Ah, well noted digsperson - that was excellent of you! Yes, it is clear that, with the recent announcement of Bill and Ted part 3: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=854462 the correct answer her is Wyld Stallyns!!!
[quote=“pulykamell, post:233, topic:813547”]
This is actually an interesting question to me. I would guess there’s more Beach Boys fans than Ramones fans overall. But I would guess with Gen X and younger, you’d probably find the opposite. As a first approximation, I decided to see on Facebook which band was more followed. And, to be honest, I was a little surprised. Beach Boys has 1.9 million likes. The Ramones has 5.7 million. That really is not what I would have guessed.
It’s going to depend a on your definition of ‘fan’. It’s certainly safe to define of a fan of a musical group as someone who likes to listen to them, in that case ‘likes them enough to spend money for the privilege’ works as a bar, so metrics like album and ticket sales can give you a number. Things like ‘how added to playlists are they’ or ‘how many pandora thumbs up do the get’ also feel safe for me even though they don’t have a barrier to entry, since they show liking the band. But I wouldn’t base the count off of facebook likes or T-shirt sales, because that captures people who aren’t actually into the band itself, but just the fashion statement - a Ramones T-shirt or FB like signals something like “I’m into punk” or (more cynically) “I’m into showing that I like punk and/or a classic band”. I wouldn’t say that it’s automatically invalid to count ‘fashion statement’ fans, but when I hear fan I don’t really think ‘someone who wouldn’t recognize any of the band’s songs if you played them but hit like on them because a friend did’ counts.
I’m also surprised by your FB numbers, especially when you compare them to album sales. (While album sales have changed a lot now, both bands were active in the era when full album sales were really healthy). The Ramones only managed two gold (half million sales) albums in their career, even with the nostalgia trent, so have around 10 times as many FB fans as their best selling album sold. Beach boys, OTOH, managed a lot more record sales, including their triple platinum (3 million sales) 50th anniversary compilation, so manage to have peak sales about one and a half times as large as their facebook likes.
Folks like puly and me LOVE The Beach Boys. I stated in an early thread that their creative arc is one of the biggest transitions from fun pop rock to true artistry.
The posts about The Ramones are not looking to dismiss The Beach Boys, just to make it clear that The Ramones are in a similar top tier of influence.
Of course. I did say “as a first approximation” for a reason–because it is an imperfect metric. However, even if the likes were for reasons of fashion, that shows cultural influence and that they’re not some oddball obscure band that nobody’s heard of and doesn’t deserve to even be in the discussion (as several posters in this thread seem to be implying.) That said, just looking at which of my friends “liked” the Ramones (and it seems six of them have), all of them are actually people whom I know are Ramones fans in the musical, not fashion, sense. Granted, it’s not safe to assume my friends list represents an accurate sample of the type of people who give them Facebook likes, but it’s another data point to me that suggests that it’s likely that most of the people are liking them because, well, they actually like the Ramones.
Too bad that wasn’t the question the OP asked. 
Which just takes us back to defining “greatest” again. Ain’t Life fun?
The Dead were a bunch of lames, but no doubt at their absolutey nadir when attempting to cover blues and R&B. Compare the following:
Turn On Your Love Light by the Dead
And by Bobby Bland:
I’ll repeat what I said upthread: the OP question is not answerable in the same way it could be answered with “conventional wisdom” for the UK (The Beatles), The Netherlands (Golden Earring more than Focus, yes?), Italy (Zucchero, who’s a star not a band), etc… I assume at this point, we could say that conventional wisdom would line up with U2 as the greatest Irish rock band (Van Morrison, but he’s a guy. I vote for Thin Lizzy!!). Not sure about Germany - it shouldn’t be the Scorpions dammit. I would assert Kraftwerk.
But for the US, we end up in these types of threads…
Now that you mention it, I’d say that energy is at least as much of a necessary characteristic of rock as “danger” is.
Anyone who thinks the Dead lack “energy”, I don’t even know what the hell to say. They have more musical stamina than any band I’ve ever heard (maybe with the exception of the Allman Bros.) to power through extended jam after extended jam.
I conflate the two - yeah, the hard energy of rock n’ roll was part of what made it dangerous. Little Richard bombing through Tutti Frutti or I Hear You Knockin’ ? Oh hell yeah!!
Jacquernagy - I would distinguish between aggressive songs and musical stamina. The Dead don’t play songs with aggressive energy to them. I believe that is what is being referred to here.
So I fired that track up. Pretty standard Dead take on an old blues song. Seems like they are following the arrangement from the London Howlin Wolf Sessions from 1971, which is not my favorite - especially compared to Wolf’s original studio version.
The Dead’s version is fine. They hit their groove, and they got done in under 7 minutes which is pretty good for them live. It is just that for me, the song doesn’t go anywhere.
Upthread, WordMan mentioned the need for Rock 'N Roll to be dangerous. I might not take it that far, but Rock needs to at least have some drive behind it, some edge. And to me, the Dead are anti-edge. They are all about setting a mood for a party for 20,000 people that is going to last several hours. So they chug along in their mid-tempo bluesy/folky/countryish groove, set a nice vibe for the night, and everybody dances and has a good time. Which is fine, fantastic even if you like the scene. But I find it hard to bestow the title of “Greatest American Rock Band Ever” to a band that doesn’t actually rock.
Hey man, if your name is WreckingCrew, your musical cred is already pretty well-established in my opinion. The Crew kicked ass and I love Carol Kaye’s playing, it’s awesome.
If the live Dead stuff doesn’t do anything for you, you might like their studio albums more. They’re underrated as a studio band, because their live performances and following overshadow their albums.
So here’s the thing - stamina does not equal energy. In fact, stamina isn’t necessarily a good thing. Noodling along on the same riff for ten minutes without any passion or drive behind it doesn’t take me anywhere. After a few minutes of Jerry’s playing I always find myself thinking, “OK, I got that part, but is there an actual goal to all of this?”
Since you brought up the Allman Brothers, I will say that they are the only jam band I can stand to listen to. Part of the reasons that Duane doesn’t get lost in endless solos. I honestly believe that his brief time as a session player taught him the importance of playing within a song, as opposed to just using a song as a starting point for a jam. For the premier example of this, listen to “Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs” where he fits his playing within another band, even combining with another Alpha Wolf guitar slinger, and takes the songs up to a new level without taking over the entire song.
In addition, Gregg Allman was a much more powerful singer than any of the vocalists in the Dead. You may prefer the Dead’s vocalists, but there are few times when their singers are actually driving the song.
And finally, speaking of driving the song, the Allman Brothers songs are always going somewhere with a purpose. This doesn’t mean that their improvs always worked, but it is rare to hear them meander. Their rhythm section always keep the songs moving. It isn’t just a matter of speed or volume, even a song like “In Memory of Elizabeth Reed” still has some punch and snap to it.
Nothing the Dead has ever done makes me sit up and take notice, because there is no energy behind it.
I’ve tried - really I have. My sister and plenty of other friends were/are into the Dead, so I have heard plenty of their stuff. Just a few months ago I sat through a whole listen of American Beauty to see if it took this time. Nope. I do find their studio work more to my taste because there are fewer excesses, but they just have nothing to offer me. That and Jerry’s voice is like nails on a chalkboard in a blender to my ears.
It isn’t that I hate the Dead - I did go through that phase as a younger punk who knew everything. At this point, they just bore me. Honestly right now I view the Dead and their various offshoots as the hippie version of Jimmy Buffett, endlessly cranking out non-threatening background music for a non-stop, traveling party. No harm in that, seems like a great way to make a living.
I can make some very specific arguments with regards to the Sex Pistols, but the gist of the arguments also held true for Motörhead (and heavy metal music in general), and I think I laid that out pretty clearly some time ago.
The Ramones influence on modern rock music simply cannot be overstated, IMO.
No argument there.
The Dead can definitely be hit-and-miss. When they hit it, they hit it. But if I’m listening to the Dead channel on Sirius and it gets meandering too much, I’ll gladly change the channel. To Yacht Rock. Or 90s On 9.
Do that, then.
Well, that’s rude.
Bo, I would appreciate hearing stuff you have regarding this. It is an interesting topic, and figuring out how to peg the Sex Pistols has always felt thorny to me. The album, produced by Chris Thomas, is nothing more or less than a fine rock album - strong riffs and memorable hooks and choruses. It just has a different approach to vocals and lyrics that are dangerous in a snotty way vs. attempting to be hard rock cool. But it’s hard rock with different packaging. Very different from The Ramones or The Clash.
What? How is that rude (unless you view all succinctness as rude)?
You claim you can make a case for the Ramones being essential to the existence of the Pistols (I’m assuming that’s what you’re claiming, given the context of your quotes). I’m saying if you can, do that, rather than then merely linking to yourself talking about a completely different band. Once again,* no-one’s* denying the Ramones were influential.