October Issue Home | Editors | Features | Columns | Photos | Regional | New Groove Road Trip | Tour Journal | Venue | Levels | Ghosts | Homegrown | Inaudible | CDs | Charts

Band(s) of the Century

by Dan Gladman

---

Someone was making the case that Michael Jordan wasn't the athlete of the century. Something about a Wayne Gretzky guy. And a Muhammad Ali... and a Martina Navratilova.

Up until this conversation, I would have thought it was a foregone conclusion. I mean, 6 NBA titles, 2 Olympic gold medals, 1 NCAA championship. And all those MVP awards and scoring titles. Not to mention a bevy of defensive-player-of-the-year awards.

My dad told me when I was a young teenager that no matter how good you were at something, there was always a guy who was better. No matter how rich you got, there would be somebody, somewhere, who was richer. Think you're smart? Someone is smarter than you.

So how does this apply to bands? Well, in choosing the band of the decade, a daunting mental task if one has ever assigned his or herself the question, I could come up with not one clearcut winner. Indeed, there are two bands, far and away, undoubtedly, who come in a dead heat at the top. Fortunately, this ain't baseball and tie does not go to the runner. The Grateful Dead and the Rolling Stones are the band(s) of the century and they leave all other bands in their dust.

Stones' guitarist Keith Richards once made this quip in an issue of the Brit Mag "Q." "What do Deadheads say when they run out of drugs? This band sucks."

Now come on Keith, give these music fans some credit. Deadheads would never, ever, run out of drugs.

And Deadheads, like Stones' fans, would never ever ditch their band. This is one criteria that must be determined in the process of choosing the band of the century - popularity. Yes, bands like Journey and Poison and Spin Doctors have enjoyed popularity, but that was of the fleeting variety. You know, like how Baskin Robbins has a flavor of the month in June, and you come back on a hot day in August looking for it, and the chick at the counter has never heard of it. That is the Spin Doctors, my friend. But mention the Rolling Stones or Jerry Garcia at the most obscure incense shop in Burma and they know who you are talking about. These bands were able to twist popularity into their own brand name. The Stones with their number-one hits, the Dead with their unlimited collection of live concerts. Ooh, that was a marvelous way of gaining popularity, handing out free music, right Trey?

Now, you may argue that there are more famous bands out there than the Dead or the Stones. Perhaps Kiss has more reach than the Dead, or more people like The Beatles than the Stones.

But Kiss and The Beatles fall short in other measures of the criteria for band of the century. With all due respect to John Lennon, who was one of the most creative minds of our time, The Beatles fail in the spool of longevity which the Stones, or the Dead, have mastered. I am sorry, but it is 1999 and the Stones still tour, whether Richards can hold up that guitar, or not. We are looking at a touring conglomerate. 35 years! How long has the Barnum and Bailey circus been rounding the circuit? More than 35 years for certain, but that is the kind of "let's take it on the road" show that we can compare the Stones too.

Unfortunately, Garcia died in August, 1995, cutting short the Dead's golden road to the millennium. However, their 30 years is no slouch, and honestly, The Other Ones, a Dead-compendium group, sans Jerry, still technically means the Dead is active.

And the popularity of these bands has remained longitudinal. The Stones still get airplay for their horrible new songs, while the Dead, up until the very end, could sell out Chicago's Soldier Field for two straight nights.

As for Kiss, as popular and long-lasting as the Dead or the Stones, their innovation doesn't measure up. Yes, their contributions to on-stage theatrics and pyrotechnics were anomalous to their time, but you know what, that stuff is so overdone and cheesy. I am more interested in innovations in the actual music and how it is marketed. Musically, Kiss never invented the idea of using a choir on a hit single, see Stones' "You Can't Always Get What You Want." And I don't remember seeing any "Detroit Rock City > Deuce" jams on Kiss "setlists." The Dead advented morphing together songs, something which has become somewhat of a convention in jam rock. Listen to "China Cat Sunflower > I Know You Rider" from the Dead's "Europe '72" disc and listen to the seamless flow from one tune into the other. Like the silkiest skin you have ever touched.

There were a lot more innovations by the Dead and Stones. In fact, they almost have to be synonymous with one another. The Dead played Woodstock. The Stones, who weren't invited, had their own festival - Altamont. (We won't discuss its history). Both these large events were generally new concepts. sic. Woodstock '99 and The Great Went. The Stones made the major label method work, the Dead didn't, until 1987, when they hit with "Touch of Grey." Both bands used live appearances to make money. The Stones relied on radio hits to attract local audiences. The Dead played a different show every night and kept the same ones. Both bands were among the first to marry film to their rock music.

What is most interesting though, in terms of innovation, is how each band started out. Richards and Mick Jagger, living in England, were entranced by black American blues musicians who played electric guitars. When the Stones started out in the early '60s, they emulated Muddy Waters and Chuck Berry. When Garcia saw these British cats in action, he quickly put down his first instrument, the banjo, and picked up an electric guitar. See, Garcia had been interested in bluegrass legend Bill Monroe and jazz great Charlie Parker. What both the Stones and Dead did was to combine these styles into styles of their own.

And the styles known simply as Stones or Dead have influenced a legion of musicians from the '60s until now. Jagger and Richards wrote the back on how to be a rock star. Garcia wrote the book on how to be a prophet. Musically, their rock 'n' roll has yet to be surpassed. Every year we hear the new band out of Manchester or Burlington, but no rock musicians have been able to write a song of the quality of "Scarlet Begonias" or "Sympathy for the Devil." Go back, listen, the influence wreaks on these songs. Maybe it was "Satisfaction" that got you so riled up at your eighth-grade dance, or Truckin' that made you pick up the guitar.

Maybe the Stones told you to grow your hair long and the Dead told you to leave your home and be a nomad. Surreptitiously, of course. These bands influence a range of bands that came after them, and they still do. Not one rocker in the world can claim not knowing who the Stones are. And the constant evolution of jam bands, from Santana and the Allmans, to Phish and Widespread Panic, to moe. and the Disco Biscuits, owe a musical debt to the living legends of rock music, who have survived its infancy into its peak of the last five years. The century has ended nicely. I feel like we have scored.

---

Dan Gladman is a journalist in Toronto.