jackson@curium.DEC (SETH JACKSON 297-4751) (10/30/85)
>A long while ago I bought "Terappin Station". It was only natural that >I'd be interested in The Grateful Dead, being a Kate Bush fanatic and >all, because the way Seth and others talk about them, you'd think they >were Kate Bush or something! :-) Anyway, I like good music, so I >thought I'd give ol' Jerry and the gang a listen or 2. > >And the verdict is: Well, they're ok, but no Kate Bush. Yes, yes, they >are talented and sincere, etc., but so what? I didn't find the album >particularly challenging to listen to. I didn't hear anything >incredibly new or different. Some of the stuff on the album is kind of >neat, but as a whole, the album was just sort of pleasant. It didn't >have that irritating edge or grate on the nerves the way most *really* >interesting music does.... > >Etc.... Well, Doug it *almost* sounds as though you see my point, which is, of course, to each his own. The point of my posting was not to prove that the Dead are better or worse than Kate Bush, but of course you took it that way because that's the way your mind seems to work. The point is that everybody likes what they like, and there's no way you can say that Kate Bush is better than the Dead, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Who, Bach, or even Madonna. More precisely, you *can* say it if you want, but all you do is make a fool of yourself with that kind of statement. Your opinions are *your* opinions, but you have a very annoying habit of presenting them as though they were facts. >>(me) >> Doug loves to talk about how innovative Kate Bush is. Well, perhaps >> she is, but not to the level that Doug wants to believe. On much of >> the album, she seemed to me a lot like female version of Pink Floyd. >> That's certainly not the kind of comparison one would be ashamed of, >> but it's been done before. >(Doug) >Well if you want to accuse her work on "The Dreaming" of being >derivative, saying it is derivative of Peter Gabriel would be much more >appropriate. (Though you'd still be completely wrong.) Save the >"derivative of Pink Floyd" accusation for "The Ninth Wave" (half of >"Hounds of Love").... Ok, she's a cross between Peter Gabriel and Pink Floyd, with a lot of her own style thrown in. My statement still stands, that she may be original, but not as radically original as you insist she is. >I've never claimed that she's as historically important as The Beatles. >No one since them is. I just feel that her music is better, and that >she's the most important musician to emerge in the eighties. There you go again. I'm sorry, but her music is not "better" than the Beatles; you just happen to like it better. > Doug Alan > nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA) P.S. Nobody claimed that "Terrapin Station" was the world's greatest album or anything like that. In fact, if you paid attention to the Dead discussion, you would have read that Dead albums aren't the way to appreciate the Dead. They are a concert band, and they have never been able to capture their magic on an album. If you want to check them out, you must see them *live*. (There are a couple of albums that come close, however: "Live Dead" and "Anthem of the Sun." Agreed, Deadheads?)
kenf@uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU (10/31/85)
What in the hell is a Kate Bush ???
ken fortenberryrlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/04/85)
>A long while ago I bought "Terappin Station". It was only natural that >I'd be interested in The Grateful Dead, being a Kate Bush fanatic and >all, because the way Seth and others talk about them, you'd think they >were Kate Bush or something! :-) Anyway, I like good music, so I >thought I'd give ol' Jerry and the gang a listen or 2. > >And the verdict is: Well, they're ok, but no Kate Bush. Yes, yes, they >are talented and sincere, etc., but so what? I didn't find the album >particularly challenging to listen to. I didn't hear anything >incredibly new or different. Some of the stuff on the album is kind of >neat, but as a whole, the album was just sort of pleasant. It didn't >have that irritating edge or grate on the nerves the way most *really* >interesting music does.... [DOUG] Odd that you picked the ONE Dead album on which they actually made some serious music of substance, which most Deadheads I know despise for being so undead. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (11/06/85)
> >A long while ago I bought "Terappin Station". It was only natural that > >I'd be interested in The Grateful Dead, being a Kate Bush fanatic and > >all, because the way Seth and others talk about them,... > ...>And the verdict is: Well, they're ok, but no Kate Bush... > > [DOUG] > Odd that you picked the ONE Dead album on which they actually made some serious > music of substance, which most Deadheads I know despise for being so undead. Odd, but most of the DeadHeads I know (and yes, I know quite a few) regard "Terrapin Station" as a reasonable album. General sentiment about the Dead's albums seems to place "Steal Your Face" at the very bottom (for poor choices of songs, terrible live versions of some of them, bad mixing, scramble-ass order, and cheap pressing). "Go To Heaven" is not well-liked; it came across as too top-40, and some jerks even took the cover's giant put-on seriously. "American Beauty" is from a very different era, but songs like "Box of Rain" and "Ripple" have some substance and overall the album is a (minor?) classic. "Reckoning" and "Dead Set" show two sides of the live band as well as a record can; here "Reckoning" has more of the thoughtful or playful music while "Dead Set" has the rockers. Other albums are spotty--the Dead have trouble in the studio, and while the older live material is great music, it's technically mediocre at best. Back to Terrapin: Side 1 is a mixture--"Estimated Prophet" is a put-on right from the title, "Dancin' in the Streets" is a so-so cover, "Passenger" is a good song but they race through it. "Samson and Delilah" is better but doesn't show what they can do with it. (Listen to "Dead Set" to see what both of these SHOULD sound like. I have to wonder if these two came back on "Dead Set" in part to atone for the Terrapin versions.) Side 2 of Terrapin is the reason the album exists--it's one long rambling journey, touching on various legends that Hunter (lyricist) has tapped for other songs. Even that side doesn't tell the whole story--there are more pieces to the song than appear on the record. If I had to try to define the Dead with one piece of music (a pretty stupid idea, but what the heck), I'd probably choose Terrapin. The problem with the album version of Terrapin--probably the complaint that Rosen's DeadHead acquaintances have with it--is that it sounds like "Jerry Garcia meets Phil Spector". The song is overproduced, particularly the latter portion of it, to where it sounds nothing like the song the Dead do. (Where did the orchestra and choir come from, anyway?!) All of the over- dubbing was done without the band wanting it. I can agree with Rich that there's some substance to Terrapin--but it would still be there if the song had been left more true to the style of the band. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
lip@masscomp.UUCP (John Lipinski) (11/08/85)
>>A long while ago I bought "Terappin Station". [ALAN] > >Odd that you picked the ONE Dead album on which they actually made some serious >music of substance, which most Deadheads I know despise for being so undead. Oh come on! How can you say that "most Deadheads despise it for being so undead". That's absurd. I think it is one of their best studio albums and I am certainly an avid Dead fan. I think you fall into at least one of the following conditions: 1. You don't know many deadheads. 2. You haven't seen the Dead live. 3. You have little understanding of the Dead. - John {ihnp4,decvax}!masscomp!lip