Greatest American Band

[Ghost Econ]

Taking this from the RIP thread where I asked if the Beach Boys were the greatest American band. While there was a discussion about them being a vocal group, and while they did use session musicians, they also played their own instruments.

Only rules are: they must have actually played instruments (so no Boyz II Men, The Four Seasons, etc.) and more than 50% of the Core band needs to be American (so no The Band, Jimi Hendrix Experience). And then there are edge cases like Dylan, Springsteen, Petty, Prince... do they really count as bands?

So what says the commentariat? Is it Classic Rock like CCR or Eagles, Soft Rock like America or Toto, 80s like Van Halen or GnR, alternative like REM or Nirvana, R&B with Chic or Earth Wind and Fire, Country with Alabama or Brooks & Dunn, or more modern "bands" like LCD Soundsystem or Animal Collective?

[bhlloy]

IMO Springsteen and Petty are clearly bands, they had the band name in there and especially for Springsteen a relatively stable lineup across multiple decades. Prince and Dylan I'd lean towards being more solo artists who had studio and live bands, although it's an arbitrary line.

For me the most important criteria is being superstars in multiple decades who bridged mainstream success while being the clear top few in their genre. My Rushmore is The Eagles, Springsteen, Metallica and Petty. If it wasn't for the 50% rule I'd have Fleetwood Mac in there instead of Metallica. I'm sure I'm missing a more deserving candidate but that's off the top of my head.

I did cheat and look at a long thread on Reddit and somebody had come with a metric based on sales and longevity which had Aerosmith #1, which is interesting. I can see it.

[Carman Bulldog]

Petty's a weird one. My two favourite albums are both credited to only Petty (although Damn the Torpedoes is a close third). Having said that, the Heartbreakers back him on Wildflowers, but simply aren't credited. Full Moon Fever is closer to a solo Petty effort, but still includes Mike Campbell heavily.

Given Wildflowers is uncredited and Full Moon Fever is really only Campbell, do you count either in the assessment of Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers?

But if we are counting uncredited appearances, does Neil Young and Crazy Horse enter the conversation? For the most part, After the Gold Rush and Tonight's the Night are essentially Crazy Horse backed albums as well and both are huge resume boosters. Or would they even be eligible given Young's Canadian (despite the 50% rule)?

[Lathum]

Green Day

[bhlloy]

What's funny is with "recent" bands like Green Day, it's pure bias for me pretending I'm not that old and the mid 90's weren't that long ago that leads me not to put them in the same category as the bands I mentioned. Both them and Blink 182 should be in the conversation.

[Lathum]

I was only half joking. They have been selling out stadiums and headlining festivals for 30 years. They are amazing live. They translate across genres and have spawned an entire music scene.

[Sweed]

Petty and Springsteen are bands to me.

1. Eagles
2. Petty
3. Springsteen

Having said that I saw Eagles on their last tour with Glen Frey. And I saw Petty on his last tour before his death. Both concerts were great but I thought Petty was just a bit better. Maybe that was because Tom was the focal point and I felt like he was enjoying performing as much as I enjoyed watching? Where Eagle's members brought the same feeling to their songs, but each have their own so I wasn't focused in on one singer? Perhaps.

If we were in a bar and someone asked the best American band question, I don't think The Beach Boys would even enter my mind.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

What's funny is with "recent" bands like Green Day, it's pure bias for me pretending I'm not that old and the mid 90's weren't that long ago that leads me not to put them in the same category as the bands I mentioned. Both them and Blink 182 should be in the conversation.

I'm too old to think of either of those bands. While they were doing their thing I was probably lost listening to my CDs from Eagles, Petty, and many other bands of the '60's 70's 80's in that "new fangled" cd player in my car. Now if I asked my son I think he would agree with you.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Carman Bulldog

Petty's a weird one. My two favourite albums are both credited to only Petty (although Damn the Torpedoes is a close third). Having said that, the Heartbreakers back him on Wildflowers, but simply aren't credited. Full Moon Fever is closer to a solo Petty effort, but still includes Mike Campbell heavily.

Given Wildflowers is uncredited and Full Moon Fever is really only Campbell, do you count either in the assessment of Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers?

But if we are counting uncredited appearances, does Neil Young and Crazy Horse enter the conversation? For the most part, After the Gold Rush and Tonight's the Night are essentially Crazy Horse backed albums as well and both are huge resume boosters. Or would they even be eligible given Young's Canadian (despite the 50% rule)?

I think if the named frontman is not American they don't qualify, but more arbitrary rules on my part

[JonInMiddleGA]

edge cases like Dylan, Springsteen, Petty, Prince... do they really count as bands?

Of those 4, Petty is the only one I'd consider for a "band" category, and even that is probably pushing the limit pretty good for me.

[BYU 14]

My Mount Rushmore would be

Eagles - So much talent in that lineup
Bruce Springsteen and the E street Band - Same
Aerosmith - Longevity and body of work
Cheap Trick - Longevity and influence

I know CT is controversial, and comes with some bias, but the number of bands that site them as an influence and the fact that they managed to have success across different eras makes them a for sure for me.

[Swaggs]

I don't love either of them, but The Beach Boys and Van Halen are both top 5 by most metrics, in my opinion.

[QuikSand]

Mt R

Aerosmith
Eagles
Beach Boys
Van Halen

[Ghost Econ]

Am I the only one that hates Aerosmith. They're 2 massive songs in the 70s and a bunch of mediocre hair ballads in the 90s.

[thealmighty]

Originally Posted by Ghost Econ

Am I the only one that hates Aerosmith. They're 2 massive songs in the 70s and a bunch of mediocre hair ballads in the 90s.

You are not.

[Ghost Econ]

Journey, Boston, and The Cars. I think based on hits they could be in the running as well, but they just seem so insignificant. And Chicago kinda fits that bill as well, their biggest hits aren't really their best songs.

I guess what the point of this thread is, as popular as American bands got, they just don't seem as important as The Beatles, the Stones, The Who, Zeppelin... I don't even know an American band makes the top 10 bands of all time.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Of those 4, Petty is the only one I'd consider for a "band" category, and even that is probably pushing the limit pretty good for me.

Literally Bruce Springstein and the E-Street Band. Those guys have been together forever.

[albionmoonlight]

The Eagles is probably the right answer (and deservedly so)

Surprised no one has mentioned R.E.M. One of my all-time favorite bands.

I do not think Nirvana can count because of lack of longevity, but I do think they need to be at least mentioned in this thread.

One interesting question about longevity: how much credit should we give a band for going on what is basically a greatest-hits tour for the second half of its career?

[Ghost Econ]

I just don't feel like REM had the hits. They're like a more popular Velvet Underground but with less influence. They had a few popular songs but never super massive, and they obviously had an impact on how rock moved more underground, but not in a way that's really felt in the broader sense.

I don't know how longevity fits in. Eagles seem more relevant than CCR due to it, but it's kind of a WAR vs. JAWS debate. Would you rather have Verlander or Koufax? Because that brief spell when CCR made music, it's probably the closest an American band has come to The Beatles, having hits while still having albums that were also great. Eagles albums are almost all filler.

But across the pond, I feel like the Stones longevity kind of makes up some of the Beatles gap, but it's also a negative point, that we got to see how they couldn't progress any more. Meanwhile, anything McCartney is doing doesn't really affect The Beatles legacy.

Also, would The Osmonds or The Jackson 5 qualify as a band to you? The Osmonds played instruments on some (most) of their albums (some of which were good). The Jackson 5 sort of played an instrument here and there.

And would Dylan's The Band era qualify as a band? Although I still think a majority of the players were Canadian and therefore not qualify for this particular question.

Also, CSN would count, but not CSNY (unless future citizenship counts).

Finally, are duos bands? Like the Everly Brother or Simon & Garfunkel?

[GrantDawg]

I swear, Ghost. That post is almost exactly what I was going to post. I only disagree a little bit on REM. "Out Of Time" was a huge album both financially and on the charts. I do agree they didn't have enough of those huge albums, though.

Sent from my SM-S938U using Tapatalk

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Ghost Econ

I just don't feel like REM had the hits. They're like a more popular Velvet Underground but with less influence. They had a few popular songs but never super massive, and they obviously had an impact on how rock moved more underground, but not in a way that's really felt in the broader sense.

I don't know how longevity fits in. Eagles seem more relevant than CCR due to it, but it's kind of a WAR vs. JAWS debate. Would you rather have Verlander or Koufax? Because that brief spell when CCR made music, it's probably the closest an American band has come to The Beatles, having hits while still having albums that were also great. Eagles albums are almost all filler.

But across the pond, I feel like the Stones longevity kind of makes up some of the Beatles gap, but it's also a negative point, that we got to see how they couldn't progress any more. Meanwhile, anything McCartney is doing doesn't really affect The Beatles legacy.

Also, would The Osmonds or The Jackson 5 qualify as a band to you? The Osmonds played instruments on some (most) of their albums (some of which were good). The Jackson 5 sort of played an instrument here and there.

And would Dylan's The Band era qualify as a band? Although I still think a majority of the players were Canadian and therefore not qualify for this particular question.

Also, CSN would count, but not CSNY (unless future citizenship counts).

Finally, are duos bands? Like the Everly Brother or Simon & Garfunkel?

On the longevity question and a greatest hits tour for the later part of their career? Too me if you are filling arenas with your old songs in your middle to senior years, you're probably at or near the top of the list. If you're playing the "casino circuit" then not as much?

You make a great point on CCR. I wouldn't argue against someone having them on top of their list. They were just so damn good during my late middle school and junior high days. So many great originals and their cover of "I heard It Through the Grapevine" is about as good as it gets.

If we're asking about great bands a lot of names might pop up along with those you mentioned. To this old man, Bob Seger and the Silver Bullet Band and Heart come to my mind. If we're asking for number one? I don't think either would be on MY list, even if I like their music on the same level as Eagles. Other's milage may certainly vary.

[Lathum]

REM is fucking horrible. I would rather listen to my dog vomit up a live baby bird.

[cuervo72]

Maybe not in the running for Greatest, but shoutout to ZZ Top.

[Ryche]

Metallica should definitely be up there, still selling out stadiums for multiple dates. I really haven't liked much they have done since the Black Album but there are not many bands, American or not, that can match their longevity and continued popularity.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Ryche

Metallica should definitely be up there, still selling out stadiums for multiple dates. I really haven't liked much they have done since the Black Album but there are not many bands, American or not, that can match their longevity and continued popularity.

This is the problem I have with them. Musically everything up to the black album was the soundtrack for my childhood. The black album was OK. Everything after is dog shit.

I saw them on the black album tour back to back nights in 1993 and it melted my face off. They opened one show with Creeping Death and it was 3.5 hours of mayhem.

[Carman Bulldog]

A few notables not mentioned thus far: The Doors, Grateful Dead, The Allman Brothers, Kiss, and Talking Heads. The Grateful Dead and Kiss both are very unique for different reasons. I like a lot of the 90s alternative bands too, and Soundgarden, Pearl Jam and Foo Fighters all warrant at least a mention.

I think an offshoot of the Greatest American Band of all time is the Biggest American Band at any given time. Basically like a linear heavyweight boxing champ where a band is at their creative and commercial peak and is the biggest band in America at the time. For instance, I don't think the Talking Heads are the greatest of all time, but they were arguably the American heavyweight champ from around 1981-1984 or so. R.E.M. arguably held the linear championship from 1991-1995.

For some more context, the title belt probably originates in the mid-50s with Bill Haley & His Comets. Buddy Holly and the Crickets (or the Everly Brothers) probably knock them off around 1957. The title is either vacated upon the Crickets split and Holly's death or the Everly's keep it until around 1961-62 and then we have a number of contenders come along including the Beach Boys, Booker T & the MG's and Peter, Paul, and Mary. By about '63 though, the Beach Boys have won it in any event and hold the title through around '66. The Monkees come along in 1967 and take the title from The Beach Boys and that's about as far as I've got.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by Lathum

This is the problem I have with them. Musically everything up to the black album was the soundtrack for my childhood. The black album was OK. Everything after is dog shit.

I saw them on the black album tour back to back nights in 1993 and it melted my face off. They opened one show with Creeping Death and it was 3.5 hours of mayhem.

I agree but all of their albums since then have gone number one (most recent was number 2).

Very hard to compare artist popularity today versus the 60s through 90s.

[Front Office Midget]

Originally Posted by Ghost Econ

So what says the commentariat? Is it Classic Rock like CCR or Eagles, Soft Rock like America or Toto, 80s like Van Halen or GnR, alternative like REM or Nirvana, R&B with Chic or Earth Wind and Fire, Country with Alabama or Brooks & Dunn, or more modern "bands" like LCD Soundsystem or Animal Collective?

Looking at this from a younger, more "indie" point of view- LCD Soundsystem is "the" band among most people who I know who are big in to going to shows, collecting music, etc. LCD Soundsystem and Animal Collective will always be huge in their influence and being artists that bridged the connection between "rock" and "electronic" in the 21st century, they're not really on the level of pop culture influence as other bands mentioned in this thread. Even within their genre, they are probably surpassed in popularity (although not credibility and "perception") by peer bands like MGMT, the Arcade Fire, or M83. This might just be my perception, but the Strokes and Modest Mouse seemed to reach much higher levels of popularity in terms of indie bands breaking through the mainstream.

LCD Soundsystem does have one thing going for them that Nirvana has going for them- I have rarely heard any music fan in real life say a negative thing about them. They're pretty much "assumed to be good" bands, unlike, say, Green Day or Blink 182, who will have a lot of detractors. Earth Wind & Fire is another artist mentioned who I have rarely heard a negative word about. But people outside of indie rock / electronic circles might have a different perspective entirely.

On the train tonight, someone asked my partner her favorite band, and she said "LCD Soundsystem" and they said, Who? And this was someone coming from a free Ludacris concert, so someone who at least listens to music. The only rock band I heard any of the DJs play was Nirvana.

If Bob Dylan was called "The Bob Dylans" I think this would be a pretty easy question.

In another music scene I dabble in, the answer to this question is so easy so as to be crazy to even have to ask- the Grateful Dead.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Lathum

This is the problem I have with them. Musically everything up to the black album was the soundtrack for my childhood. The black album was OK. Everything after is dog shit.

I saw them on the black album tour back to back nights in 1993 and it melted my face off. They opened one show with Creeping Death and it was 3.5 hours of mayhem.

The biggest problem with Metallica is that they threw away 15 years on chasing trends (first grunge, then nu metal). The Load albums and St. Anger are terrible. That said, Death Magnetic is way better than most people give it credit for, Hardwired is good but bloated, and the newest album is decent. But I'm not going to hold 60-year olds' musical output to the same standard as a younger band. They are entitled to coast at this point in their career. If only they had done more with the post-Black Album years until they got therapy.

While I've heard of LCD Soundsystem and Animal Collective, I've never heard their music. Part of the reason why this kind of discussion always comes down to more classic artists is that it was nearly impossible to avoid hearing all sorts of music way back when. Radio and then MTV was inescapable. Now, everyone is able to silo themselves - even without intentionally doing so - and avoid hearing large swathes of genres/bands.

[Ghost Econ]

Are Hall & Oates discography "good?" If that's your type of music, obviously. I don't think we can deny they had hits, but I don't know that I've ever listened to an actual album.

Also, since I know we have yacht rock fans, as much as I enjoy The Doobie Brothers in each of their eras, they just feel to inessential to be in the discussion.

But what about Steely Dan. They're fairly divisive, maybe a bit like Velvet Underground in that they're really only your favorite band's favorite band.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Ghost Econ

Are Hall & Oates discography "good?" If that's your type of music, obviously. I don't think we can deny they had hits, but I don't know that I've ever listened to an actual album.

Too bad frozenrope no longer visits -- he would absolutely say H&O are good. Would probably like this discussion overall, too.

(He's doing a Billboard countdown history podcast these days in his spare time.)

[Ghost Econ]

Tom Breihan's Number Ones series is one of the best things on the internet.

[Lathum]

The Ramones need to enter the conversation. They also helped start an entire genre.

[Ksyrup]

I'm a H&O fan generally, but I wouldn't put them very near the top of this conversation. They're like a more successful, longer-lasting blue-eyed soul version of Huey Lewis & The News' 50s rock makeover.

[Ghost Econ]

I have to go on record as saying that I really dislike the Ramones. They're not quite the Billy Joel to my Quicksand, but I feel they're as overrated as The Clash.

Also, I've never really cared about The Doors, but it had been a while since I had listened to their first couple of albums. So I listened to them, and I really got the musicianship, but I really don't think Morrison adds anything to the band. I don't know that he necessarily detracts, but I feel his hotness and death is doing a lot of heavy lifting for his legacy.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Ghost Econ

I have to go on record as saying that I really dislike the Ramones. They're not quite the Billy Joel to my Quicksand, but I feel they're as overrated as The Clash.

Also, I've never really cared about The Doors, but it had been a while since I had listened to their first couple of albums. So I listened to them, and I really got the musicianship, but I really don't think Morrison adds anything to the band. I don't know that he necessarily detracts, but I feel his hotness and death is doing a lot of heavy lifting for his legacy.

I don't mind the Ramones, but I feel like they basically have one song, and they just redid it a number of times. (But their song isn't as good as, say, AC/DC's song. [yes I know, Aussie])

That's not a bad view of the Doors, really. I don't listen to them like I used to, but I do like them. While I think he's distinctive, I'm not sure I would like the Doors significantly less if you removed Morrison from the tracks and made their songs instrumentals.*

edit: Oh heh, of course someone did some of that: - YouTube



* Though I'm someone who will listen to KPM instrumentals for hours; YMMV.

[albionmoonlight]

This thread got me doing a bit of a wikipedia dive on Chicago.

Their level of popularity vs. their critical acclaim is kind of amazing. They are one of the highest-charting and best-selling bands of all time.

And they have won one Grammy (not counting lifetime achievement stuff).

I have no idea what to do with that.

edit--and I don't get the sense that they were "influential" in that they defined a sound for other artists. They have just always kind of been their own thing.

[Ksyrup]

Terry Kath's death kind of marked Peter Cetera's takeover of the group, although it was beginning before that. And, music was changing so much that the reliance on a horn section was probably going to naturally fade out regardless. Their 80s output - like a lot of 60s/70s bands - was full of schlocky crap (though popular, of course). For good or bad, the Cetera/Foster duo was unstoppable for a while, but killed whatever was left of Chicago.

[Lathum]

What about Lynard Skynard.

[Ghost Econ]

Skynyrd is kind of like The Allman's. They were technically skilled but I feel they've been mythologized for the wrong reasons.

In lists I've seen, the Red Hot Chilli Peppers get listed alot as far as "modern" bands go. I fucking hate them but can't deny that they had a period of popularity for reasons I can't understand. They kind of represent where everything started to go wrong with rock and are basically Sublime with a lead singer who didn't die before they became popular.

I'm also realizing there are more bands I don't like than I thought.

Also, looking through the top country acts of all time, it's really surprising how few country groups are thought of fondly instead of just solo acts. It's basically Alabama, Brooks and Dunn... and that's about it.

[GrantDawg]

Nitty Gritty Dirt Band. The Carter Family. Rascal Flatts. The Charlie Daniels Band. The Oakridge Boys. The Statler Brothers.
There are a few.

Sent from my SM-S938U using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

Dola: For country bands, there are lots that have longevity, but of the list I think you have The Carter Family is foundational. Alabama as one if the most successful. And Rascal Flatts is the band that is most influential.

Sent from my SM-S938U using Tapatalk

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Carman Bulldog

I think an offshoot of the Greatest American Band of all time is the Biggest American Band at any given time. Basically like a linear heavyweight boxing champ where a band is at their creative and commercial peak and is the biggest band in America at the time. For instance, I don't think the Talking Heads are the greatest of all time, but they were arguably the American heavyweight champ from around 1981-1984 or so. R.E.M. arguably held the linear championship from 1991-1995.

For some more context, the title belt probably originates in the mid-50s with Bill Haley & His Comets. Buddy Holly and the Crickets (or the Everly Brothers) probably knock them off around 1957. The title is either vacated upon the Crickets split and Holly's death or the Everly's keep it until around 1961-62 and then we have a number of contenders come along including the Beach Boys, Booker T & the MG's and Peter, Paul, and Mary. By about '63 though, the Beach Boys have won it in any event and hold the title through around '66. The Monkees come along in 1967 and take the title from The Beach Boys and that's about as far as I've got.

Have been idly musing about this, here and there, since reading it. Fun diversion.

Like Guns and Roses likely becomes the champion in 1987 and through maybe the next year, with a monstrous debut that shook the music world, right? They get the belt for a year or so, I think.

[cuervo72]

I think GNR absolutely do get hold of that title c. Appetite.

I think Sly and the Family Stone claim 1969. Two hits in the top 10 of the year with "Everyday People" and "Hot Fun in the Summertime."

[cuervo72]

(Oh, and do the Carpenters count as a "band"?)

[Ghost Econ]

I want to know what year we would have retired the belt. I feel like it was either before or after The Black Keys. I feel like they've owned it by default for at least a decade.

[Ghost Econ]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

(Oh, and do the Carpenters count as a "band"?)

I think if The Everly Brothers or Hall & Oates count as a band, then the Carpenters count.

How high up are Simon & Garfunkel?

[albionmoonlight]

The definition of a band feels like a classic "I know it when I see it."

Like at any given time, Prince and whatever group of musicians was lucky enough to stand behind him and play instruments were one of the greatest musical acts going. But I don't think of them as a band. I think of them as Prince.

But the E-Street band is a band, IMO. Simon and Garfunkel are a duet and not a band. But The Police are a band in a way that Prince's musicmates were not.

Just don't ask me for consistency and I can define any group out there as a band or not :-)

[Lathum]

Where does Bon Jovi factor in? Longevity, tons of hits and rock anthems, great live show, etc...plus he has a rest area named after him on the Garden State Parkway.

[Ghost Econ]

Actually, I think Maroon 5 has probably had the belt for some time. And they're maybe the closest analogue to Bon Jovi. A pop group masquerading as a band.