I think The Band would qualify as "American". Rush too. And if Rush isn't rock and roll I don't know what they are. Yes, prog rock, but that's a pretty big, impressive and influential genre of rock. But no, not American roots rock.
Of course Grand Funk is an "American Band". ;-)
But when I think of "American" band and think of Americana or roots rock being part of the qualification....that still puts The Band right up there. CCR too.
Don't forget Lynrd Skynrd.
Allman Brothers.
I think the Eagles are in there too. Its easy to split hairs.
Neil Young. Not a band. |
There are individuals being mentioned. I think the OP specified a band. Sometimes a fine line. If individuals are included it would be hard to top Elvis and Dylan.
Another band worth mentioning was Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. I'd put them right up there with Skynrd. I think those two and the Eagles would be hard to beat. All uniquely American sounding with largely American subject matter and all three enormously successful with the Eagles having one of the top selling albums of all time. |
bdp24, not targeting you at all. Several people included individuals including me. It’s just a different discussion if we’re talking about individual singer/songwriters verses cohesive band units. Agree with you completely in regard to The Band.
tonykay said:
" These posts are always fun to respond to because no matter how true your response is, someone will always want to minimize your response by giving a history lesson that only reveals that they just want to seem smart. Don’t bother looking, you know who you are!"
And you’d now include yourself in the group right? ;-)
I enjoy hearing reading the "history lessons" even if the intent was to show off. But even as a rock history buff I’m not sure knowing rock history makes anyone "smart". |
tubegroover, you're right of course. And it isn't a competition. If it was, and sales was the issue, then it would be Michael Jackson....The Eagles are second and fifth place goes to.....Meat Loaf! If it was purely influence it would probably be Elvis. If it was pure Americana or pure talent it would probably be the Band.
For me, the value of threads like this, where people make a case for a certain band or musician is that it gives me ideas of music to try out. Either stuff I've forgotten about, stuff I've never heard or stuff I was sure I didn't like but about which someone had made a good case.
I'm not much of an Eagles fan but when it comes to sales, popularity, prolificness, talent and durability I think they rank pretty high.
|
Steve, the topic is American bands. U2 appropriated an American feel....but Tull could hardly be more British. |
I just thought of R.E.M. Hugely successful, unique, totally, completely and inescapably American.
They're one of my favorite bands. I can't speak for their concerts after they got big but I saw them right after they released Life's Rich Pageant. Best live show I ever saw. |
It seems like everyone (me included) is just naming good bands. The OT was about the 'greatest' American band. Most of the bands named are really good but few of them rate anywhere near 'greatest'. No one will agree on one greatest, obviously......but that list should be fairly short, I would think. |
marqmike, Traffic was a British band. At least Winwood was British.
whart, on what basis do you say that The Band was not an American band? I generally consider Canada to be American. Maybe "American" just means U.S.A.? That would take The Band out of consideration.
Not sure why anyone would say the Eagles were not rock and roll. They got most of their air time on rock stations and I'm pretty sure they primarily charted on rock/pop charts. They did chart on country charts too but I doubt anything on Hotel California would be considered anything but rock. Not defending the Eagles. They were never my cup of tea but if they weren't rock what were they? |
Bill, I like the kind of rock you like and I'm into the blues a good bit. However, I agree with you that your definition of rock is pretty narrow. It leaves out a lot of bands and music that almost everyone would identify as rock and also be unable to come up with another name for it.
I also agree that rock is dead. But I think it died a little later than your definition.
We all have our own different tastes and takes on things. But that's part of the value of silly threads like this....we get exposed to opinions different from our own and might even get exposed to good music we otherwise might have missed.
|
Agree with you dodgealum. R.E.M. sounded so different. In addition to starting out 'indie' and different, they were able to catch the MTV wave and ride right up into stadiums and super group status.
I think when considering 'greatest' discussions that popularity, sales and charts are important. I don't think they should be THE criteria but I still think you have to take it into account. There are a lot of artists listed here that are great in their own right but relatively obscure, or short lived that no matter how good they were really don't rise to 'greatest of all times' status. Certainly influence is important but I think in terms of 'greatest' all of these things have to be there. |
jdub, I based my info off wikipedia...which is never wrong. ;-) Not sure if your source or wikipedia is worldwide sales or just US. For what its worth the highest ranking Eagles album is a 'best of' collection....according to wikipedia...which is never wrong...
jdub, Fleetwood Mac is of mixed national origin.
bdp24, I agree with you. The Band is an American band. Four Canadians doesn't change that a bit in my book. |
I don't agree with you at all about the Grateful Dead. For a lot of reasons.
But at least you put them out there and staked your ground whereas most of the rest of us are just listing names of American bands we like or have heard of.
So for that reason alone as far as this thread is concerned.....the Grateful Dead it is. |
Has anyone mentioned Chicago? I'm not into them but they are totally American, incredibly prolific, still around in some form and had quite a few hits. |
@bdp24 : "I saw a quote from Steven Tyler, saying their (he and the other Aerosmith members) ambition was to become The Rolling Stones. Who else finds that quite a pathetic admission?"
I don't think it is pathetic at all. What great musicians started out without emulating someone? And the Stones are arguably the greatest rock (or R&R) band of all time. If all you become is basically a cover band for the Rolling Stones then yes that might be pathetic. Never liked the direction Aerosmith took late in their career but they, in my opinion, rose above emulating the Stones. And quite frankly I've never cared much about the Stones or Aerosmith but I think you'd be hard pressed to find bands who rose to greatness without aping a band or performer they admired. So I hardly fault them for that.
|
bdp24, respectfully disagree about Manzarek. Maybe not a virtuoso, but perfect for the Doors. And I think that is a criteria that often gets overlooked when we talk about greatness. I think about a band like U2. None of them are great musicians but they serve each other in such a way as to make them one of the greatest bands in the world. Virtuosity is useless in a vacuum. But in regard to Manzarek it might be worth watching him in film footage. The Doors had no bass player and he often played the bass part with one hand and the rest with his other....one hand behind his back if you will. Densmore and Kreiger certainly credit him with more than 1/4 of the band’s greatness. |
bdp24, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Which is fine of course. But even in your description of what makes a musician/organist a good one, I still feel like Manzarek fits the bill. His playing pretty much carried the Doors in my opinion (and the opinion of his band mates and other critics). But, its neither here nor there. I'm no expert. And I do appreciate your insight in the matter.
I also think it is funny that other musicians would say disparaging things about bands/groups that they have nothing to do with. I always feel that has more to do with their ego than the other group's capabilities. Under what circumstances does one rock legend disparage another? The Doors were the Doors. Their mark is indelible. Much of their music is fantastic in my opinion. If nothing else Jim was the first to have the nerve to disobey Ed Sullivan. Live and on TV. Mick Jagger did not. ;-)
Again, I'm not a big Aerosmith fan. Saw them in concert in 1990. Great show. But I just don't know what to do about a comment like "Aerosmith is not a good band". They've made tons of music enjoyed by millions of people. They've been around for a long time. They've changed with the times and alternated fairly easily between rock/pop/movie scores etc. They are (or were up until recently) nearly a household name and their songs, dating back to the 70s, are still in constant radio rotation. Still, they don't tick the boxes that make me really like or admire a band but I still wouldn't say that they aren't a "good band". The fact that I don't like them doesn't change what they've accomplished. Likewise with The Who, although I am a marginal Who fan. |
