America's Greatest Rock and Roll Band?

[Thorngrub]

rileydog said:

Thorn. Flattering that you would include them on your list, but can we have Rush back up here when you're done calling them American

Nopers; They ARE "AMERICAN" (North-American that is, and I must not think bad thoughts, I must not think bad thoughts...)

[Thorngrub]

admin said:

According to Ken's guidelines, it's the whole North American continent and islands, Riley. I don't see why it shouldn't include Central and South America as well, but then we haven't had many rock and roll bands from, say, Peru, that have made a really big splash.

YOu obviously haven't heard MorteM, then

[Thorngrub]

MorteM just put out a brand new album:



They are originally from Peru, and are considered by many to be among the best deathmetal bands alive, today. I am really chomping at the bit for this new album, will probably have to special -order it soon. The vinyl edition will be released next month from some German press. I will be all over it.

[Thorngrub]

from their Official Web Site:

"A Demon Tale"

There are very few bands nowadays which keep playing with such feeling as MORTEM.

Their music definitely transmits the feelings of darkness and gloominess. The style of music they play could be described as Death Metal, but they play it in a unique way that no other band plays nowadays. Although having their undeniable touch of originality, their music has that special authenticity that reminds us of the old bands, with so many refreshing ideas that most bands have absolutely forgotten these days of predictable trends.

The reason for this is that MORTEM is a band which is heavily rooted in the past.

MORTEM hails from Lima, Perú, where it was formed back in 1986 by brothers Alvaro Amduscias (drums/vocals) and Fernán Nebiros (all guitars) Through the years and having very little support from the worldwide scene as a result of being from a Southamerican country and after countless line-up changes, they recorded 4 demos but still remained almost unknown to the rest of the world, where only few people and zines got to listen to these tapes. But from these few the response was always the same: they were marvelled by the spirit MORTEM's music transmitted. They were even hailed by some as an "important piece of Southamerica's Underground Metal Scene History". These remarks caught the attention of a peruvian label that released their debut album called "DEMON TALES", then reissued under the German label MERCILESS RECORDS, which signed the band for a 2 record deal.

In 1998 the band released their second full-length album called "THE DEVIL SPEAKS IN TONGUES" which got only excellent reviews in the underground metal press worldwide.

In the year 2000 MORTEM proudly present their 3rd opus: "DECOMPOSED BY POSSESSION", a 9 track Death Metal assault (+ 2 covers) that shows the band is there to prove Extreme Metal is far from being dead. Refreshing from the beginning to the end, this album explores all the possibilities of their genre without losing their authenticity for a second, nor their devotion to the occult. Extreme heaviness, mid tempos & corpsegrinding speed. This is a true lesson in Extreme Metal and a must for everyone who claims to be a true metaller. Music played in the most authentic Metal tradition. Check it out if you're a true Metalhead!!!

[Thorngrub]

\m/ Of course I have their other 3, Demon Tales, Decomposed By Possession, and The Devil Speaks In Tongues, all of which are mandatory black/deathmetal recordings \m/

[strat-0]

I'm glad someone was able to give the lie to that example (Peru). OK, how about Chile?

(No Googling!)

[luke]

I like the Pumpkins better than any band on my list, but they just don't match up to what I consider "the greatest", IMO.

In contrast to my list, here are (probably) my favorite American bands:

10. The Dandy Warhols
9. Sloan
8. Pearl Jam
7. Nirvana
6. Modest Mouse
5. Alice In Chains
4. The Pixies
3. Stone Temple Pilots
2. Red Hot Chili Peppers
1. The Smashing Pumpkins

I'll take Siamese Dream or Mellon Collie over any album EVER, but I just can't see how the Pumpkins are more relevant, important, or influential than The Ramones, Velvet Underground, or TOOL beyond the scope of me and my fellow super-fans.

As for Nirvana, I think that time has really sucked the life out of their legacy. Your average grunge fan from the olden days would probably put them well below the likes of AIC, Soundgarden, or Pearl Jam. These days, Nirvana is regarded as a lot more hype and a lot less substance than they were following the years right after Cobain's death.

On another level, there's the fact that once we played out our old Nirvana albums, there was no returning. I don't know anyone who has any desire to put in Nevermind or In Utero, ever. Maybe it's because we all fell asleep to them every night for a few years straight, maybe it's because they sound silly to us because they remind us of the kids we were when we got into them, or maybe it's because they just don't hold up anymore.

I even know people who like to pretend like Bleach is the "real deal" Nirvana album, when the truth is that it's the only one they didn't play out in their youth, so it's the only one they can still tolerate.

Another problem with Nirvana is the lameness factor that came with them as the years went on. Those 13-year-olds waltzing around in Cobain shirts in 1998 became quite the fucking joke. Then we have Courtney Love still mooching off of all things Nirvana, and Dave Grohl haunting our dreams with that miserable ass "Best of You" song. Nirvana, and everything associated with them, has become increasingly silly and lame over the years. Due in no small part on overexposure on any and all possible levels.

So yeah, couple their overexposure with the fact that all of their peers really WERE more talented...it makes for a pretty diluted legacy.

[Kensterberg]

Luke -- great post there, and some good observations regarding Nirvana in 2005. I think that over-exposure certainly has hurt Kurt's legacy at this point. I also think that heroin addiction followed by blowing your brains out with a shotgun just isn't the most romantic of rock and roll deaths (Layne Staley's wasn't either, but since it came after AIC had pretty much blown up, it didn't have a big impact on the band's standing).

I will take exception to the notion, however, that Nirvana was any less talented than their early nineties peers. If anything, Kurt's songwriting still holds up as the best of the Seattle scene, Dave Grohl is obviously immensely talented (if not always tasteful), and Krist Novacelic ... well he had the good sense to be in a band with Kurt and Dave, and stay the fuck out of their way. On pure talent, Kurt had it all over Eddie Vedder, any of the guys from Soundgarden, and all of AIC. He really was the real deal.

[maarts]

Those 13-year-olds waltzing around in Cobain shirts in 1998 became quite the fucking joke.

For me they were better than all these kids (today) who are wearing these Che Guevara-shirts. Were these kids any different than the people wearing band shirts anyway?

I didn't include Nirvana in my top ten because of the need of putting them there and pay homage to their output, no, I put them there because they were (are?) one of America's greatest rock bands.
And if Nirvana's legacy to you is whatever that Hole of a woman is doing- remember, Michael Jackson controlled the Beatles-output- or ex-bandmembers, just close your eyes and plug your ears. Nirvana wasn't perfect by a long stretch. Neither were the Ramones. Neither were the Clash. They do mean something to a lot of people. Overexposure? Sure! Something finally happened and the media gobbled it up and splurged it out. Has any band after that made it that big? Besides, the exposure now is gone, we now have to concentrate on all these lame-ass R&B-bands and gangsta-hiphoppers...now kids following dead 'heroes' like 2Pac and Notorious BIG...that's sad.

[luke]

now kids following dead 'heroes' like 2Pac and Notorious BIG...that's sad.

Well...for what it's worth...at least I can say I remember the last time I popped in Me Against The World, which is something I can't do for any of Nirvana's catalogue.

And Rage Against the Machine will never live down the lame, phony Che Guevara stuff, for sure.

Ken, I just may agree that Nirvana was more talented than any of their peers. I guess my point is that the strength in so much of their music lies in the simplicity of their songs and, once you've played those songs into the dirt, it's hard to appreciate that simplicity. Even if you're sick of Soundgarden, you still have to give it up for Cornell's singing and the band's intensity. You still have to give it up for Staley's anguish and Cantrell's scary riffs. You still have to appreciate Pearl Jam's longevity and atomic force as live performers.

With Nirvana, there's not as much to appreciate when you've lost the ear for their songs. When "Smells Like Teen Spirit" comes on your radio for the ten billionth time in your life, the words "played out," "overhyped", and "who still listens to this shit" come immediately to mind. When "Evenflow" comes on the radio for the ten billionth time in your life, you just think about how badass the latest Pearl Jam album is.

I can't close my eyes to the hype that surrounds Nirvana because it became bigger than they ever were. It's as if Beatlemania were to start AFTER Lennon got shot. Couple the hype with the idea that so many of us have rendered their albums useless and can only appreciate the band through tid-bits in a box set, and you've got a band that many people just can't take seriously anymore.

There's also the unique problem that many of the bands Nirvana pulled into the mainstream- The Pixies, The Melvins, The Meat Puppets, Black Sabbath- became immensely revered solely through Cobain's word-of-mouth. It's very ironic to hear the hipsters and the critics say, "Nirvana is just Pixies-lite" when the fact is that if it weren't for Nirvana, they wouldn't know who the fuck the Pixies were. By openly admitting his inspirations and influences, Cobain opened his band to being picked apart.

Also, maarts, I need to clarify that Nirvana remains one of my favorite bands and will always have a place in my heart, but I completely understand why, in the here and now, they'd get the snub in a Greatest American Bands list.

[Kensterberg]

Have I mentioned how much I'm loving having this conversation? Just absolutely loving it!

The more I think about Nirvana, the worse I feel for having left them out of my tentative top ten. I think my definitive list will have to be a top 15 or 20. That way I can at least name (most of) the people I think need to be there.

But back to Nirvana ... I guess I overlooked them because I just don't listen to 'em that much these days. And in part, this is because of the tragedy of Kurt's untimely demise. I can't listen to In Utero (one of the best albums of the nineties) without hearing a suicide note. When I hear Smells Like Teen Spirit, I miss the promise that came with it (hearing SLTS followed by Creed, Staind or other such crap is just as bad as hearing it next to Warrant and all that hair metal crap back in '91), the potential it represented. And when I listen to their Unplugged set, well, I just can't stand it. The saddest thing about Nirvana was that every indication was that Kurt was only beginning to get a feel for what he could do with songs. I really think that his most adventurous work was still to come. Certainly there is a musical depth to Unplugged that most people hadn't seen in Nirvana's catalog to that date. So it's just easier to try to forget than it is to deal with that creative loss. It's easier to elevate Pearl Jam for having the good sense to give away the crown of "biggest band on earth" before it pulled them under, and easier not to deal with the specter of what might have been.

Small catalogs haven't stopped us from including plenty of other bands ... not the least of which is the Velvet Underground. But also The Band (who made two great albums and a couple more mediocre ones), and even CCR or X. Part of the problem with Nirvana is defining greatness: is it the star that shines consistently for years and years, or the one that shines brightest and then is extinguished?

The King is gone but he's not forgotten, this is the story of Johnny Rotten ...
It's better to burn out then it is to rust ...

[luke]

RE: Layne vs. Cobain

It's interesting to compare the deaths of the two. No one really knows for sure if they died on the same day or not- Layne died within three days of April 12, 2002, I believe it was- it can be said that Cobain's death is both looked down upon and shrouded in mystery, whereas Staley's death is romanticized.

With Cobain, you have the sobbing widow. You have the conspiracy folk who say it WAS the sobbing widow. You have the abandonment of a child. You have a band whose future was unknown. As was the case with Ian Curtis, though, you had a frontman whose despair was completely legitimized.

Layne overdosed years later, after we all knew he was headed for the morgue and the band was finished with. It seems strange, though, that the lead singer of a band who wrote entire albums about heroin addiction would actually die of said addiction YEARS later. It seemed too fucked up to be true. Layne's death was quiet, empty, and alone.

AIC certainly got more respect after Layne died. They were no longer considered the bottom of the barrel of the Seattle bands. It all seemed legitimate, though, as if they were finally getting their due. In retrospect, no one will say that people listened to AIC because the singer OD'd, but people will always say that about Nirvana.

Also of note- both bands second-in-command went on to make terrible butt rock radio music that gets more respect than it deserves because of what band they were in.

[luke]

Ken, I'm starting to feel that the Nirvana snub on my part was almost INTENTIONAL, and shouldn't have been there.

I agree, however, that one big question about all of these grunge bands is that they have spawned almost nothing worthwhile in their aftermath. Staind, Creed, Nickelback, Crossfade, all those awful, awful bands.

Who are "the good bands" today influenced by? The Pixies, Pavement, Joy Division, New Order, Devo, The Jesus and Mary Chain, Iggy and the Stooges...basically a lot of the exact same bands who influenced the grunge scene.

[Weeping_Guitar]

Looking through my collection it's kind of amazing how few great American bands are present in it when so many UK ones are prominent. I guess my 5 favorites would be:

Creedence Clearwater Revival
R.E.M.
The Velvet Underground
The White Stripes
Wilco

[Kensterberg]

Luke -- you were hardly the only one to omit Nirvana ... hell, I'd mentioned them early on and then left 'em off my first attempt at a list. But actually talking about them, and having to confront their recorded legacy, it's pretty damn hard for me to justify leaving them off. I have a much easier time explaining why I'd omit someone like the Beach Boys than I'm having justifying snubbing Nirvana.

You have a point about inspiring a lot of crap bands, but the same can be said of lots of "great" artists (such as the Beatles and Stones, to name two off the top of my head). In being vocal about his influences, I think that Kurt just made it easier for others to discover those same influences. So when someone of a certain age says they love the Pixies, you've got to wonder if that isn't b/c of Kurt letting the world know that HE loved the Pixies.