The Grateful Dead : good or bad band?

[Catanddogguitarrr]

This is an old debate. Most music fans will dislike (or hate) that band. For many reasons like their singing harmonies and overall singing as out of tune. Their music isn't special or very precise. The critics would say the make rock, pop, country, blue grass, jazz and blues in their songs but all in a bad way. Their composition lacks a lot of things and some could say it's borderline elevator music. What the Dead fans would like is they have drugs and in festivals folks will use drugs so all together it's all connected with drugs, for those who like to use it. They were the band to take a break between better bands with songs that makes you move into really something.
Deads songs are unpolished, sloppy, comes with mistakes and the signing is approximate. But hey, Deads fans don't really like perfect songs, Why wanting everything perfect anyway? Deads were a band that lasted long and they have an hardcore fan base, the music is an happening, it's an ambiance. Grateful Dead are the opposite of bands who makes perfect and intelligent songs like Pink Floyd, Genesis, Led Zepp, Beatles, Steely Dan, etc.

I wonder if the new generation could hold a debate on that band and if only boomers will have an opinion.

edit : sorry for the mispelling

Click to read more...

 

[VMBM]

Grateful Dead.

Sorry, that was my contribution.

 

[Jumptheshark]

I saw them live in the 80's. They were good musicians when they played straight. Some of their jams worked others didnt

 

[Unholy Diver]

I enjoy a couple of their songs, but wouldn't call myself a fan. As for if the are "Good" or not, I am not a musician of any sort so I can't make an educated call on that, and in the end what difference does it make? Does anyone out there base what kind of music they like based on how "Good" it is?

They were very popular and had a large group of devoted fans, so that should be all that really matters

 

[PK Cronin]

Never got into them, listened to American Beauty front to back and it just didn't do much for me.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Very strange post that feels to serve more as trashing the Grateful Dead. You could have at least spelled the band's name right if you're so interested in "holding a debate".

I'm not a Dead Head by any means, but their music isn't really meant to be the most amazing technically performed music. I don't think anyone is arguing that they're the most technically sound musicians or that they create "perfect music" whatever that means... To say that Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, or Steely Dan made "intelligent and perfect music" and use that to look down on other bands is just kind of comical to me.

It's more about the vibe of the music and the atmosphere around their shows. There's nothing wrong with making songs like that.

 

[Teemu]

American Beauty and Workingman's Dead are both outstanding folk/country rock records. I always expect to like their other material more than I do, but I'm not much of a psychedelic or jam person.

 

[frisco]

I always equate the Grateful Dead and their popularity and success to that of Jimmy Buffett. That being said, I don't like the Grateful Dead musically, but I'm a huge Buffett fan.

My Best-Carey

 

[WarriorOfGandhi]

I've been to one of their shows, and enjoyed it, with the caveat that I was tripping balls.

One of the guys I talked to had seen Jerry play, and I believe his quote verbatim was "Seeing Jerry play made you think he was Jesus. But Jerry wasn't Jesus. He was just a man."

 

[Drivesaitl]

Very strange post that feels to serve more as trashing the Grateful Dead. You could have at least spelled the band's name right if you're so interested in "holding a debate".

I'm not a Dead Head by any means, but their music isn't really meant to be the most amazing technically performed music. I don't think anyone is arguing that they're the most technically sound musicians or that they create "perfect music" whatever that means... To say that Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, or Steely Dan made "intelligent and perfect music" and use that to look down on other bands is just kind of comical to me.

It's more about the vibe of the music and the atmosphere around their shows. There's nothing wrong with making songs like that.

Not generally a fan. When I was younger I tried to get into them and it just didn't work for me. Similarly I tried to get into stuff like Zappa which was also beyond most teens but it did work for me. Musically one could tell Zappa had a lot of chops and was an extremely interesting composer.

With the Dead I fear part of the package is the packaging, the name, and the acolytes, wherein with any phenomenon that takes hold there can be a group of followers that are attending pretty unconditionally. The dead existed and obtained fame in a halcyon for music. Countless better bands existed. I just think the package worked for some people. They identified with the name, the art, the imagery as much as anything. I've hardly ever met a Deadhead so its hard to know first hand.

The iconic imagery of the band left an impression. I'll never forget my first experience with Dead imagery and throwing the album on and being disappointed. You just expected, in the swirl of such times that a band that was so iconic in imagery would be amazing. You're better off just sticking with the artwork which was the best apparent part.

What is polarizing about the band is that as with any cult type following the supporters live for X whatever it is.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I think it's important to remember the Dead in context.

Jam bands are always going to age poorly because by their very nature they're focused on creating an improvisational, atmospheric "experience" rather than on a tight studio-like performance. The whole point is to go to a live show and see the little one-time-only moments of magic that develop when they're in a groove.

The Dead came out of an era where the concept of jam bands simply didn't exist. It's hard to understand them until you imagine yourself in San Francisco in 1965, with early Beatles and Stones singles as your point of reference for current rock sounds. And then one night you show up and see this band that plays 3-hour sets, different songs every night, covers that completely rewrite existing songs, jams that would take up the entire side of an album if you could buy one (and you can't, so you won't ever hear that song played that way again). It's easy to see where the cult following comes from.

Now shift that to the 1970s, and you're a 16 year old in Des Moines when that band comes through town. For a lot of kids in middle America, a Grateful Dead show and its attendant caravan of real live hippies was the only time they'd ever be directly exposed to that subculture, and the only time they'd be able to easily get their hands on pot or acid. Even if they'd bought the albums, seeing their show in person would have been a mind-opening experience. Some of them joined the caravan and never came back; others grew up and had the white picket fence, but in the back of their mind somewhere they were still that 16-year-old getting stoned next to a topless girl from California on the lawn grass.

Then throw in the idea of bootleg tapes. Again that is something that people wouldn't even think/bother to do for most bands. But with the Dead, if you were a regular in the rock or country section at the local record store, sooner or later the guy at the counter would pull out a stack of tapes and introduce you to the concept of hearing a band play the same song 10 different ways. And that leads you to trying to find more tapes, which leads you to a community, which leads you to traveling around catching shows in different places.

I think the Dead make a lot more sense if you work on seeing them through that lens, instead of a 2023 lens where all of this stuff has been done for close to 60 years and there are a bunch of clones running around. I don't love their music, but I also don't the way I have experienced their music (singles, albums, YouTube) has been at all relevant to why they were popular.

 

[kook10]

I think it's important to remember the Dead in context.

Jam bands are always going to age poorly because by their very nature they're focused on creating an improvisational, atmospheric "experience" rather than on a tight studio-like performance. The whole point is to go to a live show and see the little one-time-only moments of magic that develop when they're in a groove.

The Dead came out of an era where the concept of jam bands simply didn't exist. It's hard to understand them until you imagine yourself in San Francisco in 1965, with early Beatles and Stones singles as your point of reference for current rock sounds. And then one night you show up and see this band that plays 3-hour sets, different songs every night, covers that completely rewrite existing songs, jams that would take up the entire side of an album if you could buy one (and you can't, so you won't ever hear that song played that way again). It's easy to see where the cult following comes from.

Now shift that to the 1970s, and you're a 16 year old in Des Moines when that band comes through town. For a lot of kids in middle America, a Grateful Dead show and its attendant caravan of real live hippies was the only time they'd ever be directly exposed to that subculture, and the only time they'd be able to easily get their hands on pot or acid. Even if they'd bought the albums, seeing their show in person would have been a mind-opening experience. Some of them joined the caravan and never came back; others grew up and had the white picket fence, but in the back of their mind somewhere they were still that 16-year-old getting stoned next to a topless girl from California on the lawn grass.

Then throw in the idea of bootleg tapes. Again that is something that people wouldn't even think/bother to do for most bands. But with the Dead, if you were a regular in the rock or country section at the local record store, sooner or later the guy at the counter would pull out a stack of tapes and introduce you to the concept of hearing a band play the same song 10 different ways. And that leads you to trying to find more tapes, which leads you to a community, which leads you to traveling around catching shows in different places.

I think the Dead make a lot more sense if you work on seeing them through that lens, instead of a 2023 lens where all of this stuff has been done for close to 60 years and there are a bunch of clones running around. I don't love their music, but I also don't the way I have experienced their music (singles, albums, YouTube) has been at all relevant to why they were popular.

They are more miss than hit in my book, but they really do have some good recorded stuff and some magical live recordings. I read Bill Kreutzmann's (one of the drummers) autobiography and even he admitted some of their performances were awful. Often they were lazy, spiritless, not dynamic, or just stoned. Bob Weir can't sing a lick either. If they stick to the "hits" they are good, but they just don't do that. I actually think they were much better or more consistent with John Mayer, and sometimes other bands play their stuff better: see joe Russo's Almost Dead. Plus they are nowhere near as awful and annoying as Phish.



awesome version of China Cat>I Know You Rider @53:00

 

[kihei]

Badbadbadbadbad. Absolutely can't stand them.

 

[islandersbob]

Deadheads are a different breed. I knew a kid in school who wore the same tie-dyed shirt to school everyday for the whole first semester. Never changed it, even during gym class. (this was the same guy who NEVER took his gym shorts home to be washed, also he was sweater, so yeah, he stunk). Eventually, everyone asked him what was up with the tie-dye? His response: he was honoring Jerry Garcia who had passed away over the summer.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

Never got into them, listened to American Beauty front to back and it just didn't do much for me.

That's their best record.

 

[PK Cronin]

That's their best record.

That's what I had heard so I decided to give it an honest listen. It's just not for me. I think some people genuinely enjoy it, while others are making a show of it.

I don't like jam sessions so it makes sense that I wouldn't be interested in them for that reason alone but I do like to give music a fair shake before giving an opinion.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

They are more miss than hit in my book, but they really do have some good recorded stuff and some magical live recordings. I read Bill Kreutzmann's (one of the drummers) autobiography and even he admitted some of their performances were awful. Often they were lazy, spiritless, not dynamic, or just stoned. Bob Weir can't sing a lick either. If they stick to the "hits" they are good, but they just don't do that. I actually think they were much better or more consistent with John Mayer, and sometimes other bands play their stuff better: see joe Russo's Almost Dead. Plus they are nowhere near as awful and annoying as Phish.



awesome version of China Cat>I Know You Rider @53:00

Their songs performed by better musicians helps the songs and the jams a lot. They were too stoned so many times so you can't be sure you will assist to a good live performance. They had good shows and bad ones too.

It's a group out of range, without context we can't understand the fans who follwed them. Just as a country or blues rock group bands such All Cooper, CSN, Lyrn Skynerd, Doobie Bro, Allman bro, The Band, Clapton with a simple song like Lay Down Sally, music of Steve Winwood, psychedelic music of early Pink Floyd are better music but that's all personal taste. They get some job done at improvising but there were better improvisors in rock, blues and jazz history.

Sorry for the misplelling of the title. It's just to say I liked a lot of groups but this group I try to like it but it's hard. They do play some nice stuff but the jams are so long, I fear the song will last 2 hours, it's never ending.

 

[#37]

I wonder if the new generation could hold a debate on that band and if only boomers will have an opinion.

I honestly don't think anyone other than Boomers and GenX would get the actual context of what it was. I never went and saw them, but I have known people who spent years following them around from show to show. They had a community following them around. A lot of drug use and strange goings on, sure. But you had people doing things like making crafts out of hemp to sell so they could eat and get gas to get to the next show. More than any other band, perhaps, there was a lifestyle attached to the experience.

Sure, a newer generation can listen to a 'best of' compilation and hear studio versions of the songs ... but that is kind of taken out of context to what they actually did.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

That's what I had heard so I decided to give it an honest listen. It's just not for me. I think some people genuinely enjoy it, while others are making a show of it.

I don't like jam sessions so it makes sense that I wouldn't be interested in them for that reason alone but I do like to give music a fair shake before giving an opinion.

On internet they are often quote as the worst band ever, not they are but with time their music did not aged as well as the Floyds, the Doors or Genesis. And they are nowhere near the top quality of the motown played by Funk Brorthers. So yeah they do some music, they play okay but there is better to say the least.

Another band quote as worst group on internet is 10 CC. But that's not fair. 10 CC have at least 10 good songs and one of the best love song ever.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Terrible.

 

[Drivesaitl]

I think it's important to remember the Dead in context.

Jam bands are always going to age poorly because by their very nature they're focused on creating an improvisational, atmospheric "experience" rather than on a tight studio-like performance. The whole point is to go to a live show and see the little one-time-only moments of magic that develop when they're in a groove.

The Dead came out of an era where the concept of jam bands simply didn't exist. It's hard to understand them until you imagine yourself in San Francisco in 1965, with early Beatles and Stones singles as your point of reference for current rock sounds. And then one night you show up and see this band that plays 3-hour sets, different songs every night, covers that completely rewrite existing songs, jams that would take up the entire side of an album if you could buy one (and you can't, so you won't ever hear that song played that way again). It's easy to see where the cult following comes from.

Now shift that to the 1970s, and you're a 16 year old in Des Moines when that band comes through town. For a lot of kids in middle America, a Grateful Dead show and its attendant caravan of real live hippies was the only time they'd ever be directly exposed to that subculture, and the only time they'd be able to easily get their hands on pot or acid. Even if they'd bought the albums, seeing their show in person would have been a mind-opening experience. Some of them joined the caravan and never came back; others grew up and had the white picket fence, but in the back of their mind somewhere they were still that 16-year-old getting stoned next to a topless girl from California on the lawn grass.

Then throw in the idea of bootleg tapes. Again that is something that people wouldn't even think/bother to do for most bands. But with the Dead, if you were a regular in the rock or country section at the local record store, sooner or later the guy at the counter would pull out a stack of tapes and introduce you to the concept of hearing a band play the same song 10 different ways. And that leads you to trying to find more tapes, which leads you to a community, which leads you to traveling around catching shows in different places.

Not sure that Jam bands were rare as a form. Anybody that couldn't write songs could do that. Jam is the first thing a garage band does before they learn to play something together

I'm being tongue in cheek and flippant with that, but maybe could be said that Jam isn't such a highest art form in music. Jam can be interesting if the musicians connect and take it to paths that are good listening. I don't hear Grateful Dead even doing that and even on their "Greatest" albums they are frankly not very good. As several posters have mentioned. I mean most of us that follow music at all have ended up listening to American Beauty multiple times trying to get something from it because Deadheads tell everybody in the world to..

Next you mention "when the band is in a groove" which is apparently seldom because even their playing live isn't anything great to hear. Maybe you have to be there.

I think the Dead make a lot more sense if you work on seeing them through that lens, instead of a 2023 lens where all of this stuff has been done for close to 60 years and there are a bunch of clones running around. I don't love their music, but I also don't the way I have experienced their music (singles, albums, YouTube) has been at all relevant to why they were popular.

Interesting post but supports other comments made in thread the experience is largely from acolytes, through acolytes, and that the music is pretty much secondary. For sure I know as a kid, teen, adult flipping on any of their albums there hasn't been wow moments you'd typically get with great artists. Its a cult band, and you describe it more as a circus than a music first entity so trust me that the vinyl doesn't translate that. When I put an album on I want to hear interesting music. Interesting writing, tunes.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Not either that Jam bands were rare as a form. Anybody that couldn't write songs could do that.

Interesting post but supports other comments made in thread the experience is largely from acolytes, through acolytes, and that the music is pretty much secondary. For sure I know as a kid, teen, adult flipping on any of their albums there hasn't been wow moments you'd typically get with great artists. Its a cult band, and you describe it more as a circus than a music first entity so trust me that the vinyl doesn't translate that. When I put an album on I want to hear interesting music. Interesting writing, tunes.

I don’t know how you can see 50,000 people grooving to a song and think “this isn’t about the music”. It definitely is about the music. People look for different things in their experience of music, though.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

Very strange post that feels to serve more as trashing the Grateful Dead. You could have at least spelled the band's name right if you're so interested in "holding a debate".

I'm not a Dead Head by any means, but their music isn't really meant to be the most amazing technically performed music. I don't think anyone is arguing that they're the most technically sound musicians or that they create "perfect music" whatever that means... To say that Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, or Steely Dan made "intelligent and perfect music" and use that to look down on other bands is just kind of comical to me.

It's more about the vibe of the music and the atmosphere around their shows. There's nothing wrong with making songs like that.

They are a different approach in music. To understand their fanclub it have to be explained in context. They are an happening, an hyppie jam fest, fans feel they are 15 years discovering having fun with friends outside of their parents. That is the feeling for a 70 yrs old fan today I guess.

They had a kind of self publicity with their approch with bootleg tapes. Nice graphics too. The deception is the graphics and the branding are better than the music, lol.

 

[Drivesaitl]

I don’t know how you can see 50,000 people grooving to a song and think “this isn’t about the music”. It definitely is about the music. People look for different things in their experience of music, though.

Amount of people going isn't the end all. My take is thats loyal deadheads going to an experience. As mentioned also to re-experience some lost time in youth, some LSD, and some smelly hippies in tie-dyes.

As with many things cult followings are cult followings. They exhibit the many factors involved in non conditional allegiance to something. A simple case in point in this is how many people willing to tell everybody they are a deadhead and do that before pledging allegiance to any other band that they listen to. The mere concept of deadheads defines the group, and the interests often quite insular JUST to that.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

"perfect music" whatever that means... To say that Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, or Steely Dan made "intelligent and perfect music"

Maybe not exactly in these words but the groups I mentioned did very nice studio albums. I could have included Supertramp, Queen, the Who, etc.

Beatles from Revolver to Abbey Road did well done almost perfect songs. Steely Dan is often quoted as one the best studio group ever and elaborate performed music. Led Zepp is Led Zepp. One of the top.