mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (04/02/85)
[is there room on this net for a Grateful Dead perspective somewhere between Deadhead adulation and Rich Rosen skepticism? Fools walk where angels fear to tread] First of all, I agree with the multiple Dead postings that a Grateful Dead concert is a special and magical experience, with or without chemical additives (that is a choice best left to the individual concertgoer and certainly not to be advocated on a public net.) It does not have anything to do with the band's music however, which is what I propose to look at here. The band members are all superior musicians, and the Dead's continued vitality is a tribute to their skill. The examples are legion: the smooth transition from "St Stephen"'s 8/8 to "The Eleven"'s 11/4 on LIVE DEAD; the delicate interaction between the two guitars and the congas on RECKONING's "Cassidy"; the red-hot 12 bar blues solo of "Little Red Rooster" on DEAD SET; and many others. Note however that except for the first example, these moments tend to occur on well defined songs with a beginning, middle and end, *not* on those endless jams the Dead are famous for. And in the first example, we are talking about the only more-or-less well defined "songs" on that album. But those jams! In a word, SLOPPY!!! There is nothing wrong with collective improvisation, but too often they just mark time while waiting for someone to have a decent idea that the jam can coalesce around. It is admirable of a rock band to be willing to stretch the arrangement and do some on the spot creation, but there must be some framework for the improvisation to soar from. Too often you have the two drummers not in time with each other, and Garcia soloing on a different key from Lesh... They are good enough musicians that they can recover fairly quickly, but then whomever they coalesce around has usually gone on to something else, hence continued chaos. They would be well advised (and seem to do so these days) to decide beforehand on the harmonic and rhythmic base for excursions on a given tune. The other problem with the Dead is their, uh, singing. Tomcats in heat is more like it. That is far less serious a problem in rock, a medium famous for insisting that musicality is not a necessary condition for success. Finally, the Dead have been together some 20 years, and their current style (blues and boogie with a dash of country) solidified around 1970. They have thus been playing the same things, and sounding the same for 15 years. There is merit to finding a suitable style and perfecting it, but as discussed above, they have stayed with their sloppy, imperfect, lengthy jams. It has now gotten to the point of ossification. Marcel Simon P.S. Somewhat intelligent debate is welcome, but flames will be directed to /dev/null
clark@sdcsla.UUCP (Clark Quinn) (04/04/85)
> The band members are all superior musicians, and the Dead's continued > vitality is a tribute to their skill. > (Some examples here) > Note however that except for the first example, these > moments tend to occur on well defined songs with a beginning, middle and end, > *not* on those endless jams the Dead are famous for. > > But those jams! In a word, SLOPPY!!! There is nothing wrong with collective > improvisation, but too often they just mark time while waiting for someone > to have a decent idea that the jam can coalesce around. Well, Marcel, someone who agrees me with, at least to some extent. To put it another way, am I the only dead head who prefers the short version of their songs, even (perish the thought) studio versions? I much prefer the live experience, except when they get into those interminable space jams, at which time I (not on hallucinogenics for many years) am likely to want to fall asleep. They are hot when they cook through the known parts of songs, and I am in bliss, but I tend to get lost in the space. Oh, well, another vote for net.music.dead. -- Clark "I don't know whose back's that strong," Clark N. Quinn Institute for Cognitive Science C-015 University of California, San Diego La Jolla, California 92093 (619) 452-2541 (UCSD): (619) 481-0952 (Home) {ucbvax,decvax,akgua,dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcsla!clark OR clark@nprdc
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (04/05/85)
> [is there room on this net for a Grateful Dead perspective somewhere between > Deadhead adulation and Rich Rosen skepticism?... I hope so...I would enjoy being able to admire their music without being labeled a nutcase druggie. I would equally enjoy being able to criticize their bad moments (which can be REALLY bad) without being labeled anti-Dead. > The band members are all superior musicians,... > ...But those jams! In a word, SLOPPY!!! There is nothing wrong with collective > improvisation, but too often they just mark time while waiting for someone > to have a decent idea that the jam can coalesce around... Let's agree for the moment that (1) Group improvisation is much harder than individual, and even individual improv is tough, but (2) there are some great ones and some really bad ones. You have to be willing to put up with some bad stuff to get the really good jams (which just can't come from a completely rehearsed/planned show). The measure of success is partly how good the good ones are and partly how seldom the bad ones happen. > ...It is admirable of > a rock band to be willing to stretch the arrangement and do some on the spot > creation, but there must be some framework for the improvisation to soar > from. Too often you have the two drummers not in time with each other, > and Garcia soloing on a different key from Lesh... Here we begin to disagree. The framework is often tenuous--not so much for the band as for the audience, and the spacier jams are really played for that part of the audience that's heard them a lot before. [Perhaps the MOST charitable reaction the first time one hears `space' is "It's getting mighty weird in here!"] I'm puzzled about the other statements--I have almost never heard the drummers out of time (except perhaps when Billy inadvertently launched a drumstick about 15' in the air and had to wait for it to get back; he caught the drumstick but spaced a few beats). As for Garcia and Lesh off on different keys: If you're going to weave fabric, you need the warp and the woof, at right angles to one another. So Lesh does the woof(er) and Garcia goes off on something a little warped. They head off in different directions. I feel pretty strongly that it's a matter of taste as to whether they are truly discordant or only creating a strong contrast--I accept your view in the sense that you don't like it, but I'd object to being too absolute about it. Following on from this, it's interesting to notice how much effect Phil has on the direction of the music during the improv/jams/noodling. Obviously some songs just won't go without Phil--you can't start The Other One without him any more than you can kick-start a 747. But there's a lot more influence than is evident at first. Listen to space->Fire on the Mountain on DEAD SET. You can hear the song emerging from the weird, and if you listen to it several times, you can hear it a little earlier each time--but although it seems that the first bars emerge from Jerry, it actually happens earlier in the bass line; that one was Phil's fault. I don't have a vast collection of tapes, but I've got enough that I can go back and listen to the jams to study them. It's surprising how much depth there is, but you have to pay attention and even then you may not find all of the sub-melodies and counterpoints the first time or two. > The other problem with the Dead is their, uh, singing. Tomcats in heat is > more like it. That is far less serious a problem in rock, a medium > famous for insisting that musicality is not a necessary condition for success. Well, there are beautiful voices and there are voices with character. I'd go with "creaking floorboard" over the "tomcats" for one particular band member. Bobby has a good voice. Brent is variable but can be very good. Phil--well, who knows what moves him to sing when he does, let alone what determines the quality. As for Jerry's voice--the one which can be the most objectionable--as you suggest, when you've got voices like Leon Redbone, Richie Havens, Bruce Springsteen, Rod Stewart (not to compare these!), etc., you can't say that much about JG. He can manipulate the effect of his voice--it takes a mournful tone for Stella Blue, a rough edge for Wharf Rat, and a raucous roar for Ramblin' Rose. He's not going to be mellifluous, but that's not his place anyway. > Finally, the Dead have been together some 20 years, and their current style > (blues and boogie with a dash of country) solidified around 1970. They have > thus been playing the same things, and sounding the same for 15 years. They've picked up a little bit of everything--due significantly to Mickey's eclectic approach to rhythm (which gives the distinctive character to some types of music). They've drawn on almost everything--I would have put rock and folk music as the first two forms, followed by blues, boogie, jazz and country, with even a little influence of disco (precious little, let us be thankful). They've been sounding somewhat the same for a while but their repertoire is slowly changing and expanding. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...At last it's the real thing...or close enough to pretend.
cdh@ptsfc.UUCP (Chris Harvey) (04/07/85)
>The band members are all superior musicians, and the Dead's continued >vitality is a tribute to their skill. The examples are legion: the smooth >transition from "St Stephen"'s 8/8 to "The Eleven"'s 11/4 on LIVE DEAD; >the delicate interaction between the two guitars and the congas on RECKONING's >"Cassidy"; the red-hot 12 bar blues solo of "Little Red Rooster" on DEAD SET; You are obviously missing the whole idea of the Dead. No one ever claimed that their albums were even worth listening to. As a matter of fact, the Little Red Rooster that you refer to was cut considerably for that album. > >But those jams! In a word, SLOPPY!!! There is nothing wrong with collective >improvisation, but too often they just mark time while waiting for someone >to have a decent idea that the jam can coalesce around. Once again, you are speaking of something you know nothing about. You do not hear me talking about mental retardation, because I don't know as much about it as you obviously do. GET A CLUE!. > >The other problem with the Dead is their, uh, singing. Tomcats in heat is >more like it. That is far less serious a problem in rock, a medium >famous for insisting that musicality is not a necessary condition for success. Even a deadhead knows there is no such word as musicality. Once again, a CLUELESS remark. > >Finally, the Dead have been together some 20 years, and their current style >(blues and boogie with a dash of country) solidified around 1970. They have >thus been playing the same things, and sounding the same for 15 years. >There is merit to finding a suitable style and perfecting it, but as discussed >above, they have stayed with their sloppy, imperfect, lengthy jams. >It has now gotten to the point of ossification. We'll be a little more rational here. If you would listen to a tape from 1972 and one from 1984, you (or instead, someone with intelligence) would easily see that the band HAS progressed and changed. Listening only to albums is just not a good evaluation of the Grateful Dead. -- Chris Harvey,Pac Bell,SF ============================================================ "Joke 'em if they can't take a .... " (dual!ptsfa!ptsfc!cdh)
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (04/08/85)
> > > ...It is admirable of > > a rock band to be willing to stretch the arrangement and do some on the spot > > creation, but there must be some framework for the improvisation to soar > > from. Too often you have the two drummers not in time with each other, > > and Garcia soloing on a different key from Lesh... > > Here we begin to disagree. The framework is often tenuous--not so much for > the band as for the audience, and the spacier jams are really played for > that part of the audience that's heard them a lot before. [Perhaps the > MOST charitable reaction the first time one hears `space' is "It's getting > mighty weird in here!"] .... > .... I feel pretty strongly that it's a > matter of taste as to whether they are truly discordant or only creating a > strong contrast--I accept your view in the sense that you don't like it, > but I'd object to being too absolute about it. > I agree that it is a matter of taste, but I don't see the issue as one of discordance, which is an "ear of the beholder" thing anyway. I strongly disagree that one needs as tenuous a framework as possible for effective group improvisation. I have multiple references in various and multiple jazz disciplines to disprove that point. The point is to have a single focus, around which others' improvisations revolve. Tha focus can be the time signature, the tune's chords, or modes (scales), the "feel" (e.g. the blues) or what have you, but it must be there. I guess what I don't like here is that such a center, be it tonal, rhythmic or what have you, is not always defined enough in the Dead's music. There will always be room for honest disagreement here, though. > Following on from this, it's interesting to notice how much effect Phil has > on the direction of the music ... Full agreement here. I have long felt that Lesh is the glue that holds the various, centrifugal elements of the Dead together. > > Finally, the Dead have been together some 20 years, and their current style > > (blues and boogie with a dash of country) solidified around 1970. They have > > thus been playing the same things, and sounding the same for 15 years. > > They've picked up a little bit of everything--due significantly to Mickey's > eclectic approach to rhythm (which gives the distinctive character to some > types of music). They've drawn on almost everything--I would have put rock > and folk music as the first two forms, followed by blues, boogie, jazz and > country, with even a little influence of disco (precious little, let us be > thankful). They've been sounding somewhat the same for a while but their > repertoire is slowly changing and expanding. > > Dick Dunn More honest disagreement here. Although there is some evolution from EUROPE 72 to DEAD SET, I don't see it as 10 year's worth. The thumping beat of "Feel Like a stranger", that's new, but "Franklin's Tower" could just as easily have been recorded in 1975. BTW, I draw most of my knowledge of the band from records. I have seen them live (only) three times. So I don't have an enormous collection of tapes either. Marcel Simon
john@fritz.UUCP (John Gilbert) (04/10/85)
This is a (hopefully "somewhat intelligent") response to Marcel Simon's
article concerning the music of the Grateful Dead. I will, in a moment,
specifically address the music. However, I must point out from the start
that much of the Grateful Dead experience, that which DeadHeads rave about,
is not specifically the music. The music is there, and it is one part of
the experience we can take home with us, but it is not the whole thing.
Probably the most important element is the DeadHeads themselves. I have
never (seriously, NEVER) felt the kind of bond I feel with a group of people
like I do at a Dead show. Independent of chemicals. AND, it does have
something to do with the music. It is a common focal point at the shows,
one reason for being there, and a significant factor in setting the mood for
the feelings mentioned. For some reason (I care not why, specifically) that
music is soooo pleasing, so uplifting. It takes us all to other places,
together. But now about this music ...
Marcel describes "those jams! In a word, SLOPPY!!!". Well, I suppose I can't
disagree. But, there are other words too ... like TWISTED, OBSCURE, LOST,
BEAUTIFUL, SPACY, INCREDIBLE, SLEEPY, SPICY, DELICATE, ABSTRACT, PERFECT (as
well as imperfect, as Marcel points out). Some shows are better than others.
Sometimes the band is addmitadly ashamed of the show. Some are
masterpieces to those who were there. Best of all, sometimes they are
great for some and not too hot for others. One never knows what to expect.
I am not sure the band ever does either. But they dare to take that chance.
Very few bands are willing to jam this way in front of a crowd. My experience
is that it is well worth their effort. To me, they have a winning record.
Marcel, you state: " ...too often they just mark time while waiting for someone
to have a decent idea that the jam can coalesce around." What is "too often"
for you? Perhaps fewer times than for me. I guess that would mean I would
enjoy more shows than you. I look at it this way: I know of no one who goes
to see the Dead regularly who feels their jamming is not welcome during a
performance. I really wonder why anyone else would care. We (I) generally
welcome it as part of the ongoing experiment.
Finally, the Dead do in fact play a lot of old material. They have a lot to
draw from, and can conjur up almost anything at the drop of a hat. They also
play new material. They pop up with new songs from time to time. And
arrangements change constantly. And, so has the Dead sound over the years.
Maybe not radically, but it evolves. At times it may seem to stagnate a bit.
They usually notice and move on. Again, most folks I know who go regularly
feel the shows are fresh and inspiring.
I guess much of what you say could be percieved by some. But, thank God,
there is a strong, large group of individuals, DeadHeads, who like the Dead
as they are, for what they are. That should validate what they do
sufficiently.
"Somewhat Deadicated ..."
John Gilbert
..!trwrb!felix!john
"Sometimes the songs that we hear are just the songs of our own."mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (04/16/85)
> John Gilbert: > Marcel describes "those jams! In a word, SLOPPY!!!". Well, I suppose I can't > disagree. But, there are other words too ... like TWISTED, OBSCURE, LOST, > BEAUTIFUL, SPACY, INCREDIBLE, SLEEPY, SPICY, DELICATE, ABSTRACT, PERFECT (as > well as imperfect, as Marcel points out). Some shows are better than others. > ... Very few bands are willing to jam this way in front of a crowd. My experience > is that it is well worth their effort. To me, they have a winning record. > You (and a couple of other folks who have responded to my posting) are missing my point. I don't disagree with the concept of jamming, but with its execution. If you are going to improvise, do it right. A sloppy jam is bad music, no matter how noble the intentions > Marcel, you state: " ...too often they just mark time while waiting for someone > to have a decent idea that the jam can coalesce around." What is "too often" > for you? More than once per concert. This has been the case at every show that I have attended. > I guess much of what you say could be percieved by some. But, thank God, > there is a strong, large group of individuals, DeadHeads, who like the Dead > as they are, for what they are. That should validate what they do > sufficiently. The gist of this posting seems to be: "it's not the music that counts, but the experience" (whatever it is) and "all we deadheads like it, so it's OK". Those are some pretty lame justifications. The first implies that the Dead are interesting because their concerts are an occasion to shed social inhibitions, scream, go crazy and other adolescent behavior. I hope that is not the case. I am trying to find out what in the Dead's MUSIC holdds such attraction. If the music is unimportant, then where's the beef? I like the Dead's music; I often find it sloppily executed. I have heard no valid reason for such sloppiness yet, and I am not convinced there is ever a reason for sloppiness. I deliberately used examples preserved on vinyl because these do not become lost in the memories of "an incredible concert experience", but can be re-examined later, with some objectivity. I feel my questions still stand: what is in the *music* that can command such fan loyalty? why do deadheads accept the proposition that a concert will be successful purely because of chance (the band members are collectively hot *that night*)? Marcel Simon
nm34@sdcc12.UUCP (nm34) (04/18/85)
In article <294@mhuxr.UUCP>, mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) writes: > > John Gilbert: > > Marcel describes "those jams! In a word, SLOPPY!!!". Well, I suppose I can't > > disagree. But, there are other words too ... like TWISTED, OBSCURE, LOST, > > BEAUTIFUL, SPACY, INCREDIBLE, SLEEPY, SPICY, DELICATE, ABSTRACT, PERFECT (as > > well as imperfect, as Marcel points out). Some shows are better than others. > > ... Very few bands are willing to jam this way in front of a crowd. My experience > > is that it is well worth their effort. To me, they have a winning record. > > > You (and a couple of other folks who have responded to my posting) are missing > my point. I don't disagree with the concept of jamming, but with its execution. > If you are going to improvise, do it right. A sloppy jam is bad music, > no matter how noble the intentions > > More than once per concert. This has been the case at every show that I have > attended. > It is too bad you have had such bad exeriences. I have been going to Dead shows since 1972 and in all the concerts I have seen and heard, I have met some clinkers. But as the person above writes, the record is quite good. You have just been unlucky, or you are unable to appreciate the dissonant and less organized jams. I too have been ennthralled by the experience of what I call experimental music. I think the thing that gets the Dead into trouble is that as with anything that is experimental you are taking a chance. But the spontineity that would be lost be rehersing every piece is the very element the makes their music special. > The gist of this posting seems to be: "it's not the music that counts, but > the experience" (whatever it is) and "all we deadheads like it, so it's OK". > Those are some pretty lame justifications. The first implies that the > Dead are interesting because their concerts are an occasion to shed social > inhibitions, scream, go crazy and other adolescent behavior. I hope > that is not the case. I am trying to find out what in the Dead's MUSIC > holdds such attraction. If the music is unimportant, then where's the beef? > I like the Dead's music; I often find it sloppily executed. I have heard > no valid reason for such sloppiness yet, and I am not convinced there is > ever a reason for sloppiness. I deliberately used examples preserved on > vinyl because these do not become lost in the memories of "an incredible > concert experience", but can be re-examined later, with some objectivity. > I feel my questions still stand: what is in the *music* that can command > such fan loyalty? why do deadheads accept the proposition that a concert > will be successful purely because of chance (the band members are collectively > hot *that night*)? > > Marcel Simon Marcel, this is a bad rap that has been repeated several times on this net. Sure there are those who go to concerts (all kinds of concerts) for the scene. Just give us the benefit of the doubt that there are Deadheads that appreciate music as much as you do. I go to the concerts for the music. The Dead scene is fun. It adds to the music. - Andy Bindman
pitzonka@daemen.UUCP (Bill Pitzonka) (04/29/85)
A: Neither.