensibilities that makes groups more "permanent" in Britain? Is the American preference for strong, individual heroes like John Wayne also apparent in our choice of rock acts? Are groups in Britain considered to be more the norm, whereas in America, they are often viewed as backing bands for one central performer (e.g., the Crickets and the E Street Band)?
Any thoughts?
HWW - I wish I could think in my head as well as you can think out loud.
Being on the European side of the great divide, I have to say that it's a very un-British thing to have a band named after a vocalist. Nor is it really seen as the done thing to leave a band and become a headlining act in your own right - unless you move to America. See for example John Lennon, Roger Waters.
There are exceptions, ummm, Robbie Williams.....
Anyway, there seems to be a lot of support for CCR. Being non-American, and not having my musically formative years during the 60's they mean absolutely nothing to me. I do not know a single person who has a record / CD / whatever of theirs, and I reckon that 99% of people couldn't even tell you a song by them.
Maybe they just don't travel well. Like Guinness.
Surely you guys HAVE heard Tina Turner's cover of CCR's classic PROUD MARY. She made it her signature song for quite a while...
big wheels keep on turning
Proud Mary keep on burning
Rolling Rolling
Rolling on the river...
Maybe CCR being unheard of across the pond IS proof they are "THE" ultimate American Band... ????
Being on the European side of the great divide, I have to say that it's a very un-British thing to have a band named after a vocalist. Nor is it really seen as the done thing to leave a band and become a headlining act in your own right - unless you move to America. See for example John Lennon, Roger Waters.
You mean like The Dave Clark 5, Ian Dury(sp?) & the Blockheads or Adam & The Ants?
Originally posted by Numf El:
HWW - I wish I could think in my head as well as you can think out loud.
Thanks - chalk it up to having no life and lots of time to think.
Being on the European side of the great divide, I have to say that it's a very un-British thing to have a band named after a vocalist. Nor is it really seen as the done thing to leave a band and become a headlining act in your own right - unless you move to America. See for example John Lennon, Roger Waters.
There are exceptions, ummm, Robbie Williams..... Interesting. In America, it seems to be almost a universal goal to work for yourself or be your own boss, hence, performers striking out on their own even when they have a successful band to fall back on (e.g., Stevie Nicks).
In British bands, there seems to be a more collective sensibility, perhaps? I find it particularly interesting that a few British bands such as Fairport Convention, Soft Machine and Renaissance continued for several years without any original members. That generally doesn't happen in America -- not without major lawsuits over who owns the band's name.
Anyway, there seems to be a lot of support for CCR. Being non-American, and not having my musically formative years during the 60's they mean absolutely nothing to me. I do not know a single person who has a record / CD / whatever of theirs, and I reckon that 99% of people couldn't even tell you a song by them.
Maybe they just don't travel well. Like Guinness.
I'm surprised that CCR are so little known in Britain. Over here, many of their songs still get frequent airplay: "Fortunate Son," "Looking Out My Back Door," "Down On the Corner," "Suzy Q" and "Bad Moon Rising," to name some.
Originally posted by He Who Wanders:
I'm surprised that CCR are so little known in Britain. Over here, many of their songs still get frequent airplay: "Fortunate Son," "Looking Out My Back Door," "Down On the Corner," "Suzy Q" and "Bad Moon Rising," to name some. [/QUOTE]
To be fair, while CCR did score some success in Britain, they were much, mcuh bigger in the US.
Still, the interest in roots music over there doesn't seem to have helped CCR out. Gram Parsons, yes, John Fogerty, maybe not.
Originally posted by He Who Wanders:
Interesting. In America, it seems to be almost a universal goal to work for yourself or be your own boss, hence, performers striking out on their own even when they have a successful band to fall back on (e.g., Stevie Nicks).
In British bands, there seems to be a more collective sensibility, perhaps? I find it particularly interesting that a few British bands such as Fairport Convention, Soft Machine and Renaissance continued for several years without any original members. That generally doesn't happen in America -- not without major lawsuits over who owns the band's name.
I think you've pretty much nailed it.
The one music scene that may have come closest to the British model was in San Francisco in the '60s, and even members of those bands spent a lot of time pursuing solo projects.
I think commercial success plays a role as well. A lot of those British acts broke off for the solo thing once they'd conquered the world (Moody Blues, Yes, Genesis, even the Stones).
Originally posted by Outdoor Miner:
To be fair, while CCR did score some success in Britain, they were much, mcuh bigger in the US.
Still, the interest in roots music over there doesn't seem to have helped CCR out. Gram Parsons, yes, John Fogerty, maybe not.
Perhaps you've hit on why CCR isn't so popular in Britain. Their music is closely tied to American "roots," particularly country music and R&B. While some country and R&B artists do become popular abroad, many have only indigenous appeal. The reverse also seems to be true: British trad music hasn't found much popularity in the U.S., either.
Originally posted by Outdoor Miner:
The one music scene that may have come closest to the British model was in San Francisco in the '60s, and even members of those bands spent a lot of time pursuing solo projects.
That's an interesting comparison, OM. There are some similarities between British and SF bands, but there are also significant differences. British bands, I gather, value a sense of formality about being a band, i.e., they treat it as they would any other organization or official association, with a sense of the group being larger than individuals.
SF bands were almost the opposite. Jefferson Airplane and Grateful Dead both had very loose arrangements. Members of both groups formed "spin-off" bands (Hot Tuna and New Riders of the Purple Sage, respectively) that were originally an extension of the parent band. Members of the both bands used the same musicians even for their own solo projects. There was a great deal of overlapping and very little consideration for borders or boundaries of any sort. (Hot Tuna would often begin concerts and then Jefferson Airplane would "take over" without any fanfare or announcement of the change.)
I know there are exceptions to the above. The Moody Blues, for example, also had an off-shoot band (the Blue Jays?).
But, in general, I think the British do approach the concept of being in a band differently than American musicians do.
I think commercial success plays a role as well. A lot of those British acts broke off for the solo thing once they'd conquered the world (Moody Blues, Yes, Genesis, even the Stones).
Commercial success is crucial. All of the bands we've been discussing indulged themselves in the spoils of success, whether they were British or American. But it is interesting to note how differently they sometimes did it. Genesis continued to have hit records and tour, despite the individual successes of both Collins and Rutherford, for many years. The group, it seems, had an identity of its own independent of its members.
Jefferson Airplane, on the other hand, seemed to flounder from the moment they started doing solo projects. The group continued (they had to; they were under a recording contract), but the individual members clearly lost interest in being a group after 1970.
AEROSMITH IS AMERICA'S GREATEST ROCK N ROLL BAND, HANDS DOWN!!!!
Of course everything after done with mirrors sucked but oh well.
i would emensely overjoyed if AEROSMITH was from canada but they are from my second favourite place in the world BOSTON, every now and then you can hear joe perry's new england accent.
Originally posted by He Who Wanders:
Originally posted by Outdoor Miner:
[b] To be fair, while CCR did score some success in Britain, they were much, mcuh bigger in the US.
Still, the interest in roots music over there doesn't seem to have helped CCR out. Gram Parsons, yes, John Fogerty, maybe not.
I don't really have evidence to back it up, but I've wondered if CCR are somehow not considered "authentic" enough. The fans of this music, especially abroad, tend to be hardcore, if not "purist" in their intentions and interests.
There are some interesting ideas here....
Seems to be a lot of support for CCR. My mother would be proud.
Re: British bands. There's a good story to be written about how and why these middle- to lower-class white kids in England caught on to the blues, and I would like to read it. But when we look at who qualifies for "great," most of them seem to be blues-based bands (Stones, Beatles, Zep, Who, etc.). Certainly the foundations of modern popular music were once the blues (we seem to be moving toward a more 40's-50's type of popular music today--vocalists who don't write their own songs, uber-producers, more of an emphasis on the persona rather than the content), so that may have an effect on what we consider great.
Kiss? I'm sorry--I love them, but the music just isn't that good. It's fine for what it is, but...
REM might be a good candidate. One of my top 5 faves of all time.
Ugh, I loathe the Eagles, but one could make a good case for including them on the list.
So what is the criteria for a great band? Some things to consider:
Longevity
Consistency
Sales (showing that they are appreciated by large numbers of people)
Innovation
Influence
Quality (hard to define for everyone)
Any others?
I've been assuming the main criterion is that the band has become as ingrained in pop culture as the Beatles or the Stones, and I'm finding it hard to make a case for any American band being quite that important. Most of the bands listed seem to be relatively marginal in their appeal or influence.
