American Hare
At the risk of being completely wrong and making a sweeping generalization, let me share an American thought. As I sat and watched the fireworks in our town tonight – and as mostly horrendous rock songs vaguely associated with the pride we feel as Americans as we re-create the rockets’ red glare – I got to thinking about that late-period, minor X hit, “Fourth of July”, or something like that. It’s a staple of AAA radio and other Coffee Table Rock outlets, but not the kind of thing you’d hear at a suburban town’s fireworks display, sandwiched between Mellencamp, Springsteen, and Diamond’s patriotic numbers. Man that song’s a real lowpoint in the already creatively spent portion of X’s career at that point!
American Wear
So I got to thinking: Why do so few American bands develop? In places like these hallowed Halls of Rock, we can go on for days, weeks, months on the various phases of any of a number of British bands, such as The Beatles, The Stones, The Kinks, The Who, Roxy Music, Elvis Costello, U2, and so on. Beside Bob Dylan, who developed from somewhat-traditional-yet-edgy folk singer to Voice of His Generation to wizened husk of his glorious self in a scant 8 or so years, who among American rock artists has developed as far as three distinct, interesting phases over the course of their career? Canadian artists who seem American, like Neil Young and Joni Mitchell, don’t count.
I can think of Los Lobos. And The Doors. And The Velvet Underground. Probably a few more, but this isn’t going to turn into Monty Python’s Spanish Inquisition sketch.
Like X, most American bands that come out of the gate on fire quickly fizzle into some low-grade version of their original American greatness: CCR, The Ramones, even Chuck Berry and his Mercury releases. There are no “phases,” no periods of development. Just the end or, worse, a painfully slow decline.
There’s the rare band like Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers, who have managed to maintain a consistently good level of the same old, same old. There’s also the rare band like Aerosmith, who managed to re-imagine themselves as an enjoyable, reliable “brand” that merely hints at what they once were.
What is it with our bands? Is it something about “American music” itself that limits development, or is it something about the American aesthetic? Perhaps I’m way off base. I look forward to your thoughts on this day of American independence!
Without doubt, the best American rock album with the American flag on the cover: Jefferson Airplane’s Volunteers.
Amazing how much that band developed, too. They had three eras: the folk rock period, the psychedelic period, and the grinding rhythm section US -get-out-of-America political period.
Any REAL American will be playing Volunteers on July 4th. The rest of you, I’m sure, will spend your time worrying about Amy HeroinHouse and whether she’ll get a repeat visit on Letterman. I too hope she does.
Of course, you know I mean this absolute truth absolutely gently, oh good people of my country.
Look at most of the British bands you mention – they’re all utterly ancient, mostly nearing forty years as a band. The Stones have never officially called it quits, but they certainly took some nice long breaks. The Who was always one of the least hard working bands on the planet, and it seemed they were “coming back” as early as 1975. The Beatles were long gone by then, The Kinks for the most part undeservedly fell off the map by 68 or so, U2 is still quite the concern, but are they adding fans?
Anyway, so far as American bands, maybe some didn’t have the huge impact, but can you deny the staying power of The Doors, Nirvana, The Replacements, Aerosmith, Tom Petty, Bob Seger or The Eagles?
Granted, I’d rather volunteer for e-plurb’s next unscheduled procto probe than that All American Rock Block (though Nirvana and The Mats are always ok in my book), but bands from outside the US have an advantage of media googaw action.
Then again, if you really want to say, “Whom can the Americans send to truly compete?”
Well, I hate to say it but Bon Jovi and The Eagles sell more than everyone on that list except The Beatles combined. Yuck, but that’s the way it is.
And hey, American bands have to impress a LOT more people to make any impact. 3 million sold is only 1% of the population. Virtually no one can know who you are and you can be a huge success. But then again a band like The Dexateens can sell a few thousand albums, be utterly unknown and still rock harder than anyone on the planet these days.
Say “Hey!” to the new niche market OR ultra mega market scenario we have today. Sell a million in two weeks, or live in a van for nine months a year eating pizza noodles and drinking Natty Lite. If you’re even halfway good, I bet you eat pizza noodles.
American musicians with at least three identifiable periods:
Armstrong, Ellington, Basie, Gillespie, Davis, O’Day, Waters, Coltrane, Nina Simone, James Brown, Byrds, Airplane, Velvet Underground (a new period for each album BTW), Parsons, and I’m just scratching the obvious surfaces.
Even Jerry Lee Lewis has two periods, and that dude never had ANY ideas.
American bands that go through three periods in the era of corporate control in which music is not allowed to thrive: well, it’s hard to know, since if you have even one good song, a whole huge industry is designed to make sure that shit never happens again. Matt, I HEAR what you’re saying.
Seriously, Rocktown: stop blaming other musicians for the problems of American music, and start blaming yourselves.
It’s the 4th, mothers, and this is America, so it’s time to tell the truth.
Mr. Mod,
Man, you whine about the failure of American Bands to develop and then you knock X for developing in a perfectly understandablew direction. The album with 4th of July (Which I’m sure you know was penned by Mr. Blaster during his brief X tenure), See How we Are, is not the equal of their first four albums, but it was a successful development to escape their original sound that was becoming a caricature of itself on Ain’t Love Grand. Remember, their are lots of folks that don’t think Morrison Hotel was a wonderful place to end up after the host start with the first Doors record!
Shoulda been “fast start”
mod, you’re right, the american landscape is pretty bleak. however, i think there are some examples you’re overlooking, unless I’m misunderstanding the criteria.
The Byrds at least had a second phase, the “Sweetheart” period.
Hüsker Dü had two distinct phases, w/ the double album being the hinge between them.
R.E.M has had several phases (though i’m not a fan of anything past ‘Fables’).
The Pixies developed…or rather, it might be more accurate to say they “refined” the sound they were working on from the very beginning…so maybe they don’t count.
ZZtop had quite an arc of development.
I think you can make the case that Neil and Joni DO count as Americans. They were on American music scenes from very early in their careers and were raised in a cultural environment that begat ALL of the Americanness we hear in their music. If they’re not americans, then what are they? Do they make “Canadian music”? And is that something we can identify? I say they’re just as much participants in an American music making milieu as anyone else you can name.
Prince also had a multi-phased development…
So did the Replacements.
Another interesting question: bands that have shown the *least* inclination to change over time? I vote for AC/DC.
AC/DC really hardly changed, even after getting a new lead singer. That’s amazing to me. Motorhead is another band that’s never changed. I’m not sure they really ever wrote more than one song. My choice for American band that never changed would be The Ramones.
2000 Man wrote:
Where to begin? First of all, I already accounted for The Doors, Petty, and Aerosmith. Of those 3, only 1 meets my sense of artistically developing in 3 phases, all of which have merit. The Eagles did develop, and I’ll overlook the fact that I hated them at all 3 phases. The other bands you listed didn’t develop much. Oh, The Replacements developed into a second stage before sucking on those last 2 albums. If the third stage of development sucks, it doesn’t count. “Staying power” and record sales have nothing to do with this discussion.
Then an especially cranky (yet patriotic) Mwall wrote:
American ROCK musicians. The VU were already accounted for in my insightful and possibly nearly comprehensive set up to this thread. I will grant you 2 phases for the Airplane and a third good one if you include that “Miracles” stuff they did with Marty Balin in charge as Jefferson Starship. Thanks. The Byrds’ stages are what, 1) The Monkees do Dylan, 2) psychedelic folkies, 3) Sweethearts? OK, a lot of you dig that stuff, and it was all done with good intentions. I’ll grant you those guys, but to get to the heart of my post, we don’t find the need to hash over the distinct phases of The Byrds’ on Rock Town Hall.
Who’s next? How ’bout Geo, who wrote:
You call that album a real development? It’s a retreat to mediocrity. I think X hit a dead-end after their first 3 albums. Had they had the vision to move ahead, they could have continued to refine that amazing sound they had going the way Beefheart did with his brew. Now there’s another American artist with true artistic staying power who refined his vision over a long stretch. I don’t like them, but I’ll grant you guys Prince and Zappa as well.
Now this is becoming like the Spanish Inquisition bit, but at least we’re doing some work. I’m still wondering if there’s a difference between American and English aesthetics that makes it more likely for UK bands to reshape themselves into distinct periods of development while US bands tend to hang onto some sense of integrity and tradition, running their magic into mediocrity. Consider the wisdom of my question as well as the surface-level idiocy.
By the way, Saturnismine’s “ZZ Top had quite an arc of development” quip is the funniest thing I’ve read so far today and a tacit agreement with my larger points.
American artists with changes:
Beach Boys
Charlie Rich
The Association
The Turtles
Talking Heads/David Byrne
Doobie Brothers
Stevie Wonder
James Brown
George Clinton
Curtis Mayfield
How about the Dead? They definitely developed, although I don’t know about distinct stages. Same with NRBQ. Someone else mentioned Prince.
indeed, mod, you have picked up on the dryness in my quip re. the Zeez.
fritz, i think Sonic Youth qualifies as the American band with THEE least amount of change over the course of a lengthy, non-stop career….
Talking Heads is a great suggestion. How did I overlook them? For some of your suggestions, Hrrundi, I hate to do this on July 4th, but I’m not going to consider artists who are not ROCK, such as James . I’ll allow Steve Wonder, because his stuff always spanned rock and soul – and was marketed as such. I thought about these artists, but I’ve also long thought that black American artists have long shown a healthy disdain for rehashing musical traditions. Each generation brings bold change and little sense of “retro” albums.
The Association? The Turtles? The Doobie Brothers? Are these more examples of tacit agreement with me?
Again, to help frame what I’m trying to get at, ask yourself, Do I get into rock nerd discussion with my friends over the various stages of [American ROCK band]? Perhaps I sold the artistic development of The Association short, but I’ve never heard rock nerds discuss one era of Association vs another the way I have, say, The Bee Gees.
I would distinguish the Byrds folk rock phase from their psychedelic phase from their country phase. Sure, let’s not debate it, but I think it’s clear.
Parsons is trickier, but I’ll stick by it: Byrds phase, Flying Burrito Brothers, and solo. Yes, all three phases have some things in common, but I see enough distinction to make it hold.
Johnny Thunders, three phases: New York Dolls, Heartbreakers, and solo work.
Alex Chilton, three phases: Box Tops, Big Star, and the sloppy soul rock groove of the solo work.
That said, regarding:
Hey Moderator,
Real simple question: who inserted the rabbit turds in your blueberry muffin? All the Americans mentioned by the other RTHers so far are more than vaild choices for performers who tried to improve in some way or another. By the way, I do have to congratulate you for giving Hrundi the thumbs up for mentioning the Talking Heads, but according to your rules and regulations, they’ve gotta be throw out as well because David Byrne was born in Scotland.
What is all this REALLY about? In some way or another, I know there’s something else going on here, kinda like when me and the ball and chain have an argument about her take on cleanliness around the house. After much ranting and raving goes on, the real reason for the fight emerges, and it’s usually pretty serious. Why not put that under the microscope because you’re currently engaged in a losing battle. I’ll help out the Americans and add the Monkees while I’m at it.
One more thing. I’m getting real tired of the beating you’ve given the Byrds over the years. I don’t get it. Television gets a free ride for the grandeur you find so appealing on the first side of their first release, yet they haven’t a single song that comes anywhere near a Byrds title. Screw this whole Brits Vs. Americans thing. It’s assinine. Honestly, who’s gonna get discounted next? Tim Buckley? Because you think he sings like a pussy? It’s time to lose even more credibility. What’s your REAL beef with the Byrds.
I need a laugh.
Hope to hear from you soon,
E. Pluribs
F. Scott Fitzgerald famously said “There are no second acts in American lives.”
Another way to look at it though is that British youth culture, of which rock is one manifestation, is more susceptible to fashion than its American counterpart. So bands are more likely to cycle through different styles depending on the zeitgeist.
A long running band like NRBQ has not changed its approach very much. Even with personnel changes, those guys seem to have a strong sense of who they are, and they resist external forces.
American bands may be more likely to disband and/or regroup to accommodate change. Pere Ubu is a good example of this.
Mwall,
Despite the fact that you made my temples throb when you put “Layla” on your top ten list, I’ve gotta give credit where credit is due.
You said,
“I’m still wondering if there’s a difference between American and English aesthetics that makes it more likely for UK bands to reshape themselves into distinct periods of development while US bands tend to hang onto some sense of integrity and tradition, running their magic into mediocrity.
I think there’s some truth to this, and it perhaps has to do with the very music hall inauthenticity that disturbs Mr. Mod about the Stones. British rock bands are much more likely to accept the idea that they’re playing a role, instead of bringing the truth to the people. I mean, as far as rock and roll is concerned, the British are just borrowing it anyway, right? A way of getting in on the American Revolution? They have no huge stake in the idea of its roots, so why not mess with it? Just FYI, the British started extensive pirating of American book copyrights in the 1840s. So there’s a long history here.”
THAT, my friend, was insightul as hell. It’s a brand spankin’ new bent, one I haven’t read in any rock tome before. Have a blessed 4th of July on the beach. Keep us in your hearts ’cause it’s dreary as hell weatherwise out here.
Talk to ya soon,
E. Pluribus
Mr. Mod
“I’m still wondering if there’s a difference between American and English aesthetics that makes it more likely for UK bands to reshape themselves into distinct periods of development while US bands tend to hang onto some sense of integrity and tradition, running their magic into mediocrity.”
Maybe it’s the once removed nature of English Rock’n’Roll. The fact that they start off their careers second hand, playing some American Bastard music provides them the flexibility to make major artistic shifts without betraying any personal legacy.
By the way, I wasn’t defending Ain’t Love Grand, I just counted wrong.
Sorry about echoing mwalls comment, I threw my post up there as a response to Mod’s earlier question, then I see that he’d already said the same thing. Anyway, I agree!
Townsman Mwall, your Parsons, Thunders, Chilton suggestions are disturbing. No one should see lines that finely drawn in an artist’s career. It must cause nausea.
I’m actually cool with what you say about the British tradition of playing parts and all that. THAT’S what I was getting at, and I think it helps Brits keep at it longer and with more variation.
You wondered:
It goes way too far. I love plenty of American bands, but a greater percentage of them are either black (ie, “non-rock”) or what’s considered “2nd-rate” ’60s bands, like The Rascals, The Turtles, The Four Seasons, et al. Throw in all those NYC punk bands Epluribus doesn’t like, and I like my share of American artists.
Enjoy the beach and your American tunes on this glorious day!
Epluribus wrote:
Impressive! Rules are rules, I guess.
I’ll get back to my thoughts on The Byrds some other day. As people throw out so many perfectly fine American bands, I’m reminded once more how overrated The Byrds are. God bless the folks who overrated them in the first place. They’ve made McGuinn a very satisfied man, I’m sure.
All that said, it’s good to see folks beginning to come around to my way of thinking. I know it’s tough to get at what I’m really saying sometimes, but like Geo said about the music of Faust…well, you know what I mean.
if we’re talking about “distinct” phases, then, yes, the byrds really do have three. i agree with mwall.
plurb, about a month ago i was about to jump down mod’s throat for all these snippy asides about the byrds (he manages to diss them in CURE threads, for sheeshin’ out loud! but it’s not worth it). and you’re right, we’ve mentioned lots of american acts that have evolved….
mod, the question you should be asking to buttress your argument is: who are the british bands we can name who didn’t evolve at all? or is “growing” and “developing” more of a premium over there because of the precedent the Beatles set?
also, why has noone mentioned the beach boys?
Hrrundi, I believe, mentioned the Beach Boys. They had 3 phases – surf/Chuck Berry stuff, Pet Sounds stuff, and bargain bin stuff. That last phase disqualifies them from contention.
sorry, didn’t see fritz’s mention.
i defer to, and await matt berlyant’s passionate defense of beach boys’ phase III…
but i’d like to lobby for two phases before “pet sounds stuff”. the “wistful longing” mode that includes songs like “don’t worry baby”, “wendy”, “in my room”, “warmth of the sun”, etc. has little to do with chuck berry, the beach, ice cream stands, or being true to the letter on one’s sweater.
this brings up another question, one i’d like to call “the rembrandt question” in honor of the great 17th c. artist from Leyden who’s artistic “development” confounds the more teleologically minded scholars in my field. Rembrandt’s trajectory didn’t evolve in a single identifiable direction so much as twist, turn, surge in a direction that was apparently forward, only to revisit old methods, old motifs, etc. if we were to draw a line on a piece of paper that resembles his artistic development, it would be full of offshoots and curlicues that head back towards the beginning, etc..
we may not see chronological development in the beach boys from the beginning to Milk and Honey. But it’s not as if Wilson didn’t “develop” in a considerable number of directions. i used the word “mode” rather than “phase” in my description of the “wistful longing” songs, because it wasn’t a phase that began and ended, to lead into another “phase” by the band. it was a type of song that brian found some time AFTER his chuck berry and vocal group beginnings, and returned to throughout his career (even “baby let your hair grow long” has these overtones).
is it a part of his development? sure. it happened to overlap with the chuck berry stuff and the pet sounds stuff in a way that’s not easily defined by the arbitrary perception that looking at things chronology brings.
so, mod, i think that the notion that a band is supposed to continually develop in “three distinct phases” is a bit arbitrary, and may be distorting our discussion of how artists do, or do not, develop.
thinking too fast: Milk and Honey should read “wild honey”.
cole hamels has his “A” stuff today!
Saturnismine, your introduction of the “mode” form of development is a great addition to the discussion. This helps me better understand some of the differences I’m seeing – loosely – across cultures.
Johnny Cash- Sun, Ring of Fire, Rick Rubin
thanks mod. i’m sure my explanation was as rambling as rembrandt’s career trajectory…
cole may have his good stuff today, but i certainly don’t. i look more like ryan madsen.
Mr. Mod wrote:
Wait, who said every phrase had to be good?! You don’t like every phase of Costello, Kinks, Who, etc. and neither do many of us!
Also, here is my de rigeur “How about Wilco?”
Oats, to answer your “who said every phase had to be good” question, in the original post, I ask the following:
The term “interesting” was meant to connote some level of artistic quality, allowing in my typically generous and open-minded style, the suggestion of a 3-phase band that I personally don’t care for, such as The Byrds. If you find the Jefferson Starship phase interesting, for instance, more power to you.
I would agree that Wilco is a valid 3-phase band. Good one.
Huh? I have to dispute this. Sonic Youth, in fact, would be a great choice for a (get ready for this) 5-phase band. The pre-EVOL stuff is the noise/no-wave phase. EVOL through Goo is their golden period that’s also their most accessible (aside from their last album, a deliberate return to accessibility IMO). Dirty to Washing Machine is their semi-popular/major label/grunge period (and yes I know Goo was their first major-label record), the two albums that followed (esp. NYC Ghosts and Flowers) are probably their most disliked albums and not coincidentally, their most experimental major-label work whereas the last 3 have been part of a critical comeback and have restored the faith of their fanbase.
As for the impassioned defense, been there done that. All I’ll say about that is that if Mr. Mod thinks “Til I Die” or “Feel Flows”, just to name two of many examples, are bargain bin fodder, then I’ll just have to agree to disagree with him or anyone else who unwittingly dismisses that period.
What I’m more interested in is what you wrote regarding Brian Wilson’s development leading up to Pet Sounds. Like you, I think it’s a bit misleading (to say the least) to lump in everything pre-Pet Sounds as the Chuck Berry ripping/girls/cars/surfing phase. Sure there were plenty of songs like that, esp. on the 1st 4 albums or so, but by the time of Today! (esp. its 2nd side), Brian was already hinting at what he would do later. If anything songs like “Kiss Me Baby” could’ve fit in nicely on Pet Sounds. Furthermore, even songs like “In My Room” and “Surfer Girl” were really early examples of Brian’s love of balladry, teenage poetry and themes, odd chord changes, incredible harmonies and just about everything else that would later show up on Pet Sounds. The most common mistake critics make is to assume that bam, he took drugs, hired Tony Asher and Pet Sounds came out of thin air. This is just plain wrong!
matt…thanks for the props on my Beach Boys post.
you make a good case for SY’s evolution. I guess I’ve just been listening too frequently without pulling away to look at the big picture as you have, and my ears focus on what’s common in all their phases. But here again I think their trajectory is a little more complex than you make it seem. “Goo” has songs, and is more like “sister”. But “Daydream”, which precedes it, is more like the jam oriented albums that come in the mid-90s.
how about the Flaming Lips as a band with multiple phases?
their early albums are quite raw. But by the time we get to Satellite Heart, we’re in a much more polished, pop phase that culminated with the album before “pink robots”. Then with “pink Robots” we get into their current electronic sounding phase…
not well thought out, but i think they’ve done quite a bit of evolving at a pretty high level . i know people on here aren’t particularly fond of them, but at least we can say they’ve “developed”.
The musical accompaniment for the Philadelphia fireworks made me, for the most part, not proud to be an American.
In terms of an American artist that has had success in distinct phases, I think the ultimate example has to be Linda Ronstadt. She has been successful in so many genres. Assorted phases include The Stone Poneys, early solo stuff backed by pre-Eagles, country, great rock, great Broadway (Gilbert & Sullivan), Mexican Spanish stuff, the standards with Nelson Riddle, her partnership with Aaron Neville, the country stuff with Dolly Parton & Emmylou Harris, and now, in her latest incarnation, one of the Zozo Sisters with Ann Savoy. ( I adore their cover of Walk Away Renee, and I think the entire album is wonderful.)
I will see her live soon, and it will be a thrill to hear one of my favorite voices of all time!
Check the Wikipedia entry for a good description of her many evolutions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Ronstadt
It’s good to see Linda get some props here. I’m not a huge fan, but I do enjoy some of her music. My guess is that puts me in the minority around these parts.
You’re in a tiny minority, as far as I know, mwall. But I’m in it with you. Saw her a couple years ago; beautiful. And I’m looking forward to seeing her in Newport this year.
Did anyone else watch the Hall and Oates performance on Channel 6? T-Bone Wolk played guitar! (A telecaster, to be specific). It was quite odd and as a fan of his bass-playing faces I was a tad thrown off. He has different faces for guitar.
I had no problem with Rondstadt’s many hits as well. She put the best face (and ass, if I may say so) on all that LA Mafia stuff from the ’70s. I’ve lost track of her over the years.
Townsman Moi, it’s great to have you on board. Keep chiming in! The fuller perspective we get on this thing called rock the better.
yeah, people always trash linda for singing every song “to the wall” and never bringing it down a notch, but that never bothered me about her.
i LOVE the early stuff…her vocal on “different drum” is magical. my big sister played the snot out of that first greatest hits album, and ‘you’re no good” and the song Paul Anka wrote (“you won’t matter any more”? i think that’s what it’s called…) prove the criticism above wrong.
her post-cowgirl stuff (“U.S.A” and “Mad Love”) is a little weak, but on the whole, i agree with Moi: Linda had staying power and DID work successfully in many different genres.
zappa.
What about Beck? He seems to reinvent himself with every album, though the last two have sounded like retreats to his mid ’90s Odelay period, at least to my ears (and that’s not a bad thing at all, BTW).
What about Beck? “Reinvention” is different than development, if you ask me. Does Beck ever move forward, or does he just dart back and forth across the brightly decorated preschool room in which his imagination rests?
I really like mwall’s idea about the irreverence (for lack of a better word) towards the history of American rock n’ roll. That’s either thinking outside the box or a bong hit where everything went just right. Either way, my hat’s off to ya.
One thing about this whole “evolution” gets me, though. If a band is around say, thirty years, then how much can they change stylistically? If you start out with England’s Newest Hitmakers and end up at Close to the Edge then you’ve certainly changed a lot, but how many of your fans would have stuck around for the ride? Especially if a few albums into it you hit it really big. Like touring on your own jet big. If you truly hit it big and want to stay that way, then I think stylistic changes are going to be in small steps rather than leaps and bounds.
If you’ve really never hit it huge, then your fan base will be more likely to come along for a ride, because that small fan base is probably more objective so long as you don’t hit it really big (the sell out). A radical change that results in a minor band’s huge success is a sell out. A major change that results in a minor band’s success is a sell out. At least that’s the way it seems to me in this Brave New World. Good luck to those of you in bands, I hope you get to sell out.
I’ve been thinking about U2 lately, because of this thread (hopefully my spitting this out will make those thoughts go away). I think U2 sounds exactly the same as they always sounded. Maybe more slick and polished, but to me, they always sound the same. And while I don’t play guitar at all, it sounds to me like The Edge (my vote for stupidest nickname ever) has played the exact same guitar part through every song I’ve ever heard by them, just a little faster or slower. They had to go out and hire B. B. King so their guitars could sound different, and they still sounded the same. I think their phases are more centered around market share than anything else.
Good points about U2, 2000 Man. I think their “development” came about through changing the frame around that same old picture.