Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine Greatest American Rock and Roll Band

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.

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.

If it's solo artist then Marvin Gaye, Aretha Franklin, Warren Zevon and Frank Sinatra do for me. Obviously Elvis comes top of the list just for being so gorgeous at 19 and wearing leather pants.

If it's groups then possibly REM or the Ramones, just for the laugh!

I agree with Numfie about CCR being virtually unheard of on this side of the pond- I teach music and I don't think I can name a single tune of theirs.

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... ????

You mean like The Dave Clark 5, Ian Dury(sp?) & the Blockheads or Adam & The Ants?

Thanks - chalk it up to having no life and lots of time to think.

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'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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.