Prior to '68 they wouldn't have deserved to be remembered as fondly, but if, say, they'd been aboard Skynyrd's plane in '77 they would've been sainted by the Pope by now.

She's The One soundtrack was great too.

Wildflowers is great.

Not a Heartbreakers album. Doesn't count.
Besides, Lynne's production ruins it for me.

I'll take:

The Fleshtones...longevity, quality of output, influence...it's all there, and they put on the best live show on the planet, even when there's only six people in the audience.

The Dictators...beat the Ramones to the punch w/ Go Girl Crazy by a full year. Bloodbrothers is a Listmania Top 10 record.

I'll second the Dolls, but not Cheap Trick...too much utter shite in the 80's.

Nice pick.

And I'm a little surprised Fugazi and the Pixies haven't been mentioned yet.

Edit: oh shit and the Cramps and Big Star. And if we're sticking with that longevity shee we might as well give the crown to Kiss.

Well, with these additional consensus criteria of longevity, influence, quality and epitomization of an broad ethos/aesthetic and not worried about popular acceptance: Yo La Tengo.

Not saying this is my pick, but I'm surprised to see a lot of these bands 90% of the population hasn't heard of, but no mention of Wilco.

I thought of them for a second early on. What a catalogue.

Does it really matter the name on the album cover?
Personnel

Tom Petty - 12 and 6-string acoustic and electric guitars, harmonica, piano, organ, vocals
Mike Campbell - 6 and 12-string guitars (bass, slide, electric, acoustic), harpsichord, coral sitar
Benmont Tench - harmonium, pianos, organ, mellotron, zenon
Howie Epstein - supporting vocals, bass
Steve Ferrone - drums

It matters because it has an individual's name on it, not a BAND. It's an interesting phenomena that a lot of huge american acts are based around the individual artist whereas European acts are much more likely to have a group mentality. And the media usually encourages this divisiveness, seeking to put the lead singer out front as the face of the band. Think John Fogerty, Michael Stipe, Axl Rose, Curt Cobain. America has never seemed so obsessed with identifying foreign bands's lead singers, like Blur or the Zombies or the Arctic Fuckin' Monkeys. And even though the average american knows the lead singer of huge bands like the Stones or the Who or Led Zeppelin or the Beatles, they probably also know the rest of the band, in the way that they don't for american groups.

that's one thing that continually surprises me about the grateful dead, as much as people made a cult around Jerry he still let bob weir sing half the songs.

Pixies definitely crossed my mind: Catch me in the right mood and I'd say "hell yeah".

I'm surprised that neither harry nor Todd mentioned Los Lobos.

i thought i saw los lobos earlier.

longevity is a tricky requirement to wrap one's brain around. when you think about how much shit has to come into place in order for a band to last 3 months, let alone 3 years, let alone 10 years, you really start to appreciate even the bright flashes in the pan. there should be some formula a la dog years (1 year is really like 7). put this together with the fact that popular music trends tend to cycle through different genres every 5 years or so, and one could argue that even bands with short life span can be considered.

You all know the answer is the Ramones.

End of.

I did. In my first post:

The Pixies did cross my mind too, but with four proper albums, I dismissed them. Even though they were very influential, I look at someone like the Beach Boys or the Ramones in terms of influence and the amount of great stuff they put out, I just can't put the Pixies in there. Fugazi is an interesting choice that I hadn't really thought of.

YES

yeah, they're another one who fall into rads' "fiery pizza explosion" category

Pulling apart the parameters; what is meant by longevity. Putting out "new" music over the course of decades, yet the new music is relevant, interesting, plays against and uses the idiom of what was put out before. The Beach Boys continue to put out new allbums but haven't been interesting for over 30 years. Los Lobos and Yo La Tengo qualify; Ramones and Talking Heads probably do; not sure that Pixies/Nirvana/Velvet Underground/Sly have the duration to qualify. Wilco does and is one of my favorite bands, but there is something underachieving about their slacker trope that limits them... what makes them great makes them less than great.

Also if Sly qualifies then so must Bruce and E St., and I just don't think he does. Petty? (See Wilco strength-is-its-limitations.)

What's the argument against Bruce? Is it based on viewing Bruce more as a solo artist and the E st. being more of a band of backing musicians rather than true collaborators? If so, I could maybe buy that. If you're making a longevity/too much fluff, I don't get it. I wouldn't pick Bruce either, but I still wouldn't get it.

Also, I'm probably as big a fan of the wheelhouse Sly aims at as anyone on this board, but I've never much cared for him. He wouldn't make the cut for me based on either peak quality or longevity.

This.

Not because I necessarily believe it, and they'd be disqualified because of the lack of "contemporary output", but at some point The Allman Brothers should at least be entered into the conversation.