Grateful Dead

https://www.dw.com/en/elderly-men-escape-nursing-home-to-go-to-wacken-m….

One thing I will say about your comparison is that you are correct there are many more 60s and 70s Dave's Picks in the series, plain for all to see. Not so long ago however, I believe it was thin who did a complete tally of total releases from each decade, and it came out pretty even between all of the official releases and all of the box sets and all of the series. The number of shows for each decade was roughly the same. We may need to revisit the math on that, since some time has passed, and we must consider each complete show as one tally mark for a decade, as well as each complete release for a given time period as being one tally mark for the decade ( in other words, the Road Trips October 77 release counts as one tally mark (one show) from the era it falls in. I think it's been found that it's all around even, or at least that any discrepancies are statistically marginal. So I would argue that no, there is not an appalling lack of diversity with overall total Vault releases When comparing the 70s and 80s. You can do the math yourself, just go through the discography on Wikipedia and start tallying them off. You should be happy with these numbers, actually. There is an even balance despite the difference in audio quality between the two eras. And also with regard to the Dave's Picks series, it almost has to be weighed heavily towards the 60s and 70s due to the quality of tapes available and some other factors, such as overall sellability of 70s vs 80s. You can't really go with Space Brothers logic that 80s sells just as good as 70s because the five extra Dave's Picks 27 sold out as quickly as the five extra Dave's Picks 26s. That's propaganda advertising. The first 17995 went to everyone with a subscription, and there is no way of knowing what was in people's heads as far as Eras are concerned when they ordered their subscription, but trust me, as a professional record store owner, the 70s picks go way faster and at much higher cost then the 80s. Fact.

As an 80's head, I often bemoan the lack of 80's releases. However, having said that, I have not been a fan of Dave's choices (RFK '89 were like the worst shows of the summer tour, for instance) and this release, while certainly fun in parts, is not one I would have selected. If you are going to go 80's, there are three places to look: a) Late 80's: '89, '87, and '88. (zero Dave Picks) b) Early 80's: '80 acoustic shows (0 Dave's), '80, '81, '82 = 2. c) 1985 (no Dave's Picks) Sometimes he seems more obsessed with picking shows from every state than the best shows. Still, I did enjoy the show, but thought it was not on par with Dick's Picks #6 (our only other individual '83 release). I also enjoy having a wide representation of all the years. On that note, 1970 seems woefully underrepresented to me. Still, all of 3/27 form the 80's on is a little light for me. An hardly cause for panic from 70's fans. The full accounting for Dave's Picks vs. Dicks by era: Dick's(36) 60's(3)/70's (26, 1 Brent )/80's(4)/90's(3, 0 Brent) Dave's(27) 60's (1.5), 70's (22.5), 80's (3), 90's (none) Overall, an appalling LACK of diversity from Dave in my view. The Thelma/69/70 was great, as was the other '69. But his 80's choices could have been better. For me, I'd like, per year: 1) at least 1 Pig show 2) one show from '79 on (usually Brent, but Bruce/Vince OK) 3) one early Keith show ('71-'74) 4) one late 70's K&D show ('76-'78) Of course, I have not been getting it, but that would be my structure. And I do not blow a gasket when I do not get it. I don't expect to. ----------------------------------- Question: is there somewhere that is releasing Road Trips (with Bonus discs) for cheap? I have a couple that I do not have, so I watch ebay now & then, and the prices are outrageous. But for some of the early Volume 1's, the prices are suddenly reasonable with the bonus disc included. I know Real Gone releases them (starting with Volume 4) but does not include the bonus discs. I cannot figure out why prices have dropped so suddenly on these? What gives? Does anyone know?

When somebody says that Cornell is a 5/10 and DaP 27 is an 8.5/10, that will arouse a response from me criticizng that as hyperbole or trolling. That's not me debating the point it's me attempting to slap down a foolish or trollish assertion. And I responded to your point on multitracks because it was the most recent assertion of a canard that these releases are under a different standard. I have very carefully avoided debating the merits of sound and performance quality on this since making my initial points on here that I didn't like the mix. I just get tired of bad arguments. I get subjectivity, but no person who has heard both this and the Cornell release would honestly (key word) argue that DaP 27 sounds better. (And again, just sound quality, not a point about performance, which some people may just hate Cornell being contrarian or iconoclastic, but the sound of that tape versus this one is not debatable unless one participant in the debate is just screwing with you.) Healy was the sound mixer and recordist, he was actively mixing what went into the PA mix from as many channels as his board had, so what went into the tape was still being mixed in real time. Was he making the mix specifically for the tape? No, he was making it for the house, and it was his additions to the vocals on Mama Tried and Big River that I complained about initially, and part of what got him fired years later. (Screwing with Sting's house levels contributed as well.) It is still a multichannel feed mixed down to left and right, though. I think that quote of Bear's about Healy not being able to mix a cake from Betty Crocker may be harsh, but he wouldn't be the first soundman to believe his ears over anybody else's (Bear is just as guilty, though we can probably agree that Bear's ears are more trustworthy). I'm just trying to say, like you did, that expectations should be different for a cassette PA mix, but that shouldn't mean we're not allowed to criticize how it sounds compared to other releases, nor should we be prevented from criticizing the performance. There's not an apple to apple reference point in this series, as you say, but using Dick's as well, you can compare. This is not the worst sounding tape I've heard, but it ain't great. If other people want to love it, as I said I'm happy for them. But it is hard to read the hyperbolic statements on how good the sound is without the caveat "for a cassette PA mix", and Dilbert's comparison to Cornell was just gaslighting. The real subjectivity is on the performance itself, I think any argument on sound quality should be argued within that caveat, because it is objectively worse than almost every release in this series. I hope that every release is a worthy one, no matter the era. I fully recognize quality will lessen as box sets and other Dave's come out; diminishing returns will happen. Do we need to be placed in an Orwellian debate where we're told what we can hear is actually not as bad as our ears tell us, or can we be honest and say, "for a cassette PA mix, it's pretty good"? That's probably too much to ask given the way this larger discussion has gotten into personal insults in some cases. I just want it to be honest. I accept you saying you misspoke about multitracks, this long diatribe is mainly for anyone still thinking that that's what we, the detractors, are debating. Last night I was putting most of the DaP series on a USB for my car, which is a long overdue exercise as I only had from 17 on in mp3 on the flash drive. And I converted quite a lot of them, and reflected on how I don't listen to many of them that often, like DaP 9 I have largely avoided the past couple years because of a bad listening exercise of that Dark Star, even though the very idea of Weather Report Suite> Dark Star was why I was initially thrilled to get that show, I just pick something else to listen to. I did put it on the USB drive, so I may just give it another shot this coming week or so, but I use that to illustrate that even WoS show where the instruments are presented in clarity and definition doesn't automatically mean it goes into the queue. That, I think, speaks to the subjectivity part of things. I know this is overly long, and I'm not writing it to bash you or anything like that, just trying to explain my motivations and where I'm coming from. I'm trying to avoid the performance debate on this one because so many are happy with it, and it comes off as trolling to keep rehashing my own criticisms of the show; it's a decent show overall, just not one I would've picked for 27. But it's (obviously) much harder to keep my fingers quiet when the sound quality is hyperbolically charged as better than the Cornell sound quality. :)

The (un?)Official Tie Dying Wizard of the Grateful Dead, Courtenay Pollock's saga continues:https://mailchi.mp/72a4480de0ab/episode-4-the-long-strange-golden-road?…

Sorry, not trying to beat a dead horse. Technically, your right, all the Dave’s/Dicks as you say are two track....(hell even the 89/90s stuff ends up as two track, Right/Left)......this goes back to like a week ago when people were comparing 80s House PA mixes to recordings that were made from a separate multi-channel feed that was then mixed down by a dedicated crew member to two track, with the intent for a balanced sounding mix to listen to later. I posted about point of reference and this intent then to be helpful since it seemed like some folks don’t understand how drastically different the mixes used are because of the intent of the MIX being utilized; multiple channels being mixed down by a dedicated crew member, versus Healy just poping in a cassette to use to critique PA mixes as they apply to different venues etc. The intent of these mixes is very different, so different that to compare the two is apples to oranges. Point of reference is another way to consider this. In audio, A point of reference is often used to compare. So when icecrmcnkd asked folks who really disliked versus those who really liked the sound of 27, what they were listening on, which could very well influence a persons opinion, I was just trying to reiterate this point, which I believe you also made a day or so ago. For example, If your point of reference for a good sounding show is a 70s separate multi-channel feed mixed down to two track by a dedicated mixer, then it’s easy to see how a House PA mix, mixed with a completely different intent, on totally different recording equipment, will sound inferior. Since you yourself as of 8/2/18 was debating with Dilbert I believe, about the rating of DaP 27 to 5/8/77, (i.e., “X” out of 10) to me that’s comparing apples to oranges. I believe somewhere you yourself also said something to this effect? So when I was trying to answer brother icecrmcnkd, I was only trying to state my humble opinion by comparing this recording to the different points of reference. But I was technically off by saying multi-track as you correctly pointed out. What I should of said was - Better than an old school show cassette. - good for an 83 PA house mix - but not comparable to a recording made with a separate multi-channel feed, mixed down to two track, for a completely different purpose or intent. The reason I’m rehashing all this is, like you, to try and enlighten those who don’t perhaps understand how completely different these sources are, so they can use the proper point of reference when critiquing recordings. Not apples to oranges! One can certainly have a overly positive or negative opinion about the sound of this release. I’m just suggesting that folks use the proper point of reference when doing so. Sorry, I know you get it, and I get it, but after weeks of this it still seems like some folks are continuing to do this....... Again, I’m only trying to help, not be difficult. “Pleeeeeeaaaaase don’t murder me...no, no no!....) Edit: perhaps this is better? MULTI-track has multiple channels, say one for each instrument and vocal. Every track is recorded live separately on to multi-track tape, these are called basic tracks. Since each instrument has its own track, its level can be raised/lowered, processed, or even redone or overdubbed if need be (like they did on E72 for example.) This done later, at a different studio, often by a different engineer, where all these tracks are mixed/balanced so that everything is “just exactly perfect” down to a two track stereo mix. Then it’s sent off for mastering for commercial release. BETTY Boards etc were usually multiple channels mixed via a separate/different feed than the front of house PA mix, by a dedicated crew member, say Betty, live on the fly, down to two track for the purpose of best possible later listening. So if say Phil is too loud in the mix, she can attenuate his level so that it is balanced well with the rest.... STEREO PA HOUSE MIX; this is usually just a direct output of the House PA mix, your old school “sound board” cassettes. Though there usually are different aux mixes on boards, so that the different levels can be somewhat balanced for the tape mix. Often though the Mixer is too busy working on making the sound good for the venue, the live mix if you will, not the recording. This is often affected via sub mixes or a combination of say all vocals controlled by one master volume of the combined vocals. This is used to easily boast the vocals (or the say the drums) relative to the instruments on the fly live. So depending on the characteristics of the hall, who’s playing loud or not, the mixer can use these tools to quickly mix/balance the sound to sound good in the hall. Unfortunately, as many of you notice, this can negatively effect the tape out mix. Sometimes Healy would/could mess with this more than other times. Even then though, he was probably briefly using headphones to monitor this tape mix, which adds another kind of variable that may color this stereo tape out to cassette mix. Also, the musicians effect the levels of the mix when they adjust their own volumes up and down, like say JG turning up for a solo. Since there is no way to go back and balance all these different channels once their down to two channel, you often have parts of recordings that don’t sound balanced. That’s is why some of you notice that sometimes Weir for instance is loud, and sometimes too quiet. The main thing to understand is the purpose of the PA mix is not intended for a later commercial release, or to sound like a studio recording. But Dan was perhaps one of the greatest, if not the greatest sound reinforcement tech ever, so even with these variables, there are many great sounding SB mixes/tapes as many of you know. But I think we all can agree that they can’t realky be compared to a full on multi-track commercial releaseiI.e., 90s Box, Live Dead, Europe 72, Skull Fuck etc. imho it’s the same with trying to compare a maticulous Betty type recording with a SB cassette. That does not mean that a PA stereo cassette can’t be good, just completely different, different point of reference.... Another variable that pertains to 83, is that they started to use (full time) the mighty new Ultra Sound PA utilizing John Meyers technology. In my opinion this was the best sounding system ever (no I did not have the pleasure of hearing the WOS live) but most of the people involved state that the ultra sound blew the wall away mostly due to technological advancements not possible in 1974. So in 83 they were trying to dial in not only the new PA, but the band had a lot of new gear, Phil’s Modulas Quantum bass and they had rearranged their positioning on stage. This all effects the overall sound, that in turn effects the recordings..... BASIC STEREO; live two track (Right/Left), like when folks used mics to record live to a cassette deck. Sometimes these units would have separate volume control for each channel, or perhaps a balance control, often not. Basically you’d have no control except to try and get the levels correct, and there were so many idiosyncratic variables to contend with it’s a kind of amazing we have as many great recordings as we do. Hopefully you can better understand how completely different these mixes are, and how they drastically effect the subsequent recordings. Thus, the apples to oranges analogy. Sorry, hopefully not too boring, we audio geeks forget not everyone is into this stuff like we are ; - )

The complaining and nitpicking is crazy. Social media has invaded the Grateful Dead. But that is what social media has made itself or people have made social media into. Complaining and animal videos. No complaints here , the boys were on this night, just good old rock and rolland some nice jamming. See slipknot, deal , BRB and a nice version of Looks Like rain. Enjoy the summer , as a wise band once said. Its come and gone my oh my

I have heard the Shaggs'...compositions before. Truly awful stuff. Ben Franklin is the "beer" stater, according to what I have heard on that. Alcohol and I do not get along, so it doesn't make _me_ happy, but obviously it is a popular beverage.

This show sounds like the band was having a grand old fun time this night. They were ON! This recording sounds like the almost perfect original master cassette. OK it has it's minor imperfect mix, in my own humble opinion. Thank you Dave & company for selecting this show. I LOVE IT! Dave's Picks 28: I really can't guess on the exact show, but my wish/hope would be for restored 9/20/70 Fillmore East, NYC, both the acoustic and electric GD sets.

I thought that Dick's Picks 15 (September 3, 1977, Englishtown NJ) was mixed down from the multi-tracks because the one or more of the 2-track reels were damaged or a reel or more was missing, or some other explanation.