The Greatest American Band? - Page 3

Let's just say they don't help much for anyone's estimation of the man's intelligence. That might not have much to do with the songs as they stand, but it probably calls into question how conscious he was of his own creative process, lyrically speaking. Basically, he writes like a guy who wants to come off as being smart and esoteric, but who never got his teen angst out of his system.

The guy with the rad Morris Day avatar brought up discography in his argument. As much as I love CCR their entire catalog isn't essential. In fact you can get most the CCR you need with Chronicle. One album. Both Dolls records are essential as are all all three Big Star records. If you don't own those I don't want to know you, but you can have considerable musical taste and own no CCR in my book. However John Fogarty is an outstanding songwriter (more digression Fogarty's Live record Premonition is as good as anything CCR did with only Fogarty which might actually disqualify CCR as a band as the other guys seem inconsequential). With the 'Mats and X every time I hear their tunes in like the past twenty-five odd years it is like hearing them for the first time.

That's certainly fair, but then you'd also be taking the E Street Band and the Heartbreakers out of the equation - Springsteen and Petty have been just as good minus the sidemen.

Nirvana, too, and probably the Pixies, as far as that goes.

Nah. Petty, maybe, although he usually takes Campbell along for the solo stuff, doesn't he? I'd add Prince to your statement, but take out everyone else who didn't do voice work on King of the Hill.

Springsteen's put out great albums without E Street, but he sounds way different with them than he does on his own (especially live). I'd argue they're as much of a band as any collaborative writing team like the Beatles or Radiohead - it's just that their chemistry comes in the playing rather than the writing.

I'm not super well-versed in Frank Black's solo stuff, but the four or five albums I know aren't quite on the same level as the Pixies, and the Breeders eventually turned into a different animal altogether, after a pretty Pixies-ish start.

With Nirvana, it's sort of impossible to say, isn't it? I know there's a lot of love for Bleach in some quarters, but Grohl's drumming is a pretty key element on most of their output.

Well we'll never know with Nirvana. Would Kurt be as good solo? Not sure about that. A good deal of that bands greatness is found in the rhythm section. But you have a point with Petty and Springsteen though a good amount of what is great about them is in the keys. The sound isn't the same without Federici, Bittan or Tench. Or The Big Man or Mike Campbell.

ETA: Jinx! Dave B owes me a Coke.

ETA: ETA: Black Francis is not so hot without Deal, Santiago, and Lovering.

And I have to mention bands like Minor Threat or Social Distortion. Both great American bands. McKaye and Ness both are underrated talents song writing and musicianship wise and as far as I'm concerned have been relevant throughout their careers. Is it them and the supporting cast inconsequential? Fugazi wouldn't have the same sound without Lally and Canty and Social Distortion really misses Dennis Danell IMO.

Bad Brains........?

To say nothing of Guy Picciotto, who sings half of the songs! Plus, as I understand it, Fugazi's writing and arrangement was mostly done by committee, so they're a "band" in the truest sense. And they have an amazingly solid, yet varied, discography, too. Is this really the first time anyone's mentioned them in this thread? (BTW, did you mean to include Minor Threat as well as Fugazi or was that just a typo? To me, Minor Threat's always been less listenable than "important" in some sort of non-musical, cultural sense, with Fugazi being the real musical flourishing of McKaye.)

I haven't listened to any of Social Distortion's post-Danell stuff, but I would have guessed that they were slightly more Ness's anonymous backup band than, say, E Street or the Heartbreakers were Springsteen's and Petty's.

Well I mentioned Minor Threat on purpose more as a qualifier toward Ian's larger body of work. You may think them less listenable but I am a fan. Second gen punk is big for me as around 81-82 is when I broke from what my parents played (Beatles, Stones, Who, Moody Blues, King Crimson, Yes, Alice Cooper, Doors, Sabbath) and formed my own musical identity. Of course I came back to all those bands. But yeah.

Sly's great but coke derailed what he could've been. My pop saw him at Pine Knob in Michigan back in the day. All he did was show up blowed out of his skull and shit on the audience telling them that he was the shit and they didn't deserve his best. Pops quickly bailed at that point. In fact the Smothers Brothers would have been more worth it then. Pops also met the Smothers a few years back and said they were totally sweet guys.

Yeah, and they didn't have the longevity they could've. But they did have such a ridiculously contagious and joyful spirit about them that I love to pieces. Fantastic talent all the way around too.

Jimi Hendrix experience would win hands down if eligible.

Dave, I don't get how you can throw Sly & the Family Stone in with the "no scope" bands. That's a big part of the legacy. I like The Replacements too, but I'd never say they did their thing with more variety.

Even if coke derailed his career MMM, still a long run. All things considered.

Grizzly Bear, The Doors, Velvet Underground, and T.V. on the Radio.

Pearl Jam and Wilco are up there for me. DLR-Van Halen was great, but something keeps me from calling them THE GREATEST AMERICAN BAND EVER. Dave belted out some silly noises at times, which makes a lot of their material sound dated. I'd like to say Talking Heads, but as much as I love them, I can't listen to them all of the time. Wish I could say Jimi Hendrix Experience, but yeah: not an all-American band. Funny that "Voodoo Child (Slight Return)" came up on shuffle when I started making this post.

I'm pretty burned out on The Police. Can't even listen to them these days. Used to love 'em, but I'm done for a while.

Never have really dug into The Velvet underground. Where do I start, by the way?

I so fucking love the Bad Brains.

Well, you're the "BRRROOOOOOSSSSS!" disciple here, but his non-E stuff is STRONG, just different.

When he tours sans E, is he consciously going for a less bombastic type of show? Or is he trying to do "Rosalita" and failing?

I just recall the story where they called Kim Deal when it was time to record the album - and it was like "uh, what about writing and rehearsal?"; "No, that's taken care of, Kim."

Which kinda boggles my mind...based on her work with the Breeders, you'd think you might kinda want her input during the creation of the songs, y'know?

2 albums with him, 2 albums without. Cobain's suicide left a bunch of interesting threads hanging - Nirvana going down the path they so deftly trod on "Unplugged", Grohl being a bigger contributor, etc.

DaveB. is the expert, but I'll throw my 2 cents in: If you have the scratch, pick up the box set "Peel Slowly". The deluxe edition of Velvet Underground & Nico has stereo and mono of record. Plus VU heavy tracks from Nico's Chelsea Girl. The deluxe version of Loaded is nice; their most accessible record for sure.

As far as variety is concerned if you are saying that Stink is the same as Pleased To Meet Me you are completely wrong.

No. Five years and obscurity ain't exactly a long run. Post "Riot" is there there a single relevant Sly record? A single?

The Police only contain one American.

I wasn't even thinking when I posted that part. Hello? They've always felt like such an American group to me... shut up, self.

As for The Velvet Underground, most accessible sounds like a good starting point to me. Loaded might work.

10 years, if you count Heard You Missed Me.

I like Fresh a lot. I'm a superfan, what can I say.

The artistic evolution from A Whole New Thing to Riot is impressive.

Yeah no worries. Nothing wrong with Sly. Just gotta question the longevity tip and I don't think one decent record out of four in five years time qualifies.

Superfan here too. I like those early albums, but I usually focus on Stand!, There's a Riot Goin' On and Fresh. I think they were still shaping their sound on those earlier albums.

...but if we're going back to sub-heading 1, "the American Beatles", longevity isn't really that big an issue.

Yeah well I am a Bob Seger superfan (yeah I said it) but the guy only made maybe five or six good albums and half of them as the Bob Seger System. You won't at all see me at all defending the Silver Bullet Band as the greatest American band.

Fat Elvis brought up longevity, I was shooting that argument down. I don't think longevity is a criterion at all.

I think this is such a tough topic for me because I'm veering between so many qualifiers. Longevity? Consistency? Replay value? Influence?

I mean, I know which bands would make my personal list, but that all goes back to replay value for me. If I'm constantly going back to a band's catalogue, there's something timeless and special there. A band like Blondie wouldn't fit into the "Beatles-esque" category, but they would be in my top 3 for "greatest American band". In terms of longevity and consistency, Pearl Jam is the first American band that pops in my head. On the other hand, Van Halen's earlier albums define the American rock n' roll ethos. Primal party/feel-good music, but with an intelligence and natural charisma few bands can replicate. And, ultimately, isn't that what rock n' roll is about? Feeling on top of the world?

Actually, Blondie is an interesting choice.

On the question of longevity, The Beatles may have been together for something around a decade (less if we count from when Ringo joined), but in that period of time they recorded more than a dozen first-rate-to-outright-classic albums, and another couple of album's worth of singles/EP's (with maybe one LP's worth of filler out of the lot. If that).

Only a few of the American acts we're considering are even close to that level of productivity, even with much greater longevity.

As to their development, it always amazes me to remember that from the first Ed Sullivan appearance to the release of "Strawberry Fields Forever" is only three years (almost to the day). I'm not sure any American since Bob Dylan or Brian Wilson comes close.

While I don't necessarily agree that they belong in the "American Beatles" discussion, it's still nice to see punk getting some proper attention and respect. Being surrounded by pretentious Orange County hipsters that are "too good" for punk is starting to wear on me.

Sorry, totally off topic. Just had to vent.

This is true. But I do think The Beatles had the advantage of pioneering and revolutionizing musical/popular culture at that time. There was no band that sounded like them when they first hit and throughout their metamorphosis. It's pretty damn difficult being a truly innovative artist nowadays. An artist's core sound has become an amalgamation and distillation of previous influences. Of course, that's no excuse for recording and releasing sub-par songs and albums, but it's near-impossible living up to The Beatles' extraordinary growth.

The last artist in my eyes that pushed boundaries like The Beatles did was Prince during his '80s run.

Yeah, I think that speaks to my point: whether we're looking for the "American Beatles" or the "Greatest American Band", the post-Fab Four landscape is changed in such a way that consensus is virtually impossible.

After all, I don't believe any of us have even mentioned Chuck Berry, who is the single musician with the greatest influence on the sound of rock music, on both sides of the Atlantic. Not arguing that he is (or isn't) the greatest: just that the discussion becomes further complicated trying to evaluate the collective strength of The Beatles versus the individual accomplishments of other musicians.

'Jellyfish' were on their way to becoming something truly glorious before they imploded. They were the closest thing to an American BEATLES that I can really think of.

Okay, you're right - that's not quite fair. Sly & the Family Stone were certainly more diverse than CCR and the Ramones, but I still think their scope (even if you compare the darker stuff on Riot to the early hits) kind of pales in comparison, as Mundt said, to the gap between, say, "Shiftless When I'm Idle" and "Skyway."

These days, it's a different thing (although I his non-E Street full band tours in the 90s included some E Street songs that sounded considerably different).

It's just that his collaborations with E Street aren't just Bruce and Backing Band. They're very much a unit with its own distinct personality, not just a solo artist with anonymous musicians, thus their output qualifies for consideration in this discussion, even if Bruce's solo work is exempted on the basis of it not being output by Bruce and the E Street Band. Part of the band's strength comes not from Springsteen, but from the very specific set of collaborators he works with.

You'd think! But, for me, the proof's in Black's solo stuff. Something's definitely missing there, as far as I'm concerned, and I don't know if it's Deal, Santiago, or Lovering, the combination of the four members during the rehearsal and arrangement process, or the fact that he felt compelled to write to please or impress those specific other members of the band.

Counting Incesticide? Grohl played on parts of that, too. I'd be inclined to include Unplugged as an official album, too, since it contained so many non-album covers. In any case, Nirvana wasn't just Cobain. The sound changed a bit when Grohl came aboard, and it's hard to say how much Novoselic brought to the table, since he was along for the whole ride.

Not a fan of Teenager of the Year, Dave? If you haven't listened to it in a while, give it a try. I'd take it over Trompe Le Monde any day of the week. Maybe even Bossanova.

Black's solo career is certainly spotty, but always relatively interesting. And Deal might not have as many lows in her post-Pixies career as Black, but she's not nearly as prolific. Maybe Black just needs to focus more.

You didn't say anything contrary, but I love Bossanova and have never understood why people are so divided on it. I mean, I know the reasons, but they don't register for me.

Back to the main topic of the thread, The Greatest American Band?, I just can't give a single answer that I'm confident with. Maybe one will come in time, but I don't have one yet. Clearly, I'm not alone here fumbling around in the dark.

Wasn't Pat Smear part of the mix in some capacity there at the end as well?

No one likes the Carter Family suggestion, huh?

The Bristol sessions sparked an almost Beatlemania-like response.

Um... have you seen anyone actually accept any of the suggestions yet? I seriously doubt that anything resembling consensus will emerge from this.

I like the Carter Family suggestion, they're just outside my area of expertise. Obviously, this is very rock-centric but as I mentioned above, a recent book I read makes the argument that the Paul Whiteman Orchestra had a very Beatles-esque impact on music back in the 20s (if without the mania).

If you really want to rig it, lump Johnny and Roseanne Cash in as Carters (by marriage).

They're my all time favourite band but 'Loaded' is really uneven. I'd start with the third album and Live 1969.