I’m definitely seeing a pattern of repeat mentions. I think there’s enough data for a GARBOAT poll! I’ll try to work on it tonight.
Also, thanks for the great suggestions for bands to listen to at work today!
I’m surprised at how hard this question is to answer, actually. It seems the U.S. produced all the brilliant solo artists; Michael Jackson, Elvis, Stevie Wonder, and the like. If I had to pick one, I guess I’d pick The Beach Boys, with honorable mentions to Nirvana, Run-DMC, CCR, Beastie Boys, Fleetwood Mac (that’s cheating a little) and Aerosmith.
RHCP got you covered on all 4 points, I’d say.
Although if we do blame them for NuMetal, that might not be a point in their favour 
I can safely say I’ve never owned any Eagles records (or most of the AOR dinosaurs being touted in this thread)
Go finish your chores and do your homework, or no allowance for you!
Agreed. The UK and Ireland seem more band-focused. You can argue amongst Beatles, Stones, Zep, Who, Floyd, Sabs and so on up to modern day bands like U2 and Radiohead. (by the way, the answer is The Beatles ;)). US artists have been different that way.
That’s a good point. I shot an interview with Jimmy Johnson and David Hood of The Swampers several years ago. In addition to being very talented and a big part of rock history, they’re two of the nicest guys you’ll ever meet. (Hood is also the father of Patterson Hood from Drive-By Truckers, currently one of my favorite bands.)
Mine too.
But I also struggle to answer. Green Day might deserve a mention too.
Elton, Bowie, Clapton and, for me, Amy, might be offended. But sure, there’s an interesting dichotomy.
I’ll say Doctor Hook just to get their name mentioned. Also CCR, though I’ve been beaten to the punch.
No offense intended. The point is that if you want to discuss UK/Irish bands or UK/Irish individual musicians, you can discuss each separately with plenty of entries (we could argue whether, say, Elton was an individual or a band given his steady bandmates, but that would be for fun). It has been different for the US, for some reason…
There are two kinds of people: those who value the songs, and think the musicianship should be in service of doing the songs justice; and those who value the musicianship, and think the songs should give the musicians scope to really use their talents. Neither approach is wrong; I don’t think either approach is objectively superior to the other. But I personally fall firmly into the first camp.
You lost me right at the end there. If you say that rock is “about making people shake their butt in a particular way,” you run the risk of naming a Disco act as GARBOAT. A band that truly rocks is going to produce some physical reaction, but it might be making me bang my head or reach for my air guitar.
And yes, the genre of rock includes ample room for both “complex and smart” and “simple, loud, and dumb.”
Well, then allow me to clarify. “Particular” is the undefined word that lets me not try to define the dancing too much; but we’re not talking about doing the Charleston, the Two-Step, or even the Hustle. Since we’re apparently eliminating hard funk, I’d say we can safely avoid disco except from stealth entries by bands that were otherwise rock bands.
Similarly, we had smart, complex music before Rock 'n Roll. It wasn’t the advent of smart, complex music by any means. It was the advent of an exciting beat-oriented music. You can take your influences from anywhere, and be as smart or complex as you want. It will probably make you a better band, without the modifiers - but it’s not gonna make them more of a rock band.
Well as I said, this poll goes back to before anyone considered that a band needed to “Rock” to be great. The bands were themselves and that involved rocking, but there was no aesthetic mandate.
Everything you are saying is through a telescope backwards.
All bands had acoustic songs, ballads, folk songs, slow songs etc. as part of what a “Rock” album consisted of.
So “Rock” as a form is not signifying that a band only “Rocks” or even that that’s the most important thing.
That all came after punk when musicians started to be self conscious about how wide their pants were, how fast or loud they were, how long their hair was, etc. or else they were going to be thrown on the garbage bin of history. And it came to pass that in the future there were a lot of people who pointed their fingers backwards in time and said “That doesn’t rock.” It doesn’t show a lot of insight into the prior conditions.
Bands go back very far, yes. This is a thread about rock bands. It’s right there in the name.
Umm, we are all looking back through history. That’s the only thing people who weren’t there can do. And if if you were there, it means bupkiss. I know, I was there for some of it.
But how much they rocked would bear heavily on the status of that band as a “Rock” band.
Concern about image pretty much came with the first generation of Rock 'n Roll performers. You’re way off base laying that at some point after punk, and it has pretty much nothing to do with how good a rock band was. For example: Bowie was completely concerned about image (in a sub-genre heavily concerned by it), but he and several of his cohort totally rocked.
I wonder where Steely Dan fits into all this?
Are they rock enough? Musically you’d not have any argument, and as for longevity - well they are still going, but can you call them a band or a collection of various session musicians that step in and out of the Steely Dan orbit from time to time.
Fleetwood Mac, mostly American for some of the time, plenty of rock in there, plenty of musician ship, zillions of sales.
I always understood that Chicago were quite a significant band in the US.
No mention of Meat Loaf, I guess there’s a lack of longevity there?
either fleetwood or steely dan gets my vote, i think fleetwood had slightly more mass appeal
The only thing I can think to disqualify them is that they are very funky.* If we’re going to let them in the pool, how about Sly and the Family Stone? Not many funk bands rocked harder than they did, and they were hugely influential. They changed both funk and rock. Much like the nationality question below, where do we draw the line?
If that version of the Mac gets in, then I think Hendrix and the Pretenders should get in.
*And now, I’m going to have “Peg” caught in my head for a week. Luckily, I can stick it in my wife’s head for a while by singing “It’s your favorite foreign movie” and doot-doo-doot-de-doot the horn hook. Now imagine a fat version of Chief Aramaki dancing off in his pajamas after doing that. (Ok, no one wanted to imagine that. I apologize, but it is what happens. ) In the end, I’ll probably drown it out by figuring out how to play the solos to “Reeling in the Years” some more. So, thanks?
I think both publishing and performance longevity are a necessity for a “greatest” title. This bumps short-hot-spark acts like CCR, Boston, Hendrix, and Nirvana off the list.
(no, this is not a sly ploy to bump Blue Oyster Cult and Alice Cooper up in the ratings, it’s a blatant bald-faced ploy to do so).
I lived in Muscle Shoals just down the street from Fame Studios for about 8 years, so I sort of remembered them. I don’t recall ever seeing MS Studio, the one the Swampers started.