---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> I agree the Dead has the energy of the "live" band sound; bluegrass jams are
> often like that - they are sooo goood in person and just don't translate as
> well to albums.
Why I think many people "missed" the Grateful Dead and don't understand them
is that 1) they're musically naive, and think only in terms of "pop songs" that
are so simplistic that they can comprehend and appreciate them, and 2) they
missed the dynamic of what I call "seven people soloing at the same time."
And I think you're wrong. You forget the audience you're talking to here (not
that you ever consider it anyway). The majority of those participating here are
not under the age of 50 let alone 60 and were not raised with nor do they
appear to be of the "pop music" loving variety. Many of them outclass you in
music knowledge and sophistication and their tastes run to the far more complex
classical or symphonic works not toward stoner hillbilly-type string pluckers
and off-key singers. You like to think of yourself as some erudite music critic
but like most subjects you comment on, anything useful you might have to say is
lost in your need to belittle others and talk down to everyone. Just give us
the facts, not your ill-mannered subjectivity liberally sprinkled with
derision. It makes me want to stop reading after the first paragraph.
Lesser bands -- and I would certainly class Eric Clapton and many of the others
named in a previous post in that category -- were easier for some people to
"get" because their music was simpler, and written to a formula. Simple time
signature, simple melody, a bass line that rarely changes, and then
occasionally one person "takes a solo." Not to mention the songs themselves
being "songs," by which I mean they fit into the radio format, being short and
not requiring much of an attention span.
The Dead weren't like that. At their best -- and I am the first person to admit
that they were *not* always at their best -- it really wasn't one person
"taking a solo." It was all 7 or 8 of them soloing at the same time, each of
them riffing off of each others' thoughts and ideas as if they were in some
sort of psychic mind-meld.
Phil Lesh was the most classically trained musician in the group, and there are
those who class him as possibly the best bassist that rock has ever seen. He
wasn't limited to the dumb, repetitive (but memorable, which is what the rabble
seem to look for) bass lines that proliferate in rock 'n roll. Phil played
entire melody lines in counterpoint to Jerry and Bob's guitars. And the two
guitarists didn't have to "step back" and allow the other to "take the solo."
That was too simplistic for them. One would take off and "go somewhere," and
the other would just intuitively "get" it and start a counterpoint solo and
melody that just weaved in and out of and meshed *perfectly* with the other's.
There were times when it was as if you were literally watching and listening to
One Mind onstage, all soloing at once, each of them in their own "musical
space," but at the same time acutely aware of "each other's space," and
completely in synch with what they were playing and where they were "going"
musically. If you can get into that sorta thing, The Dead were a magical group
to see performing live.
Bringing in the issue of "Well, they only had one or two 'hits' on the charts"
is completely irrelevant. First, the "charts" appeal only to the
lowest-common-denominator masses. Second, did Miles Davis or John Coltrane ever
have a 'hit' on the "charts?" Did it ever concern either of those latter two
guys for an *instant* that they never had a 'hit' on the charts? Don't be
ridiculous. They were musicians. At their best, the Grateful Dead were, too.
