I’m gonna toss my hat in the ring before even reading the thread.
In 1987, Rolling Stone dubbed R.E.M. “America’s Best Rock’n’Roll Band.” 
eos
Ergh, can’t believe I forgot Neil Young is Canadian. And Graham Nash, hmmm… the nationality thing is getting tricky.
Though once again as previously mentioned, I’m willing to be loose on country of origin of every single band member as long as the music has an element of “Americana” to it. I keep mentioning The Band in that regard, not because I think they are necessarily the GARBOAT, but they definitely have that Americana vibe.
I’m really surprised The Doors aren’t getting more traction. Massive hits, American feel and international appeal.
Americanness? I don’t know how you could define or referee that one.
To me an American band can have non american members but not the majority.
The experience was 2/3 english, came from england: Not american.
Santana: Have to be American. What else?
CSNY: Yes of course.
What about Arthur Lee and Love for the best?
Ooooh, so much folk in that first track. I know Creedence pretty well, and I’d say that ZZ Top would leave them in the dust in a “best rock band” drag race.
I’d agree to no JB’s with the right argument. But I have, umm, let’s just call it issues with the RnRHOF, so I can’t guarantee that I’d abide by their idea of merit.*
I’d say that if Hendrix counts, Santana certainly counts. If we’re extending our metrics to Neil Young’s catalog and Dylan’s, I’d have a very hard time excluding Prince. He at least often billed himself as Prince and the ______. So if the consensus wants do divide the blanks up into different bands, I can go along, provided we extend it to the others. But even I think we’re lawyering it down a bit at that point.
*Seriously, no Dick Dale? They’re a bunch of booger eating morons.
Best Rock band Drag race?
That’s like saying who would win in a drag race between Ernest Hemingway and Michael Crighton? (In cars of their own period)
For variety of material Creedence is greater, but Creedence didn’t have enough variety to make my top 5. In fact they are a pony with not that many tricks. Plus on the playing side they are not known for high quality, rthm section and all.
It would be helpful if we defined what we mean by ‘greatest’.
Musical quality? Too subjective. That’s why just tossing out the name of our favorite obscure band muddies the water.
Factors we would have to look at:
Record sales. Tours. Influence. Notoriety. Longevity (both in being around a long time and the music holding up). Critical acclaim, respect from peers?
Well, other than they’re largely of the same era (a 60’s muscle car would also pummel most cars from the 70’s), and one is so very much more mellow than the other.
Points off for Morrison being too much of a drunken lout perhaps?
I think a lot of people went through a Doors phase but maybe not so many life-long devotees.
I can see where you’re coming from. But to divorce this from musical quality would make it meaningless.
Did we forget about the Velvet Underground?
That’s because Pearl Jam wasn’t formed until 1990.
I can’t believe we got this far without anyone, including myself, thinking of them.
Lynyrd Skynyrd gets my vote.
Drive-By Truckers.
Thought I covered that in my OP-
- Fame/success/longevity
- Influence on later bands
- They rock.
There was also discussion of a possible fourth point- the amount of “Americana” quality of the band and its songs.
Mellow is in the ear of the beholder. I might think that a lack of peaks and valleys in a record means that it is mellower (Maybe I should say “more somnolent”) regardless of the attitude struck. Even if the metronome is faster, or the amp is on 11. It has less interest. Some play real fast and lose all the feel in the rush. To me that’s like being asleep, esp across a whole record.
They are not from the same era to me at all. ZZ top is “post Creedence” in many ways. 5 Years was a long time then.
My definition of the GARB is not just based on “Rocking” but on a lot of things around musical qualities. The idea that bands should only rock loud and fast and there was a failure or weakness in not doing so came about after the mid 70s and punk. By then most music really blew. Hmmm…
R.I.P. Lux Interior.
I would put R.E.M. at or near the top of my list. I’ve been a big fan of them since I was about 14 (1983) and they were a big part of my formative years (high school and college.)
If we’re counting Canadians, Neil Young and Crazy Horse has to be near the top.
Little Feat
My first thought was Aerosmith, then the Eagles.
Boston? No. And I loved their first three albums. But since then, they’ve been nowhere without the late Brad Delp. Tom Scholz is a musical genius (a real genius, he graduated from M.I.T.), but he’s also too much of a perfectionist and takes eons to produce an album, and their last couple of albums have sold poorly and have been generally derided as crap. They haven’t had too much consistency for almost 30 years, and other than Scholz, have had a revolving door of members. They’re mostly a nostalgia act these days as audiences mostly prefer the songs from their heyday in 1976-1978.
Another factor is the “of all time”.
How many times have you been listening to the radio and heard an Eagles song come on, and think to yourself, “Wow, that was great!”? The answer is never. You never did that. You shrugged and said to yourself, “Well, it’s the Eagles again”.
Nobody wants to hear the Eagles anymore. Yes, they were huge and influential and whatever. But they’re done, there’s nobody who wants to hear the Eagles again.
Same with The Doors. Nobody wants to hear the Doors again.
But put on a Creedence song, and you want to hear another Creedence song.