Grateful Dead

Well, it might, or might not be worth discussing-but it surely isn't worth arguing about! I think we have different perspectives-not on the subject in hand-part of me agrees with you on that, for what its worth-but on the way we discuss things. In the real, physical, world, I have friends who have similar interests to me, but we see those things in diverse ways-which, for me, makes for interesting discussion. You mentioned Shakespeare in one of your posts-and this is a subject I have discussed often with my friends. We go to The Globe Theatre in London, which is a reconstruction of the play house as it was in the 17th century. And the plays are performed in a traditional way, more or less. Or were. About three years ago, they started adapting them to fit in with modern ways of thinking. "Taming of the Shrew" was performed in such a way as to remove the sexism inherent in the text. I thought it was great. The bloke I went with thought it was terrible-and disrespectful to the original. We didn't fall out about it, though! Later in the year I saw "A Midsummer Nights Dream", which included modern pop songs. To me, it was hideous-but lots of people around me thought it was fantastic-especially young people. Neither of us were "right" or "wrong". In most issues there is surely no right or wrong, just different shades. Everybody on here likes The Dead to differing degrees for different reasons. The more people share their unique perspective the more interesting the board becomes. I would also say that it is possible-in fact desirable- for one person to have differing views on the same subject, at the same time, depending on the perspective they choose to take.

I listened to the whole thing after getting it today and now I've got the encore rolling through my mind over and over ... WOW!

I go to about 1 concert a year these days, not counting HardlyStrictlyBluegrass. I am not a big fan of the new Dave Alvin/Jimmie Dale Gilmore album, nor of the new Jon Langford album, but I love many records they've each done in the past. So off to the show I went. Someone standing on the other side of the audience from me videoed this and put it on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDDntOqTCgs

Dan Rather has been doing these interviews with rock icons. The last one I made a point to watch was Robert Plant. Obviously, the eternal adolescent in me carries a torch for Zeppelin (you think)? and of course when Plant nixed the billion-dollar international megatour after that singularly brilliant O2 reunion show, I was bummed. And I was bummed when he wouldn't do Desert Trip with Jimmy, either. But I understand. Robert Plant can go out there in 2018 at age 69 and cover his old band's material, but with a fresh, "age-appropriate" (his term) take on it. This man has done what almost nobody coming from the wild-ass rock genre has been able to - remain on stage and age gracefully. He can go out there and sing "Whole Lotta Love" without the cock jeans and the dog in heat affectations of a 23 year-old, and still pull it off. Most of these guys in Ratt or whoever just look dumb in their cartoon heavy metal clothes singing the old hits that were relevant for five minutes in the 80s. But, you can't get a good real job now pushing 60 as that ship has sailed. No other option but to do the county fair/casino circuit to thinner crowds every year. Sad but true, but then it's been this way for decades. Glenn Miller, Sinatra, Elvis, The Beatles. Hey, at least Elvis "got more ass than a toilet seat." Not my line but hilarious and worth repeating. It's a fine line to go out there at 75 and sing the songs Mick Jagger does. But, with that first wave of post-blues bands (Rolling Stones, Grateful Dead, etc.) still carrying on, I'll take what I can get. In ten more years this will all be gone. There won't be any Stephen Stills out there playing electric shows. No more Paul McCartney on a massive stage. Charlie Watts' Duracell has got to crap out at some point. Someone here dropped this recently: "tender little cupcakes who normally fire off those barbs get all bent and whiny when they find them coming their way." I feel as if I have deserved to be the brunt of that one, even if it wasn't directed at me, for talking hard smack here over and over. But, y'know, sitting around the campfire the truth is bound to come out. There's no point in making Small Talk. Hollow, plastic redundant bullshit 'how you doing, Mrs. Blanfield? Oh, very well, Eugene, all the best to yer Mum!' Fuck that. It's good to know that some people still don't flinch when getting to the core of the truth. I try not to kick anyone square in the balls on the internet. It's weak, it's like being a telephone tough guy. I think I can say something like, "that chick has a nasty stinking pit hair forest," without coming from a place of hatred. Dark humor, maybe, but I reserve the right. "Brown Sugar" is horribly sexist and cast in a terribly inhumane setting that existed long ago. And still does just not in mainstream America. It was also recorded at Muscle Shoals and is one of the most heartfelt, soulful, ass-shakingest grooves ever this side of R.L. Burnside. Brown Sugar, turned up loud, feels so good. And isn't that what rock and roll is supposed to do? It is the devil's music, after all. \m/

Sound quality is very good, but is not as good as some of the more pristine stuff from the 70s. In terms of early 80s, it's among the best I've personally heard. Everything comes through pretty clear. Bass drum sounds a little flat but that's my only complaint. This mix is also very good, which is something that's sometimes a problem in the early 80s. Phil is well represented. Everyone else is fairly even. Overall something like a B+/A-, but surprisingly good after listening to a lot of fall 83 this week to get the flavor before I heard this one.

Sound quality is very good, but is not as good as some of the more pristine stuff from the 70s. In terms of early 80s, it's among the best I've personally heard. Everything comes through pretty clear. Bass drum sounds a little flat but that's my only complaint. This mix is also very good, which is something that's sometimes a problem in the early 80s. Phil is well represented. Everyone else is fairly even. Overall something like a B+/A-, but surprisingly good after listening to a lot of fall 83 this week to get the flavor before I heard this one.

I've read a couple reviews that the sound is good ("superb") and some say it doesn't pass the sound quality check at the door.

Haven’t posted in a while, but just had to say how fun this release is. The mix and Jerry’s tone are raw. The tempo is fast and reckless. And the overall sound is supurb. Great energy. And I’m still on disc one. Big thanks to everyone who keeps these high quality releases coming. They sure do brighten one’s day.

for your YOUTUBE post. I was in tears as was my wife. From Elaine to Mr ED to Batman to Chrissy Snow and THE JACK TRIPPER...that was truly a classic. I think that is worth a post once a month.