Why did America never produce a truly legendary rock band?

My Degeneration wrote:

Beatles, Who, Stones, Zep-UK

INXS-Aus

U2-Ire

No U.S. band ever came close.

I'll second the Grateful Dead and The Doors...and Springsteen, Elvis, BB King as individual acts that also had a band with 'em.

I think the closest thing to a legendary band that has been named so far is The Ramones. What is I was to tell you that somewhere in this house, I've got a script about the ramones. Now would that be something you might be interested in?

The europeans are genetically gifted

Some very good songs by a mostly American band:

http://youtu.be/I70pQbod9rQ

http://youtu.be/CEVyf6y_-Y4

http://youtu.be/zRdyDSbWg7w

http://youtu.be/Nir4BnNIFmg

Urge Overkill

Metallica

GNR

Nirvana

Van Halen

The Jimi Hendrix Experience started in London but Jimi is American.

INXS.....hahaha.

Why should it be assumed that America should produce a 'truely legendary rock band' ?

rush originates from canada....sorry.

op wrote:

Rush mo fos

Dual Action Pump wrote:

The Band!!!!!!!! (kinda canadian too but w/e)

Levon Helm was American. And they did a lot of their work in Woodstock.

The problem is, all the legendary bands came from a particular genre, place, and time. I wouldn't consider U2 to have (yet) the legendary status of Led Zeppelin or The Rolling Stones. U2 didn't exist at the time of what people would consider the legendary bands. I think you have to have all three.

Think of the great classical composers. Think of any generation of music. What makes a great generational band? Genre, place, and time. The OP's question could just as easily be, why didn't the UK ever produce a great grunge band? America had Nirvana, Pearl Jam, etc...no other country even came close. It's all about genre, place, and time.

That said, I think the closest the U.S. got was The Doors.

I have to agree - no American BAND has the stature of the Beatles, Stones or the Who.

REM is probably the greatest American rock band, and even they were limited to a market segment.

However

our individual artists are truly legendary and surpass anything from England -

Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley, Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan - these guys are eternal.

Tempting to see in this the American regard for the individual vs the European more collective view of life.

Your B-list is besmirched by the inclusion of The Cars. Worst concert I ever saw. I still think maybe they were animatronic dummies, not human beings.

Bad Moon Rising wrote:

solid others are Tom Petty, Bob Seger, KISS, ZZ Top, Ted Nugent, The Cars, Van Halen

Beach Boys maybe - those guys will be listened to until the sun is extinguished

what about the boss wrote:

Even today, Springsteen could sell out a stadium pretty much anywhere he felt like playing.

Given the discussion of individual acts vs bands, I should clarify that "Springsteen" really refers to Springsteen and the E Street Band.

Crosby, Stills, Nash, & Young

Steely Dan

The Beach Boys

The Doors

The Rascals (seriously, they were amazing)

The Doors, talent-wise, was just Morrison with Manzarek giving solid backup. Not on the level with the Brits at all, and unable to handle the drugs and alcohol with the durability of their over-the-pond counterparts. Kind of the Prefontaine of rock: good and dramatic but still out of the medals and flaming out too early.

The rest (REM,Beach Boys,Creedence,etc) are just a bunch of NCAA champions up against Olympians.

My Degeneration wrote:

Not on the level with the Brits at all, and unable to handle the drugs and alcohol with the durability of their over-the-pond counterparts.

You mean like Moon, Bonham, Entwistle, Jones, etc.?

Not one person has said Boston yet!?!? COME ON!

I had a discussion similar to this with a student last week. We were talking about what it takes to be considered a "great musician". We decided it took great instrumental musicianship, excellent lyricism, innovation, and popularity (to be considered "great" by the masses, must have some level popularity).

When going through this, we used John Lennon as the epitome of greatness, as he is toward the top in all categories. We then compared him to great musicians over the past 20 years. After much deliberation, the only rock musicians we would even attempt to seriously compare Lennon to were Cobain and Grohl. So, in my estimation, Nirvana, with two of the top musicians over the past 20 years on their roster, has to be considered legendary.

As for Foo Fighters being "mainstream" rock...when did that become a put down? Actually, when we comparing Grohl to Lennon, we decided Grohl was a better lyricist and overall musician, with Lennon taking the other categories. If one really listens to Foo Fighters entire catalog, a deep Beatles influence and comparison is fairly obvious. Foo Fighters are like a "harder rock" version of The Beatles, with less of a political scope with the content of their material. The thing they lack is innovation, but they have taken the "quality" of what has already been established to a higher level. Currently, they are attempting to lead a musical "revolution" away from computerized records and performances, recording their last record (which was acclaimed by both the public and critics) in their garage on analog tape, something not done on a mainstream record in well over a decade. In a way, this is innovation, moving away from overtly technology driven records. If the world were a more just place, they'd definitely be considered "legendary". Maybe with time.