Grateful Dead

dead.net the official site

Just had a listen to this show yesterday. I like the way Wang Dang Doodle starts and slowly builds to start off the show, makes you think something really cool is about to happen. A lack luster first set except for the opener and that great Deal at the end. Second set not so hot either, the pre drums is kinda muddy, the drums is short and goes no where, the space is nice, but really doesn't build to anything either, the post drums with a "new song" delivered like a single, Throwing Stones gets so much better in the late 80's and into the 90's. All in all, I give this show a C average and certainly not the "stunner" it is advertised as. Sure hope the next pick is better than this one. I don't know if any of you were around in the 40's, I wasn't. But I think you can trace Rock and Roll all the way back to then, or even the 30's, or maybe the roaring 20's, hard to say. Of course, back then it was "Heathen" music, "Black" music and a thing that you kept your young children away from, "no son/daughter of mine is going to listen to some muggle smoking darkie music". Segregation was in full swing back then and Rock and Roll was a thing to be feared. It was, after all, youthful rebellion which happens in every generation, that put rock and roll on the map, back then, if our parents hated it, we loved it. There were a lot of us in the 60's and music meant something back then, it was our call to arms, our mantra, we actually thought that music and love could change the world. I'm not a historian nor do I know exactly when rock and roll got it "birth". Glad it did tho, sure was an uptight world full of lies and hate back then, wow, I just got a feeling like I've been here before. I think someone said that they had been following history for X years or some thing like that, gee, they should know ;) But can you believe them? Most that were around then are gone or are so old that they just can't remember, and I can relate to that, memories are very subjective and history books can be distorted, or rewritten. I have had a conversation or two with my 93 year old mother-in-law who was a music teacher all thru the late 50's, 60's and 70's. When she is able to, she remembers rock and roll as a bad thing, one that was openly discouraged and frowned upon, until that "nice gospel singing hill billy" came around. He was "so nice, and good looking too". But that was rock just finally being accepted, not the birth of.

Thanks for the film clip of Bruce Cockburn. Some beautiful guitar playing-in fact the whole band is good. I've never heard Bob Dylan play like that!

"I’ve stolen every lick he ever played", Keith Richards on Chuck Berry "The Shakespeare of rock 'n' roll", Bob Dylan on Chuck Berry "No group, be it Beatles, Dylan or Stones, have ever improved on 'Whole Lotta Shakin'' for my money.” John Lennon

Hey hey with the Monkees! What I find odd though is that I cut my teeth on R&R in the late 60s and into the 70s. Back then, we called the 50s the oldies. Elvis, Jerry Lee, Fats Domino, Bill Haley, Buddy Holley, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Eddie Cochrane, all those guys seemed ancient to us. Thinking about 30s and 40s music back then? Fuggettaboutit. What was that even? Musicians wearing suits with skinny ties, and huge brass bands with our grandparents swirling around the dance floors all dressed up? What gets me is that now the 60s and 70s are more than twice as long ago for today's kids as the 50s were for me, and that seemed pretty far back at the time. So the circle squares, and now I listen to more jazz from the 30s-60s than I do rock and roll from any era, the GOGD being one of the few exceptions. Get off of my lawn!

for intellectual discussions between non-intellectuals.

you all need more Unicorn Jesus in your lives and less of this Devil rock music.

Such nonsense. My cat can cut and paste. Stop it. Dave. You disappoint. No knowledge of Bruce? I posted about him during the worthless doors/who tripe.

Such nonsense. My cat can cut and paste. Stop it. Dave. You disappoint. No knowledge of Bruce? I posted about him during the worthless doors/who tripe.

Sorry, I thought we were having a intellectual discussion about opposing theories, not trying to insult one another. So since I now feel insulted. I also feel I have to defend my self..... Please find Butch’s comments in quotes.... “Nobody even said the Beatles invented Rock n roll or coined the term, only that they brought it to life in front of the world. “ So the millions of folks for all the years before the Beatles did not enjoy RR, because it hadn’t yet been brought to life? Even though they did have some success; album sales, performances and quite a bit of airplay, RELETIVELY speaking? Because your statements could be interpreted that RR was such an underground, insignificant thing that not until the Beatles did it become well known? or “given birth” To me that’s an insult to all the men and women who actually made RR, long before the Beatles came along.... “The bottom line is that our generation DID witness the birth of rock and roll, and yes you can use the concept of birth, it's an appropriate form of symbolic language called personification. It's laughable that THAT part of the dicussion even came into question.” As I’ve politely stated, I agree with most of KF’s fine, articulate essay, just not this part. I’m imho, based on reading dozens of RR biographies, the only thing wrong with this is you could say all the same things about Chuck, only on a smaller scale...due to technological and cultural circumstances he had no control over. i understand your point just fine. You don’t need to insult me. Sorry to all you folks if this seems like I’m being snarky etc. Not trying to be, actually having a bit of fun participating in a verbal chess match, mental gymnastics, intellectual discourse etc. Used to stay up and party hard and do this sort of thing about authors, music, movies etc when I went back to collage in my thirties..... “The biggest reasons the Beatles gave birth to it, is 1)they were original,” And Chuck wasn’t? “2)they brought their brand to way more more people, WAY more people,(70 million people, come on now)” Never debated that, if you actually read my post, I ponder whether album sales and/or popularity alone is really a true distinction of what makes one relevant or not. I don’t believe album sales alone is. And comparing album sales from completely different technological and cultural times is like comparing apples to oranges....I’m sorry i obviously did not articulate my point well.. I don’t think that’s a fair, objective measure. “3)they influenced most of the bands that followed after (as well as the popular culture at large).” I have openly agreed with this statement throughout....? “Nobody else went on Ed Sullivan 1st and ushered in a movement in rock pop music. None of their predecessors did that.” Unfortunately I don’t know that much about the show, but I don’t believe in the fifties, a black man, with subversive lyrics was going to get a fair shot at a show of that prominence? I do think I recall reading that they did not want RR, but they felt they needed to make the show more current, to generate ratings, and because RR was already so prevalent in society, they needed to get with the times.....but please don’t quote me on that.....my memory is deteriorating rapidly... I also believe part of the reason Chuck received the airplay he did get, was many didn’t know he was black by his “sound” Another way for the suits to take “race music” and make it popuar with whites, so they could cash in. “They took what was out there, made it their own and in doing so TRANSFORMED rock and popular music. The bands that came after helped continue the movement,” Again, I’ve only supported this sentiment. But I also believe you could say the same, in a different way, about Berry et el... “but there's no question the Beatles brand came first.” This is where we disagree. Again, it’s an insult to all those who were oppressed and struggled through the early years of RR, so that eventually it was legitimized enough so the Beatles could explode and change the world! Kinda like the big brother or sister who breaks in the parents, so the younger siblings have an easier time.... “Millions of people latched on to to the Beatles, not Haley or Berry. “ So again, numbers are your criteria? Apples to Oranges.... “It was their mold that came first and endured” Not unless they had a time machine....sorry, that was snarky. I apologize! “Chuck Berry still hugely important and I love him to death, but he didn't do what the Beatles did” Never said he did. I repeatedly acknowledge that the Beatles were perhaps the greatest band of all time, influentially at least, if not more.... “that wasn't his role. His role may have been even better in the history of rock and roll as he influenced so many. That's not what this discussion was ever about. This discussion was about whether or not our generation was here to witness the birth of rock and roll.” Again, I understand perfectly what this is about. I’m sorry that because we disagree you feel I don’t understand your point, so much so that you have to insult my intelligence.... “The one excellent point I agree with is that Bob Dylan brought a brand that was equally important, but I don't think you could credit him with heralding in the rock movement.” No, not in and of itself, but one could argue that his innovations also had a unmeasurable influence on RR. Perhaps one of the few that came close to the Beatles level of influence? “Oborious, yes Chuck Berry was important and influenced many, but same thing, he wasn't the Beatles” Never said he was, only that he is constantly not given the credit myself, and more importantly, most of the RR elite all state in their books that he deserves, of which being credited as the true Father of RR is one. I believe Rolling Stone said something similar in their tribute to him? I’m sorry, but most of my personal belongings, including my RR library are currently in storage or I would stay up and provide references. . “You seem to be personally offended by all of this,” Not at all. I truly apologize to you, as well as everyone if that’s how this is coming across. I just think your making a generalized statement that ignores a huge block of actual history, which insults those who made it. By doing so, I don't think your theory is logical. “as you are making statements like what if Chuck has been white or what if Elvis wasn't in the right place at the right time. The discussion is about what is not what might have been or could have been. If the queen had balls she'd be king.” How can you not consider what America was like racially in the fifties, and how that would effect the success or failure of a black person? And to compare what a Fearless Black man did, during that repulsive time in our history; actually “give birth to”, basically a whole new cultural scene, and making it popular (sounds familiar?), with a group that did all the great things they did, in part, because of the foundation people like Mr Berry laid for them to build upon, only by comparing popularity or numbers? That’s like saying Miles Davis gave birth to Jazz with Kind of Blue, while all his predecessors, from decades before, did not? “I think where people are getting stuck in this dialogue is that they're feeling like the birth of rock and roll on the world scale should go to (pick your name) instead of the Beatles. There is no single person or band who invented rock and roll, but the Beatles did give birth to it in the larger world, and that was the only point that was being made along with the fact that we were here to witness it.” Sorry, agree with everything except the term birth. I have never disputed the rest. birth bərTH/Submit noun 1. the emergence of a baby or other young from the body of its mother; the start of life as a physically separate being. 1. give birth to (a baby or other young). "she had carried him and birthed him" “A physically SEPARATE being....” Your argument presupposes that the Beatles would be the parent, that gives birth to a new being... Mine presupposes that Chuck was the father that gave birth to the new being. The Beatles were that being when it fully matured, and became an adult force of nature....that went on to conquer the world, in part because of the DNA of the father.....now I may not be right, but I don’t think that’s so hard to follow is it? “V guy you're absolutely right the sensitivity scale is just beyond words. But one thing that is clear if you read through this discussion thread is that words our being misinterpreted even after clarifications are made. It's like there's no effort being made.” Touché my friend, no need to insult. Just because we don’t agree doesn’t mean I don’t understand, and that you need to insult me. You say “potAto”, I say “potaahto” And finally (I promise no more outta me anyway, hopefully I’ve made my point. Not looking to be “right” just properly understood. I don’t think you can fairly critique ones argument if you don’t properly understand it) So finally, I'd just like to state I’m sorry if I’ve bummed folks out. That was never my intent. Especially no bad vibes toward Keithfan. I thoroughly enjoy his articulate posts, and usually agree with like 98% of what he says. Think maybe I’ll just go away for a bit......”you know this space is getting hot” Peace!

We can now shut down this site Mr Ones you have sumed up everyone here no matter what our other disagreements " Music is the Best"