Quick thought following about 3 minutes of reflection: I’m reading this Slate piece on the partnership of Lennon and McCartney, and my mind started drifting to the wealth of fantastic English bands vs the wealth of fantastic American solo artists.
Think about the titans of rock ‘n roll (and country and soul, in the case of America): Americans gave the world Elvis, Chuck Berry, Bob Dylan, James Brown, Aretha Franklin, and Johnny Cash, among other major solo artists. England gave the world David Bowie and…Donovan?
When it comes to bands, though, England gave us The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Kinks, The Who, The Clash… America gave us The Beach Boys and…The Byrds?
Does the wealth of legendary American solo artists (and dearth of legendary American bands) have something to do with our independent pilgrim/cowboy spirit? Does the converse concerning English musicians have something to do with their spirit? Am I overlooking American bands at the usually acknowledged top level? Am I overlooking English solo artists at the usually acknowledged top level? Am I really going to have to hear it from Ramones and Scott Walker fans?
He’s Irish, but you’re most certainly omitting Van Morrison.
If you are including the Clash, you have to include the Ramones (really–why would you even question that?), and also, a British solo artist, Elvis Costello.
As to US bands, the Velvet Underground are about as important as anyone, and you didn’t mention them. Also, how about The Band and the Grateful Dead? I’m not a fan of either, but in terms of importance and influence, they should be there.
First of all, let’s leave the Irish and the Canadians out of this.
Second, I knew I’d forget a major English solo artist. Costello definitely raises the count to 2 (Bowie and Costello).
Third, the Ramones’ 3 song templates and 17 accumulated words across their entire body of work can’t hold a candle to the output of The Clash.
Fourth, I love the Velvet Underground, and I’ll accept them as a GREAT, highly influential American band. The Band are Canadian, so they don’t count. The Dead kind of suck, don’t they? If I accept them I’ll have to accept Jefferson Airplane, and then someone will try to throw Love into the mix.
The Doors are a pretty good American band, but I don’t think they match the level of the English bands right behind the Big Two. Would you put The Doors anywhere near The Who, The Kinks, Led Zeppelin, etc?
Does CCR count or is that Fogerty and some other guys? I think they are at least at Led Zep level.
“Elvis, Chuck Berry, Bob Dylan, James Brown, Aretha Franklin, and Johnny Cash”
I’m not buying it. Five out of your six American examples have their start in the 1950s and Dylan pre-dates the Beatles and plays a type of music that is almost by definition a solo endeavor, whereas your English examples post-date Beatlemania. I think it’s safe to say that post-1964, bands, both in England and America, take primacy from solo artists. 1950s American rock and roll types are being marketed by the singer, not the band. The star making machinery is much more geared to a single name, than, say, Elvis, Scotty, and Bill. Buddy Holly straddles the line by having releases as a “solo” artist and by the Crickets. James Brown is introduced as “James Brown and his Famous Flames” at his 1963 Apollo show, but James Brown is the boss, just like Count Basie and His Orchestra. He’s hardly a solo artist but since he’s the owner, he gets his name in lights.
There’s also something to be said about record labels in the 1950s pairing a singer off the street with their house musicians, which, if you’re Chess Records, for example, makes sense because you’re got more talent hanging around than just about anyone can bring in. Little Richard records with a pickup band, as does Jerry Lee Lewis. There’s no 1950s equivalent to Sun or Chess or Specialty or Ace in the UK.
A better question is “Why, from roughly 1964 to 1978, do American bands suck so much compared to English bands?”
I think this is an interesting thought. The English bands seem to hold an edge over the Yanks. It’s like the British took the elements of American artists and made it better.
I would offer up Buffalo Springfield as a GREAT American band of the 60s in addition to The Beach Boys and The Byrds.
Where would throw Hendrix? Did we have this discussion? He’s certainly American. But The Experience were certainly British. Do they cancel each other out?
Great American bands: Big Star (abeit stooped heavily by British music), R.E.M.?
Great American soloists: The Boss? Tom Waits?
Great British soloists: Where does Nick Drake fall?
Just thinking out loud…
TB
EXACTLY, bostonhistorian! That puts a finer point on what I was thinking. Remember, folks, I’m throwing this possibly brilliant nugget for discussion out there with a total of 3 minutes of reflection.
Sure, CCR count. They’re a fine second-level of greatness band. Remember, the point here is not so much to rectify my oversights and get the American bands within a couple of touchdowns of the English bands (and vice versa regarding solo artists from each nation), but to help us understand WHY there’s this serious imbalance on both sides of the ledger.
Nick Drake and Big Star fall in the “Cult Artist” bin compared with The Titans of Rock. I’m not even a big fan of The Ramones, but they’re much more “titanic” than those artists.
My guess is that because England had a national music press, national radio, and is geographically small, it was easier for a quality band to attract attention, whereas in the United States, you had regional radio stations (if you ever want to do some interesting research, look at 1960s radio station top 40 lists from around the country–the Sonics are a good example of band which was *huge* in the Pacific Northwest but invisible almost everywhere else), regional music scenes, and no national music press to speak of, while the television venues, like American Bandstand, Shindig, etc, played both American and English artists.
Indie record labels didn’t have the muscle to go nationwide, which left the major record companies having to go with whatever they thought would sell to the widest audience, and, given the success of the Beatles, I think they were much more likely to give an English act support than an American act. There’s no real reason to my mind why the Bobby Fuller Four, for example, shouldn’t have been much bigger (apart from Bobby Fuller being murdered in 1966) but the British Invasion took a long time to dislodge from the charts. Post-Beatles, record companies, radio stations, and the buying public had a bias towards English artists that became a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Of course, I could be completely wrong.
I tend to think there’s two bands that are the first level, The Beatles and The Stones. Remove them from the mix, and I think American bands from 64-78 are every bit as good, or better than their English counterparts. I think I have a lot more music by American bands from that time frame than British. I think CCR released the same amount of music as The Who, they just did it in three weeks instead of 40 years.
Without the Ramones, there would be no Clash. Have you heard the 101ers?
Why do the Clash get such a solo Lennon-like free pass from so many people? Let’s assess, shall we?
THE CLASH (and related period 45s). I have no argument as to the greatness of this period, except that I think most of the singles are very good rather than great. I won’t argue that point, though.
GIVE EM ENOUGH ROPE. Only half of this is any good and even that is nowhere near as good as the best work on the debut–this is a really disappointing followup with hardly any songwriting to speak of at all. They most certainly don’t deserve a free pass for this half-hearted record. As of the end of 1978, we have the Ramones with 4 great albums and a great movie, The Clash with one great album, one medicore album and a terrible movie.
LONDON CALLING: They upped the ante here, no doubt. I’ll agree that this is the album that made them worthy of their iconic stature. It also happens to be their swan song, as far as I’m concerned.
SANDINISTA: In which they prove they can be good at absolutely everything, but no longer great at anything. There’s not a song here that matches anything in the best half from either THE CLASH or LONDON CALLING. It comes off very much as what they said it was–a response to Springsteen’s THE RIVER being a double LP: “Here Bruce, suck on this.” I’m not convinced that they could have made a great single LP during this time period–they were torn in too many directions and as I said the best work on SANDINISTA is a pale shadow of the best work on their two masterpieces.
COMBAT ROCK: The most disappointing record buying experience of my life. I brought it home and after two songs literally thought it was a joke—by the end I realized it was no joke at all, and no good either. I still stand by this opinion…this is the point where Jones and Strummer had lost so much inspiration that they became a band whose best song was written by a heroin-addicted drummer.
CUT THE CRAP. what can I say? Even worse than COMBAT.
The Ramones made some crappy music in the 80s too, but my point is that the Clash are considered one of the all time greats for two great albums, one somewhat impressive but flawed 3-LP set and a piece of crap that happened to make them popular. Their influence is negligible–LONDON CALLING should have ben the album that led the way for the punks of the world to make great expansive rock and roll music, but it never happened. They were a great band for a short period of time, but it doesn’t make any sense to think of them like The Beatles, Stones, Dylan, Who, even Springsteen, because of the brevity of their peak period.
The big money is made in the US, so once the Beatles were popular here, that would be the way to make money, to play like that if you could. But since you are American, how can you be as British? You continue in your own somewhat dislodged style like the Beach Boys (or as mentioned above, regionally popular, perhaps) or amalgamate some of that feeling into a new folk/acid/psych trend like California bands. All the good guitars are American dammit! And for short stretches, the manufactured bands like the Monkees competed better than the 60s bands you cite. Also, do singing groups like the Miracles, Supremes, Vandellas, Four Tops, Temptations, etc. not count?
I don’t know, 2K. I can see what you say according to one’s personal tastes, but we’re talking about Titans of Rock… I agree that the imbalance may seem out of whack because of the dominance of the Beatles and Stones (same for Dylan, Elvis, and James Brown, when it comes to solo artists from the US) – and I love what you said about CCR’s 3-week output – but I can’t help but think of the value of accepting my assumption and concentrating on the WHY. Remember, I put a good 3 minutes of thought into this.
Well, there ya go. I think there’s only four Titans of Rock, Elvis, Dylan, The Beatles and The Stones. Taking my tastes into it, I really only truly love one of them and the others I can take or leave. So taking my taste out of it, then if an argument can be made for The Who, then certainly CCR can compete with them. Fleetwood Mac sold as many albums and tickets as anyone on the planet in the 70’s and Lynyrd Skynyrd stole Southern Rock from The Allman Bros and they became the band everyone thought about first when people thought about Southern Rock.
I’ve only thought about this for three minutes or so, too. I think you kind of have to toss out The Beatles and Stones to get a clearer picture of everything else (although sales wise, a lot of bands sold more than The Stones, it’s just that no matter what those bands accomplished, The Stones win on cool factor alone). Pudman13 nails it with The Clash, and he’s much more generous with Sandinista than I would be. Who else does England have band wise? The Kinks? Too many dance hall thingys and excuses about why Arthur and Village Green sold twenty-seven copies. The US had just as many, or more great bands. It’s just that there’s a bit of an anglo bent around here.
Wow, Pudman — that is one withering broadside. And I don’t say that in a snarky way. My sincere kudos to you for some pretty radical and insightful thinking. Your point about “London Calling” being paradoxically the biggest let-down of their career (in the sense of its historical “influence”) was especially beard-stroke-worthy.
Well done — I am now pondering!
HVB
I would hypothesize that a reason for the prevalence of English bands over English solo artists has to do with the English personal reluctance to be the center of the attention. It’s socially acceptable in Engalnd to be part of something big, but to be the big thing and draw a great deal of attention to just oneself is just not done, and, frankly, would be seen as “American.” I would propose that the only solo artists in England are the politicians…
The fuckin’ Eagles, man. They’ll beat the tar out of The Sensational Alex Harvey Band any day!
Post of the Day, eh!
ladymiss, that’s what I was thinking about the English having so few titanic solo artists. Who do we have so far, Bowie and Costello? Excluding solo John and Paul, is Elton John the third-most titanic English solo artist? Yikes!
Clapton’s titanic, isn’t he?
I kind of have a problem with the whole concept of titanicity. To the British someone like Paul Weller or even Ian Dury might seem titanic, at least to Brits of a certain age, but to an American they may seem more like cult artists, because that’s what they are over here.
What about Morrissey? Robbie Williams has sold over 57 million albums, which is pretty titanic, but he’s nobody over here.
Chicago — seconed only to the Beach Boys in singles & album sales for an American group, according to Billboard.
The Grateful Dead had a massive following which I personally witnessed on several occasions. When they would play in Seattle, their followers would commandeer an entire section of downtown to set up “Dead Town,” complete with carnival-esque atmosphere, food & clothing vendors, street performers, drug dealers, you-name-it — it was there. The whole scene had a bit of a low-key Mardi Gras feel to it.
I’ve never seen any artist with that kind of ability to actually transform the city in which they were performing. Nobody even comes close!
I never did get to see the Dead Live (honest), I was too busy hanging out in “Dead Town.”
These two groups need to at least be in the Top 5 of American Bands. They may be getting the short-shrift here due to matters of taste (justifiably), but one needs to remain objective when considering such weighty topics.
P.S. I do not belive Jefferson Airplane or Love to be playing at quite the same level as the Dead.
I forgot to say yesterday: 2K’s 3 minutes of contemplation on this matter were well spent! He makes some good points.
I take issue with a couple of things that pudman13 says:
Yes, I’m a proud owner of the original vinyl issue of the 101ers album as well as the CD reissue with added tracks. Without Strummer and Jones’ parents there’d be no Clash as well. Does that mean their parents are also on par with The Clash? I don’t deny the Ramones’ influence and strange genius, but for all that it added up to 6 (for me) necessary, distinctive songs, probably a dozen for diehard fans, if they’re being honest.
Because warts and all (and your album-by-album analysis is hard to argue with), they used their time on earth as a band to at least attempt to make music that mattered, records that explored new turf, musically, intellectually, and emotionally.
jeangray, you make an excellent point about the Dead. Titanic application ACCEPTED!
If we want to consider titans as reflective of music sales, this is interesting viewing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists
Again according to Wikipedia, Americans buy more albums, Brits buy more singles. Do you think that this trend is a factor in the theory?
Good question, ladymisskirroyale. My first thought went to British television sitcoms, which I believe are structured to last only 2 or 3 years plus a special a year or two later. I remember hearing an interview with John Cleese in which he expressed his admiration for US tv shows like Cheers and M.A.S.H., which managed to keep running for 10-12 years at, in his opinion, high quality. Maybe this all ties back to bands, which tend to break up sooner than solo artists?
Oh, and to clarify one other comment, asking whether Hendrix qualifies in this discussion as American or English. As a titantic solo artist, he must be American:P
Mr. Mod, you are surely on to something about bands breaking up. A band’s lifetime and ability to reach titanic status is constrained by how long the key members can tolerate working with each other. The solo artist (or pseudonymous solo artist like Matt Johnson / The The) can keep going indefinitely.
And then there is the band with high profile lead singer, or more pointedly a young band with a female lead singer. In that situation, band’s days are numbered….
Another Brit who stands alone is Cliff Richard. And did I miss the Talking Heads in this thread?
“Without the Ramones, there would be no Clash.” Could be true. Maybe without Lonnie Donegan there would be no Beatles, too.
But am I the only person who thinks Combat Rock is perfectly okay though not great?
No, misterioso, as poor as the cover shot, album title, and multiple deep cutz are, Combat Rock has its moments. “Straight to Hell” gets me every time. “Should I Stay or Should I Go” would be top shelf if the stupid Joe Strummer in Spanish call-and-response part could be edited out. “Know Your Rights” starts strong. The album sounds good. Even turds, like “Ghetto Defendant” and “Red Army Dragnet,” or whatever that song is called, at least aspire something interesting. I can live with it.
Yes! I am sooooooo tired of seeing “Combat Rock” slagged on. C’mon! It’s better than 90% of 80’s musik.
Such comfort in finding one is not alone. It took me years to really warm up to some of Combat Rock. Maybe it’s just because I like Ginsberg, but I live Ghetto Defendant, as well as most of the other B-grade cuts on the record. Like Sandinista, I like it as a whole, even if I would seldom call out to hear some of the individual songs as such.
A guy I know once wrote a lyric “every great band should be shot/before they make their Combat Rock” and I kind of get where he’s coming from, but honestly, the Clash produced the equivalent of five albums a year apart: London Calling was released in December of 1979 and Sandinista was released in December of 1980. What are you going to do to top that? At least the Clash were trying to incorporate new things they found into their sound–Combat Rock is pretty radical in that regard. I rarely listen to Combat Rock straight through the way I do London Calling, but there are certainly enough high points on it that I wouldn’t consign it to the dust heap.
I too am on Team Combat Rock, although I hate “Should I Stay or Should I Go?” “Rock the Casbah” on the other hand is one of the best hits of the early ’80s. I heard it in a Trader Joe’s once — they must’ve had some ’80s satellite radio station on — and it cut through the crowd noise in a way that made the other songs on the station sound feeble and lame.
I always thought The Clash wanted to be the Pop Group.
I only think half of London Calling is any good, really. If it were one record, it would be more likely to live up to its artistic reputation. For starters, get rid of the songs that have that crappy flanging effect on the guitars.
I’m on “Team C Plus” for Combat Rock. It’s the classic case a band not being able to live up to the standard that they set for themselves, but if that album was by a one hit wonder instead of the Clash, it would be held in much higher esteem.
But as for the Mod’s comments about “Should I Stay or Should I Go”, one of the few things I really like about it is when Strummer repeats all the lyrics in Spanish. Other than that, it’s just Little Latin Lupe Lu with different words.
Combat Rock was planned initially as a double album. I’ve listened to the Mick Jones mixed double version, and remixing and making it a single album was a wise choice, with a few exceptions.
It’s kind ahard to get excited about the American bands of the Post Woodstock era (and about many of the actual Woodstock bands, but that’s another post)
Chicago ,Eagles, Poco, Bob Segar over here
ELO, Fleetwood Mac, from across the pond.
are any of us PASSIONATE about any of these GIANTS of 1970’s?
(OK, I really like about 2/3rds of ELO music)
and ballsy to trow the Clash under the bus over here, but I’d have to agree that they get a “Lennon Pass” from too many people (and I’m one who likes Combat Rock quite a bit)
Fleetwood Mac kind of gets to be both English and American. They were completely boring until they recruited American Bob Welch (I know, Peter Green is some kind of guitar god, but he couldn’t carry Rory Gallagher’s guitar case). Once they got Welch, their sound became much more distinctive. By the time they replaced Welch with Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks, they were fully Americanized and needed the Americans to make them the huge success they became.
No one is actually passionate about any incarnation of Fleetwood Mac, though. Are they?
I think Tusk is a memorable, chemically enhanced, combination of new wave and singer-songwriter music.
There are some musicians in this area, including one occasional Townsman and hard-working indie pop drummer, who have formed a band called the Lindsey Buckingham Appreciation Soceity, or something like that, doing full shows of the Tusk album.