Grateful Dead

I wasn't expecting this to be a great release, but it pleasantly surprised me. Hey, we finally got a Shakedown Street! Not much more needs to be said. I agree with Jim, first set starts out great with Shakedown and while there is good stuff in between, the Let It Grow is really hot. Set II is fine, the Help-Slip-Frank is not 1976 or 1977 quality, but fine nonetheless. Good Dew and I I really enjoy the Throwing Stones on this one. It is probably my favorite 80s song, so....

Regarding the cover band comments, that is just plain silly. There was a distinct shift in direction toward being a straight up rock and roll band after the hiatus. I have long felt it was the reintroduction of Mickey. Billy could (and still can) swing and turn on a dime, but that is not Mickey's strength. So, the music changed from 1977 and beyond to reflect Mickey's playing. I didn't realize cover bands wrote new music, released albums and played these new original songs in concert. I disagree wholeheartedly and it really is an insult to the band that continued to play their own original music for 15 years after Keith and Donna left.

I would have guessed that the third slot of the year had the weakest releases as well. So I did some personal research.

I ranked the releases by year and assigned each one points. 4 for the best and 1 for my least favorite. I excluded this year since we have only had three so far.

No surprise that the first release is way out front. What I found interesting, however, is that the releases decreased throughout the year, with the fourth being my least favorite on average. In each of the last three years the third release has been the weakest, so recency bias would make one think that it would be last. However, DaP11 and DaP23 have been my favorites, keeping the third slot out of last place. What hurts the fourth release is that in all of the years except one, it was in the bottom two of shows. A 69 show this year would likely change that.

I like analytics.

Great post.. I like #8 too as a great 1980 wildcard. #'s 1 and 2 are the tent poles, 3 and 4 are wildcards. I'm not holding my breath for a cassette master to hold the pole position.

....what is going on! I'm out of said loop, but that loop is nonsense.
What are they doing exactly in the 80's? Covering themselves? Quite a conundrum, I guess.
I'm moving on from this tidal pool.

Its often been said that The Dead were a different band at different junctures of their career. If this is so, then it follows that if any one version played music established by an earlier one, then the later band were in effect covering an earlier version of themselves.

They obviously changed many, many times -even -especially-during my preferred eras of 1967-1974. But during that era, the music seemed to evolve, almost organically, so that they remained dynamic and creative. There was a massive pressure drop from 1976, but the real rot set in for me after K and D left. Its from this point on, whenever they played material from pre 1975, which they did incessantly, that they sounded more like a cover band than a creative one.

I mean-on this latest 1983 release, I notice they even have a go at Satisfaction ! No one alive over 30 can get away with that. Not even The Stones.

I pretty much agree with Daverock's analysis of the decline of the band post hiatus. I think they had trouble trying to assimilate Mickey back into the band and how this worked out was at least part of the reason Keith and Donna bailed out when they did. After their departure and Brent's arrival the band's sound changed dramatically and not for the better in my opinion. I can listen to their later shows and enjoy them, but they are lacking the magic that was what originally attracted me to the band.

I don't recall any of the original "cover band" comments stating that the band were a cover band. As I recall, the point being made was that they began to sound like a cover band which is not the same thing. We all know that they played covers throughout their career, but in later years their sound changed so much and the way they played their own songs was so different from how they played them earlier that they did, in a way, sound like a cover band of themselves.

FW 69
Same songs, night after night, with little variation and little innovation.
And that continued for the whole year.

Fortunately the band didn’t want to be a cover band forever and started to write new songs.
As I believe Hunter said in Anthem To Beauty, “we went from experimenting with sounds to experimenting with words.”

Some excellent songs were written after 1974.
Help/Slip/Franklins, Crazy Fingers, Music Never Stopped, Estimated Prophet, Terrapin, Shakedown, Saint of Circumstance, Althea….
The conjoining of Scarlet and Fire…..
Late era songs like Days Between, Built To Last, Standing on the Moon are good too.

If the band stopped after Winterland 74 this site would not even exist. Decline? I don't think so. Different? Yes, always changing and always evolving. All kinds of ups and downs through out the 30 run.
They stayed the course for 30 years. Do you I like ever year? No, some are better than others but what a ride.

Certainly there were some excellent songs written post hiatus, but there were also some real clunkers. I doubt anyone could be critical of Hunter's skills as a wordsmith.

I think it is reasonable to suppose that most people's favourite period of the band corresponds to the time that they got into the band and started going to shows. Not only did the band's music change with time, all aspects of society and popular culture changed as well. For instance, the counterculture of the mid to late 60s was, at best, a distant memory by the 1980s when society had totally different values and a very different outlook.

actually i think a lot of us here didn't get on bus till the 80s yet we still prefer single drummer eras or earlier, i am one of them, but life would be a little more boring if all we had was 71-75, and as someone pointed out without the extra popularity they achieved from 76-95 we might not even be on here today talking about them, i think this DaP 39 is an incredible release and has encouraged me to listen to more 83, including shows i went to in high school, it has been a great diversion from my favorite period, it really is sweet spot, i think brent's sounds are amazing and jerr's voice is seasoned yet strong (at this particular show), new songs were fresh, i never heard so much phil in an early 80s recording, and drums sound great, thanks

but Dave and Simon's assessments are right on point. No getting around it.

I posted this a year or so ago. Sure I like to occasional Shakedown, So Many Roads, etc., but the overwhelming majority of songs I skip are from 1978 on. To be fair, even though my preferred era is 69-74, I cannot envision the band without FOTM, H>S>F and Terrapin.

Samba In The Rain.

I forgot to mention So Many Roads as a good new song.
The late era Jerry songs wouldn’t have had the same impact if sung by young Jerry.

I listen to all years which allows me to move around eras and never get burned out on any particular year.

But my sweet spot is solidly 68 - 74. (67 even, but there are so few recordings from this year). I am really looking forward to the Fox Box (St. Louis, 73 isn't from the Fox).

But do enjoy good shows (and good sequences) from all years. I do know a lot of people that enjoy post hiatus more, however, and there's nothing wrong with that. It is different. Most bands with longevity approaching the GD sounded much different in the later years than they did in the early years.. think Rush for example.. and the bands that sounded the same often fell into obsolescence after their first five or ten albums. It's not such a bad thing that the GD felt the need to reinvent themselves and morph as the decades roll on. In fact, it's quite Grateful Deadlike.. new instruments, new influences, etc. I guess we could have done with less demons, better health and crisp vocals into their Sr. years, but that's way beyond our control.

Anyway.. first show 80's and my sweet spot is solidly 68-74. The Grateful Dead is like food.. I might love sushi and Thai food but every now and then some good Italian scratches the itch.

I know I took the cover band comment too literally and understood what you were generally saying, but you might want to come up with a different expression for your thoughts on the band's sound. The band's sound continually evolved-- hell, you can hear it not just from one band lineup compared to another, but sometimes from tour to tour. I, for one, am glad that a China-Rider from 1972 sounds quite different from one in 1989. That is why we collect shows like we do-- every show didn't sound the same. We didn't go to shows in 1989 to hear them sound like they did on Europe 72, we went to hear their new interpretations of the songs in the catalogue.

One factor was band lineup, obviously. Again, Mickey's reincorporation played a big part in why they took a less jazzy approach, in my opinion. A less obvious factor was following music trends. While the GOGD did not follow all the trends of popular music throughout their 30 year history, they loosely followed them while maintaining their own unique x-factor (though I would argue the period 1973-75 they were a band doing their own thing entirely). To wit:

1966-69: psychedelic SF rock and roll band like many others
1970-71/2: like many bands following the Band's 'Big Pink', the Dead moved into the folk rock style on their albums and in their live shows, while maintaining their unique psychedelic sound
1972-75: wild card era with unique exploratory shows
1976-80: Disco overtakes America and the Dead incorporated disco into their sound along straight up rock and roll
1980-95: For the most part, they charted their own course and kept playing rock and roll during a dismal time for popular music. In The Dark is as close as they got to a pop record in the 1980s and though they didn't fully incorporate the pop music of the 1980s into their sound, that album comes close. Brent's synthesizer was very 80s and his songs sound like they could be sung by Michael McDonald. They totally shunned the grunge sound of the early 1990s and kept doing their thing.

Long way of me suggesting they followed musical trends of each era while keeping their core identity and sound intact. I saw my first show in 1988, but my wheelhouse is the 1968-74 era. But I love shows from all these time periods (though mostly shun the post-Brent era) and love the change of pace each era gives me. In fact, I absolutely love the Hartford 87 release-- great shows.

so jim... you mentioned your first show was 4/82, was it norfolk scope? that was a long (for the era) great show, then you said you went to 4 shows in 83 including hampton and the meriweathers, so was the other one richmond 83? that is a very under the radar great 83 show (in my hometown), 2nd set started with dayjob, playin>crazy fingers, had a sung spoonful and also they go into sugar mag at the appropriate end spot, seemingly realize they had played it the night before and then seamlessly switch to good lovin, people had been walking out during dayjob encores, but they didnt walk out on this one

*

*

Icecrmcnkd - I wouldn't say that the bands repertoire stayed the same throughout 1969. According to Deadbase, they played 97 different songs this year. That's more than any other year in the 60s or 70s apart from in 1970. The range of material played was massive. There is a huge stylistic difference between Anthem and Working Mans Dead - but both styles were incorporated and explored in 69. Their set lists actually changed considerably from about June onwards, as they moved into more countrified areas with traditional songs complementing the new Robert Hunter ones.

I'm really sorry if I have caused offence. I didn't intend to and certainly wouldn't expect other people to agree with what I am saying-they may or they may not. I just like discussing it, and the greater range of different views expressed on here the better I like it. I only saw them in 1981 - twice and 1990 - four times, so 99.9% of my listening to The Dead has been at home. I can't say I have felt influenced by what anyone else likes. Not since I was about 15, anyway. In fact, if someone praises something very highly it often puts me off !

Just... Wow.

Yeah, they mixed it up that year.
I exaggerated a bit.
The point was that there is not a lot of song variety on FW69, pretty much the same every night, which is what a cover band does.
And ABB (no offense, I like them).
Well actually, pretty much all bands played the same thing every night. Get a few Pink Floyd live tapes from 72 and they all are pretty much the same. But I still grab them when I see them. The easiest way to differentiate a Floyd live recording (which are pretty much all AUD recordings) is from the audience talking in the background.
But I digress.

I think that FW69 is great, but others think it’s the greatest and all new releases have to be from that period.
I sometimes think that 68 is better than 69, but what do I know. Well, I do know that I love 11-10-67, and the vinyl sounds better than the CD.

So anyway, the contention here stems from the common theme to attack an era (mostly Brent, but also Mickey) whenever Dave puts out a release that isn’t what the person doing the attacking wanted. Dave’s job isn’t to cater to a few people’s wants, but to release an accurate historical record of the greatest live rock n roll band ever (while keeping the revenue flowing so that the plug doesn’t get pulled).
Yes, a rock n roll band. That is what they became when they stopped being a jug band. They were a rock band for 30 years, with many variations along that theme that reflected the times.

The fact that DaP’s always sell out confirms that people want the music. Just because they don’t post here doesn’t mean that they don’t like what Dave releases. If Dave releases something you don’t like, coming on here and trashing it and threatening to stop subscribing isn’t going to have any effect on Dave’s selections in the future. And trashing the band for what they chose to do with their music is pointless since it’s all a part of history, and it was their band to do with it what they wanted.

Yes, I’m a Touch Head, but during 89-95 when I was attending GD shows I also saw many other bands (I benefitted from the ‘reunion tour’ fad) and not a single band ever came close to what I experienced at GD shows. Every other band was a fraction of an approximation of what a GD show was.
The Grateful Dead kicked ass in the 90’s. There was nothing else like it. Not even Phish.
I started collecting tapes back then, and then moved into the digital realm. Oroborous is correct, there is good stuff from every year, but you got to poke around.

I listen to all years which is great because you observe the evolution of the band, as well as technology and changes in instruments. Also new songs over the years. There are good post-74 songs, really good. And some songs seem even better when Jerry sings them with a scratchy voice and emotion that only he can know.

Sorry, no worries here. I apologize.
I wasn’t trying to single anyone out.
It’s just a rant against a composite of things I’ve read here over the years about the 80s that I feel isn’t right.
Not any singular thing or person. Just seems like it’s been happening more lately?
Do we have to go through this every time an 80s gets released?
Certainly everyone is entitled to their preferences and opinions.
And you can praise your likes to the skies for all I care.
I have no problem with positivity.
Just seems like the criticism for the later years can be a bit much comparatively.
Or not?

:)))

I still need to hear disc 3 of 39

Greatest
Band
Ever

First show was 4/19/82 Baltimore Civic Cntr.

In 83, I think I told a tall tale to my folks and me and three buddies went to Hampton. I saw both Merriweathers and Harrisburg. Boy was that a fun year.

So I think we were so close, but missed each other by that that much.

I was gone for a bit but I feel I missed some fireworks.

Regardless of what gets released, it's all Grateful Dead to me. I am mortal, I have my likes and dislikes..

If we like it, it can't be that bad.. I always felt like we are all on the same team. Sure we like what we like, but what they release is so far out of our control, why fight it.

Someone once said to me it's not the shows you missed that matters it shows you caught. I think we can transpose this to mean it's the shows we do like that matter, not the shows we don't.

At this point they are going to release all the releasable shows until they run out of 'good' vault recordings. So that show you really like will get released, it's just a matter of when. If you notice, they are almost announcing exactly when they the ala cart offerings will go on sale in advance. Makes the decision to subscribe quite easy. As for me, I have bought every release since One From the Vault at almost the exact moment it came up for sale. In hindsight this turned out to be a good strategy, I have each and every bonus disc, etc. It looks as though tomorrow I'll do pretty much the same. Some of the best money I have ever spent.

and.. we got our fall 72 box announcement almost exactly when this 83 release hit the streets. Seems quite balanced to me. It's all the same, it all rolls into one. Happy day.. and I love you all and all of your comments.

"The music was fearless in a way.. " "So like.. I know that trick you need to do to like get everyone up and dancing, the tricks you need to do to get a standing ovation, and like.. but, you can't rely on them because they are lies. Once you know them, they become a device and then once it's a device it's frozen.. I mean, I don't see any sense in doing the same thing over and over again no matter what it is no matter what it is, no matter how boss it is.. because to.. being alive means to continue to change." Jerry Garcia.

I think that says it all.

Edit: It is a Fall '72 Fox Box.. with several bonus discs from Fox 71 and St. Louis 73. A monumental release.. better gobble it up before it's gone. It's a monster.

Icecrmckd - yes, I also prefer 1968 to 1969 sometimes. I also agree that 11/10/67 is a stone classic and sounds better on vinyl than cd. Sometimes I get fed up with 69, and move smoothly into the 71-74 era. Which is obviously vast. Then I might move back to the 60s. A fair amount of musical diversity there. What do you want-blood?

Unusually, it was actually listening to the albums that turned me on to The Dead, not seeing them live. The ones I really loved were all of them from the First up to American Beauty, and I started getting them in 1975. I enjoyed seeing them in 1981 - it was like seeing people out of history - like Wyatt Earp or Doc Holliday - come to life and walk out on stage. But it was those albums that helped get me through.

After that it was the live tapes, which I started collecting in 1987. From each and every year. Then the live cds. And gradually personal preference emerged.

I for one have enjoyed the most recent discussion. There’s a whole lot less insults/hurt feelings, and a whole lot more passion!!
Like DAVEROCK, I listened to the albums first, mainly because I was too young to get a driver’s license!! I started buying and listening(and got on the mailing list!!) in 1974. It was 1/2 a decade later that I saw my first Dead show. And as I have stated previously, I prefer 67-74, but I can enjoy a GOOD(well played, with feeling) show from any era. I am surprisingly pleased with Dave’s 39, I think it’s fantastic. Possibly because I had no expectations. Please keep them coming, I’ll enjoy most, and skip a few. But to paraphrase Dan Fogelberg, if even ONE person enjoys a show, then it’s a legitimately good show. Just not necessarily so for everyone.

Music is the Best!!

....was their constant evolving and not becoming stale. Even season to season, let alone year to year.
And on that note, I'm finishing up some eggs benedict (my favorite breakfast food), and heading off to Magic Mountain to get my rollercoaster inversion fix. It's been waaaay too long.

...the below is from Billboard Magazine, yesterday....let's just say (....and all agree?) the Good Ole GD is as strong as ever, across ANY Era.

I love it ALL:

"Grateful Dead’s latest archival live release, Dave’s Picks, Volume 39: The Spectrum, Philadelphia, PA – 4/26/83, bows at No. 3 on Top Album Sales with 22,000 sold (all from CD sales). That 22,000 sum is the largest sales week for a Grateful Dead album since the week ending Dec. 24, 1995, when Hundred Year Hall sold 25,000 copies."

Be Well, Be Safe, People!
Sixtus

From Giants box

First time I think.

Good rich sound.

87 has gotten little play over the years in my personal long, strange trip. I was at 7 19 87 in Eugene, which was a bit underwhelming in terms of GD sets. The GD/Dylan stuff was enjoyable. The drive back to Seattle that night was memorable :)))

I also have Greek 85 in the queue. I haven't heard that run in a while.

I love this band.

This is the Day of the Dead show on MTV, I am 99% certain.

I remember watching that. I think I still have it on vhs somewhere.

34 years ago. WOW.

34 years before my dob is 1929.

wooooww

I am not going to weigh in too much on the recent discussion. I like what I like and am not apologetic about it. Have no issue with others doing the same. I love all era's but I also have my favorite honey holes.

I have written before, became a head 39 years ago this month. Right around the same time as St. Louis 82. For me, it was 1980 CCTV/taping of Radio City 1980. That lead to Live Dead, and then Bear's Choice. Pig Smokestack hooked me and never looked back.

As we have this discussion of era's more than I wish we would, I want to quote something I first quoted 5 years ago or so.

From "This Is All A Dream We Dreamed" by Blair Jackson and David Gans.

"The music is central to the Grateful Dead culture, but the culture created itself around the music in a number of ways, which in turn affected the music. In the early days, in smaller venues, the band and audience were in very close contact. In larger halls the distance from the stage to the back of the room required a grander presentation, gestures big enough to communicate across a distance. It is not possible for the atmosphere and flavor and dynamics of a gig at the Fillmore to be scaled up for 70,000 people in a stadium.

The Grateful Dead changed and grew and outgrew and re-grew greatly over the years; the Dead you heard when you became a 'Head was probably your favorite Grateful Dead. Mileage varied on these questions, and varied loudly at times. David favors the Americana-jam era of the early seventies; that's when he got on the bus. Blair jumped on with Live Dead in late '69, first saw the band at the Capitol Theatre in Port Chester, New York, in the spring of 1970, and remained a Grateful Dead optimist for the next quarter-century, through good times and bad. He saw many life-changing Dead shows in the seventies, but he actually had more fun at shows in the eighties, when his show-going circle had expanded, and the Dead regularly played such wondrous outdoor venues in California as the Greek Theater in Berkeley, Frost Amphitheater at Standford, Cal Expo in Sacramento, and the Ventura County Fairgrounds on the beach north of Los Angeles."

Hopefully part 2 later today or tomorrow. Part 2 would incorporate Dave's 39.

G

As long as you're on the bus it doesn't matter which way you are facing. And as Oscar Wilde said, "A truth ceases to be true when more than one person believes in it."

What was in the orange juice?

Right on Farseer!

Well, there are still two releases to go besides Daves #40 , what could they possibly be. Bears Choice #50 with a remastered version of 2/14/70 to go along with it, that would be cool. What about Wake of the Flood #50 with 5/26/73 or 8/1/73 to go along with it, hopefully we will get full shows with no chop jobs. I'm certainly more than happy to pay a little bit more it costs for an extra CD rather then get a chopped up show. I imagine that this box set will sell out soon, somewhat surprised it hasn't sold out yet. Dave's #40, hopefully two shows from 1968 or 1969.

Uhh...1st set is fun enough, I guess.

2nd set starts with a sweet, sweet surprise and a flash of Flounder at the parade...next track is "let's climb higher"...and then flbbbt. Nnnnnothing.

2nd set pre-drums = tasty. After that is why 87 tends to make me think "not right now, thanks".

Next: 7 2 85, a show I havent heard all the way through yet. Onward...

Yesterday was gloriously clear. Today: hot and wildfire smoke. Blech.

I forgot to say thanks to Oro, Jim, and Sixtus for the kind words last week. It means a bunch to me to be accepted within GD Family. Oro, I think you made a comment about "my pops," really appreciate it. To any others that sent me well wishes that I have forgotten, thanks to you too.!

Deadvikes, glad you liked my post! Thanks.

BTK, I concur totally about paying more for complete shows rather than chop jobs. I never actually remake shows on my hard drive from disparate disks. I just play um as I see um.

Short af first set

Set two in my car at full volume sounds great

Entertaining Bobby rap in Lost Sailor

I think Iunderstand the cover band comment. Groups do evolve and grow. But I see gray area sometimes when you replace enough people and and you lose the original vibe of the band. Like the Stones were still evolving when Brian Jones was fired. Mick Taylor was a smooth fit and the sound change from Banquet to Bleed to Sticky to Exile was very natural. I would say the change from Majesty to Banquet was more abrupt. Point is one band member dropping out does not necessarily mean the band is now a "cover band" or in other words a water ed down rendition of themselves. Without Watts now there entire original rhythm section is gone. Yeah Ronnie has been there a while but he's already a degree of separation from the original band. I say Mick and Keith would be the same as if Plant and Page called themselves Zeppelin when they hooked up in the 90s. It's just not accurate. And the Who is not the Who. You get to a point where the name is the same but you really only have half the band. So yeah if it's good enjoy it and have fun. But the Stones playing Sympathy now doesn't sound anything like Get yer ya yas out. Ya yas live was the evolving Stones. Going on tour and playing half a set of songs with hired guns is a cover band of themselves. I can't skirt around that but I will go see them if I can. I won't buy a live record of it lol but I will enjoy the show.

For Grateful Dead I think their sound changed way too much after the 74 breakup when it came to their oldies, but like others said some great new songs came along, but they made a huge change in sound. When K and D left I heard another big change in their sound. It was to me compared to the Stones moving on without Bill Wyman. There were some good songs and tours, but no getting away from the fact that there was a completely different sound and style when they play their 60s and 70s hay day songs. They sound like a cover band. Too much change in band members and approach to the music makes it so. Not judging, don't mind it at the show, just saying. Then if I think of U2, yeah, their style has changed a lot over the past 40 years, but Sunday Bloody Sunday still sounds and feels like Sunday Bloody Fucking Sunday. That's what I think I hear people saying about 80s Dead.

What you say is pretty much how I see things. With The Stones, I did get into them by seeing them first - in 1973. I didn't know 75% of what they played-but it was one of the best live gigs I have ever been to. In fact, I don't think I have ever got over it. But, probably because I saw them then, that seemed to me to be when they reached their gold standard. Buying the albums, it almost felt like Beggars was the first, and Its Only Rock N' Roll the last (and worst). I loved the shows I saw them play between 1999-2006 - but that's what they were - shows. What is great live is not always great sitting at home. I enjoyed The Dead doing Lovelight at Wembley in 1990 - but I am not sure I would want to listen to a recording of it.

Curious with Pink Floyd, how their inspiration and guiding light-the mighty Syd - left in 1968, and they went on to become one of the biggest mainstream bands in the world, playing a completely different style of music.

And there's Gong. Still a band performing under that name, despite the fact that they now have no original members.

Someone said after '74 they were just a cover band. Sorry, but that's just silly, or lazy, or you're just trolling... Did the sound evolve over time? Yes. Did they wind up completely shooting the moon and having new highlights era after era? Yes. They had tremendous creative peaks in 1975 1977 1980 1983 1987 1989, 1990, 1991... Just because they didn't sound exactly like they sounded in 1972 or 1974 after '74 doesn't make them a "cover band".

As the band evolved, they still crushed all the old favs and many got MUCH better, or at least added to their legacy. "Scarlet" didn't add "Fire" til '77. Listen to a 15 minute Sugaree from 1977, Eyes of the World with Branford in 1990, 1977 Dancin', the He's Gone > Not Fade Away from Englishtown 77, New Speedway boogie from 1991, any 80's Morning Dew.... (heck, Dew, Black Peter, Stella Blue, Wharf Rat ALL hit their peak's in the 80s and beyond, not the early 70s..) If you can't see that, I feel bad for you that you can't see the beauty that we all do.

And they released amazing new material after 1974 as well. Blues for Allah, Shakedown, Terrapin, Go To Heaven, etc...

Sorry Exile, but calling them "just a cover band" after 1974 implies to me that maybe you're projecting your strong Rolling Stones opinion onto the Grateful Dead. Maybe you have only dabbled and should do some more listening before you reach such a conclusion.... But I could be wrong.

Hearing someone say 'they were just a cover band after 1974' is kind of like hearing someone say "yeah, my dog was super-cute when it was a puppy, but now it's just another big stupid dog and I don't care for it anymore". Let it grow.

Hey Thin,

This one is for you.

Two days ago I received an email from this site with my digital downloads from the Listen to the River Box Set. Which is great, they also recommended two other releases from my favorite band, The Box Set I already purchased and Dave's 39 which is sold out.. .
Marketing geniuses!

Waters, not Syd.

How do I know?
Because in 2017 the TV commercials promoting Waters’ upcoming tour said “the creative genius of Pink Floyd”.

Well, we know how Waters feels about things.

Of course, I knew that to be a bunch of crap because Waters’ solo albums are pretty much garbage.
I go see him live for the Pink Floyd songs. In 2017 when he played his new songs I went to the bathroom.

Pink Floyd were another band I listened to excessively in the 70s, but I can't say I would want to see Roger Waters live. Or Dave Gilmour, come to that - although I did see him play at The Pretty Things final show a few years ago, and he brought the house down. I enjoyed Nick Mason's Saucerful of Secret's a few years ago - the very definition of a cover band. That was actually why I liked them.

Blues For Allah is great, but its the only studio Dead album after American Beauty that I have continued listening to over the last 20 years or so.

A cover band doesn't write their own songs. The Grateful Dead were never a cover band, even if they played some covers along the way.

I think what a few of you mean is that they became a nostalgia act. I would also disagree with that, but its closer to the truth than calling them a cover band. LOL.

Dead and Company? Now they are a cover band. And a nostalgia act.

*awaits fruit and vegetable launching*

I think the consensus is - we can all agree that we love it all, right? Isn't that enough in today's world?

Play on
Play on
Play on

Yes, sometimes when you login they urge you to buy things that are sold out. Kind of silly. One would think they'd be able to rectify that, but I guess not.

As for Dead and company being a "nostalgia act", it's hard to argue against that. But it's not a lesser, weaker, diminished nostalgia act. It's an act that maintains the tradition with great authenticity.

But you can't call Dead & Co. a cover band. A cover band is a band that plays OTHER people songs. Dead & Co. are playing their own songs. Bob Weir would never say "we're now going to play a cover of Cassidy".

Thanks again to Dave and all the powers that be for keeping the music and the spirit of the GD alive.

I suppose Apartment House must be a cover band since the 4 CD box I’ve just ordered from Another Timbre is all written by John Cage.

RIP Nanci Griffith

Rick Turner is reissuing the Peanut guitar, first five are getting out this month.
A cover band should grab one...