Best band never to release a truly great album?

This thread provides solid proof that there's no accounting for taste. That said, I'd nominate the Yardbirds. And I'm surpised nobody's mentioned the Dead, who are always described by the committed as "much better in concert."

As for quibbles with the preceding, anybody who thinks the Velvets' White Light (or even Nico) doesn't consitute a great album is setting a very high standard. I'd agree on Bloomfield's solo work (though I think Super Session is overrated, but then I'm not a Kooper fan), but I credit him for much of what shines on the first two Butterfield albums.

After reviewing the responses, I'm somewhat confused. I think we need some definitions. What defines a "truly great album"? Commerical success; i.e., a gold or platinum album? Artistic success, rather reconized by the "critics" or not? For example, Jethro Tull, Little Feat, Lynyrd Skynyrd and Moby Grape were all listed as "best band never to release a truly great album" I don't know -- in my book "Aqualung", "Dixie Chicken", "Street Survivors" and "Moby Grape" (first album) were all great albums within their musical categories; i.e., Tull's melding of riff-rock, folk, and progressive style, Little Feat's groove-pop and rock stew, Skynyrd's southern rock and Moby Grape's melding of pyschedelia, rock,county-funk and folk. Having said all the above, my nomination (based on the criteria of artistic achievement, reconized or not) is David Lindley's "El Rayo X".

if single artists are included, dave mason never received his solo statis acclaim. ditto on earlier mentioned little feat. kurt

Well, to clarify, I definitely meant great on a subjective artistic level. Everyone knows sales figures don't mean jack, general critical opinion only marginally more than jack. So we're really just talking personal opinions here. . .

Bomarc,
Though the Dead were better live, they released three great albums, American Beauty, Workingmans Dead, and Live Dead.