The Grateful Dead : good or bad band?

[TheGreenTBer]

That's all fair as well. I think the harsh/dismissive judgments are where I get off board. It's fair game to have a particular taste, but it is after all just a personal taste. I definitely don't appreciate certain genres, but I don't pretend to think it's because I've somehow cracked the code. I just don't care for them, the same way I don't care for pickles. Just a flavor that strikes me wrong. Unless I'm being facetious, I would never tell someone that pickles are the actual worst food on earth bar none.

To me, the Dead are a manifestly ordinary band among the major rock bands. They're not great, they're just fine. It's the elevator music of folk rock. The only thing I've seen in this thread to justify them being horrible is a moralistic tone that strikes me as irrelevant, and that's about where we got off track.

BRB, opening a thread on "best and worst elevator music artists".

you best not be making fun of pickles or you and me are going to have to throw down at a bojangles parking lot

 

[Shareefruck]

That's all fair as well. I think the harsh/dismissive judgments are where I get off board. It's fair game to have a particular taste, but it is after all just a personal taste. I definitely don't appreciate certain genres, but I don't pretend to think it's because I've somehow cracked the code. I just don't care for them, the same way I don't care for pickles. Just a flavor that strikes me wrong. Unless I'm being facetious, I would never tell someone that pickles are the actual worst food on earth bar none.

To me, the Dead are a manifestly ordinary band among the major rock bands. They're not great, they're just fine. It's the elevator music of folk rock. The only thing I've seen in this thread to justify them being horrible is a moralistic tone that strikes me as irrelevant, and that's about where we got off track.

BRB, opening a thread on "best and worst elevator music artists".

I think the disconnect for me is that I think this is all reasonable grounds to be harsh and dismissive about them. Most people would dismiss elevator music, and for good reason, no?

I agree with you that people who talk about these things with absolute certainty and objective authority are getting a little carried away, but I also wouldn't take it as far in the other direction as you seem to. Having a matter-of-fact negative take and attitude about something doesn't suggest that you think you've cracked the code or something-- It's just making our best guesses about what's probably the case/what the closest thing to the code we can imagine is, and act accordingly.

That's how I prefer to see it, personally, rather than a completely hands off "I should equally respect every perspective as if they're all equally likely" philosophy (always rubs me the wrong way). You can't know 100% for sure, that's true, but you can still have a rough idea of what you think the truth approximately is. If it turns out it's wrong, I'd rather correct and have that newer impression be my working approximation of the truth from that point forward (and be dismissive/harsh based on that) than have an apples vs. oranges view of it.

I've also never really agreed with how well the typical food analogies map onto this stuff anyways, personally. The fact that food is intrinsically necessary/valuable for survival while the arts are superfluous until they reach a certain caliber (at least in my view it is) completely messes that equation up for me.

 

[Drivesaitl]

The bolded is what it comes down to. Folk music, jam music, even the early blues or early punk, these are genres that are fundamentally not trying to be developed or orchestrated at the level of pop-rock. The whole point of these genres is organic, often spontaneous expression. In the case of jam bands it’s closely tied to a shared collective experience (with or without drugs) and in the specific case of the Grateful Dead it came out of the acid-heavy experimental drug culture of the 60s and 70s. If you’re listening for a developed studio-friendly sound, you are all but guaranteed to be disappointed… which is fine, as every genre doesn’t need to be everything to everyone.

There are lots of forms of folk that I find boring or unlistenable. I just take that as a “me” thing, not a “them” thing. The moralistic dimension of whether the artist is a good person is a whole other topic.

This is a post that I can more respond to. The difficulty with a genre not developing much is why not just go to roots then. I can listen to early folk, the classics, or here In Canada way back to Ian Tyson. Joni Mitchell, or others like Carole King, James Taylor, Neil Young (stray gators version) Melanie, Donovan, etc.

I think one of the difficulties with the conversation, and you allude to this in last couple posts is that none of us are really hooked in at all, and so we can't really describe what the Grateful Dead were bringing. I'm patient with musical forms. If its something I should like (liking similar artists and genre) i'll give an album several tries. If it doesn't take hold after 5 listens it probably doesn't ever.

The weird thing with Grateful Dead is there could be venn diagram intersection in what I like vs what they would see as influences. So that its odd it just never clicks for me. That said I never liked Dave Matthews band and its a familiar thing, another poster mentioned it, the fans of that band really push it on others. For that band particularly I can't say the amount of times people have been over saying "why don't you got any DMB, why not play it"? I dislike newer folky, what do they call it hipster bands like Lumineers or Arcade Fire. Theres like something in that kind of mix that just doesn't speak to me.

Dill pickles should be a food group.

 

[Drivesaitl]

I think the disconnect for me is that I think this is all reasonable grounds to be harsh and dismissive about them. Most people would dismiss elevator music, and for good reason, no?

I agree with you that people who talk about these things with absolute certainty and objective authority are getting a little carried away, but I also wouldn't take it as far in the other direction as you seem to. Having a matter-of-fact negative take and attitude about something doesn't suggest that you think you've cracked the code or something-- It's just making our best guesses about what's probably the case/what the closest thing to the code we can imagine is, and act accordingly.

That's how I prefer to see it, personally, rather than a completely hands off "I should equally respect every perspective as if they're all equally likely" philosophy (always rubs me the wrong way). You can't know 100% for sure, that's true, but you can still have a rough idea of what you think the truth approximately is. If it turns out it's wrong, I'd rather correct and have that newer impression be my working approximation of the truth from that point forward (and be dismissive/harsh based on that) than have an apples vs. oranges view of it.

I've also never really agreed with how well the typical food analogies map onto this stuff anyways, personally. The fact that food is intrinsically necessary/valuable for survival while the arts are superfluous until they reach a certain caliber (at least in my view it is) completely messes that equation up for me.

Another aspect that gets frustrating, and I've had these convos about different bands for as long as I've been kicking, is that in the case of many artists people would just point you a way, give you some choice tracks or albums to get one started. For instance in this very thread the band "Spirit" became a sidebar and immediately the first thing that comes to mind if people are asking is to give people some suggestions on good tracks and albums to get started on.

Something different has always kind of existed with DeadHeads or things like Dave Matthews Band, its kind of a snarky, "we shouldn't have to tell you, you should know. " Like for instance anytime the topic has come up a DMB fan would say "how are you not a fan" Just seems something off to me in that and that people up some of these acts as if its a culture, a sub culture all its own. With these there seems to be less help getting others started listening.

If I recommend a band its not because I'm enmeshed with the artist, just that I enjoy listening and think some others might. Theres no expectation and theres no "how have you not heard of this"

Different artists come with some musical snobbery. The kind of bands where people would seemingly fault somebody for not liking them Not saying in this thread, but I've encountered the kind of posturing before.

This article spells it out perfectly imo:

Why Exactly Is Dave Matthews So Polarizing?

Dave Matthews is a polarizing musical figure. But why, exactly?

www.houstonpress.com

The reason many don’t like DMB has nothing to do with Matthews or his bandmates at all. Rather, many don’t care for the band simply because they don’t care for the fans who sing his praises at every turn. This is certainly understandable. A number of DMB fans attend the band’s shows not because they dig the music, but because the shows are viewed by some as events or experiences worth celebrating.

Thats a dynamic I was trying to capture earlier and just called it cult because the English language is limited in such terms. Myself i don't like Dave Matthews because so many of the songs are just spoken word except he puts some kind of weird emphasis on certain words or syllables. That and the following is just so frat like and it just seems so contrived to be bland safe music, like background, like Hootie and the Blowfish. I managed to come up with bands I dislike even more than Grateful Dead

 

[Nogatco Rd]

WELL PAPA JER WHAT CAN I SAY IT'S 7:30 AM AND I'M LISTENING TO THE PIZZA TAPES WATCHING THE SUN COME UP OVER THE MOUNTAINS AND AND I KNOW IT'S U LOOKING DOWN ON ALL YOUR BABIES BACK HERE ON THE BRIGHT BLUE BALL SPINNING FREE AND THE LIGHT BREAKING THROUGH THE CLOUDS IS EVERY TEAR U CRIED FOR US JERBEAR THOSE DAYS WERE SO SACRED AND POWERFUL JER I WISH IT COULD HAVE GONE ON FOREVER BUT PAPA U LEFT US MAN AND U LEFT THIS PIECE OF S*** WORLD AND LEFT US TO FEND FOR OURSELVES AND SOMETIMES JER I JUST DON'T KNOW IF I CAN DO IT WITHOUT YA MAN. MISS U PAPA BEAR I'M GONNA BE THROWIN NODS IN EVERY DIRECTION TODAY I HOPE U CATCH AT LEAST ONE OF THEM. PEACE AND LOVE PEACE AND LOVE MISS U TO TERRAPIN AND BEYOND. KEEP WATCHING OVER THE FAMILY LIKE THE EYES OF THE WORLD JER AND HELP US SPREAD THE NODS TO EVERYONE ON THIS EARTH. LOVE U JER.

 

[angusyoung]

The few songs I know from them are ok/fine but I'm not getting excited by them,but to each their own.

 

[Mike C]

Beatles and Pink Floyd didn't have a sound engineer touring with them selling and giving acid pills, causing deaths and permanent harm to the fans who took these chemicals. He made these pills at a fast rate in his lab between touring. I have a cousin who is mentally unable to do anything since he took one of this pill. How many pills an human can take before his brain become forever severelly damaged?
Beatles said in interviews they took lsd a couple of times and they had to stop. As for Pink Floyd, their music was so far out in the tripping field, no drugs were required. My older brothers listened that music so much when I was 9 to 12, I understood and liked that music without any drugs.

The psychedelic era in music had a short life. That genre became redundant and cliché. Musicians had to work on a different canvas to express their creativity. Rolling Stones came back to basic Rock&Roll after two psychedelic albums that were borderline mediocre, except few songs. Beatles abandonned Psychedelic when they did the White album. Except no 9 who was an avant-garde piece unique of his kind. If the 2 mainstream groups abandoned psychedelic in 1968, that was a signal for other groups.

I think taking drugs was a must do thing between 1966 and 1968 for many artists but the most intelligents artists had to stop taking drugs for their personal health and to survive. The deaths of Morisson, Hendrix, Janis and Jones scared them. Also Syd Barrett who became unable to do anything., So it was death or brain death. But for Grateful Death culture, it wasn't. They kept that culture of heavy drugs as a lifestyle and superior awareness. They are drug elitists.


Discuss about Taylor Swift then. You don't have to think much, follow the crowd.

Better yet just "Shake It Off"

 

[tarheelhockey]

This is a post that I can more respond to. The difficulty with a genre not developing much is why not just go to roots then. I can listen to early folk, the classics, or here In Canada way back to Ian Tyson. Joni Mitchell, or others like Carole King, James Taylor, Neil Young (stray gators version) Melanie, Donovan, etc.

The roots are absolutely going to be the source of most of the truly “great” music in a genre. But life moves on, people build on each other’s work, and early efforts don’t always age very well. Especially as they lose cultural context.

As a genre matures it starts to change and introduce other elements. Jam bands definitely weren’t part of the original scope of folk music. But they share a common “spirit” of getting everyone together to tell a story or share a message, with the musician’s personal embellishments being a big part of the entertainment, as opposed to more market-oriented performances where it’s all about precision and polish. Just different branches of a tree.

I would note, the drug connection exists in both branches. In the scope of 70s rock, Pink Floyd’s work is defined by their concept albums, long hours of mixing in the studio, and high-tech live performances. And drug use is just as culturally connected to Dark Side as to a Dead concert.

I think one of the difficulties with the conversation, and you allude to this in last couple posts is that none of us are really hooked in at all, and so we can't really describe what the Grateful Dead were bringing. I'm patient with musical forms. If it’s something I should like (liking similar artists and genre) i'll give an album several tries. If it doesn't take hold after 5 listens it probably doesn't ever.

True, I don’t think the Dead are some great band producing legendary music. They were more just masters/pioneers of a performance style that turned out to be very successful and influential.

The weird thing with Grateful Dead is there could be venn diagram intersection in what I like vs what they would see as influences. So that its odd it just never clicks for me. That said I never liked Dave Matthews band and its a familiar thing, another poster mentioned it, the fans of that band really push it on others. For that band particularly I can't say the amount of times people have been over saying "why don't you got any DMB, why not play it"? I dislike newer folky, what do they call it hipster bands like Lumineers or Arcade Fire. Theres like something in that kind of mix that just doesn't speak to me.

Dill pickles should be a food group.

I think DMB is a pretty comparable band, and also one that really requires some context to “get”. In the mid-90s the rock scene was all about grunge music, and taking a turn away from a Pearl Jam ethos and more toward late 90s Butt Rock. Basically you didn’t hear a whole lot of real instrumentation on the radio, especially against a background of hip-hop going in the direction of violent gangsta rap, and country moving toward pop-country elevator schlock. Then one day you turn on the radio and there’s a guy with the vocal appeal of Bob Dylan, singing over some guy fiddling and another playing and oboe and someone playing a 5000 piece drum set, and it’s like… what? Hearing that felt different in 1995. Then you throw in the Dead-like live experience, and you’ve got the makings of something big. I think it says a lot that DMB hasn’t done a damn thing since they went electric.

Hootie, somewhat the same story with zigging toward an acoustic singer-songwriter style rather than growly grunge. But more than that, it was a simple matter of a band making incredibly catchy earworm music that became a hit on rock, pop, and country stations at the same time. And Darius Rucker does have one of those million dollar voices.

 

[Ceremony]

I've only ever heard of the Grateful Dead through the North American parts of the internet I frequent. The Avalanche have had more than one Grateful Dead Night in the past few years with themed jersey giveaways. There's a great way of getting young fans interested in the sport. After this thread I listened to some of their stuff and it just sounded like 70s style middling rock music. Like the Eagles without any of the talent or production. Based on this thread it's clear I need to consume industrial levels of drugs to appreciate it, so I'm off to score some so I can come back and give this fine thread the answer it deserves.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

Better yet just "Shake It Off"

Boogie Woogie everyday when we can and it makes better days.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Based on this thread it's clear I need to consume industrial levels of drugs to appreciate it, so I'm off to score some so I can come back and give this fine thread the answer it deserves.

Sounds like you can just hang out in the parking lot of an Avs game and let nature take its course.

 

[kook10]

 

[Lt Dan]

The dead are one of the most overrated bands ever

 

[Tawnos]

I have a hard time separating how good or bad they are from my own personal connection to them. I've never needed drugs to like them, but I grew up hearing them around the house and on family road trips. My parents were big into them. They were just telling me the other night about Summer Jam at Watkins Glen in 1973, which they went to along with 600,000 other people. The Dead, The Band, and The Allman Bros playing sets 2+ hours long (except when interrupted by thunderstorms). That concert was also the first to use delay units in a sound system.

It's funny... people keep on bringing up American Beauty as their best album and it is their best studio album, but their best major release from that era is probably Europe 72, which was a live album with really great production for the time. Like American Beauty, it went double platinum. To me, that should be the entry point for anyone looking to see what the Dead are about. It captures what they were much better IMO.

 

[Gordon Lightfoot]

I have a hard time separating how good or bad they are from my own personal connection to them. I've never needed drugs to like them, but I grew up hearing them around the house and on family road trips. My parents were big into them. They were just telling me the other night about Summer Jam at Watkins Glen in 1973, which they went to along with 600,000 other people. The Dead, The Band, and The Allman Bros playing sets 2+ hours long (except when interrupted by thunderstorms). That concert was also the first to use delay units in a sound system.

It's funny... people keep on bringing up American Beauty as their best album and it is their best studio album, but their best major release from that era is probably Europe 72, which was a live album with really great production for the time. Like American Beauty, it went double platinum. To me, that should be the entry point for anyone looking to see what the Dead are about. It captures what they were much better IMO.

It was my entry point as well. Lots of good stuff on there. And some of it is unremarkable, so it kinda sums up how I feel about them overall.

 

[Jack Straw]

It was my entry point as well. Lots of good stuff on there. And some of it is unremarkable, so it kinda sums up how I feel about them overall.