Jerry Garcia=God

idk about dead heads, but not many bands could speak to eachother through music as well as the dead did live, hundreds of times, high off more L that most people could tolerate
 
You are retarded. Producing a high-fidelity record with microphones is infinitely harder than playing live. But I agree, a true measure of a band's talent is their ability to play live.

Having said that, the Greatful Dead are boring as hell. They aren't bad musicians by any means, but you can pick out any song from any period and it will sound the same. It's stupid to deny they were a talented band, but I also think it's stupid to say that they're Gods. Frank Zappa had more musical talent in his eyebrows than The Grateful Dead did collectively.
 
this response as well as arabians essay on why he is the least knowledgable person on the subject of music makes me giggle. I work in the music industry, I know far more about this stuff than all of you droopy eyed 15 year old children. I don't even want to reply because it would take far too much of my valuable time and effort, plus I have to pitch new artists to my boss tomorrow. I could go on for weeks about why the grateful dead's music hits a much deeper and complex level than all other rock music ever created, but you children wouldn't even understand it in the first place.
 
<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5wWNbu_f2PE?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5wWNbu_f2PE?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
 
"ead could not provide a commercial product, nor any groundbreaking material. They never experimented, and the rarely, if ever changed their style or progressed in the entirety of their career."

That was one of the dumbest thing's I've read on this site.

Also I generally listen to them somber.

They were pioneers in music all around. Also the shit they did with live sound, and live recording revolutionized the way shit was done.

 
Facepalm.

If your statements are factual and not stupid bullshit .....

Why do so many bands these days sound pretty good on the album then absolutely blow live.

"But I agree, a true measure of a band's talent is their ability to play live."

okay

"They aren't bad musicians by any means, but you can pick out any song from any period and it will sound the same.

Lol, somebody obviously hasn't listened to very much of their music at all.

" Frank Zappa had more musical talent in his eyebrows than The Grateful Dead did collectively."

I love zappa but this statement is retarded. The ability to jam in and out of songs was something nobody was fucking doing. ANybody can learn a song through repetition and play it the exact same way everytime. Everytime the dead played it was a new experience, songs were played differently in and out of different songs. It was all by feel. There was no"this is where we're going to go with this and it's going to end up like that". They just followed each other through a maze and somehow kept it all together while ridiculously high.
 
You do. They're fucking sick. Everyone needs to get to hear the music live at some point, and who better to hear it from than the remaining boys (bob and phil)? Also they have a very "jerry-like" lead guitarist from dark star orchestra, a dead cover band. Theyre really good.
 
Namecalling because you disagree with my musical tastes. Nice. I have listened to way too much of their music because everyone around here seems to love jam bands and that's all I ever heard growing up.

Also, playing different notes ≠ new experience.

Lastly, while Zappa was a stickler when it came to the band playing everything note for note, much of his solos were improvised in between key phrases. And most of his album solos were taken from live improvisations, which were constantly evolving past rearranging the notes with roughly the same guitar tone.

I never said they were a bad band. You're just getting pissed off because I don't agree with you, as usual.

 
You said that every song sounds the same = musically retarded. Their are styles of music that I don't really like at all, but I can at least understand them.

Saying that every song from every time period sounds the same is stupid.

"Lastly, while Zappa was a stickler when it came to the band playing everything note for note, much of his solos were improvised in between key phrases. And most of his album solos were taken from live improvisations, which were constantly evolving past rearranging the notes with roughly the same guitar tone."

what is this supposed to prove?

"I never said they were a bad band. You're just getting pissed off because I don't agree with you, as usual." What you said was ignorant. I'm not mad, just pointing it out. You don't have to like it, you could say they suck, but saying that every song from every time period sounds the same is stupid.

 
How is that stupid? I'm pretty fucking musically inclined and I find it insulting that you simply assume I am simply ignorant of their music. I've listened to it. I've analyzed it. I understand it. And it still fails to evolve the way MANY other bands have. That is all I'm saying.

Going into random improvised changeovers and soloing over them differently isn't changing- it's doing the same thing over and over again. I'm not saying their songs are all the same, I'm saying they change them in the same way.

Pink Floyd in the 60's sounds vastly different from Pink Floyd in the 70's, 80's and 90's. You can't say the same thing about the Dead other than "oh I like the way they improvised this show." It's the same shit arranged differently show after show.
 
What he said isn't a matter of opinion. It's a simple fact that producing high-fidelity albums is fucking difficult. I didn't call him retarded for having different musical tastes.
 
Lol okay you can only make fun of someone if theyre wrong, if they have conflicting opinions you have no right to get angry. The grateful dead arent about there studio albums, thats why the last one was made in 89 and they made more live albums than studio. Also the reason for the band playing so many live shows was because thats where the magic happened, not on the studio recordings.
 
I big part of the changes in floyd had to do with the changes in lineup as well.

The real early years are vastly different from later music for the dead.

They came out with a shit ton of songs, played new covers, played new arrangements, jammed things differently. I don't get what you're argument is. Because they weren't a completely different band at the end as the beginning - everything they did was the same?

If it aint broke don't fix it, and shit was def not "always the same"

You don't need to analyze it, you just need to open your ears and listen

/thread
 
Generally speaking, yes. I don't deny they did new things (within the realm of new songs, arrangements, etc), but they failed to explore new territory and metamorphose. I don't literally mean they played the exact same songs in the exact same way show after show; that's just silly.
 
I disagree completely haha they explored more new territory than any other band in my opinion, from writing new songs to playing new covers, like werewolves of london and aiko aiko
 
What did you want them to do? A lot of problems come from bands changing for no reason. Change isn't always a good thing.

I could go down a huge list of bands that used to be good but mainstreamed out and or changed and got a lot shittier.

I could also go with the beatles had old poppy stuff that I hated, then go into psychedelics and their style got much better. Personal opinions but yeah.

You're saying that a band not constantly changing makes it boring and stagnant. If that's what you consider staying the same, I'd rather have them do that than chance into some god awful band later on down the line. That would have been horrifying.
 
Change in itself isn't a good thing, I agree. Here's where I'm coming from:

I've never like the jam-band genre. Actually I hate it. So of course if a band like The Dead stay as consistent as they have, I will continually hate their music. If you like their music, I can see how this is a good thing, but...

Exploring musically is an admirable trait. I loved The Mars Volta's old stuff, but they got too convoluted and now I'm not a big fan, however I respect them for evolving because if they kept re-making Deloused in the Comatorium, their music would've lost the zest regardless, only they would lose my respect for getting stuck in a rut.

Pretty much everything Roger Waters wrote for Pink Floyd I hate and consider it to be the worst music the band has ever put out (The Wall's finer parts were 100% Gilmour, despite the rumors). However Rogers's orchestral arrangements bled into Gilmour's solo works later down the line and him and Wright produced some of the best music of the 2000's. Even bad change can lead to good.

I'm not saying a band's failure to evolve makes their music at any given time boring and stagnant (The Dead just happen to be a band that I find to be those things for other reasons), but over time I get sick of even a good thing.
 
Implying my analysis of their music stems from my dislike of them? Horseshit; It's the other way around. I have listened to and analyzed their music and from that I concluded that I don't like them. How you can even begin to claim that my view of them is unsubstantiated is beyond me.
 
Disagree. I may not "get it," but I do understand it musically. The same way I understand Mozart, but don't love it.
 
Have you only analyzed the music? or the culture? the man jerry garcia, the goal, the lyrics/lyricist, or the amount of time they played? Seems like you are claiming to have done more "analyzing" than it seems. Garcia was about peace, joy and music, he was one of the most real, unique people that have ever lived on this planet. Their music showed this, it was also real, unique, and beautiful.
 
HEY, WHAT DID THE DEAD HEADS SAY WHEN THEY RAN OUT OF DRUGS?

MAN, THIS MUSIC SUCKS!

bahahahahahahahahah
 
THAT IS SO FUNNY!

WHAT DID THE B-LADD SAY WHEN HE DID DRUGS FOR THE FIRST TIME?

Shitty music isnt better when you're high. But good music is 20x better when you're high.
 
I said, "Am I high? I can't tell if I'm high. What does being high feel like? Zach, am I high?"
 
Huh? I'm talking about the music, not their philosophical rhetoric.

Their music was "real?" What does that even mean?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top