2. music
  3. 138612-1975

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
n80
1,227 posts
 
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.
n80
1,227 posts
 
@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.

bdp24's avatar
bdp24
4,908 posts
 

@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 ;-) .

slaw's avatar
slaw OP
5,785 posts
 
@bdp24,

I’m not trying to suck up. I do want to thank you for your response and the way you responded. The reason I mentioned the movie Cadillac Records was that several topics in that film are ones you've been talking about recently.

n80
1,227 posts
 
bdp24, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Which is fine of course. But even in your description of what makes a musician/organist a good one, I still feel like Manzarek fits the bill. His playing pretty much carried the Doors in my opinion (and the opinion of his band mates and other critics). But, its neither here nor there. I'm no expert. And I do appreciate your insight in the matter.

I also think it is funny that other musicians would say disparaging things about bands/groups that they have nothing to do with. I always feel that has more to do with their ego than the other group's capabilities. Under what circumstances does one rock legend disparage another? The Doors were the Doors. Their mark is indelible. Much of their music is fantastic in my opinion. If nothing else Jim was the first to have the nerve to disobey Ed Sullivan.  Live and on TV. Mick Jagger did not. ;-)

Again, I'm not a big Aerosmith fan. Saw them in concert in 1990. Great show. But I just don't know what to do about a comment like "Aerosmith is not a good band". They've made tons of music enjoyed by millions of people. They've been around for a long time. They've changed with the times and alternated fairly easily between rock/pop/movie scores etc. They are (or were up until recently) nearly a household name and their songs, dating back to the 70s, are still in constant radio rotation. Still, they don't tick the boxes that make me really like or admire a band but I still wouldn't say that they aren't a "good band".  The fact that I don't like them doesn't change what they've accomplished. Likewise with The Who, although I am a marginal Who fan.
More to discover