How to play keys in a Grateful Dead cover band?

[zoooombiex]

They had a great 16 months in 1970-71 with Workingman's Dead, Amerucan Beauty, and Skull and Roses (the recorded live new material album with Bertha, Playing in the Band and easily their best official live album IMHO). Did some nice atmospherics in 74/75 with Blues for Allah and somewhat reflective of the fusion period (Caravanserai, etc).

 

Definitely with noting 77-78 too. That's widely considered another one of their "peaks". That and 89.

 

LOL on the pic

 

http://www.filmonpaper.com/site/media/2011/04/TheToxicAvenger_onesheet-1.jpg

[mate stubb]

My brain hurts worse arguing about the Dead than it does having to listen to them...

 

[zoooombiex]

My brain hurts worse arguing about the Dead than it does having to listen to them...

 

 

lol

 

the only way to win is not to play

[Jason Stanfield]

good Dead cover bands

I'm trying to imagine what a good Dead cover band is since, by any objective measure, the Dead were terrible.

 

How do you objectively measure that a band is terrible?!?!

They had a lot of terrible performances, for sure, particularly he subsequent times Jerry would relapse into heavy drug use.

 

But there were a lot of great shows in there, too, where the band was tight, in tune, creative, energetic, and sounding incredible.

[Jason Stanfield]

I've been lurking in this thread all weekend and find it fascinating.

 

There must be over 25 Grateful Dead cover/tribute bands mentioned in this thread. I'm shocked! I never would have imagined that Dead heads would take an interest in anything other than the real deal. If there was one group of fans totally wedded to their band it was these guys. Are you guys all working? Is there a market for this?

Otis Lotus (my Dead band) plays weekly locally, and we play college towns about once a month. We've signed with a booking agency that can get us work all over the southeast - frats, breweries, gigs on the Gulf coast (lots of Parrotheads and Deadheads to play to), and festivals. At our local gigs, we get an average of 10-15 dedicated fans who are at most or all of our shows.

 

And we're in central MS; in the northeast and west coast, good Dead bands bank.

[Eric Iverson]

This is kind of funny to me. I didn't realize that there were so many Deadheads still out there, LOL.

I have sort of mixed feelings about them. I loved the Dead as a kid, say about 1967 or so. Years later I heard some of their stuff I thought seriously sucked, but I've heard some things where the ensemble had that "loose but tight" feel that I like.

Mostly of my musical experience has been as a guitarist in church bands, but even there once in a while we'd be in a "party hearty" situation where we could take chances, and it would be a little of the same ethos.... no not the drugs, LOL.

I've never actually played a Grateful Dead tune, apart from "Morning Dew" at age 16 - not sure if I had the chords right......

[Tonysounds]

Well, I disagree on your definition of subjective v. objective, making your definition - by definition - subjective.

 

So yes, based on your subjective definition of objectivity, the dead objectively sucked.

 

But to say the band is "good" (or that they "sucked") is also subjective because you are subjectively defining the criteria by which you determine whether they are good or sucked. I have a different set of criteria and according to my criteria, the same band that "sucks" to you might be "good" to me.

 

You can disagree with my definitions of objective and subjective, but youd be wrong. I am using the literal definitions of those terms for this argument/debate/conversation. There must be rules of engagement, and in critical analysis, you must be able to know the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.

I can most certainly prove you wrong in terms of The Deads pitch, intonation, time, harmonization and improvisation. While there are certainly artistic choices to be made, and to consider, singing flat is singing flat. Period. When you play out of time, youre out of time. Period. When group vocals are flamming and out of key, they are out of sync and out of key. You can hear it, I can hear it. Just because its music doesnt mean technique is no longer a consideration.

 

Me liking it or not is subjective, but my dislike of musical execution has no bearing on the level of expertise displayed. Its incontrovertible: either they display a developed ability, or they do not. You arguing my example of they are a good band, but I dont like them shows you clearly dont get it. Sorry , I do: Good band denotes they exhibit a dexterity and facility on their instruments; liking or disliking is my preference for it, but it changes nothing, it neither diminishes their ability nor enhances it. You do not need to have the facility of Weather Report to be a good band, but you do require more than that exhibited on many of the Dead recordings.

 

But if it makes things easier to digest, Ill rephrase this whole debate NOT using the terms that confuse you:

 

The Grateful Dead live recordings I have been exposed to for 7 years of sporadic yet concentrated listening, more often than not displayed a less than acceptable professional level of vocal ability and instrumental facility generally accepted by their peers (and indeed, even some fans) to be the norm for a professional band who toured the world for 30+ years. Yet, despite more examples of less-than-acceptable performance than those of brilliance, The Dead amassed a following that accepted the good with the band, and loved The Dead for their efforts, and for being the backdrop of their lives. Yet, that following of the faithful were far outnumbered by the unconverted who did not see the divinity in the music or performance of The Dead. Furthermore, the number of their peers who loved The Dead were greatly outnumbered by the peers who clearly did not appreciate the displayed lack of facility.which could be summed up in a CliffNotes-esque they sucked.

 

[Outkaster]

Well, I disagree on your definition of subjective v. objective, making your definition - by definition - subjective.

 

So yes, based on your subjective definition of objectivity, the dead objectively sucked.

 

But to say the band is "good" (or that they "sucked") is also subjective because you are subjectively defining the criteria by which you determine whether they are good or sucked. I have a different set of criteria and according to my criteria, the same band that "sucks" to you might be "good" to me.

 

You can disagree with my definitions of objective and subjective, but youd be wrong. I am using the literal definitions of those terms for this argument/debate/conversation. There must be rules of engagement, and in critical analysis, you must be able to know the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.

I can most certainly prove you wrong in terms of The Deads pitch, intonation, time, harmonization and improvisation. While there are certainly artistic choices to be made, and to consider, singing flat is singing flat. Period. When you play out of time, youre out of time. Period. When group vocals are flamming and out of key, they are out of sync and out of key. You can hear it, I can hear it. Just because its music doesnt mean technique is no longer a consideration.

 

Me liking it or not is subjective, but my dislike of musical execution has no bearing on the level of expertise displayed. Its incontrovertible: either they display a developed ability, or they do not. You arguing my example of they are a good band, but I dont like them shows you clearly dont get it. Sorry , I do: Good band denotes they exhibit a dexterity and facility on their instruments; liking or disliking is my preference for it, but it changes nothing, it neither diminishes their ability nor enhances it. You do not need to have the facility of Weather Report to be a good band, but you do require more than that exhibited on many of the Dead recordings.

 

But if it makes things easier to digest, Ill rephrase this whole debate NOT using the terms that confuse you:

 

The Grateful Dead live recordings I have been exposed to for 7 years of sporadic yet concentrated listening, more often than not displayed a less than acceptable professional level of vocal ability and instrumental facility generally accepted by their peers (and indeed, even some fans) to be the norm for a professional band who toured the world for 30+ years. Yet, despite more examples of less-than-acceptable performance than those of brilliance, The Dead amassed a following that accepted the good with the band, and loved The Dead for their efforts, and for being the backdrop of their lives. Yet, that following of the faithful were far outnumbered by the unconverted who did not see the divinity in the music or performance of The Dead. Furthermore, the number of their peers who loved The Dead were greatly outnumbered by the peers who clearly did not appreciate the displayed lack of facility.which could be summed up in a CliffNotes-esque they sucked.

 

Thread over!

[zoooombiex]

Thread over!

 

Au contraire!

 

You can disagree with my definitions of objective and subjective, but youd be wrong. I am using the literal definitions of those terms for this argument/debate/conversation. There must be rules of engagement, and in critical analysis, you must be able to know the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.

I can most certainly prove you wrong in terms of The Deads pitch, intonation, time, harmonization and improvisation. While there are certainly artistic choices to be made, and to consider, singing flat is singing flat. Period. When you play out of time, youre out of time. Period. When group vocals are flamming and out of key, they are out of sync and out of key. You can hear it, I can hear it. Just because its music doesnt mean technique is no longer a consideration.

 

Me liking it or not is subjective, but my dislike of musical execution has no bearing on the level of expertise displayed. Its incontrovertible: either they display a developed ability, or they do not. You arguing my example of they are a good band, but I dont like them shows you clearly dont get it. Sorry , I do: Good band denotes they exhibit a dexterity and facility on their instruments; liking or disliking is my preference for it, but it changes nothing, it neither diminishes their ability nor enhances it. You do not need to have the facility of Weather Report to be a good band, but you do require more than that exhibited on many of the Dead recordings.

 

If you can't see that your definition of a "good band" is subjective, that's when the thread's over.

 

Indeed, the adjective "good" is the emptiest, most bland form of subjectivity that exists. Something is "good" if it meets your criteria for being "good." The very definition of "good" is "that which is desired or approved of" - which necessarily depends on who is doing the desiring or approving. "Sucking" is simply the inverse of that.

 

I have a different definition of a "good band" based on what qualities in a performance I appreciate. Unlike you, I understand that we are allowed to have different definitions of that term and I do not feel the need to convince you that mine is objectively "correct."

 

And personally, I'd agree technique is a consideration, but not the only one. And even then, your criteria for ranking someone's level of technique are necessarily subjective. How do you weight someone's accuracy v. creativity; ability to play solo v. ensemble; ability to engage an audience, etc.

 

Even to the extent you can pull out aspects of a performance that are arguably objective (pitch, timing, etc.), your argument would simply boil back down to Kanker's first post that I addressed above. Specifically, if you define your criteria for whether music is "good" or "sucks" according purely "objective" facts, then your conclusion is going to be meaningless to me anyway. Objectivity is great in math ... not sure what it has to do with art outside the classroom.

 

I just find it amusing that you feel the need to try to keep restating your opinions in terms that you think are objective, to try to prove me "wrong."

 

You must need a break from your job more than me!

 

 

But if it makes things easier to digest, Ill rephrase this whole debate NOT using the terms that confuse you:

 

The Grateful Dead live recordings I have been exposed to for 7 years of sporadic yet concentrated listening, more often than not displayed a less than acceptable professional level of vocal ability and instrumental facility generally accepted by their peers (and indeed, even some fans) to be the norm for a professional band who toured the world for 30+ years. Yet, despite more examples of less-than-acceptable performance than those of brilliance, The Dead amassed a following that accepted the good with the band, and loved The Dead for their efforts, and for being the backdrop of their lives. Yet, that following of the faithful were far outnumbered by the unconverted who did not see the divinity in the music or performance of The Dead. Furthermore, the number of their peers who loved The Dead were greatly outnumbered by the peers who clearly did not appreciate the displayed lack of facility.which could be summed up in a CliffNotes-esque they sucked.

 

I disagree with whatever subjective criteria you are apparently using to determine whether a performance is "acceptable", someone's "lack of facility," probably your definition of "brilliance," and perhaps your assessment of the weight of popular opinion but certainly it's relevance.

[Joe Muscara]

This sucks.

 

[zoooombiex]

This sucks.

 

 

That might be objectively true.

 

[Tonysounds]

1. subjective/səbˈjektiv/

Adjective: Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

 

 

Noun: The subjective case.

 

 

Synonyms: personal

 

1. objective/əbˈjektiv/

Adjective: (of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

 

 

Noun: A thing aimed at or sought; a goal.

 

 

Synonyms: adjective. unbiased - impartial

noun. aim - object - purpose - goal - target - end - intention

 

 

Your argument is a straw basket with no bottom; more accurately, it's a bowl of crystal opium: as soon as heat is applied, it dissolves.

 

Give me a solid definition of SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE, and maybe we can talk. And not a personally held belief of what those terms mean. Until then, you ARE wrong.

 

 

[zoooombiex]

1. subjective/səbˈjektiv/

Adjective: Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

 

 

Noun: The subjective case.

 

 

Synonyms: personal

 

1. objective/əbˈjektiv/

Adjective: (of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

 

 

Noun: A thing aimed at or sought; a goal.

 

 

Synonyms: adjective. unbiased - impartial

noun. aim - object - purpose - goal - target - end - intention

 

 

Your argument is a straw basket with no bottom; more accurately, it's a bowl of crystal opium: as soon as heat is applied, it dissolves.

 

Give me a solid definition of SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE, and maybe we can talk. And not a personally held believe of what those terms mean. Until then, you ARE wrong.

 

 

According to Google:

 

"Objective": Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

 

Conversely,

 

"Subjective": Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

 

You are using your personal opinions to define what criteria must be met to be a "good band", whether a performance is "acceptable," etc. That is why your definitions of those terms are not objective, and hence, are subjective.

 

It's not that the underlying criteria themselves are all necessarily subjective. It's your choice of which criteria are on the list and how to weigh them that is subjective.

 

====================

 

Perhaps as a way of summing up, I don't think the terms "good" or "sucked" are particularly useful words for describing music. In fact, they don't actually describe the music at all - they only describe YOU (the speaker), and your beliefs as to what constitutes "good" and "sucky" music. Only indirectly, by reference to what the speaker believes those terms mean do they relate to the music itself.

 

So all I've been trying to point out is that the effort to objectively prove the dead's music sucked or was good is in vain. That said, I've learned a lot about you in this process as a result of your posts, and what you consider to be good or bad music. But my understanding of the dead's music itself hasn't changed, and certainly the decades of their performances haven't changed. They are what we are and we can each identify aspects of them that we personally, subjectively find worthwhile or deficient. That's a conversation I'd certainly enjoy.

[Tonysounds]

You are using your personal opinions to define what criteria must be met to be a "good band", whether a performance is "acceptable," etc. That is why your definitions of those terms are not objective, and hence, are subjective.

 

It's not that the underlying criteria themselves are all necessarily subjective. It's your choice of which criteria are on the list and how to weigh them that are subjective.

 

====================

 

Perhaps as a way of summing up, I don't think the terms "good" or "sucked" are useful words for describing music. In fact, they don't describe the music at all - they only describe YOU (the speaker), and your beliefs as to what constitutes "good" and "sucky" music. Only indirectly, by reference to what the speaker believes those terms mean do they relate to the music itself.

 

So all I've been trying to point out is that the effort to objectively prove the dead's music sucked or was good is in vain. That said, I've learned a lot about you in this process as a result of your posts, and what you consider to be good or bad music. But my understanding of the dead's music itself hasn't changed, and certainly the decades of their performances haven't changed. They are what we are and we can each identify aspects of them that we personally, subjectively find worthwhile or deficient. That's a conversation I'd certainly enjoy.

 

Except an argument that my criteria dont work for you is an invalid argument. Provide criteria to show why they dont suck. What does make a band good?

 

This is the fire we keep dancing around.

 

The Dead are not for everyone. And as much as I dont love them, I love a lot of what they did, and think there are some brilliant songs in there.

 

I dont disagree with you: there is no way to really quantify art or music. Unlike sports, where statistics can matter, art and music cant be reduced to results.or can it? In fact, the only real validation is do you like it or does it move you. Validating it with Grammy awards and Rolling Stone Best Of or Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductions is just as hollow as good or suck. But it doesnt change sloppy time, out of tune vocals or anything else. Whether you accept them as part of the whole, or are so perturbed by them as to dismiss the entire package is up to the listener/evaluator. So I guess really in those terms, The Dead can Suck. Or The Dead are great. Pick one. Yours is no more valid than mine, but mine is no less valid than yours. I at least recognize that I can still find some content in a bad performance; I just dont accept that a bad performance is great because its by an artist I like.

You might think you have learned something about me, but in truth, you havent. You dont know me. Youve never met me. And until you do, your opinion is as valid as the Dead Suck: you have no valid criteria to judge because you only know one facet of me, that which I decided to expose here on a forum, which once youve spent enough time here to recognize you will see is that I love to debate. I many times dont even care which side of the debate Im on, or whether I believe it: I will debate it as a mental exercise and writing exercise. At this point, it's unlikely you even know how I feel about The Dead.

 

But thanks for playing.

 

[zoooombiex]

Except an argument that my criteria dont work for you is an invalid argument.

 

It's not an argument, it's an observation that we have different definitions for these terms. (Which, by definition makes those terms subjective.)

 

Provide criteria to show why they dont suck. What does make a band good?

 

This is the fire we keep dancing around.

 

I could give you my criteria for a "good" or "sucky" band that would lead to the conclusion that the dead did not "suck," but that's the point - they would be my subjective criteria.

 

I've intentionally avoided going down that route because I'm not interesting in trying to prove that my criteria or my conclusions are more "correct" than yours. I've only tried to show you that yours are also subjective, which you seem to now acknowledge below.

 

The Dead are not for everyone. And as much as I dont love them, I love a lot of what they did, and think there are some brilliant songs in there.

 

100% agreed

 

I dont disagree with you: there is no way to really quantify art or music. Unlike sports, where statistics can matter, art and music cant be reduced to results.or can it? In fact, the only real validation is do you like it or does it move you.

 

100% agreed!

 

Validating it with Grammy awards and Rolling Stone Best Of or Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductions is just as hollow as good or suck.

 

100% agreed!

 

But it doesnt change sloppy time, out of tune vocals or anything else. Whether you accept them as part of the whole, or are so perturbed by them as to dismiss the entire package is up to the listener/evaluator. So I guess really in those terms, The Dead can Suck. Or The Dead are great. Pick one. Yours is no more valid than mine, but mine is no less valid than yours.

 

100% agreed!

 

I at least recognize that I can still find some content in a bad performance; I just dont accept that a bad performance is great because its by an artist I like.

 

This is where you are getting a bit off the path. I never said everything the dead was great, or that - even by my standards - they never had a bad performance.

 

My only point was that these are all subjective issues, and I disagreed with your efforts to prove that I was "objectively wrong" in my views.

 

You might think you have learned something about me, but in truth, you havent. You dont know me. Youve never met me. And until you do, your opinion is as valid as the Dead Suck: you have no valid criteria to judge because you only know one facet of me...

 

Well, assuming you were honest about what you wrote, I can read what your definition of a "good band" is. That's what I was saying I learned. By your definition of the term "good band" and your application to the dead, I didn't learn anything about the dead - I just learned about how you define and apply that term (or at least one example of its application).

 

...you only know one facet of me, that which I decided to expose here on a forum, which once youve spent enough time here to recognize you will see is that I love to debate. I many times dont even care which side of the debate Im on, or whether I believe it: I will debate it as a mental exercise and writing exercise.

 

No problem with that.

 

At this point, it's unlikely you even know how I feel about The Dead. But thanks for playing.

 

Don't leave now - as I said, an actual conversation about the dead is a conversation I'd certainly enjoy.

[RedKey]

[reidmc]

I'm a true believer that a good musician can make good music in any format or context. But with a GD cover band you start with two strikes against you. . .the tunes and the audience.

[mate stubb]

I 100% agree that objectively, this thread may be headed for hall of fame status.

[reidmc]

I 100% agree that objectively, this thread may be headed for hall of fame status.

 

Subjectively, I wouldn't go quite this far.

[TuneinTokyo]

Hello all. I'm new to the forum pointed in this direction from my piano teacher. I'm no dead head but I love Grateful Dead music.

 

I recently started playing in a band that plays Dead tunes. I was in the same situation as the OP. And while I think discussion about whether they suck or can't sing or are brilliant is a bunch of nonsense, I can offer a bit of advice for the OP.

 

I look at it this way, the Grateful Dead are American Music. At some point it's all in there, with the exception of rap. (Unless you count Mickey rapping Fire on the Mountain.)

 

Their improvisations are highly jazz like with the only difference being all players play almost all throughout unlike most jazz groups where the rhythm section keeps going while the other watch the soloist do their thing.

 

Especially in the Pigpen era they were total blues, bluegrass, folk, and rock n roll.

 

Classical music is a bit of a stretch but the influence of Phil Lesh studying Berio and others at Mills in Oakland is evidence of influence, especially with Tom Constanten playing prepared piano on Anthem of the Sun.

 

The coincidence of being the Acid Test house band and playing or not playing on LSD, introduced something that had not been heard or created before in the history of music. The closest may have been jazz players on heroin, Berlioz smoking opium, or the Chumash chanting while taking jimson weed.

 

Unless you been psychedelic at some point it would be tough to play in mindset of someone improvising while frying. (After the 60's I doubt they played many if any concerts while stoned on acid. At that point other more sinister drugs took hold of the group, especially Jerry.)

 

So while it's not a pre-requisite for getting good at playing Dead music, it helps to understand how that music chugs along and breathes, and why so many were turned onto it. If you've never been on a psychedelic trip there is no possible way to know what happens when you hear that music live. Clams or no clams. Those don't matter, what mattered most was how it grabbed you and took along the roller coaster of emotions, Americana historical reference, and dynamic improvisations that became those concerts.

 

When I went there I was re-establishing a musical connection from my childhood while exploring uncharted areas of mind in the moment of a concert. And yeah there were a lot of times when I wasn't feeling it, but there were enough moments, maybe a crescendo on a ascending mixolydian scale where Jerry bent the perfect note at the perfect time, and everything in life made sense. It was the closest thing to paradise I have ever experienced, and no Further band or cover band, or jazz group, or Phish, or Iron Maiden concert, or Rite of Spring, to me came anywhere close. (Paul Simon was pretty fucking awesome last year though). I've been searching for it for a long time, I also stopped taking psychedelics so that may have influence.

 

So my advice to the Op is this, descending triplets starting on the tonic of the chord when in the middle of a jam like Scarlet/Fire. Listen all the time and react to the Jerry guy tastefully. Don't overplay. Play within the two octaves above middle C otherwise it will be a wash.

 

Learn the Blues, early rock and roll like Jerry lee Lewis for when Promised Land get's called up. Listen to and play like Willie Nelson's sister. Play jazz lead sheets like Irving Berlin and Miles Davis.

Get the a qualified classical teacher and study the Hanon book to build chops, and get a good jazz teacher to learn jazz voicings and organ technique.

Study the famous licks on the tunes your playing. the end of Scarlet Begonias is a perfect example.

 

Finally don't listen to the haters out there. Who cares what they think. Take risks, play clams and listen back to them and figure what you think people would want to hear. None of your asses out there are Igor Stravinsky or the like so just stop with all the my music is better than your music shit.

 

My best friend loves Black Metal, I love what I love. We get along great because we don't sit and place judgement on what gets us off.

 

Now open a new thread and leave all the subjectivity/objectivity/suckjectivity out of it and let's discuss/talk how to play Grateful Dead keyboards.

Through Music,

Tune in Tokyo

 

P.S. I have a B.A. in percussion performance, a music teaching credential, still don't know shit.

[Jeff_D_in_MD]

TuneInTokyo wrote one of the best first-timer posts I've ever seen in this forum. Welcome!

 

Given that live music is becoming more of a rarity in this era of iPods and DJs, we should be supporting each other no matter what kind of music the other guy plays. I have one teenager who likes heavy metal and the other who likes pop, and I don't like either, but I would be pleased if my sons were musically inclined enough to want to play in a band of any style. You may not like the Dead, but enough people did that they were raking in the millions (and still are via remastered live CDs) while we are sitting here posting in this pretentious little corner of the internet. The Dead played the music they wanted to play, how they wanted to play it, and fed off the enthusiasm of the live audience whom they considered a "seventh member." If you don't like it you have no business trolling your negativity in this thread.

[Adan]

TuneInTokyo wrote one of the best first-timer posts I've ever seen in this forum. Welcome!

 

Given that live music is becoming more of a rarity in this era of iPods and DJs, we should be supporting each other no matter what kind of music the other guy plays.

 

Plus one on both points!

 

And to our earnest philosophical debaters, remember that brevity is the soul of shortness.

[Tonysounds]

Unless you been psychedelic at some point it would be tough to play in mindset of someone improvising while frying. So while it's not a pre-requisite for getting good at playing Dead music, it helps to understand how that music chugs along and breathes, and why so many were turned onto it. If you've never been on a psychedelic trip there is no possible way to know what happens when you hear that music live. When I went there I was re-establishing a musical connection from my childhood while exploring uncharted areas of mind in the moment of a concert. And yeah there were a lot of times when I wasn't feeling it, but there were enough moments, maybe a crescendo on a ascending mixolydian scale where Jerry bent the perfect note at the perfect time, and everything in life made sense. It was the closest thing to paradise I have ever experienced

 

See the Jerry Garcia rehab joke.

I love jam music, I just dont think The Dead were the best at it, or more precisely, failed to live up to the hype. I only saw them once at Alpine Valley sometime around 84 or 86, and as I watched the butterfly chasers and trustfund babies around me, I remember thinking man, these guys are just disconnected from each other, they dont seem to be listening to each other, this is a mess, and yet everyone here is so out of it, they dont care. I dont think you should need restructuring to appreciate music, but I understand its part and parcel of the Dead experience. Ive come to really appreciate some of their music, and their approach, and I applaud the audacity to just go for italthough they didnt invent it. And frankly, the legions of jammers the Dead inspired seem to have come away with only the cursory overview of what The Dead did, and just perpetuated those factors which turned many people off (the out of tune vocals and pointless noodling) with a hey, it was good enough for the Dead mentality. There are some that really get it, but they are outnumbered. Anyway, I enjoy it when I hear a good band that can play, improvise, sing, and perform Dead music well.

Nothing is sacred. Not in life. Certainly not on the interwebz. People are entitled to their opinion and the freedom to voice it. It changes nothing but encourages thinking (sometimes). When did honestly critiquing something become hatering? Hell, the guys in The Dead know what time it is. They pulled their footage out of Woodstock.

 

[PinkFloydDudi]

When did honestly critiquing something become hatering?

 

I'd say it becomes hating when your post is completely irrelevant and unwarranted within a thread?

 

Does every jazz thread need someone to come in there and "critique" the completely useless and senseless noodling that most jazz players do?

 

You can't say the Dead weren't good at jamming - they basically invented the "jam band" in the form we know it today.

 

YOU don't think they were good. The thousands of people that follow them, the professional critics at Rolling Stone, the professionals at Billboard, and many others - disagree with you.

 

 

 

 

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

Music is interesting (said Captain Obvious).

 

A person's reasons for liking a style of music is as varied as the sound itself. Like to dance? A great 4-on-the-floor beat and a sweet groove is probably your thing. Like virtuosity? There are shredders in every genre from jazz to metal. Like lyrics? There are millions of singer-songwriters ready to pour their hearts out to you.

 

The Grateful Dead, who I saw perhaps 40 times between 1984 and 1992, are a hard band to pigeonhole. Trying to understand them from a perspective of straight musicianship, performance entertainment, or sometimes even songwriting will leave many people scratching their heads, as is evidenced in this thread. And yet, even as a "sophisticated" musician, I find that I enjoyed them a lot, and elements of their sound, from Americana to psychedelia, had a big influence on me. While the songs I write certainly don't sound like Dead tunes, I know for a fact that my exposure to them and their repertoire was very good for me as a player and songwriter, and helped expand my abilities as a musician in general.

 

I offer no specifics, because trying to convince someone that what they're hearing is good/bad is a silly exercise in futility. But for the naysayers, I would say that much like hip hop and country and other maligned forms of music, none of us are in any position to tell folks what they should or shouldn't like. And now, by sheer coincidence, here's me sitting at my desk right now wearing a Dead shirt.

 

http://slcoyote.com/images/zc_dead101012.jpg

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

Oh, and more on-topic: my personal favorite Dead keyboardist was Brent Mydland. Yes, over Bruce Hornsby.

[Fusker]

Oh man, the Dead. I grew up in Eugene, so I pretty much had to see them live a good half-dozen times. Drugs certainly help.

 

I used to hate them, but then they seeped into my subconscious a bit and I kind of like them. There are times however that their free-form (read, lack of according to Hoyle musicianship) drives me nuts...but then I have a scotch and it's all good.

 

Maybe I'll come full circle and try to join a Dead band if I relocate.

[Tonysounds]

 

YOU don't think they were good. The thousands of people that follow them, the professional critics at Rolling Stone, the professionals at Billboard, and many others - disagree with you.

 

 

Well, far be it for me to disagree with the professional critics at Billboard and Rolling Stone.

 

There are just as many thousands (probably more) that would disagree with them and the Dead Fans. Doesn't change anything!

 

And not to just belabor the obvious, but I will, I keep saying I'm referencing my own personal experiences only, and that despite hearing bad live recordings, and seeing a really bad show, and not having been presented with anything to counter that (as in "this is a great show", and I keep waiting for it, because eventually someone will do it), I still find things I like about The Dead, and I personally won't/don't write them off. I'm not one of those who say "THEY SUCK", only that they have sucked in my firsthand contact with them. And yet, they still intrigue me.

 

I merely debate these dumb arguments being presented (Rolling Stone likes them!) as proof they don't suck, and present theories as to why they appear to "suck" to others.

 

Frankly, I am a pseudo-fan simply because of Estimated Prophet, Franklins Tower, Eyes of the World and Friend of the Devil. Those songs do not suck.

 

I think Jeff hit on it perfectly.

 

[opdigits]

Music is interesting (said Captain Obvious)....

 

A person's reasons for liking a style of music is as varied as the sound itself....

 

....trying to convince someone that what they're hearing is good/bad is a silly exercise in futility.

Thank You!!!

[synthizen2]

I've had an interesting on-again/off-again relationship with the Dead's music over the past 3 decades. First listened to them around '77 or so and liked it. Saw them only once, in '81 at the Philadelphia Spectrum... had great seats, had a great time, the music was good, the people all around me were dancing and whooping it up. And I wasn't "on" anything. It was definitely worth the money, which wasn't a lot back then for a concert ticket.

 

Then for a long time I wasn't listening to them much, until I joined a band in the 90s.... As keyboardist for this band, I played about half-a-dozen Dead tunes.... Eyes Of The World, Crazy Fingers, Not Fade Away, Sugar Magnolia, and 1 or 2 others. It got me kind of back into the Dead for a spell. Had a lot of fun with that band and playing these tunes. And some of those songs are deceptive in their "simplicity"... not as easy to pull off as you'd think.

 

But I never was a "Deadhead" type. And I've had a few negative experiences hanging out with Deadhead types over the years, especially the hardcore fanatics. But in any case, I think the Dead is kind of an acquired taste sort of thing. Their vibe is attached to the whole culture surrounding the band. It's more than a band and some songs that they play. It's like an entire musical philosophy of sorts.... a world unto itself. Either you like it or you don't.