The Top 50 American Rock Bands of All Time acording to Gibson.com

[catmandu2]

Ee gadz...since when does technical proficiancy have anything to do with rock? We're not talking MOI or King Crimson or even Steve Morse. We're talking punks, grunge, metal...Peter Buck...like that

Although, they say that that Jeff Arnott who's kicking it around town is a good player. And I've heard good drumming on Radiohead records

Personally, my favorite the past couple of years is Isaac Brock and Modest Mouse--blends a nice mix of postpunk, art, grunge, techno, and lyricism.

Maybe Beck will be there! Who will it be...maybe some new schtick fresh from MTV (do they still have that?)

[journeybear]

Well, I would hope the Top 50 bands of all time would have to have some chops! I think there must be more than 50 bands in history who are better than those three - though they could still blow bands off the stage on a good night, no doubt. Wait - No Doubt - where are they?

And yes - they still have MTV, but MTV hardly has music any more, instead concentrating on the rock lifestyle, whatever that is, and however worthy of examination.

[catmandu2]

You mean, Ah Ha? (must remember to indicate lest I be taken totally seriously)

Well, I would hope the Top 50 bands of all time would have some chops! I think there are more than 50 bands in history who are better than those three

Well don't be shy--who are they? (And don't say Slash, Eddie Vedder and Steve Earle!)

Yeah, Prince (or is it TAFKA) David Hidalgo and Carlos have chops. But remember, this is Top 50 American Rock Bands of All Time (Buddy Holly, et al., not necessarily funk, soul, etc. )

[journeybear]

Seriously? Just look at the list of bands I mentioned in post #47 that aren't going to make their list, take out The Black Keys, Queens Of The Stone Age, New York Dolls, and that's twenty right there. Add in a few from the other list there, subtract VU and Ramones, and a few others I have expressed surprise about, and you have around 70 bands over whom those three must climb. I'm not saying I don't like VU and The Ramones - New York Dolls never did much for me, sorry (not too) - but I am not about to say they are better than the rest on that list. Heck, I'll even leave Kansas in for Jim's sake.

[Dan Hoover]

guns n roses..really? over grand funk?..and higher than buddy holly? gheez..i'm pulling for the "feat" but i think the allmans bros.will be picked over them?
"Proto Flea" ..that's funny..

[catmandu2]

Seriously? Just look at the list of bands I mentioned in post #47 that aren't going to make their list, take out The Black Keys, Queens Of The Stone Age, New York Dolls, and that's twenty right there. Add in a few from the other list there, subtract VU and Ramones, and a few others I have expressed surprise about, and you have around 70 bands over whom those three must climb. I'm not saying I don't like VU and The Ramones - New York Dolls never did much for me, sorry (not too) - but I am not about to say they are better than the rest on that list. Heck, I'll even leave Kansas in for Jim's sake.

Well, I'm a little confused. I thought you were proposing that there were ~50 bands offhand who had better chops than MOI, Crimson, and Steve Morse. Thought we were talking just chops (on that technical proficiency thing)

[journeybear]

Yeah, Prince (or is it TAFKA) David Hidalgo and Carlos have chops. But remember, this is Top 50 American Rock Bands of All Time (Buddy Holly, et al., not necessarily funk, soul, etc. )

Then why do you keep mentioning Prince?

Santana and Los Lobos have Latino roots, for sure, but they are rock bands. No problem for me.

BTW, I have no idea what we are talking about any more. But I do know King Crimson was British.

[catmandu2]

guns n roses..really? over grand funk?..and higher than buddy holly? gheez..i'm pulling for the "feat" but i think the allmans bros.will be picked over them?
"Proto Flea" ..that's funny..

Ha..you and that Grand Funk! I liked them too...but I was a Detroiter for godsake

[catmandu2]

Then why do you keep mentioning Prince?

Santana and Los Lobos have Latino roots, for sure, but they are rock bands. No problem for me.

BTW, I have no idea what we are talking about any more.

Prince: because he will crack the Top 10 (or, he would if he wasn't "the band"). TAFKA/P is the rare American artist who fuses funk, soul, et al with rock in a creative brew. Like David and Carlos. But, I propose that the majority of American Rock bands (or, at least those styles that are promoted), historically, lack such effective fusion.

[journeybear]

It seemed you were objecting to your own suggestion of Prince for being funk rather than rock.

Eh.

I grow weary of this parsing and nit-picking. It's gotten too speculative and specious for me. I will tune in again when the Top 10 are announced, and we have something worth talking about.

[catmandu2]

It seemed you were objecting to your own suggestion of Prince for being funk rather than rock.

Eh.

No.

I propose that the majority of American Rock bands (or, at least those styles that are promoted), historically, lack such effective fusion. (from above)

IOW, the form has a typical sound. Increasingly (more recently)--naturally corresponding to greater ethnic diversity--there's greater latitude of the form--no doubt corresponding to more generous promotion in diversity. Probably why--not only on musical content alone--Santana will make the "Top 10." Frankly, you're going to have to have some diversity in the "Top 10," for the usual variety of reasons.

BTW, I didn't select these three for examples of players with chops for any particular extra-musical reason--they were just the first three that came to mind. I'm sure there are white American players with chops too.

[catmandu2]

I grow weary of this parsing and nit-picking. It's gotten too speculative and specious for me. I will tune in again when the Top 10 are announced, and we have something worth talking about.

Hmm. For me (especially on a ranking thread), analyzing criteria and phenomena is interesting (I thought you said you wanted more criteria--what good is more info if we don't care to analyze [nit-pick] it?). Sorting among so many examples is indeed taxing work--since there is only ONE category. I'm sure the compilers of such lists find it challenging, too. But don't become too weary of it--it's just good fun. It's only rock 'n roll

Simply, "rock" music, historically--being based in R&B--is not necessarily associated with technical mastery (proficiency); the list is evidence for anyone who doubts the effectiveness/popularity of primitive expressions in rock music (another case for multiple subcategories). Sorry.

See ya tomorrow

[Elliot Luber]

These lists (by Gibson, Rolling Stone, MTV or anyone else) always stink. Typically not because they disagree with my humble opinions, but because they really do tend to stink.

[Ed Goist]

Here's one glaring problem with the list's focus on groups as opposed to solo acts...Chuck Berry, arguably the most important American figure in the history of rock will not appear on this list.

[catmandu2]

Here's one glaring problem with the list's focus on groups as opposed to solo acts...Chuck Berry, arguably the most important American figure in the history of rock will not appear on this list.

Yeah, that's really too strict a delineation. Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry, Carl Perkins...but only Buddy and Elvis are included (I thought I saw Elvis). Making an exception for Elvis is understandable, but then you're going to have to do the same for Hendrix. If Elvis made the list, then I'm sure Hendrix will as well.

[journeybear]

Oh, why did I have to look?

First:

Yeah, Prince (or is it TAFKA) David Hidalgo and Carlos have chops. But remember, this is Top 50 American Rock Bands of All Time (Buddy Holly, et al., not necessarily funk, soul, etc. )

Then:

I propose that the majority of American Rock bands (or, at least those styles that are promoted), historically, lack such effective fusion. (from above)

Thanks for the explanation. It looks like revisionism to me, but, well, whatever.

...I thought you said you wanted more criteria ...

No, I wanted to know what the criteria ARE.

... Simply, "rock" music, historically--being based in R&B--is not necessarily associated with technical mastery (proficiency) ...

Whoa! What are you saying? R&B musicians can't play well? R&B has low standards for musicianship? What???

I don't even want to discuss that. I hope you just misspoke. But I will say that, though rock is a musical form that ALLOWS for a certain amount of egalitarianism when it comes to proficiency (eg, Louie Louie by The Kingsmen, an emblematic rock performance, is SO bad for so many reasons, yet also great, for the same reasons), most of the best musicians and bands can and could really play, and very well, too. Maybe this doesn't matter as much to others as it does to me, but it seems an important consideration. Especially when compiling a list such as this.

Now, I can see how some consideration can be given to bands whose members may not be that accomplished on their instruments but still produce a distinctive and thrilling sound. And they can also be a lot of fun, and as Dick Clark used to say, easy to dance to. But I want the top bands to be the best of the best, and to me, that does mean being able to play better than just about anyone else. Songwriting, talent, performance, production, concept, persona - these are my criteria. The last two are less significant to me than the rest, but a lot of people seem to care a lot about them. I may think of a couple more criteria, but I think that if you are able to do well in those, you are going to get a lot of people to listen to and like what you are doing.

[catmandu2]

Oh, why did I have to look?

First:

Then:

Thanks for the explanation. It looks like revisionism to me, but, well, whatever.



No, I wanted to know what the criteria ARE.



Whoa! What are you saying? R&B musicians can't play well? R&B has low standards for musicianship? What???

I don't even want to discuss that. I hope you just misspoke. But I will say that, though rock is a musical form that ALLOWS for a certain amount of egalitarianism when it comes to proficiency (eg, Louie Louie by The Kingsmen, an emblematic rock performance, is SO bad for so many reasons, yet also great, for the same reasons), most of the best musicians and bands can and could really play, and very well, too. Maybe this doesn't matter as much to others as it does to me, but it seems an important consideration. Especially when compiling a list such as this.

Now, I can see how some consideration can be given to bands whose members may not be that accomplished on their instruments but still produce a distinctive and thrilling sound. And they can also be a lot of fun, and as Dick Clark used to say, easy to dance to. But I want the top bands to be the best of the best, and to me, that does mean being able to play better than just about anyone else. Songwriting, talent, performance, production, concept, persona - these are my criteria. The last two are less significant to me than the rest, but a lot of people seem to care a lot about them. I may think of a couple more criteria, but I think that if you are able to do well in those, you are going to get a lot of people to listen to and like what you are doing.

Well, let me put it another way: (historically) it's more music for the body than for the mind (it's rock 'n roll...not necessarily sex, drugs, and technical proficiency). Don't tell me we'll have to revisit the whole Elvis thing! (he wasn't the most accomplished guitarist )

[journeybear]

I'm sorry. I am probably taking this whole dealio way too seriously. I am going back to my original plan and unplugging. Besides, there is some very fun tennis from Wimbledon right now.

[catmandu2]

I'm sorry. I am probably taking this whole dealio way too seriously. I am going back to my original plan and unplugging. Besides, there is some very fun tennis from Wimbledon right now.

Well hey, I know you do take your rock very seriously--no problem. I used to follow (and play) serve and volley tennis assiduously. Let us know who wins

Maybe you're just getting crabby that the list isn't panning out how you'd like. I get crabby with my kids and spouse all the time . Look at it this way: we are evocateurs for each other (and, that's a good thing )

[journeybear]

Azarenka evened the match at a set apiece, so I'm back. Sharapova already had sent Lisicki packing, almost in tears.

Don't kid yourself. I was indeed getting crabby, but not from how the list is going but some of the things you said. At least I am glad to know I got some of that wrong. But as Ed said when he started this whole shebang, he expected it to be fun and controversial. It seems we are forgetting half of that. Oh, and in case I haven't mentioned, thanks so much, Ed!

This list has no hope for me liking it; it was a goner from the first installment.

OK - third set started. Bye! (I don't have a filly in this race, but still ... )

[catmandu2]

Don't kid yourself. I was indeed getting crabby, but not from how the list is going but some of the things you said.

On this thread? What, about VU? That the Pretenders will be among the Top 10?...I would put them under the stooges, but Crissie is a "non-male" *

I was going to copy Ed's OP for ya...remember, it's only rock 'n roll


* see post #61

[journeybear]

No. I already told you, and you're not getting it, so I'm dropping it.

Kvitova came back to oust Azarenka, in a really topsy-turvy match. So that is one shrill voice I won't have to hear for a little while. Time to totally unplug and get some fresh air.

[Paul Merlo]

...and to me, that does mean being able to play better than just about anyone else.

oh man, I thought we were leaving jazz out of this ;-) (chuckles to self)

[catmandu2]

oh man, I thought we were leaving jazz out of this ;-) (chuckles to self)

Where was that piece--I missed it

journeybear, sorry. I kind of like to goad you a little--it's fun, and not too mean . Come on, it's rock n' roll

[journeybear]

Wrong. It is not fun, and it is mean. While you are having your fun, you are causing distress in me, and also in anyone reading our exchanges, or just interested in the topic, but bewildered by the ruckus you are causing, There is another word for this - trolling. You are also calling into question the validity of everything you say. While you are enjoying yourself shooting your mouth off, arguing for the sake of arguing, enamored with the sound of your voice, having a giggle at the expense of others' feelings, you are doing a disservice to everything the Café stands for and what people come to the forum looking for - the free exchange of ideas through considered discussion. Please do us all the favor of thinking through what you are saying before posting. And say what you mean, and mean what you say.

Thank you.