The three great primitives of rock: AC/DC, the Ramones and Motörhead

Cafe Society
1

I’ve long been thinking about posting this thread, and now that I’m once more listening to “No Sleep Til Hammersmith”, I’m finally ready to. I want to post the theory that these three bands represent the essence of what rock’n’roll is all about, at least as I understand and appreciate it. They’re the most no bullshit, three chord guitar (+guitar), bass and drums bands you can think of, no need for keyboards, horns or background singers. And almost no ballads, granted, the Ramones had a few, and AC/DC have a few slow blues songs, but not any of that maudlin shit other hard rock and heavy metal bands like to churn out (I’m looking at you, Scorpions). No, these three bands are the real deal.

And it’s no surprise that “If You Want Blood”, “It’s Alive” and “No Sleep” rank among the best live albums of all time.

So what do you think? Are there even other bands in that category?

2

Johnny Burnette and his band, The Rock and Roll Trio.

3

Yeah, of course they were standing on the shoulders of giants. And “Train Kept A Rollin’” was covered by many bands, the Yardbirds, Aerosmith etc.

4

It’s an interesting category, because in order to be “great” by this definition, they must be one dimensional and risk adverse. In other words, not so great.

5

I dunno, maybe it’s a risk in itself to not take risks and deviate from the formula. Maybe I like them for their consistency. They all had success with it.

6

Would Metallica count? Or are we excluding Metal as a separate category from Rock?

7

No. I like some minimalism and all, but I disagree it’s the “essence” of rock.

And if you absolutely insist on some form of rockist stance, I can think of plenty more guitar+bass+drum outfits I’d much rather hear.

I don’t really like any of them. Motörhead I can tolerate, the other two not so much. In fact I actively loathe Ramones.

8

I think by now you must know that I don’t have any “rockist stance”, in fact I’m quite open to almost any music and listen to a lot, I just happen to like those three bands and to rock in general, that doesn’t make me a rockist. There’s a difference between “rock fan” and “rockist”. It’s ok for you not to like these bands, but don’t accuse me of being someone I’m not.

9

I endorse this formulation. All three are great, and I can’t think offhand of any logical addition to the list.

10

I’m talking about the attitude expressed here:

But never mind that, like I said, even allowing the parameters, I can think of plenty of pared-down rock bands I’d prefer. Start from classic Dinosaur Jr and work outwards from there.

11

How about a Gen Z Girl Group? In this clip, the bassist is 13 and the drummer is 16. So cute :smiling_face_with_sunglasses:

12

Nah, you must have misunderstood me, of course I listen to a lot of music that has all those things, and more, that’s not my argument, But sometimes, I just like to listen to a power trio.

Well, I got my Dinosaur Jr down, got almost all their albums. And saw them live. I’m really not a rock dinosaur myself. :wink:

13

See my edit, then.

14

“Train” was just a sample. The Rock and Roll Trio checked off every criteria in your OP when Angus Young was still in diapers.

15

Is longevity key? What about bands that burned short but ferociously bright? I’m sure if I thought about it I could dig up some punks for you. Possibly Richard Hell and the Voidoids for starters.

And how about

Also, where does the Spector produced stuff by the Ramones stand?

j

16

Muse?

Hello? Hello? Is this thing on? :microphone:

17

Goddamn, it’s far too long since I listened to that.

j

18

Agree with the OP.

19

I was actually thinking about the Flamin’ Groovies as a fourth candidate for this thread, because I love them, but then ditched them because nobody than us two knows them. :wink:

20

Fair enough!

Also, does it have to be rock to be rock? How about Rhythm ‘n’ Blues?

j