At 4:25 AM -0700 3/27/02, Kenny Schachat wrote:
>I don't know about that show but at other shows I attended from that
>era Mickey (and perhaps others) occasionally set off a small cannon
>on the stage while they were playing. My most consistent memories
>of this were during St. Stephen and be
-Original Message-
From: Jim Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, March 28, 2002 12:31 AM
Subject: Re: 7/10/70 vs. 6/24/70 early; 7/11/70 + 7/12/70
>the best copy of 7/10/70 I've encountered was labeled 7/10/70, and it was
>this tape that established the co
>Actually, Kenny said that his master was *not* dated. Therefore, only one of
>the masters was originally labeled 7/11/70. He decided, against what his
>memory told him, to call it 7/11/70 because Deadbase said that the songs on
>his master came from that date. Therefore, that's now the date on
>
the best copy of 7/10/70 I've encountered was labeled 7/10/70, and it was
this tape that established the correct date of the mislabeled "6/24/70a"
tape, which we already knew from other consierations wasn't labeled
correctly. I think that date is nailed down.
Is there a fresh digital copy around
-Original Message-
From: Jim Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: 7/10/70 vs. 6/24/70 early; 7/11/70 + 7/12/70
(snip)
>As I said, the best copy of the old mislabeled "Capitol Theater
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Of course the idea that now we can all go out
> and buy the Addendum to fix some of the mistakes in the
> previous $100+ worth of Compendiums, !
Me and my Deadbase XI had a good laugh over this one.
.Doug
Thanks for your input Kenny. I'll be real eager to hear more information
when you have it. Meanwhile, a couple reflections.
As I said, the best copy of the old mislabeled "Capitol Theater 6/24/70a"
tape that I've encountered was labeled 7/10/70 and this, coupled with other
reasons, seems to ma
At 9:10 PM + 3/26/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Until that day my hat is off to all the people crazy enough
>to keep up with this kind of stuff and make it accessible
>to anyone interested.
Well said, Noah. It's great to have these resources, however
imperfect, and really annoying to have t
t
>-Original Message-
>From: Kenny Schachat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 6:25 AM
>Subject: Re: 7/10/70 vs. 6/24/70 early; 7/11/70 + 7/12/70
>
>
>Re: part of the questions surrounding 7/11/70 & 7/12/70:
>(snip)
>
Re: part of the questions surrounding 7/11/70 & 7/12/70:
Many years ago, when I first saw the Deadbase entries for the Dead at
Midnight run, I started to doubt my instinctual memory that the show that I
taped in it's entirety was 7/12/70 (the "Sunday" show - the last one in the
series). Since
Andy L.
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Powell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: 7/10/70 vs. 6/24/70 early; 7/11/70 + 7/12/70
> * I am in no position to fathom Weinberg's confusions. I do kno
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Powell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 3:57 AM
Subject: Re: 7/10/70 vs. 6/24/70 early; 7/11/70 + 7/12/70
If you produce a work full of errors & take offense when people don't regard
it as perfect, you probably ought to be in another business. If you attack
people who refuse to accept it for perfect, or who point out that it's
testimony is untrustworthy -- tought titty.
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Powell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 1:13 AM
Subject: Re: 7/10/70 vs. 6/24/70 early; 7/11/70 + 7/12/70
> The issue is _accur
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Sorochty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 6:03 AM
Subject: Re: 7/10/70 vs. 6/24/70 early; 7/11/70 + 7/12/70
> I think it would be good if DeadLists, DeadBase, and Compendium would
>
Michael Goetz's comments distort the issues. The issue isn't "competition"
except in his head (easy to see why as editor & beneficiary of the
Compendium he sees it that way, but no sign of "competition" in my
comments). The issue is _accuracy_ and it is entirely legitimate to raise
the issue of
on 3/26/02 8:15 PM, Jim Powell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I wouldn't waste my money.
Well, then I think you should resign as 69-70 caretaker, given that your
bias towards anything Compendium-related is effecting your accuracy, and
thus the accuracy of Deadlists as a whole.
Marty Weinberg is
Thanks for your careful, thoughtful post, Scott. There are a number of
points it doesn't take into consideration, however:
* the other AUD master of 7/11/70 is certainly circulated labeled "7/11/70."
* there are copies of the tape which is currently listed in DeadLists as
"7/10/70" in circul
Jim Powell wrote:
> I wouldn't waste my money.
>
>
Some of the best money I ever spent (seriously).
Dave S.
I wouldn't waste my money.
and the 2nd audience master of 7/11/70 proves that Weinberg's tape is
mis-dated. And we know that Weinberg's tapes wound up in various
configurations with various wrong dates besides this.
At 11:21 PM 3/26/2002 -0500, Scott Allan wrote:
>-Original Message-
>From: Dwight Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: deadlists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 4:15 PM
>Subject: Re: 7/10/70 vs. 6/24/70 early; 7/11/70 + 7/12/70
>
>
>
-Original Message-
From: Dwight Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: deadlists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: 7/10/70 vs. 6/24/70 early; 7/11/70 + 7/12/70
>i have neither music nor notes here, and my un-aided memory ain't worth
>
-Original Message-
From: Jim Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 3:54 PM
Subject: 7/10/70 vs. 6/24/70 early; 7/11/70 + 7/12/70
>These were 'midnight shows,' booked Thurs July 9 - Sun July 12, but eac
> From: Jim Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:11:45 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: Re: 7/10/70 vs. 6/24/70 early; 7/11/70 + 7/12/70
>
> The editors of the compendium blew off the pursuit
Hahahaha, "blew off" ... what an ironic choice of a phrase, huh ?
Gregg.
r 2002 15:11:45 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: Re: 7/10/70 vs. 6/24/70 early; 7/11/70 + 7/12/70
>
> DeadLists is correctable on an ongoing basis & makes corrections as we go.
> The editors of the compendium blew off the pursuit of accuracy in details of
> lists & tapes from
DeadLists is correctable on an ongoing basis & makes corrections as we go.
The editors of the compendium blew off the pursuit of accuracy in details of
lists & tapes from the beginning, as I know from personal communication with
them. And the results are apparent. And it is worthwhile to warn peo
>
i have neither music nor notes here, and my un-aided memory ain't worth much. but
doesn't the "6-24-70 early" (erstwhile 3-20-70 early) tape start out with the emcee
welcoming the Dead "back" to the Capitol Theatre? that was a major reason the early
date just didn't work -- and would also
Jim wrote:
>
> The Tapers Compendium contains numerous errors about dates, lists and tapes
> circulating.
>
Kinda like DeadLists that way, huh?
And every other record keeping method we've ever tried.
Someday we'll all just be able to download an ever updating
stream of current information ri
These were 'midnight shows,' booked Thurs July 9 - Sun July 12, but each
show actually starting the date after the date on the ticket. This may have
caused confusion about the dating of Weinberg's tape. But the existance of
TWO MASTERS FOR 7/11/70 proves that the list for that date is correct
I was wondering how certain it is that the tape that has
circulated for years as "6/24/70 early" is not in fact from that date.
In the "Deadhead's Taping Addendium", on p.29, Morgan Evans makes a
very good point in support of the 6/24 date: "Also I noticed that there is
a loud, gunshot-like
31 matches
Mail list logo
