Rush.
Well, they’re North American.
I didn’t bring them up. Someone said that Westerberg reminded them of ersatz Clash.
If charts are important: They did a lot of talking about their own importance but only had 1 or 2 top 40 hits. (“No Beatles or Stones in 1977!!”??) They had many opportunities to be successful. I still can’t tell what actual songs the real Clash fans are talking about when they do. I’d like to know if it’s some I’ve never heard. But I’ve heard a lot and seen them twice.
The replacements never bragged or placed themselves above anyone. They never had a real hit. They just had all the talent and songs, but had them at the wrong time for the industry and Billboard. But in the scenes they were Yoooge!
I
Note to the past several posters: We are not seeking the greatest punk or post-punk or punk-influenced band on this thread… we are seeking the Greatest American Rock Band Of All Time.
The Clash, Mats, Replacements, (and especially the (ENGLISH) Sex Pistols) have no stake in this conversation.
They were all borderline rock, non-sellers vs. the likes of an Aerosmith or Eagles or Doors, or even REM, and didn’t have the chart successes/ staying power to meet the criteria of the OP.
As for what Ike said, "As a hardcore Deadhead, I always wince when someone calls them a “rock band,” or even “the greatest American rock band.” … Maybe that’s exactly what MAKES them the GARB. Their diversity, showmanship, fanbase, and influence is part of the very fabric of American rock. NPR has an hour-long show each week, “The Grateful Dead Hour.” The Beach Boys don’t have that. Hell, even Elvis and Jimi don’t have that. The Dead’s personal approach to ‘fame and fortune’ naturally did not result in hit singles or massive album sales… but they kept on keepin’ on for 30+ years.
I would still personally vote for The Doors over the GD, but that’s just an opinion. (And I actually believe we should TRY to take our personal tastes/opinions OUT of the discussion, to REALLY try to answer the question posed.)
Of course, I could be wrong. 
What about Santana? (Carlos was BORN in Mexico, but is now a US citizen, so that shouldn’t be a disqualifier.) Huge influence, huge seller, longevity, and rockingness… all attributes are there. Comments?
Considering my personal top 3: the Dead overflowed the boundaries of “rock” as Uke Ike said above. Bob Dylan isn’t a band. Zappa was awesome but never got massively popular and I don’t think you could point to subsequent major artists who were obviously influenced by him. I guess I would have to say the Ramones. As founding fathers of punk they had a massive influence on everything that came after, they were very American and they certainly did rock. They didn’t sell as many records as, say, the Eagles (who rock not a whit and have no place in this discussion), but I think they come closer than anyone else to meeting all the criteria. Honorable mentions to Metallica and CCR. But definitely the Dead if we count them as rock.
Santana has the same problem as Springsteen or Petty… an individual rather than a band. Yes, I realize that Santana has been in a string of bands, but the personnel has changed dramatically over the years.
However, in the same vein, I would suggest Los Lobos as a candidate. Extremely talented, influential, critically-recognized and they have a wide variety of songs. The problem is chart success. As much as I love Los Lobos, they really can’t be called the GAB by most people, who don’t know they did much other than a remake of La Bamba.
Well, there’s that and the fact that you’ve only named one American rock band there. The Clash are British (and nobody is using them in this discussion as a vote for Greatest American Rock band, just a side point, otherwise, they’d get my vote), and the Mats and Replacements are the same band (the former is a nickname for the latter.)
Are we talking about rock as a subgenre (not-too-heavy guitar-based music) or rock as a family of genres (non-heavy and heavy guitar-based music)? Because Metallica is obviously a metal band, but metal is a subset of rock. If we’re going narrow that obviously eliminates the Ramones and Green Day, too.
I’ve been avoiding returning to this thread, since I stated basically this in the poll thread; but it needs to be said again, I think. They’re right at the nexus of influence/rocking/success, as far as I can tell.
Of the other major contenders, they either didn’t rock a large amount of the time (Eagles, The Beach Boys and The Dead to a lesser extent), or didn’t have the success (the 'Mats, The Cramps, SY, etc.), or besmirched their own good name later (Van Halen, Metallica (yes, yes, IMHO)).
I’m not sure that it’s a problem that the E. Street Band ran away with the poll. It’s not the band I would have picked; but they’ve certainly been successful, long lived and influential. The only argument I can really think against them is that they’ve almost always performed under the “and the” moniker. But what’s so special about changing singers when you’re dealing with the legal/cultural idea that is a band. Once you get into lineups like Hawkwind’s, you end up with Theseus’ Paradox.
You’re never gonna learn how to spell Bo Diddley. 
Yeah, it’s an interesting question, as I never realized how difficult it was to name great American rock bands that hit on all three qualifications. All the bands that immediately come to mind are British for me. I listen to and love a lot of American music. But most of the stuff, while common to any avid music listener, is somewhat obscure to the American public at large. It’s really tough to settle on even a couple satisfyingly.
There’s always Bachman-Turner Overdrive. Never got the respect that Rush (belatedly, maybe) got, but they’ve got at least one song that everyone knows. Or at least everyone over a certain age.
They’re not really contenders for greatest band from anywhere, of course.
But Randy Bachman has a great radio show on the CBC.
I was merely making a case for the Mats to be in the conversation. The only way you could call them genre restricted is if you never listened IMO. The actual records belie any superficial judgement. And after all my Youtube searches over the last 48 hours I am convinced they are the best ever. They were just as productive in their own way as the Doors or Allmans.
My other picks: Beach Boys, Steely Dan, Byrds, maybe Aerosmith all had great strengths but I’m seeing that this is not about strict genius, but more what a “rock band” looks, sounds and acts like. There has to be an element of subversion in it, which I don’t find in a lot of mega popular groups. I think when I watch Paul and the boys it is the greatest example of an American band song for song. That they didn’t get rich is one of the great injustices in music.
RE: Zappa: He seemed to hate rock and was so witheringly cruel in his lyrics. He loved to dump on groupies and hippies but he wallowed in it and used it for his material all the time, to benefit from it. He looked down on the audience. Doesn’t make for a great “Rock” band.
Ooo…I can definitely get behind the Byrds being in the discussion, too. Aerosmith, though, does deliver the “rock” more, but their later stuff got pretty corporate rock sounding for my tastes.
It just struck me that we are 6 pages in and I don’t think anyone has mentioned the Talking Heads. Beloved by critics, relatively well selling, and capable of rocking.
WordMan mentioned them in post 84, but, yeah, now that I think about it, there should be a few more shout outs to them.
Answerman: Grateful Dead “showmanship” ? They all stood around on the stage and played music. No showmanship at all. That’s one of the many things I adore about 'em.
And when Jerry was asked why they weren’t more popular with the teenyboppers, he pointed out that they were all kinda ugly fuckers.
I doubt there’s an answer, really. People want so many different aspects to be considered.
I had thought Blondie might have been at least name-checked by now, or maybe I missed it. They were more than just Debbie Harry’s backing band and had a string of huge hits. Maybe they’re considered too poppy, though.
But, if we were voting for archetypal American band instead of GARB, I’d like to think that Canned Heat were in the running. Still going after 50 years, still with a core of ‘classic’ line-up members, some big hits (or at least well known ones) and persevering despite deaths of key members and all sorts of other ups and downs… Just don’t bring up their Christmas song with the Chipmunks!
This is my biggest takeaway: the better question is “why is the UK band-oriented and the US artist-oriented when it comes to Rock n’ Roll/Rock pantheons?”
I suspect it has something to do with how Record Labels promoted music acts in each country as much as anything. But it is fascinating how consistent it is.
I don’t think it’s necessarily that the US music scene is more artist-oriented. I think it’s that American bands tend not to last. The Who, Stones, Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, U2,* Depeche Mode, Queen, Pink Floyd, Joy Division/New Order, et al., have all been around for decades with largely stable lineups.** Obviously that’s not true of the punk bands, but that seems to be inherent to the genre. It’s not true of Deep Purple, either, but that’s probably because Blackmore is an arse.
Almost any US band of the same vintage will be a shadow of itself: just the main songwriter (whether it’s the guitarist or the singer) and a bunch of replacement players. That’s one reason I chose Metallica: lineup stability. If not for a bus crash they would most likely still be the same four guys who recorded Kill 'Em All.
On an unrelated note, it occurs to me that nobody has mentioned any of the great Southern bands. I don’t care for Skynyrd, but surely they deserve a mention. And the Allman Brothers. And ZZ Top.
*British-ish.
**It’s worth noting that most of the lineup changes in these bands were death-related.
All three were mentioned early on, and certainly Skynyrd deserves attention as a legitimate choice. Far more than many other mentioned bands, IMO.