The people from Kill Rock Stars asked this stumper:

If asked the question 'what was the greatest band since the beginning of rock and roll?' most people will answer the Beatles. Those who don't answer the Beatles and who are taking the question seriously (considering criteria of longevity and amount of total high-quality output as well as being ground breaking and influential), not just naming their favorite band of the moment, still would tend to name English bands: The Rolling Stones, The Who, Led Zeppelin, The Smiths, The Clash, Black Sabbath and maybe one Australian band - AC/DC. Here is my question: what was the greatest American band of the entire rock era? (This question does not include solo artists, it has to be a band with a band name that isn't named after the main person - things like the Jimi Hendrix Experience, Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, etc. do not count).

Respond to survey@killrockstars.com

A good question, but I'd think that the fan base that KRS draws would probably say Sonic Youth.

I'd probably say them or R.E.M.

R.E.M. would be my choice.

the velvet underground

as far as sphere of influence i say the velvet underground

as far as body of work i say REM

as far as moderns bands go that are original i say wilco (although the features are giving them a run for their money)

Sonic Youth, Pearl Jam, REM, Smashing Pumpkins, The Frogs........

thats what i think......of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion....

the velvet underground and rem are my choices as well.

This is a really tough question. I'm serious; this is going to make my brain hurt. REM is a good choice definitely. I...I don't know. I'll have to get back to you on that one.

i will have to go with the talking heads for now. its always changing.good choices everyone. errggh decisions decisions...

beach boys?

lord baltimore meows, 'mission of burma and john parr'.

well i wanted to see what some of your opinions were before i chimed in. i'm gonna have to vote for the Band. To wit:
1) For about six years, from 1968 through 1975, the Band was one of the most popular and influential rock groups in the world, their music embraced by critics (and, to a somewhat lesser degree, the public) as seriously as the music of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones.
2) They backed up Bob Friggin Dylan (most notably, when he decided to go electric.).
3) repeat #2.
4) There was a collective sound to 'the band,' but it made up five distinct individual voices and instruments mixing folk, blues, gospel, R&B, classical, and rock & roll. (all uniquely American art forms.)
5) Their music was steeped in Americana and historical and mythic American imagery (see 'The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down' or 'The Weight'), despite the fact that all of the members except Helm came from Canada (which, in fact, may have helped them appreciate the culture they were dealing with, as outsiders)
6) they were all multi-instrumentalists.
7) they could all sing.
8) they toured for almost fifteen (!) straight years in which time they had more sex, drugs, and rock and roll than most of us will ever comprehend.
9) they made what i think is the best rock film of all time with some director named Martin Scorsese.
10) That funky intro at the beginning of 'Up On Cripple Creek'...that shit dropped BEFORE 'Superstition.'
(thanks Bruce Eder)
word.

Nice analysis, Cyrus.  I, too, luv the Band, and I thought about choosing them.  The respect factor is definitely off the chart for the Band, but (flame me if you wish) I don't think that they were as innovative as the Beach Boys or the Velvets, or as prolific as REM.  While the Band did a few new and innovative things (that drum beat/funki clavi on 'Cripple Creek', for one) mostly they just did a really good take on genres of music that had already been done very well before.  Oh, and they did have the benefit of having their career jump-started by one of the greatest singer/songwriters of all time.  But like I said, the Band are great and I could live with them being called the greatest American band ever.

(Edited by jamiecarroll at 1:55 am on June 20, 2002)

I would say The Beach Boys IF Brian Wilson hadn't gone crazy. The Beach Boys were the first American act to knock the Beatles off the charts and the two bands friendly competition led to Pet Sounds and Sgt Peppers. Both of those albums changed the way the studio was used.. made it more of an instrument on its own. So if Brian Wilson had led the Beach Boys further into the realm of psychedelic barber shop quartets and produced more songs like 'GOod Vibrations' and completed 'Smile' then The Beach Boys would have been the most influential band. At least in retrospect.. that's assuming they could have been embraced by the hippie kids. Still awesome stuff from that era, but unfortunately Mike Love (or Carl? I dont know much about post-Brian Beach Boys) led them to things like 'Kokamo.' Ah, elementary school roller skating parties, that's all that song is good for.

i must concur on the beach boys. the late sixties thru mid seventies records are fan-tastic. how could i actually overlook the beach boys in this question?

i must add a few other bands:

1. Pavement: the best rock band of the 90's, period.
2. Television: wicked guitar interplay as well as the divine voice of Tom Verlaine.

however, my ultimate choice would have to be the Velvet Underground.

I don't know anything about rock bands. But I do know that the Greatest American Hero was Ralph Hinkley.

briggs- i reccomend looking for the following beach boys albums: smiley smile, wild honey, 20/20, friends, holland, so tough (under the psuedonym carl and the passions). these are all quite superb records.

honorable mention goes to the ramones

I've got the smiley smile and wild honey 2-fer. I've also got lots of smile stuff on my computer. Smiley Smile is so rough compared to the real smile stuff. After I posted that the other night, I looked at some beach boys stuff on line and now i am interested in the albums you mentioned.

friends is a must. dennis really comes into his own as a songwriter. i'll also reccomend his one solo effort, pacific ocean blue.

I was watching Space Ghost once and they had Pavement and introduced them as the Beatles. Space Ghost said no one knew any better.

i think 'sunflower' had its moments too. 'this whole world' is an incredible song.

mike love is such a muppet. how about his rant at the rock and roll hall of fame? that was so funny. as if anybody cares what mike love says...

my vote for recent bands would have to be the smashing pumpkins... of course that choice is subject to change within the next few days, as i will no doubt end up listening to something else and singing its praise. tomorrow i might be listening to the black crowes (don't shoot me, please) and realize that they are more rock and roll than anybody since the stones (chris robinson can move on stage, and he had a notable substance abuse problem). it's really just a big cycle with the occasional new release that i give a shit about...




(Edited by damon at 3:25 am on June 23, 2002)

even though they only have two albums to their name, chavez is one of my favorite bands of the 90s.

.....and i can't forget jonathan fire eater.

I thought the Band were all Canadian except for Levon Helm. However, The Band DOES sound like authentic american music.

I agree that the Band would be a nice choice but are disqualified since they are Canadian.  Any opinions on CCR or the Byrds as contenders?

The Byrds, possibly.

I would have to vote for Love, featuring the magnificent songwriting of Arthur Lee.

I forgot the Flying Burrito Brothers. Yet another nice addition to this ever growing list.

Increasing the relevance of this thread, my question is

What potential do you seriously think the Features have of achieving this title in the eyes of us, the biggest fans here on the message board, and the eyes of the general public?

that's a good question.  the features rule, but the general public sucks.  i don't agree with their taste in music.   it would make me happy for matt parrish rollum and roger as individuals, and i think it is a definite possiblity.  they are fucking awesome.  
i will miss seeing them play at small clubs though.
***
after much deliberation, i will have to go along and say REM.
i thought about the beach boys but decided against it, and it raised the question betweeen my roommate and I . .
who was the better band - nirvana or pearl jam?
pearl jam has more musical talent, and a bigger catalogue. they're still around and nirvana's not since kurt's bitch of a wife killed him. (although they were going to break up anyway)
but nirvana just said so much to everybody, and had a huge influence on music since then.
but do you think it could have been any other band? like, why wasn't the movement led so hugely by soundgarden, or alice in chains? just a thought...

my personaly choice is nirvana, just for the record.

(Edited by stalker on skates at 8:37 pm on June 25, 2002)

Infinite potential.  If REM can become as big as they are, then the Features can be that big.  The keys:

1) Grow gradually.  I think overnight success dooms a band, in one way or another.  Be content to become more popular a little at a time.
2)Keep creative control of your music.  To be the best American band of all time, you have to have a broad spectrum of supporters.  Maybe the teens will buy into bands without really ever respecting them, but true, REAL fans often have to know that the band is in control, and is not just an industry puppet.
3)Always keep the music the first priority.  Music fans can smell bullshit, and they can smell that fat paycheck you got from doing a Coke ad.  If you get too caught up in trends, or being a 'celebrity', you lose people's respect.

I don't think that the Features will be 'the next Beatles', or even 'the next Nirvana', but I surely think that they could achieve the level of fame that, say, REM or the Ramones achieved.

From what I know, the Features' past (and hopefully their future) can be better compared to U2 than R.E.M. or Nirvana.  U2 got together when they were about 15 and have stayed friends ever since... which is a big reason they've been able to remain together.  They had been together for almost ten years before they broke out at Live Aid in 1985.

R.E.M., on the other hand, hit the national scene (or at least college radio) right out of the starting gates.  Murmur, the group's first album, was quite popular in the indie circles, and after only seven years together, they staged a massive world tour.

So if the legends are true, I figure the Features have been together in some form for about seven or eight years.  If they're following the R.E.M. route, they're way behind schedule.  But if we look at U2 as a model, there is still a lot of hope for them to have widespread fame.  Hopefully they will slowly gain more and more exposure before having a big breakthrough of some sort.

P.S.  I'm a music idiot and know nothing about rock & roll history.  I'm really just talking out my butt here, but I thought I would share anyway.

I wasn't necisarily saying that the Features should follow R.E.M.'s timeline, just their methods - making great music and not worrying about the hype.  U2 set out right from the start to be the 'biggest band in the world', and, uh, now it's like what Kevin's mom said in 'Home Alone' - be careful what you wish for...
Also, U2's first record was very popular in the indie world, too.  They were hardly unheard of before Live Aid.  That's just when they went into the stratosphere, which REM took a taste of (Green World Tour), and then spat back out (didn't tour for 6 years).  I'm not saying REM didn't want to be popular, I'm just saying that U2 REALLY wanted to be the most popular, and I just can't see the Features positioning themselves the way U2 did.  Anyway, I'm an idiot.  The Features should march to their own beat.

I like Pearl Jam's first 3 albums alot (Ten, Vs., Vitalogy).  Since then they've gone in the toilet, and I would know 'cos I bought all of their records!  Did they 'pull a Radiohead' and just try to kill their popularity with weird/mediocre music?  Who knows?  I'm thru with them.

However, even at their peak, Pearl Jam could not touch Nirvana, as far as I'm concerned.  Nevermind-Incesticide-In Utero are the shit, especially In Utero.  Like Wyclef said, 'That Kurt Cobain be gettin ill with dem power chords, man...'

that is one of the coolest quotes i've ever read. ebonics have never been so profound...

Definitely Nirvana.. Listen to In Utero... So raw and dirty. Pearl Jam had the look and the attitude for the grunge days, but didn't completely revolutionize the music. They still had the big solos and the big drum sound from the 80s hair bands. Nirvana said F- that, man.. No big solos, no weird time signatures, NOt alot of production.. We;re taking it back to basics.. Simple catchy lyrics with simple music played LOUD.

That, to me is also why Soundgarden and Alice in Chains couldn't lead the rock revolution.. Soundgarden had some mishaps with a loss of a member and a poorly timed tour or something (thats what they always say on rockumentaries), but really those two bands weren't catchy enough.. Could 13 year old girls sing 'man in the box' or 'rooster'? Too serious, too droning. How bout Soundgarden's 5 minute long really really slow and really really heavy songs? That's not pop. Nirvana was fast and loud and simple.

i'm going to have to vote for wild cherry...

as to the 'pearl jam had more musical talent than nirvana' quote.....well i think that's bullshit. it all depends on what you define as talent. if you're going to take technical prowess into consideration, then elp is one of the greatest bands ever and steve vai is one of the greatest guitarists ever. but everyone here knows that's all poppycock. for the record, pearl jam was a good band. nothing more though. stupid eddie vedder. jeff ament's a little curly haired dork too.

Another addition to this ever growing list would be THE PIXIES. A very good band who released stellar albums their entire career. A very underappreciated band.

********

Getting back to the relevant Features topic....

I may get in a lot of trouble for saying this... But I believe that the features will be one of those bands who will a very large cult band. They may have a few minor hits, but they wil never 'break out' like a Nirvava, because even though their music is the perfect mix of very catchy hooks and thought provoking lyrics, the general public is too dumb and stubborn to realise how great the Features are. They will have very rabid loyal following who will support them all the way. They will be one of those bands whose catalogue will remain in print for many years, influencing many young kids who take a chance on this amazing band.

Getting back away from the relevant Features topic, I've always hated Pearl Jam....well I didn't like 10, and I hated everything after. Not only that, they've directly influenced so many other bad bands, and record labels to sign these bad bands, that I hate them even more. I hold them directly responsible for Creed, the worst it gets.

Nirvana ruled, although they influenced just as many bad bands.

I agree. Creed is absolutely horrible. I can't even stomach one song.

Record Labels always try to capitalize on a band's success. Hence bands that had similarities to Pearl Jam get signed, and on and on. So maybe The Features chance is coming soon. I mean, with so many bands hitting now that claim to be derived from Velvet Underground and the like (The Strokes, The White Stripes) can it be that long before a really good band (The Features) will be ushered in.

As for Pearl Jam vs Nirvana...I may be flamed for this, but I prefer Pearl Jam, by a good bit. I also like the later albums (Yield, No Code, Binaural) more than the earlier ones. To me, Nirvana falls behind Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice In Chains, even The Screaming Trees from that area/era. I realize sonically they aren't all THAT similar, but I wasn't the one that lumped them together. Flame away.

One can only hope that the Features time will be soon.
Maybe if a major label would actually wake up and get off of it's ass and realize how amazing the features are, then maybe the features will get the success that they deserve.

Maybe this is a stupid thought, but perhaps the fact that this discussion is even taking place will in someway help the Features get a record deal?? Do record labels not take into account rabid fanbases?? If a record exec were to meander his or her way onto this board and see all these people singing the praises of the Features and asking the ever-pertanent question, 'WHY AREN'T THESE GUYS FAMOUS!!'...surely they'd take notice.

O.k. maybe that's dumb.