Grateful Dead

5/9/77 a lysergic visit to Discovery Park and this HSF in 1990...yummy.2/26/77 many more

2/26/77 Killer Slipknot! It's the all Jerry show. He plays all the right notes LOUDLY for 9 minutes. The Help and FT are on par with 5/22 & 5/9. 9/28/75 Lindley Meadows from 30 Trips. So good I can't even describe it. It's like Jerry borrowed Angus Young's guitar or something. He comes through so loud and fuzzy, it's just amazing you have to hear it. I'm putting it on right now. And that's after the 10/19/73 Dark Star that Jim recommended this morning. I got the Mind Left Body merged with it now on one track, had to take it for a test drive, literally. Man oh man, you need to put a warning sticker on that one - don't listen to it while driving. I kept closing my eyes and grooving. Not good in the car.

'twas ever thus, but... driving my Ubereats thing today, listening to David Bowie. My window open. car next to me listening to today's stuff. "Yeah...Imma gonna fluhfluh, yeah...yeah, Imma gonna fluhfluh, yeah..." no comparison to David Bowie. glorious creativity compared to a plastic pack. is it just a matter of getting older? or is a lot of the stuff I hear that is "today" truly bland and ugh? people can like what they like, of course.

In my humble opinion, the younger generation is always going to be tuned into what's new and contemporary, and I think what's new in contemporary is not nearly as good has the music scene we're into. We witnessed the birth of rock and roll. And that included a significant development in instrumental and Recording Technology, as well as cultural circumstance. Rock and roll was Grassroots, and it ain't never going to happen again. The wheel can neither be reinvented nor improved. Just my two cents.

It takes no talent or skill to be on the internet. There is some talent out there. GVF may have it, seems like it so far, let’s see what they can come up with in the future and if they can keep it going. I think that part of the surge of young people at D&C is that there are millennials out there who realize that most of what they are fed is garbage and that there has to be something better out there.

Imfeelin’ what your dealin’, but I keep hearing how Vynle record shops, and all around sales of the Good Ole shit, Dead, Zepplin et el, is being driven by teens and youngins’ .........so just like all the great “classics” the timeless etc, the good shit keeps relevant; Beethoven, Beatles, Bowie, Brubeck, Bo Diddley, long live Rock & Roll wwwwwwhhhhhhoooooooo lol I’m picturing the dude in I believe the Beavis and Butthead movie that ends up with an unfortunate meeting with a port a potty.....hay, hows that for the X factor icecrmcnkid!Of course I already now I’m mixing up posts from the NW box thread and this one......hey don’t laugh, I’m old, it’s Friday (ahem), “and I have more insurance than you”

Referring to this? https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3vtkhk It wasn’t me who brought that up, that the first time I have seen it.

i'm a millennial and I make fun of my generation all the fucking time. I can actually hold a conversation person to person and my phone isn't my identity. and I think playing video games with a person in the same room is way better than playing online with people I don't know, will never know and will never care for.

Hee-hee, hooowwweeee, shit, I think I just wet myself! Yeah, that’s it bra. Thanks for bringing to life what my lazy/geezer ass could only verbely spew here, I’m still LMAO! As far as the X factor, which I was trying to link to the a “potty talk” lol brought up by E/E, and of course accentuated by our very own Vguy.....I can’t remeber if it is you or brother Soltzty that always has the neat observations about the serindiputious, doubtfully coincidental?, X factor like, what we used to call (I think via Cassidy/Kesey/Kerouac? like) “radio I Ching” cosmic alignments....? Sorry if I’m mixing you boys up, hurumph, no harm, no foul, etc, egads....I’d rather have a bottle in front me, than a frontal lobotomy! Ahem, but I digress......as I say “ it’s Friday and I’m in love again! Ahhh, sweet nectar, recently received DP 22 now spinning on the highlypricednewagejukebox,”hey buddy, got a nickel for the juke box?” Thanks for making me (us?) laugh, and smile, smile, smile!

Sorry, my mind immediately digresses.......What does Cartman hate more than anything.........a hippie ginger Jew! What I meant to say was...... What’s a video game?

psshhh! don't even act like video games aren't around anymore. people still have their xbox's and ps4's lol

Or frontal lobotomy Ha! Funny stuff But Kyle, where do you put the quarter in?

are you guys from 1969 struggling with the concept of Atari? :P

Holy shit! I just received my Anthem Of The Sun t-shirt and it has THE most phenomenal colors I have ever seen (sober) in a tee! And I live in tees, 90% of which are the GOGD Rock on

I had an Atari 5200 console.It was the successor to the 2600.

Hi folks, looking for a bit of advice: any thoughts on whether I should drop $40-50 and get the 11/28/80 Lakeland, FL show from 30 Trips (which is what it's going for on eBay)? I've been craving some official listening material from 1980, as I really like the '80 shows that I have (DaP 8, Go To Nassau, Dead Set + Reckoning). What about the Penn State/Cornell '80 Road Trips (Vol 3.4)? That goes for somewhat more on the secondary market, and I prefer full show, so I'm inclined to seek out Lakeland, but would appreciate your thoughts. Anyone know why there seems to be a relative dearth of official 1980 releases? Could it be the tape quality issue that Dave discussed in the seaside chat for DaP 27? I had thought that that was more of a concern for mid-80s shows, but maybe it affected 1980 as well.

While I’m quite sure the Normanizing done to this show for the 30TATS box, makes it a much better sounding concert than what circulates...I think this souce, the remastered schnid 20049, sounds great (link below)! It absolutely works for me, over paying the $40 you are thinking about spending. Then again, you can always buy it off of ebay, download it, and then relist it. Recouping what you put it into it, should be very easy to do. I find this a great way to at least fill in digitally on a hdd, the holes in my collection. The FW69 boxset is one of my serious wants, but it is not so easy to drop 5-800 bucks on it. But if you do, again, you can download it, and turn around and relist it, to recover what you paid. Then move on to whatever may be next on your list. I find this an excellent way to treat myself to the music in digital form, until the day comes, when I can afford to keep the physical cd form of whatever it is I’m really wanting to add to my collection! Also, if you happen to have an iPhone or IPad, the relisten app is a must. It uses the archive as its platform, but is so much easier to use. They do not have an android version yet, but their website is also very user friendly on a home computer or laptop. Much easier to use than the archive, in my opinion. Ok, the link: https://archive.org/details/gd1980-11-28.sbd.vernon.tobin.fix-20049.900… Peace!

When does Dave's 28 (a birthday show) ship?

Thank you! I just looked at your spread sheet of Dark Stars. That is great. I am seriously going to embark on a Dark Star tour now. I would like to be able to claim I heard them all so that just became my guide to pull it off. It is a little easier to use than the Deadbase. I think I will start in 68 and work my way up to the few in 79. Then of course I will need to tackle the 80s and 90s versions. It will be fun. PS...I know an older copy of Deadbase used to have a timing chart of select Dark Stars. I dont think Deadbase 50 has that. A comprehensive timing chart of every Dark Star would a project that although tedious, would be fun to do, if it hasn't been done already.

This Help is a mess. Rushed, cluttered, heavily mumbled verses, and the transition into Slipknot is a cluster-something-or-other. But the rest of the show sounds pretty well-executed to me, from what I heard on archive today bouncing around a few tracks. I only wish the master of the release wasn't a cassette so it sounded better. Comparing the sound quality of this show to the 70's recordings is laughable. But I'm glad they balance the 70's releases with the occasional 80s show and looking forward to it.

I'm not sure we witnessed the birth of rock and roll-unless you were born in the 1930s! The late 1940s-mid 1950s was when it all kicked off. By the time I came along, in the 1970s, it had been assimilated into the mainstream as "rock" music. I guess everybody, from whatever generation they are from, considers the era in which they were young to be the "golden era". And it was/is. For them/us. On another subject-thanks for that Dark Star map. A great incentive to work through from the single onwards.

Hey Now! Monongahela is a name us Yinzers now all to well, could you be a fellow Yinzer? Hey its cool either way. The Road Trips Penn State/ Cornell release is a good one even though it is not complete shows. You do get both complete 2nd sets and highlights of each first comprise disc 1. I am fond of the Penn State show because I went to school there, although many years after that show in 80 (they did one in 79 too). I had an audience tape of that show and I remember the China>Rider being really powerful. The audience source allows the listener to hear the interplay between the boys and audience really well. However I am all about getting that Road Trips Normanized version. However I wouldn't buy it off of ebay just yet. Real Gone Music has been periodically reissuing the Road Trips in reverse order - last to first. I just picked up the 4-1-88 show. Next up is the Big Rock Pow Wow from 1969. After that is the Penn State / Cornell release. If you wait a bit you will be able to snag it in a few months. That is what I am planning on doing. It will be cheaper. Current eBay prices have it at 60 as the cheapest I see. Real Gone Music also sells on eBay too, and it is cheaper for these new Road Trips reissues. The eBay ID is privateer87 or something close to that. They sell the new Road Trip releases for 40.93 plus free shipping. They cost a little more on the website because they charge for the shipping.

The birth of Rock and Roll is a matter of perspective to some extent, I agree, but I maintain that the birth of rock, as we know it today, started with the Beatles, and so we witnessed it. Everything prior to that was embryonic (though no less important). R&B, Rocket 88, Rock Around the Clock, Elvis - all cornerstones of the bigger picture, without question, but when I say we witnessed the birth of Rock and Roll, I mean we witnessed the Beatles and all that came after. The Beatles' sound was a truly unique amalgamation of all of those elements you mentioned. None of those elements were singly responsible for contemporary Rock music, but the Beatles were. Further,it was more than The Beatles' sound that was responsible for their unique place in the Rock and Roll annals; it was their integration of new recording technology as well (by that I mean more and more channels to the multi-track, as well as wholly new instruments like the mellotron, as well as tape editing, arrangement, overdubs, etc). The artist push the technology and the technology pushed the artist; this was a symbiotic occurrence that found its way into many early era Rock production ensembles (look at how Pete Townshend introduced minimalist composition technique with organs fed into synthesizers to bring not only new sounds to the rock palette, but to actually create a new mode of rhythm for the genre (i.e. Baba O'Riley & Won't Get Fooled Again). I also mentioned the cultural aspect of rock and roll development. These were children who grew up in the aftermath of World War II. They went on to compose music that was heavily influenced buy current events like the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement. They reflected these issues back to their audience with social commentary, and messages of hope or despair (Sympathy for the Devil, All You Need Is Love). And the liberation of the younger generation from what they felt was a very oppressive older generation. Free love, free sex, individual Independence for young people - this still resonates today. So, yes, I understand your point and I agree that those influences where it important, but in the larger picture it was all in utero development, with Elvis perhaps being the last trimester. And then the Beatles came and changed everything, not just music. We did not Witness the conception of rock and roll, just the birth. And this I maintain can never happen again, because it's already been done. The technology, the social climate, heck, all the guitar riffs. Peace.

Somethings are hard to pinpoint, but for recording techniques,,, check enoch light's page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_Light Pioneer in stereo recordings, hell appears to have invented the gatefold album. Also to early 50's rock recordings developed "cheap" effects, I thought I read once about Sun records recording stuff in bathrooms for echo/reverb effect. Maybe someone singing in a concrete hallway. I always think there is a book to be written about pop music and car stereos. I think recording techniques are older than readily available playback. I don't think you could have had pink Floyd in a 3 watt mono 6 inch speaker in your 58 chevy. I think as car playback systems got better the music got more dense(?). Same can be said for movies maybe. Growing up Perry Mason, F troop sound just fine out of a 8 in mono speaker. Can you imagine watching some marvel movie in 19" mono black and white. I don't think I'd say The Beatles were the birth of rock, if the beatles were all that than they stood on the shoulders of giants. The line of music goes back. Hard to pick a start. I think our age determines our view. The first time you said "the music today....." or "the kids today....", your old!

Beatles were the birth of Pop. Rock n roll had already been born. But honestly, I don’t really care where the ‘official’ start is because I pretty much just listen to Grateful Dead.

Keithfan, though your essay was very good and spot on, I respectfully disagree with your overall premise.I think if we use the human life cycle for analogy, I’d say that the Beatles were not the birth, but more like late adolescence/early adulthood. The coming of age so to speak. They were learning who they were, about the world, and experimenting accordingly like only adolescent people do. Even the embracing of new technology usually is most prevalent amongst the younger generations (I’m generalizing here folks so spare us the one off examples....like just because George Burns lived to be 10?, doesn’t mean smokings not bad for you, science does not work that way) This is why most of the change and cultural shifts that occur, are usually driven by the exuberant, fresh, eager, teens to thirties folks, who are in the physical primes of their lives.....and the brain is of course a physical thing? So I propose, the real birth, the real father, the real King of RR is Mr Chuck Berry. (I know we can take this a step further, but here I would borrow KF’s embryonic example). Imho, Chuck was the guy who really built the platform that almost all other RR was built on, including the Beatles...Hell there are numerous references by the Beatles saying such....and Elvis...He was more like a little leaguer, while a Chuck was JV, and then the Beatles were Pro ballers.... Elvis did not write music, nor would many consider him a real musician. (Yes he could bang out some rhythms and hide behind the guitar like has been done by many “stars” including today’s Taylor Swift etc) He was basically a fine singer who aspired to, and was courted by Hollywood. No offense meant, his influence was immeasurable. But Chuck did it all, and he mostly did it himself, not through others like Elvis.. From the music, to being his own road manager, even driving himself to gigs, He even embraced new technology of the times too. I think Chuck is one of the most under the radar, yet influential persons of the 20th century..... Hey, if you don’t believe me, research what ALL the greats; Beatles, Dead, Stones you name it, they all acknowledge how much he influenced not only them personally, but RR overall. Which due to the cultural shifts and timing, influenced the whole world in a way many today cannot understand unless they were there. Just like we experienced what it was like when the Beatles did it.... So In other words, this is not really my theory at all. It is just me trying to pass along what I have read..... I’m just spitting out what all our hero’s have already stated.... As you have shone, there is no way to even begin to consider all at least popular music (saying all music might be a stretch...), that occurred during and after the Beatles, without acknowledging their influence. But I propose, that you cannt consider the Beatles, without considering how Chuck is in their DNA! Long live the King “Go Johnny Go! (Perhaps the perfect phrase to encompass all that youth, rebelliousness, RR are all about!) You go boy, indeed...

The undisputed father/king? what ever of all that has followed, tech wise, was Les Paul. Fascinating man/story. Looping, multi-tracking, ping ponging, effects you name it. He most likely invented it.

Nope, 1962, buda da ba bop boom, heyyyyI do recall this thing called pong my cousins had? Probably turned me off of games for life; ) Hell, we didn’t get cable till the late 70s...color tv was out, but didn’t get that till early 70s... My mother RIP, still had rotary phones till the day she died (2016) LOL Computers? I suppose we learned about those from watching the Apollo missions with their real to real,looking behemoths that took up whole buildings....same processing power like in a phone now... When your living through it day to day you don’t necessarily get how much things have changed. Sorta like the quality of Dead recordings and how that has progressed. I don’t think there’s too many old timers out there, that started out desperately grabbing any shitty tape thay could because it wasn’t like they were growing on trees, that ever could have imagined the quality and access we have now..

Started with the blues. The blues started with field workers on farms who got it from gospel and African roots.

Think I’d call the blues more like the Gleam in RR daddy’s eye, the weight in his preverbal sack if you will... than the birth...but unquestionably a major genetic element...

"The blues started with field workers on farms who got it from gospel and African roots." Field workers on farms? That's got to be satire, because you've got to be kidding. The blues developed out of field chants -- yes, of African origins -- by slaves on plantations who were systemically murdered, lynched, starved and beaten by armed guards and who were bought and sold as sub-human property. And that went on from the 1600s well into the 1950s, perhaps later. Fixed it for ya.

If you tried to give rock and roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'- John Lennon

What I took from Keith fan's essay is that the Beatles did not invent the first rock and roll song, they took all of the primal elements that define today's rock and roll from various sources and put them together into one whole and brought music that had rock elements from an esoteric underground entity to a worldwide industry. While you all make good points about the history of rock in general, I don't believe that Keith fan means to say none of that is true, only that it was the precursor to what has become today's rock and roll music. The rock music of the 60s and 70s and 80s and 90s is molded after the Beatles and their contemporaries like the Rolling Stones and The Kinks and The Who and many others, not Elvis not Jerry Lee Lewis not Bill Haley, not anything before the Beatles. What I see in some of the counterpoints being raised here are people missing points in the original article. For example someone might respond to my comments by saying lots of musicians were influenced by Elvis so how can I say that modern music wasn't in part due to Elvis's career? The answer is, that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that modern music doesn't take on the arrangement and style of Elvis, it takes on that of The Beatles and their contemporaries. And the contemporaries that I mentioned worked off of The Beatles and took their lead from the Beatles and then added their own elements. The artists before the Beatles that some people mentioned, collectively produced elements that the Beatles then unified and brought pop sensibility to. This brought about a seismic shift in the way the bands that were the Beatles contemporaries approached music. In the late 60s and early 70s they all fed off of each other, but it started with the Beatles. And those other bands contributed to the continued development, such as the Rolling Stones, The Who, Led Zeppelin The Grateful Dead Etc. The Beatles were the birth of rock and roll. They did not write the first rock song, they put the puzzle together and industrialized it. In doing that, there was a birth. Nobody is wrong here in any of the smaller points they've made about the significant contributions of some artists who came before The Beatles. The over arching main point though is that the Beatles brought it all together and introduced it to the world. The embryo analogy was spot-on. In its simplest manifestation you could say that without the Beatles there would be no Rolling Stones or Who or Zeppelin as we know them today. If they were to exist at all, meaning if they were able to even break out of the underground, the Stones would sound like their first record which was all R&B covers, Led Zeppelin 1 would all sound like you shook me and I can't quit you baby, and The Who would all be like shout and shimmy and I'm a man. Rock music as we know it today would not sound as it does today without the Beatles. But if you take away any one single other group that was mentioned pre-beatles, The Beatles would still have been the Beatles. I'll stop rambling now. I just have always connected with what Keith fan said here but I can't say it as eloquently. And then I saw some responses that didn't seem to get the point. I mean everyone's disputing the term birth. Birth is not the invention of something. Birth is to bring something to the world. The Beatles didnt invent rock, they brought rock to the world (and with a genetic makeup that was all their own). That's what I took from Keith fans original comment when he said we witnessed the birth of rock and roll. That we did. We didn't witness the conception of rock and roll we witness the birth. That's what I took Keith fan correct me if I'm wrong.

Some great views expressed on here on this subject. I love The Beatles, and there is no question that they started life as a rock n' roll group. And that they periodically revisited it to great effect-especially on "The Beatles For Sale". But the music that they will be remembered for is not, to me, rock n' roll-or rock. It is pop music. That isn't a bad thing-but its what it is. No way hozay is "Sergeant Pepper" rock n' roll. Actually there is more of a case for claiming that The Beatles invented prog rock than rock n' roll. Finer men than me have tried to identify the first rock n' roll record. But for what its worth, Robert Johnson definitely played with more rhythm than earlier country bluesman. Fast forward to 1948, and we have John Lee Hooker and Muddy Waters playing electric guitars with a much heavier beat. Any of these artists could be credited with starting rock-but its probably Elvis Presley and Chuck Berry, both seemingly independently of each other, mixing country with blues to create what is known as rock n' roll today. After the pop of the early 60s, the man who really invented "rock" as we know it today, and as distinct from "rock n 'roll" was surely Jimi Hendrix. He brought his blues and soul chops to London in 1966, added the volume and power chords associated with Pete Townsend, the craziness of Jeff Beck, wrapped it all up in ball and kicked it out of the park. A far greater influence than The Beatles-every band I saw in the 70s owed something to him. There is surely room for ongoing development, too. Rock n' roll is a hybrid of earlier musical forms, from different cultures, combined together to create something new. Its a great blueprint for the future.

Interesting discussion of rock history, but I think everyone here is forgetting the man who changed the course of music forever: Mr. Robert Zimmerman, aka, Bob Dylan. He turned on the Beatles. Before Dylan, they were "She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah." After Dylan, they began to see song lyrics as poetry, an art form. Jimi Hendrix? Same thing. Look at the covers: Like A Rolling Stone, arguably the most important song in rock history; All Along the Watchtower; Drifters' Escape. etc, etc. The Dead? Don't even get me started. Without Dylan, Robert Hunter and Jerry Garcia never would have gone beyond playing some old folk and bluegrass tunes together. Look at the covers with them, too: they were covering It's All Over Now Baby Blue when they were still playing tiny venues in 1966. Meanwhile, Dylan was conquering Europe on a mass scale. Dylan pushed everyone: the Stones, the Byrds, the Doors. Without Dylan's massive influence, going back as far as '63, songs played on the radio - rock and pop alike - would always have remained boy/girl love songs and cheesy pop. Without Dylan, we never would have had the Dead as we know them, or the Beatles (beyond the first couple albums), Bruce Cockburn, Hendrix, or any form of prog rock. Dylan is The Godfather of all modern music that has lyrics with any depth whatsoever.

Rock music, pop music, Prog music blah blah blah. The point that was being made is that our generation and our parents generation were around for the invention of rock pop Prog whatever you want to call it music. it's not classical it's not baroque,it's not rap. We were around when the artists were alive and their records were being made and our parents played their records and we played their records. In 200 years there may not be anything that sounds even remotely like this, yet we were here to see live concerts of it. In 200 years they will most likely look back on the Beatles And The Rolling Stones and Elvis and say wow to have been alive when all of that was happening, all of that great music. Nobody's trying to identify when the first rock record was made. A point was made that the elements that came together to make modern rock and roll were a perfect storm that will never happen again, and WE got to live to see it. And to say The Beatles weren't a rock band, well by that logic I could listen to Dead Flowers by the Stones and say they're not a rock band. Or I could listen to the Song is Over by The Who and say that's easy listening. Or I could listen to That's the Way by Led Zeppelin and say they're not rock they're folk. I'm starting to hear hairs being split just to split hairs. We got to see all of these people while they were alive that's the point. And the styles they developed will never be redone again because all of the things that went into making it are already done. It was clearly stated that the Beatles brought it to the world and they did. It was never said that they did it without anyone's influence. Mind left body I thought you made a good point. Birth is bringing it to the world which is what the Beatles did and continued to do until their breakup. It's nonsense to attribute the explosion of pop / rock music to anyone other than the Beatles. Without the Beatles it would have all remained esoteric. And yes other bands picked up where they left off and carried the torch. The Beatles brought it to the world. And to be honest I don't even like the Beatles that much. The White Album should have been cut in half, and the first five albums I'm mostly throwaways and are summed up in the one red greatest hits album. Sergeant Pepper Magical Mystery Tour and Abbey Road are pretty good. My point is I don't even like him that much but I know what their role was in the birth of rock and roll music.

In anticipation of 09/02/83, I've been listening to some other well regarded fall '83 shows today, notably 09/06/83 and 10/11/83. If 09/02/83 is cut from the same cloth, it will be a solid pick. Totally digging those other 83 shows (as I do the other official releases from '83 - 10/14 and 10/21). Next up while I wait for DaP 27, I think I'll spin 10/17/83. Don't compare '83 to shows from '67 to '79, just enjoy them for what they are. Also perhaps not as cleanly played or recorded as '87-'89, but more crispy in between song jams in '83 IMO than in those later years. Bless the digital archives!!

Yes, I'd go along with what you say about his Bobness. To me, he raised the bar lyrically in the same way Hendrix did instrumentally. Maybe people who would otherwise never have considered setting their poems to music did so as a result of Dylan. This wasn't always a good thing, mind you.Incidentally, excuse my ignorance...but who's Bruce Cockburn?

Now it is plain for all to see the problems that arise from trying to label different types of music. So whatever happened to country rock, for instance. Were the Beatles rock'n'roll? Who cares. Daverock, your ignorance of who Bruce Cockburn is, is indeed inexcusable. To put another pointless label on him, he could be called the Canadian Bob Dylan, but then again...

"The blues started with field workers on farms who got it from gospel and African roots". Seriously??? Thank you HendrixFreak for the correction - holy moly, how far can we disassociate the musical contributions of slaves? Let's give then credit... I think they earned it, no? Mononhahela regarding your 1980 dilemma... stay loud on the topic until your miracle appears. Unless you're dying for the actual article, in which case go ahead and spend the $40 (but that's a lot of money). Sixtus re: 2/15/73 Dark Star.. the accessible melodic ones are my favs. Thanks for the signpost. I believe the Wembley 4/7 or 8/72 Dark Star is also very melodic.... love that one. Anybody notice something different????

i never played A Link to the Past and I never knew who Bruce Cockburn was and somehow when my life flashes before me I wont be thinking I wasted my life because of it

today I go into a pizza-by-the-slice place. I tell 'em what I want. what's that music? is that...it is! it's the Grateful Dead! Loser from sometime in Spring 77. Wow! then it's Ripple from AB! then it's Casey Jones from WD! _that_ doesn't happen very often.

Calling Bruce "the Canadian Bob Dylan" is a good way to start...true as far as lyrics go, anyway. However, he's been a much better singer over the years than Dylan, and as a guitar player, he's in the upper, upper echelon. Jerry was a fan, and, in fact, covered Bruce's song Waiting for a Miracle. He's also been covered by everyone from Jimmy Buffett to Judy Collins to Dan Fogelberg. He should be as well known as fellow Canadians Joni Mitchell and Neil Young, as he's from the same era; he just didn't hit it big commercially in the U.S. In Canada, he's a giant. He's sold over a million albums in Canada alone, and has received 13 Juno awards, Canada's version of the Grammy. Seriously, check him out. Classic-era essential Bruce albums from the 70s to 80s include: Dancing in the Dragon's Jaws In the Falling Dark Humans Inner City Front Stealing Fire Latter era, I'd recommend The Charity of Night.

https://youtu.be/wVDtmouV9kM....if not, you are now!

"Elvis did not write music, nor would many consider him a real musician." I disagree: first, as a singer he was a musician and a great one; singers are musicians! second, he played and was recorded not only on rhythm guitar but also lead guitar, piano and electric bass.

I would agree that most labels are pointless-and reductive-in all fields, not just music. But its always bugged me a bit when fans of late 60s-mid 70s music refer to that music as rock n' roll. In that "Live at Pompeii " film Roger Waters refers to Pink Floyd as that. Maybe I would have done at the time. But In 1979, I saw The Cramps. My eyes pinged open. THIS was rock n' roll. All the music I had been listening to was clearly something else. From there it was back to Elvis, Sun Records, Little Richard, Chuck Berry et al. And it was very different world from the one Pink Floyd inhabited. And going back further, to the blues and all the different styles within that form. I don't know-its always interested me, the roots and diversity of all this music. Thanks for the tip off about Bruce Cockburn. I have never come across him in all my years of obsession.