Which band IS really America's Greatest (rock & roll band)?


When I consider my priorities for this category, I cannot come up with any other than CCR.

Their output as a band was short compared to others, yes..

When I say America's greatest rock & roll band, this = the output or even the basis on which a band formed, had in their DNA, America's roots! It doesn't even matter that we now know CCR formed in California, their DNA as a band transformed their birthplace but it more importantly brought forth the (soul) of get down and dirty) Rock & Roll in it's raw form!

HELL YEAH!
128x128slaw

Exactly slaw, Rock. The two are used interchangeably, as if they mean the same thing. They obviously do to younger dudes, but not to me. Here’s how I differentiate between the two:

Rock ’n’ Roll, or Rock & Roll, or Rock and Roll, is the combination of the music southern blacks were making after the end of WWII (Jump Blues, Rural Blues, Rhythm & Blues, Gospel), combined with the music southern whites were making at the same time (Hillbilly, Bluegrass, Country, Gospel). It sounds "southern", rural. That’s an over-simplification, as Big Joe Turner’s (out of Kansas City) "Shake, Rattle, & Roll" (from 1954, a year before Elvis Presley’s 1st Sun single) is very much Rock ’n’ Roll, and it contains no strains of "white" music. Same with the music of Little Richard and some other southern blacks.

But the black artists were being played only on stations catering to the ’Race" market. Sun Records owner/recording engineer Sam Phillips was recording black artists in the Memphis area for that market, including the great Howlin’ Wolf. What a voice! You’ve probably heard "Smokestack Lightning" (The Yardbirds did it), but not like Wolf sings it! Sam was quoted as saying "If I could find a white man with the black feel, I’d make a million dollars". Elvis Presley walked into Sun Records in 1954, and the world was about to change. By the way, it was because Rock ’n’ Roll was a mix of black and white that it was at first banned in the southern states. "We ain’t havin’ our white kids listenin’ to no n*gg*r music", was the attitude.

I wasn’t yet old enough to hear that original 1950’s Rock ’n’ Roll on the radio, but I DID hear Chuck Berry, The Everly Brothers, Roy Orbison, etc., whose music was sure Rock ’n’ Roll (R & R without Chuck Berry’s guitar playing? No way!), in the early 60’s. I was introduced to a lot of 50’s music by the British Invasion groups, who WERE old enough to have heard it at the time of it’s release. One of those groups was of course The Rolling Stones, whose music was much more informed by black music than by white. The same is true of The Animals, The Yardbirds, and some other BI groups. It was the elimination, or at least minimization, of the southern white influence in the music of those bands that created what I think of as Rock. It is much more Blues based than anything else; very little of the Hillbilly influence heard in 1950’s Rock ’n’ Roll. Also, Rock 'n' Roll has a hint of "swing' in it, the shuffle rhythm heard in some Blues and a lot of Country. Rock music is largely devoid of the swing/shuffle feel, every note having the same time value (musician's and listener's schooled in music theory know what that means). 

Now here’s something I find amusing: One of the musical movements taking place largely under the radar in the late 60’s was the reintroduction of Hillbilly/Bluegrass/Country into Rock music (Dylan, The Band, The Byrds, others), music which was then referred to as Country Rock. See the humor in that?!

I saw a quote from Steven Tyler, saying their (he and the other Aerosmith members) ambition was to become The Rolling Stones. Who else finds that quite a pathetic admission? Isn’t to take the same influences and become your own version of it, rather than a copy of The Stone’s version, a much more noble and dignified ambition? I DO have to admit, though, they certainly achieved their modest goal. Embarrassing.

@bdp24 ,

Thanks for that history lesson my friend. Have you ever watched Cadillac Records? It seems to have some truth running though it. I highly enjoy it every time I watch it.

BTW, America is on my top bands list of all time, yet I would categorize them more as pop.

bdp24,  respectfully disagree about Manzarek. Maybe not a virtuoso, but perfect for the Doors. And I think that is a criteria that often gets overlooked when we talk about greatness. I think about a band like U2. None of them are great musicians but they serve each other in such a way as to make them one of the greatest bands in the world. Virtuosity is useless in a vacuum. But in regard to Manzarek it might be worth watching him in film footage. The Doors had no bass player and he often played the bass part with one hand and the rest with his other....one hand behind his back if you will. Densmore and Kreiger certainly credit him with more than 1/4 of the band’s greatness.
@bdp24 : "I saw a quote from Steven Tyler, saying their (he and the other Aerosmith members) ambition was to become The Rolling Stones. Who else finds that quite a pathetic admission?"

I don't think it is pathetic at all. What great musicians started out without emulating someone? And the Stones are arguably the greatest rock (or R&R) band of all time. If all you become is basically a cover band for the Rolling Stones then yes that might be pathetic. Never liked the direction Aerosmith took late in their career but they, in my opinion, rose above emulating the Stones. And quite frankly I've never cared much about the Stones or Aerosmith but I think you'd be hard pressed to find bands who rose to greatness without aping a band or performer they admired. So I hardly fault them for that.

@n80, you misunderstand. My critique of Manzarek is not in terms of him not being a virtuoso (I don’t judge musicians by that yardstick), but by his musical ideas. The musical parts the other organists I named came up with don’t take virtuosity to play, but rather good musical instincts and ideas. Their song parts display that talent, one which Manzarek, imo, did not possess. Just my opinion, as I said. The Band’s pianist/singer Richard Manuel was not an accomplished drummer with chops, but his drum parts on The Band songs he played on are fantastic! His drum parts are musically brilliant, serving the interests of the song rather than his ego. THAT’S what makes for a superior musician. Matthew Fisher's organ part in Procol Harum's "A Whiter Shade Of Pale" is SO great, but not hard to play; no virtuosity required, but rather great musical ideas.

About my comments of Aerosmith copying The Stones, of course all musicians start out emulating those who came before them. But The Stones took the music of the Blues and Rock ’n’ Roll artists they most loved and made it their own. They didn’t set out to "become" Muddy Waters or Chuck Berry. The best musicians (not necessarily virtuosos) trace the music back to it’s roots, drawing on it’s originators. To use a contemporary band as your template, to not go back in time to explore the source and inspiration of their work, is what I object to. Rather than imitate The Stones, Aerosmith "should" have studied the same artists The Stones did, and create their own version of that music (as The Stones did), not setting their sights on "becoming" The Stones. That’s called a tribute band! You’re free to disagree, of course, but that’s what good musicians do, and is what makes a band a good one. Aerosmith is not a good band, and are actually considered a joke by the good ones. Honest!

You know who else didn’t think much of the doors (The Who, as well)? Jerry Garcia. But then, he was as much an opinionated *ssh*le as am I ;-) .