Byrds vs Allman Brothers

I don't know that I'd really call either one overlooked or forgotten. I guess you hear more Allmans on classic rock radio, so a case could be made for the Byrds.

Why these two in particular? It strikes me as a little bit of a random pairing.

They're both still pretty well-regarded, but their fame works differently. Since the Allmans always worked primarily in the same subgenre of jammy Southern rock, more or less, it's easier to measure the scope of their popularity and influence. Classic rock fans love the hits, may own the albums that have more examples of songs in that style.

The Byrds have three or four immensely popular songs, but I'm not sure that the general public appreciates how drastically the band changed over time or how innovative they were right out of the gate. Just because you love "Mr. Tambourine Man" doesn't mean you've necessarily heard or would even enjoy anything from The Notorious Byrd Brothers or Sweetheart of the Rodeo, which have been enormously influential on other artists.

I give the edge to the Byrds, due to the variety of their output and influence on other artists, although I'd guess that the Allmans have a bigger popular following. But I'm admit to some snobbiness here - I don't like most jam rock (including some of the 70s live Byrds stuff where they stretch out the hits to accommodate more guitar solos) or most Allman Brothers-style Southern rock (i.e., Skynrd, .38 Special, Molly Hatchet).

I also admit that I may be completely wrong about this, since I don't own anything by the Allmans, but I've certainly heard whole albums by them.

I would say there's probably more overlooked American bands than these two. That said, Allman Brothers are still going, still making records and still touring. They're a huge influence on the jam band community. Grateful Dead gets most of the credit, but AB are equally as important with a lot of bands, if not more so, especially with the likes of fellow Georgians Widespread Panic...not to mention that they've spawned a couple of other successful jam rock bands: Derek Trucks Band and Gov't Mule. I'd also say Duane Allman is probably still the most respected slide guitar player and At Fillmore East is considered a milestone for live albums (Jeff Tweedy from Wilco named it as his favorite live album).
The Byrds' influence may reach further in the indie world, what with '80s jangle pop (REM, Miracle Legion, The La's, etc.) and many bands in the '90s-'00s alternative country scene citing one-time Byrds member Gram Parsons as a huge influence. Then if you take into account the bands THOSE bands have in turn influenced, it's ever expanding.

Definitely. And it all depends on what's meant by "overlooked," since, while the Velvet Underground and Love are still entirely overlooked when it comes to radio play, you seldom see a Best Albums of the 60s list without The Velvet Underground and Nico (at least) and Forever Changes in respectable positions. Then again, there are popular favorites, like America, that get play constantly on classic rock radio, but seldom receive critical attention or mention as a key influence.

I'll give the Fillmore East album another listen (I've heard it before, but it's been a few years). My Achilles' heel when it comes to this stuff is that my ears just don't take to long blues solos very well. If my guitar solos have to be super-sized, I'd rather they be kind of weird sounding (a la Richard Thompson, Tom Verlaine, etc.).

If we're going off my unadulterated love, it's the Alman Brothers. I love them. They remind me of my childhood, and good times with my dad particularly. He was fucking proud when I figured out Little Marta on the guitar.

I respect the Byrds, but Tom Petty kind of took their sound and made it better, frankly.

Only aspects of their early sound, arguably. Petty's never sounded all that much like the Byrds who did "Eight Miles High," "Draft Morning," or "You Ain't Going Nowhere."

Speaking of, I'd actually say Tom Petty doesn't get the respect he deserves. He's a giant rock star who has sold millions of records and he may have won some Grammy's, but I feel so many people were caught up in how derivative he was of Dylan or the Byrds or the Beatles, that they didn't realize he had a huge effect and influence on anyone who grew up in the '80s and '90s. It's hard to find anyone between the ages of 20 and 45 (and beyond) who doesn't love Tom Petty, but he rarely makes those silly lists in magazines. I think the tide might be changing and he might finally be getting his due, but for a while there I feel like he was really taken for granted.

Petty's the best old fashion rocker there is, as far as I'm concerned. I'd argue that he's the most consistently good popular musician in modern history.

I suppose only his first album was particularly Byrdsy, later stuff was much more Dylan inspired. I just the other day finally sat down to Mudcrutch, and it's really good. I mean really, really good.

34 and I think he's pop music junk.

He's decent, but I think he gets about as much praise as he's due. He sells out arenas, gets the cover of Rolling Stone... He's probably never going to get Best New Music on Pitchfork, but I don't think that's really the crowd he's going for. But it's hard to dispute "American Girl," "Refugee," even some of the latter day songs.

Wildflowers is a better album than any other I've seen released in my lifetime, 'cept maybe Nevermind.

Petty reached his peak with Full Moon Fever and, arguably, Wildflowers. The former is damn infectious and likeable, the latter's his most adventurous and sonically rich. Having said that, Petty's always been more about form than substance to me. I'm content just listening to his Greatest Hits (which is one of the greatest greatest hits packages ever--the songs that made the cut are all first-rate and the album flow rarely stagnates).

Petty got a four-hour career retrospective....somehow I doubt many "overlooked" bands get that.

I agree he isn't over- or under- anything. He is rated and looked right about where he should be.

The Byrds over the Alman Brothers for all the reasons previously articulated by Dave. But Velvet Underground tops both.
Special mention: Big Star. Not exactly for innovation but for their ability to create perfect rock songs.

Have you listened to the Atlanta Pop Festival live CD, it's almost on the same level as Fillmore.

I only have the Duane era performances, they're pretty good, quality varies though but for the most part, they cleaned up the sound.

Yeah, but the Velvets aren't overlooked at all in terms of influence, critical acclaim, etc. - just radio play. Considering they barely made a ripple at the time, it's kind of amazing that they now get about as much attention as the Beatles or Stones in the music press. Their first album (and sometimes WL/WH) is almost always ranked higher than anything by the Allmans or Byrds on critics' or readers' polls.

That's what makes the question kind of difficult to answer.

Big Star's a good choice. Their influence is kind of hard to nail down, though, since so much that they were doing was already super derivative (if deliberately so).

Slightly off-topic, but have you (or has anyone else) seen Alex Chilton live anytime recently? He's playing a show here at the end of the year, but I'm not sure if I'm interested. I know at one point in his touring history, he barely dipped into the Big Star songbook and played tons of 50s covers, and I've also heard his stage presence is less than stellar.

Dave, I saw him do a Big Star show a couple of years ago. He's not the most engaging stage presence ever, but the voice and playing are solid. Never seen him purely solo.

Oh, I'd be all over a Big Star show, especially since the Posies now comprise half of the band, and those guys probably make up for Chilton's lack of enthusiasm.

But my understanding is that his solo shows are quite different. Or they were at one point - I can't find reviews for any solo shows he's played in the past 10 years. The old ones tell the same story, though - two Big Star songs, maybe a Box Tops song, and a lot of weird covers.

Agree that The Byrds are the more overlooked/forgotten of the two. But the Allman Brothers' continuing popularity on classic rock radio and with a certain fan group has actually left them underappreciated in many corners. I feel the same way about Lynyrd Skynyrd.

They (Allmans and Skynyrd) both did interesting things with blues and country music at a time when those genres were almost entirely absent from the airwaves or in country's case had devolved tremendously in its popular form - they were among a handful of bands that served as a bridge/gateway providing a new generation with access to "classic" country and blues of the previous era.

Maybe the whole alt-country thing would've happened anyway and maybe we'd still be listening to Steve Earle and Lucinda Williams if there hadn't been the Allmans and Skynyrd around to show a generation of artists that the blues isn't a dead language and that country music means more than Kenny Rogers and 8-track cheese. ETA: but I wouldn't want to take that chance.

Also, The Flying Burrito Brothers are overlooked.

I said "hard" not "impossible".

Big Star is overlooked by the mainstream, but for a band that only released two albums and broke up almost immediately after only to make one more that was essentially a solo album, and were barely distributed at the time, I'd say they've done pretty well for themselves. They've never been overlooked by critics, even when they were still making records.
Chilton is definitely a strange guy. He says he considers himself a performer and not a songwriter, even though by all accounts, he isn't much of a performer (though he was and may still be a fantastic singer, even going back to his Box Tops days).

If you have an aversion to jammy blues numbers, I would definitely suggest you skip Filmore East and instead try out their "Beginnings" album that puts their first two albums on one CD and most of the songs are 2-3 minute straightforward rock songs, with practically no jamming.

I've been into Chris Bell's solo stuff lately, as Big Star is too poppy for me to enjoy, not that I Am The Cosmos is exactly difficult music at all. Whereas Big Star's music shimmers, Chris Bell's solo album is a little noisier.

The Monks deserve your attention. They were around at the time of the VU and are just as influential and avant garde. The Stooges of their time (though, yes, they would play only a couple years later...).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwO71...eature=related

I have to assume you died in 1995. And you were four at the time.

I think Cheap Trick is often underrated and overlooked, if we're going down that path.

I love 'em both, but Third is way more fucked up than I Am the Cosmos. There's not even a contest.

Not so much...my knowledge is probably suspect here, but the s/t 1998 disc is phenomenal; the one after that, Special One isn't as immediately impressive but it's pretty freakin' good.

Their latest, Rockford, is pretty disposable, but it's not as if it's the worst piece of crap ever shat out, it just doesn't really have anything remarkable that would cause someone to recommend it over a better CT disc.

I haven't heard Third yet...now I'll have to.

...or that, perhaps, my taste in music differs from yours?

I find myself playing Rockford on a fairly regular rotation. No flat-out classics, but it's a good, solid Cheap Trick record. That makes it aces in my book.*

*My book, A Misfit Runs Through It, coming this fall from HarperCollins.

You should probably check out Mudcrutch, though, if you think Petty peaked with Wildflowers.

I think Petty gets the exact amount of hype. He gets respect from peers and newcomers, he gets some play on radio but not so much that you're sick of him and he continues to work with Benmont Tench. Sounds like a good life for a bar rocker with a Ricky.

Amen. I won tickets to see Aerosmith in Calgary with Cheap Trick opening. Freakin' amazing live. They were somehow both tight and really relaxed. Aerosmith, on the other hand, really blew.

You're in for a treat. It's probably one of the messiest, darkest pop albums ever made. I first heard it when Ryko reissued it in 92 or so, and it took me a while before I could track down #1 Record/Radio City. When I did, I was surprised at how upbeat and shiny they were by comparison. Chilton's writing and recording style changed dramatically in the space of a few years.

It's fascinating to hear Chilton fuck up his own record like that and not care about what people will think of his songs. It's messy but brilliant, especially when contrasting it with the previous two albums.

I just did, and I was really impressed. I'm happy they finally released it officially. And the production is way better then I was expecting from a small time '70s group. It's a really well mixed album. I still think Wildflowers was the peak, though Last DJ was pretty fucking good too.

But even as a massive fan of Petty I agree with the people saying he gets about the right ammount of support. He's still one of the bigger acts on tour, which is impressive for his age, and the fact that I don't think he's ever had a #1 single.

The Flying Burrito Bros. is a good call for overlooked. I'll add The Band's later albums, and anything by Little Feet.

The Allman Bros. main strength was the fact that they were an astounding live act, The Grateful Dead were similar but not as focused, there was a structure to the Allman's Jam's instead of just a formless sound. I think someone described the difference between those two being the allman's had a clear idea of where they going with the jam, the dead just took off in different directions and eventually got back to where they started from.