They did a recording of Blackbird in the late 60's, included on the 4-CD box set which might be deleted by now. The notes to it say the Beatles were their favourite band. Nash came out of the British pop scene influenced by the Beatles. Ringo played drums in the early seventies for their As I Come Of Age. Their is surely a strong Beatles influence there. But, would it qualify them to rank as the equivalent 'American Beatles'?
I think The Eagles have at times been regarded as 'The American Beatles'. Their music certainly cuts across all types of American sounds. They seem to define the American sound more thoroughly than any other band, in my view. But, don't forget - The Eagles were directly influenced by CSNY!
But, which would you call 'The American Beatles'? Or, another band, perhaps? Certainly not The Monkees!!!!!
Though I didn't say it, I really think it's The Eagles. For what I said, about crossing over various genres of American music. Many of their songs are memorable and instantly recognisable too. The Beatles sounded and seemed British lyrically too, often. The Eagles just seem so all-American by comparison. The Eagles also seem to have split at the height of their career, at the end of their decade.
Creedence had the best run of top ten singles than any 60's or 70's American acts (except The Eagles?) , plus a fine collection of albums, and were a great live act. So Creedence or The Eagles would get my vote. I'm a bit young for Creedence, but there was a lot of hysteria about The Eagles - they were definately BIG. CSNY did have a huge following - but didn't have the singles, which for me disqualifies them
Lol! ... agree with Bobber: The Beach Boys or The Byrds. There were not as many as Great Bands in America in the 60s as there were in Britain ... and among the last ones is very difficult to say 2 or 3 which were near The Guys did, so more among the american ones. After the shock of the Beach Boys I'd said ... The Doors or Creedence Clearwater Revival (short careers and great stuff and groopies ... like The Guys)
CSNY were great, but The Eagles made their songs memorable and commercially viable. Something CSNY couldn't do. Do you mean Creedence Clearwater Revival? I thought they were a third rate band who didn't get very far. I heard only one song a long time ago, which I thought was very weak.
... Do you mean Creedence Clearwater Revival? I thought they were a third rate band who didn't get very far. I heard only one song a long time ago, which I thought was very weak.
I've always been annoyed by the fact that CSN(Y) made few albums over the years. Splitting up after Deja Vu was a bad decision artistically and commercially. The resulting Crosby/Nash albums/songs were mostly mediocre. Something was missing without Stills. I guess Stills was well into the Manassas/solo career stuff. Maybe he was doing financially nicely out of it and feeling his freedom. He made some really good stuff in his solo career. But, CSN should have been together more over the years. I was a massive fan once. To some extent, I think there was an element of united they stood, divided they fell. They didn't even get their common act together in the eighties or nineties much more. I just feel they could have made much better music if they'd stayed together more often, and perhaps gone down in music history better.
Anyway, if you're a CSNY fan, the 4-CD box set has a massive amount of alternative takes of their great songs which are just so fine - better than even the originals! And some really good previously unreleased material. For generosity of otherwise unavailable material, it ranks as truly excellent as a big compilation. Comparable to the Beatles Anthology series.
Do you mean Creedence Clearwater Revival? I thought they were a third rate band who didn't get very far. I heard only one song a long time ago, which I thought was very weak.
From '69 to '72 they had eight consecutive top ten singles. Try and think of another American band that had that kind of chart success. Their albums were all huge sellers and liked by critics. Bad Moon Rising, Who'll Stop the Rain, Run through The Jungle, Suzie Q, Have You Ever Seen the Rain...all great songs. Cosmos Factory is THE album. For 3 years they were BIG. And they invented swamp-rock. I
From '69 to '72 they had eight consecutive top ten singles. Try and think of another American band that had that kind of chart success. Their albums were all huge sellers and liked by critics. Bad Moon Rising, Who'll Stop the Rain, Run through The Jungle, Suzie Q, Have You Ever Seen the Rain...all great songs. Cosmos Factory is THE album. For 3 years they were BIG. And they invented swamp-rock.
I've only heard of some of those songs. I heard a song called River Woman. Sounded poor to me. Hope I can check them out sometime.
From '69 to '72 they had eight consecutive top ten singles. Try and think of another American band that had that kind of chart success. Their albums were all huge sellers and liked by critics. Bad Moon Rising, Who'll Stop the Rain, Run through The Jungle, Suzie Q, Have You Ever Seen the Rain...all great songs. Cosmos Factory is THE album. For 3 years they were BIG. And they invented swamp-rock. I
I see what your saying is true kevin, but the band never had a number 1 even though they had numerous top tens. (Sorry, I hate CCR)
To answer the question, I believe the Beach Boys were the closest thing to the Beatles (except Elvis, but he was solo) in America.
I see what your saying is true kevin, but the band never had a number 1 even though they had numerous top tens. (Sorry, I hate CCR) ...
They had seven (7) number 2 and one (1) number 3 in 1969 and 1970 and two (2) of their albums in the same years were number 1, ... They have got 3 albums in the List of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time (95th, 265th and 392nd)(the same number as Beach Boys (2nd, 270th and 380th), for example) ... not too bad knowing such a great music there was then ... there's no comparasion to 1963-1964 when there was nothing in pop-rock music world. A top ten in 1969 is almost a number 1 in 1964. How many very good and great bands and solists there were in the 1965-1969 years (the best five-year period of music in the whole history)?
I'm afraid the U.S. never create the band who could stand up to the Beatles. Buffalo Springfield had Neil and Stills, but little commercial success. If the Eagles were our Beatles, I need to shoot myself right now.
We had plenty of solo acts like Dylan and Springsteen and Joni Mitchell that have longevity and great albums but aren't really band acts. The Beach Boys were Brian really--although Dennis and Carl pitched in later. I like the Byrds in their heyday when McQuinn, Gene Clark, Hillman and David Crosby were all writing (culminating in Younger than Yesterday, but including FD and Eight Miles High) but I don't think they matched the Beatles. Even when they were popularizing Dylan songs.
There was no American equivalent. Though I'm not a big fan, Grand Funk set a number of records but often get overlooked. And if you are looking strictly at Number 1's, Mariah the Pyriah is only one Number 1 from tying the Beatles for #1 singles and I can't mention her and the Beatles in the same sentence without wanting to puke. Plus I think Boxcar Willie outsold the Beatles, Elvis, and The Andrew Sisters combined. CCR was mess. Wasn't much to choose from in the bleak early 70s. Take your pick CCR or the Partridge Family.
I just thought of The Band, which in the beginning had multiple writers. I think their first two albums are in the same league as the Beatles. But they didn't have the longevity and one too many live albums repeating the same songs.
Their first album had a huge impact (like the Velvet Underground's). Everyone from Clapton to George Harrison wanted to hang out with the Band and the Woodstock scene.
But in the end the Band were no Beatles. They never could adapt/adjust the way the Beatles did. And the 70s weren't the same thing as the 60s. How would the Beatles have adjusted to Reggae and Disco. If the solo albums are any clue . . . who knows.
But I've been thinking lately of the synergy the Beatles as a recording unit had in their heyday. I think they could have done some cool reggae ("Obladi" pretty good ska) and John had some really good funky songs on "Walls and Bridges" that might have been great with a tight Beatles work-through.
I think that's what the post-Beatles recordings tend to lack--a sense of tightness and unity beyond the singer or the song. The Beatles at their best were great because they were having so much fun together. They made each other greater. When you hire a bunch of session guys it just doesn't have the same magic.
Don't get me wrong, Willie Weeks played some kickass stuff for George's records. But I still think Paul and the Beatles could have made magic out of "Woman, Don't You Cry for Me." Or think of the backing vocals on "Crackerbox Palace." Really good songs become great.
I might be off topic by now, but to be honest, I've forgotten what the topic was.
I saw The Last Waltz eight times (pre video-MTV days) and fell in love with The Band. But I've bought a couple of albums and not liked them. Not pop enough for me I suppose.
the band are great...i almost lost it when they toured as dylans band for a spell...see even bob knows talent when he hears it...the weight is a great song as is their virgin of the night they drove old dixie down(with respects to mairi,i like that one better than joans).they are borderline rock..more like country...
I still think it's the Eagles. I think the Eagles are All-American in a way that the Beatles are All-British. But I also think the connection, if there is one, is CSN, their fondness for the Beatles and perhaps the presence of the English-born Nash in CSN(Y).
I love the freaking 'Band'. If theres ever music to sit down to and burn one with,,,its 'The Band'. 'Music From The Big Pink', 'Stage Fright' (my personal favorite), 'The Band', and 'Cahoots' are all incredible. Hell, everything they ever did was good in my opinion.
the band are great...i almost lost it when they toured as dylans band for a spell...see even bob knows talent when he hears it...the weight is a great song as is their virgin of the night they drove old dixie down(with respects to mairi,i like that one better than joans).they are borderline rock..more like country...
Yes. Great great songs. And I thought they were the bees knees in the movie. But other than those songs I found their studio stuff dissapointing. Mind, I've also been dissapointed with albums by The Byrds, Buffalo Springfield, Flying Burritos and Gram Parsons. Maybe I need to accept it's not a genre for me, which is a pisser, cos it looks like fun. Burn me in the desert baby.
I've gotten to record with Garth several times now. He's an amazing guy. Part Yoda, part Mozart.
"Chest Fever" is an all-time rock-n-roll classic.
The Band probably are the best answer to the Beatles in terms of making serious "art" rock-n-roll. Three great voices: Levon, Rick and Richard. A great guitarist. Great songs. And one of the best "undersung" keyboardists around.
I've listened to Garth practice (he practices 6 hours a day still). On piano. The guy's chops are incredible. He's sorta like Thelonius Monk except smoother. Playing this great little bits--then on to something new.
Too bad you don't like the Byrds, Gram, et al, Kevin. The first Flying Burritos Brothers album is incredible. "Sin City" is amazing. Hot Burrito # 1 and 2. And that's Sneaky Pete playing all that overdriven guitar-sounding stuff on his steel guitar.
The Byrds are great too--I like the Gene Clark early stuff, but also the middle period--Eight Miles High through Notorious Byrd Brothers.
I feel like a retard now. The Band album I had was a "greatest hits", the Byrds was the album with Rock and Roll Star (?) on it. The Gram album just had his face on it (twas many many years ago.) Maybe I need to listen again (my Beatles sickness was at its height then). Gram is someone I especially would like to appreciate.
Has anyone listened to Nash's Wild Tales and did it deserve to bomb?
I know the song Wild Tales, not the album. It is the album title too, right? Not a great song, but I know the live version on the 4-CD box set I have which is worthy of drooling over. IMO, Nash was the least songwriter in the combo, but, he did some great ones too: Teach Your Children, Chicago, Just A Song Before I Go being among the more obvious. On the After The Storm album, Find A Dream is so great. Interestingly, sounds more Stills than Nash.
Mr. Nash deserves full credit for making CSN harmonies reach the sky, more important than his songwriting. Nash's high vocals on Long Time Coming make it so fabulous. But, I'd say that Crosby was the best songwriter in the band. There often seems to be an element of longing and wistfulness in his songs. I can really get into that.
CSN without the Y is like....like....LS without the D. Just doesn't work for me.
I'm not sure. On Deja Vu, Young doesn't seem to figure much on the CSN songs. I even wonder if Young joining added to the tensions which saw CSN split for too long. And the seventies Crosby/Nash albums mostly needed something missing. Though, Carry Me is a fine moment. I think CSN added something to Young's songs, rather than the other way around. Through My Sails on Young's Zuma album is a very laid back and cool song with CSN giving lovely harmony additions.
Ringo did drums for As I Come Of Age. Now, if only Ringo had joined the band and they'd chosen a name for the band! With Stills handling bass, as he did anyway. The American Beatles!?
I have the male gender thing happening over there under the avatar though. No, seriously, some other people on other forums have said the samething and they came up with the fact that they werent realling paying attention and subconciously see it as a name with 'TINA' in it. Who knows, but i'm comfortable with my feminine side.
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
GreenApple
Male
Logged
DM's Beatles forums › Other music forums › Various Artists, Lyrics, Discographies, URLs › Crosby,Stills and Nash - The American 'Threetles'?