1979
Richard Morris
Several years ago it was my intention to gather up all of the pre-1980
soundboards, and I have worked on it steadily since just before the Archive
was limited to auds. I have only to download 1979 to complete my original
goal, and I am in the process of doing the torrents now thanks to Jerome's
Place.
I haven't paid a lot of attention to 1979 until now ... and it occurs to me
that one reason for that is because I can't think of a show from that year
that appears on anyone's list of gotta-have shows. I have also noticed that
there are relatively few soundboards from that year. The overwhelming
majority of shows circulate in auds only.
So. I need to do some listening.
In the meantime, it would be interesting to see some discussion of the year
from folks who pay more attention to this sort of thing than I do ... Fred,
Neil, Pat, Andrew, Darren, and so forth.
Wutz the consensus on 1979?
--
Drop "trousers" to respond via email.
Neil X.
> On 2007-07-25 13:19:28 +0900, "Richard Morris"
> <jrmor...@trouserscomcast.net> said:
>
> > The series of 1979 torrents on Jerome's Place caught my attention.
>
>
> sense of lightweight, occasionally tentative material and performance
> among some picky DHs, especially when contrasting shows from the
> previous two years. I like the 10/27/79 Cape Cod Coliseum show.
> Others may come to mind later.
>
> 10-27-79 Cape Cod Coliseum, South Yarmouth, Ma. (Sat)
> 1: Jack Straw, Candyman, Me & My Uncle> Big River, B. E. Women, Easy To
> Love You, Minglewood, Stagger Lee, Sailor> Saint> Deal
> 2: Dancin> Franklin's, He's Gone> Caution Jam> Other One> Drumz> NFA>
> Black Peter> Around E: Saturday Night
> last "Caution Jam": 10-22-78
My first show! And a very, very good one. The new remastered SBD
doesn't exactly suck, either. Sick sound quality, especially for the
era. One of the best Dancin's ever, and the jam after He's Gone is
truly special. There are many awesome shows from '79. Brent may have
been new to the group, but he did some of his best work in his first
year in the band.
You will also enjoy:
1/15/79 Springfield, MA This is one of the few AUD recordings in my
collection that gets regular play. It is a sublime show
2/17/79 Oakland Keith & Donna's last show. It would get more play,
but there is something wrong with the existing recording--it's like
someone is VERRRRRYY slowly turning down the record levels, constantly
throughout the entire show. Strange. But it's a fitting end to the
Godchaux era.
11/5/79 Philly Spectrum If TD/Keeper of the Flame still posted here,
he'd already have mentioned this show. It's rather a personal
obsession of his to make sure that every Deadhead has a copy of it. I
don't like it as much as he does, but the 23 minute Eyes into
Estimated > Franklin's is pretty damn hot.
11/8/79 Set 2 Philly Spectrum A great set of music, fabulous 22
minute Playin'. I don't know if the first set SBD circulates now, it
didn't when I got the second set.
11/8/79 Set 2 Landover, MD This set fits on one 80 minute disk, and
it and 10/27/89 duke it out for best set of the year. I'd be hard
pressed to point at one single disk of post-hiatus Grateful Dead that
I like more than this disk. This set has the only Morning Dew played
in the year, it has primal energy. Right before they go into Dew, you
can hear Jerry yelling, "Dew! Dew! Let's play Morning Dew!"
11/9/79 Buffalo Another stelly '797 He's Gone, with a Gloria Jam in
the middle of it. The first half of the second set is Dancin' >
Franklins > Estimatede > He's Gone. Kind of peters out a little at
the end of the set.
12/3/79 Chicago Both sets very solid. A joy throughout. One of my
favority Lazy Lightnin/Supplications (a shortish version)
12/10/79 Kansas City, KS Grateful Mark's favorite show. Another
strong 2-set effort.
12/26/79 (DP 5) Oakland Churning TOO, nice Shakedown, true rarity
of an encore, Shakedown > UJB reprise. One of my favorite DPs, I
guess this might even be better than 10/27 and 11/8. I gotta play
this one tomorrow.
12/28/79 Oakland A cut below the others, but a very nice Playin'.
12/31/79 Very nice NYE show, not the greatest recording. One of my
very favorite UJBs ever played during set 3. Primal UJB, baby.
Peace,
Neil X.
bigch...@aol.com
is 11/5/79 at the Spectrun, in Philly. A beautiful Stagger Lee and
Peggy-O in the first set and a killer Althea to start the 2nd. Don't
recall all 3 of these in another show.
Lfh
wrote:
> In the meantime, it would be interesting to see some discussion of the year
> from folks who pay more attention to this sort of thing than I do ... Fred,
> Neil, Pat, Andrew, Darren, and so forth.
Seth Jackson to the white courtesy phone, stat.
Unfortunately for your project, the two best shows, imo, are aud only,
1/8 and 1/10. Not a banner year, imo, though 12/1 and 11/6 are sbds
worth checking into. The latter is the shortest setlist I've ever seen
at just four songs, but damn it's on.
Fred
Lfh
> Brent may have been new to the group, but he did some of his best work in his > first year in the band.
Neil, you will be shocked, SHOCKED to learn that I disagree with ya
big time on this point.
> 11/8/79 Set 2 Philly Spectrum A great set of music, fabulous 22
> minute Playin'.
But except for the typo on the date, you's right about this one.
Fred
Bzl.
"Richard Morris" <jrmo...@trouserscomcast.net> wrote in message
news:U5ydnfMY2urSUjvb...@comcast.com...
Not that you asked for *my* opinion (perhaps I qualify as "so forth"), but
it's a great year.
1/10/79 and 2/17/79 are huge shows, as the Godchauxs are winding down.
Spring starts off just a bit cautiously as Brent gets warmed up, setlist
wise, but there are some smokin' shows, like Baltimore and Binghampton.
It's a great time to find killer Wharf Rats and Black Peters, if one is so
inclined. Look for Glassberg auds... very fine recordings.
Fall has numerous, fantastic shows. Providence is sick (pre-drums), Cap
Centre, Buffalo, Spectrum, SDiego, Pittsburgh (Gloria jam), Cape Cod,
Chicago, KC... very hard to go wrong with anything from Oct to December.
Exceptional period, imo.
Bzl.
"Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1185339673.3...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 25, 12:25 am, band beyond description <1...@456.com> wrote:
>> On 2007-07-25 13:19:28 +0900, "Richard Morris"
>> <jrmor...@trouserscomcast.net> said:
>
> 11/8/79 Set 2 Landover, MD This set fits on one 80 minute disk, and
> it and 10/27/89 duke it out for best set of the year. I'd be hard
> pressed to point at one single disk of post-hiatus Grateful Dead that
> I like more than this disk. This set has the only Morning Dew played
> in the year, it has primal energy. Right before they go into Dew, you
> can hear Jerry yelling, "Dew! Dew! Let's play Morning Dew!"
>
This show changed my life. I was dancing up a storm in the
practically-empty seats off the right side of the stage, with a bank of
speakers in my face. I could see The Boys hootin' and hollerin' at each
other as they were coming off the stage following that Dew. I never got to
witness them showing such outward satisfaction again. Whew.
mr rapidan
I assembled this list about a year ago after going through many, many
"best of," "essential," favorite" 1979 threads. I counted every
distinct, positive mention of a particular show, these are the 12
shows that were on top. No list is perfect, and of course people on
rmgd who you like / respect will disagree with certain inclusions /
exclusions, but these are the shows that made my list to collect.
01/10/79 *
10/27/79 *
10/28/79 *
11/01/79
11/02/79 *
11/25/79 *
11/29/79 *
11/30/79 *
12/03/79 *
12/09/79 *
12/11/79 *
12/28/79 *
pbuzb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> In the meantime, it would be interesting to see some discussion of the year
> from folks who pay more attention to this sort of thing than I do ... Fred,
> Neil, Pat, Andrew, Darren, and so forth.
You mean me? I don't listen to 79 much, so I can only mention that I
agree that 1/15 and 11/6 are excellent Playin's. (And yes, the 11/6
first set does circulate as a SBD - I got it on cassette in the late
90's.) I haven't listened to 10/27 in a while but the Dancin' is one
of the best disco versions, possibly *the* best.
Yes, not many SBDs from this year - I read once that the 2-track reel
recordings more or less stopped in late '78, although there were
cassettes of some shows before Healy started taping digital in '82.
Pat Buzby
Chicago, IL
pbuzb...@yahoo.com
not, but I seem to remember some people raving about Jerry's short-
lived Reconstruction band from this year.
Pat Buzby
Chicago, IL
brew ziggins
Let's not forget the original Very Good Show (tm) - 2/3/79
And 12/28/79 hasn't been getting enough love here, either, IMO.
I agree about the November Philly shows. 11/9 in Buffalo didn't suck,
either. Don't remember if anyone has mentioned that one yet.
gwatts
Denver. It started late because they had to move down from Red Rocks
due to the weather and it ended after midnight. The opener was
Shakedown and I remember the first chord because it had that 'feel' of a
great show just getting started: tingles down the spine, Jerry smiling,
Phil rumbling the whole building, then the second chord... I had
probably my first out-of-body experience that night.
Of course I was young, stoned and glad to be out of the rain...
Bzl.
"gwatts" <gwa...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:jTJpi.12845$B25...@news01.roc.ny...
I love this show. Fantastic He's Gone>Other One. Unfortunately the
circulating copy sucks... someone dolby'd all the high frequencies away (but
you won't see that in the lineage). I've got a mult-gen hissy cassette
that's much better. This needs to be remastered!
Richard Morris
"Bzl." <bzl...@nelsoncable.com> wrote in message
news:2-qdneJPLo5h3Drb...@trueband.net...
>
> "Richard Morris" <jrmo...@trouserscomcast.net> wrote in message
> news:U5ydnfMY2urSUjvb...@comcast.com...
snip
>> Wutz the consensus on 1979?
>>
>
> Not that you asked for *my* opinion (perhaps I qualify as "so forth"), but
> it's a great year.
I value your opinion and appreciate your response, as well as everyone
else's!
Bzl.
Thanks! Just kidding...
Andrew
>> On 2007-07-25 13:19:28 +0900, "Richard Morris"
>> <jrmor...@trouserscomcast.net> said:
>>
>> > The series of 1979 torrents on Jerome's Place caught my attention.
>>
>> > Wutz the consensus on 1979?
>>
>> transition year, working Brent into the repetoire. there may be a
>> sense of lightweight, occasionally tentative material and performance
>> among some picky DHs, especially when contrasting shows from the
>> previous two years. I like the 10/27/79 Cape Cod Coliseum show.
>> Others may come to mind later.
>>
>> 10-27-79 Cape Cod Coliseum, South Yarmouth, Ma. (Sat)
>> 1: Jack Straw, Candyman, Me & My Uncle> Big River, B. E. Women, Easy To
>> Love You, Minglewood, Stagger Lee, Sailor> Saint> Deal
>> 2: Dancin> Franklin's, He's Gone> Caution Jam> Other One> Drumz> NFA>
>> Black Peter> Around E: Saturday Night
>> last "Caution Jam": 10-22-78
A sort of angry He's Gone here is my personal highlight of this show,
although that entire 2nd set is pretty damn good, including a mind-melting
Other One with Phil just going nuts all over the place
> My first show! And a very, very good one. The new remastered SBD
> doesn't exactly suck, either. Sick sound quality, especially for the
> era. One of the best Dancin's ever, and the jam after He's Gone is
> truly special. There are many awesome shows from '79. Brent may have
> been new to the group, but he did some of his best work in his first
> year in the band.
>
> You will also enjoy:
>
> 1/15/79 Springfield, MA This is one of the few AUD recordings in my
> collection that gets regular play. It is a sublime show
Another great '79 Jack Straw.
>
> 2/17/79 Oakland Keith & Donna's last show. It would get more play,
> but there is something wrong with the existing recording--it's like
> someone is VERRRRRYY slowly turning down the record levels, constantly
> throughout the entire show. Strange. But it's a fitting end to the
> Godchaux era.
>
> 11/5/79 Philly Spectrum If TD/Keeper of the Flame still posted here,
> he'd already have mentioned this show. It's rather a personal
> obsession of his to make sure that every Deadhead has a copy of it. I
> don't like it as much as he does, but the 23 minute Eyes into
> Estimated > Franklin's is pretty damn hot.
I like 11/5/79 quite a bit... That Eyes>Estimated>Frank is worth the price
of admission alone.
> 11/8/79 Set 2 Philly Spectrum A great set of music, fabulous 22
> minute Playin'. I don't know if the first set SBD circulates now, it
> didn't when I got the second set.
>
> 11/8/79 Set 2 Landover, MD This set fits on one 80 minute disk, and
> it and 10/27/89 duke it out for best set of the year. I'd be hard
> pressed to point at one single disk of post-hiatus Grateful Dead that
> I like more than this disk. This set has the only Morning Dew played
> in the year, it has primal energy. Right before they go into Dew, you
> can hear Jerry yelling, "Dew! Dew! Let's play Morning Dew!"
>
> 11/9/79 Buffalo Another stelly '797 He's Gone, with a Gloria Jam in
> the middle of it. The first half of the second set is Dancin' >
> Franklins > Estimatede > He's Gone. Kind of peters out a little at
> the end of the set.
>
> 12/3/79 Chicago Both sets very solid. A joy throughout. One of my
> favority Lazy Lightnin/Supplications (a shortish version)
>
> 12/10/79 Kansas City, KS Grateful Mark's favorite show. Another
> strong 2-set effort.
>
> 12/26/79 (DP 5) Oakland Churning TOO, nice Shakedown, true rarity
> of an encore, Shakedown > UJB reprise. One of my favorite DPs, I
> guess this might even be better than 10/27 and 11/8. I gotta play
> this one tomorrow.
>
> 12/28/79 Oakland A cut below the others, but a very nice Playin'.
And a very good Terrapin too. And a very good Uncle John's... I really dig
this show...
> 12/31/79 Very nice NYE show, not the greatest recording. One of my
> very favorite UJBs ever played during set 3. Primal UJB, baby.
Good list. I like '79 quite a bit. There are some stinkers in there, but
when things are going good, they are going very good... I'll add 1/11/79
(great Jack Straw, great Deal, great jammed out Miracle, back when there
still was such a thing, even a great Ship of Fools... And 11/1/79 (Scarlet
for the ages, huge mammoth Scarlet for the ages)...
LP
wrote:.
>
> Wutz the consensus on 1979?
We drink whiskey
We drink wine
We're the Class of '79!!!
::passes out::
LP
Richard Morris
"LP" <so.y...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185394059....@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
uh huh ... we were the class of '69 ... you can imagine what our class yell
was like.
Richard Morris
<pbuzb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1185369546....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Yep, definitely meant you, Pat ... and the above paragraph is one damned
good reason why: you know lots of stuff. How's that for an endorsement?!
mr rapidan
> was like.
Through the sphincter,
feel the spine,
we're the class of 69!
Richard Morris
>> On 2007-07-25 13:19:28 +0900, "Richard Morris"
>> <jrmor...@trouserscomcast.net> said:
>>
>> > The series of 1979 torrents on Jerome's Place caught my attention.
>>
>> > Wutz the consensus on 1979?
>>
>> transition year, working Brent into the repetoire. there may be a
>> sense of lightweight, occasionally tentative material and performance
>> among some picky DHs, especially when contrasting shows from the
>> previous two years. I like the 10/27/79 Cape Cod Coliseum show.
>> Others may come to mind later.
Well, thank you very much for the time spent on your reply ... *good* stuff.
An excellent summary.
What we have been doing is vining these full-year collections for oh, the
past 24 months or so ... I think that I will see if I can cut and paste
everyone's responses into a text document to include with the vine of this
one as I think that the year, like 1976 maybe, doesn't get much attention
and is comparatively not well known.
R.
Neil X.
>
> Well, thank you very much for the time spent on your reply ... *good* stuff.
> An excellent summary.
>
> What we have been doing is vining these full-year collections for oh, the
> past 24 months or so ... I think that I will see if I can cut and paste
> everyone's responses into a text document to include with the vine of this
> one as I think that the year, like 1976 maybe, doesn't get much attention
> and is comparatively not well known.
>
> R.
Well, if you do paste any of my post, do fix the typo and change the
date of the Spectrum show to 11/6.
Peace,
Neil x.
LP
Wow.
I could NOT have come up with that. Good one though...
LP
Steve Terry
"Richard Morris" <jrmo...@trouserscomcast.net> wrote in message:
> Wutz the consensus on 1979?
Well, maybe I'm biased since the show was in Indiana, but 2/3/79 is a
smoker. I've got the Clugston aud, which is 2nd set only, but wow what a
second set it is. Check it:
Grateful Dead
2/3/79
Market Square Arena
Indianapolis, IN
Source: Master FOB Audience Cassette;
Nakamichi CM700 mics > Nakamichi 550 cassette deck> DAT > CDR
CD Mastering by Scott Clugston
EAC'ed / SHN'ed by Scott Clugston
10/01/01
Disc 1
2nd Set
1. Scarlet Begonias>
2. Fire on the Mountain
3. Estimated Prophet>
4. Eyes of the World>
5. Drums//
Disc 2
1. //Drums>
2. The Other One>
3. Wharf Rat>
4. I Need A Miracle>
5. Casey Jones
Encore
6. One More Saturday Night
Steve Terry
"Steve Terry" <ruthanne@TAKE_OFFccrtc.com> wrote in message
news:f88m1n$1a6b$1...@news.iquest.net...
I might add that this is one great sounding aud, right up there with 1/15/79
IMO.
Bzl.
"Steve Terry" <ruthanne@TAKE_OFFccrtc.com> wrote in message
Smokin' show, for sure. One of the great Scar>Fires.
pbuzb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> Yep, definitely meant you, Pat ... and the above paragraph is one damned
> good reason why: you know lots of stuff. How's that for an endorsement?!
Why, thank you. Others in this thread seem to be ahead of me in
regards to having heard the actual music. It's funny how much more
advocacy of the Brent years there is around here these days compared
to when I started reading the group in the 90's.
Pat Buzby
Chicago, IL
Pepe Papon
<jrmo...@trouserscomcast.net> wrote:
>The series of 1979 torrents on Jerome's Place caught my attention.
>
>Several years ago it was my intention to gather up all of the pre-1980
>soundboards, and I have worked on it steadily since just before the Archive
>was limited to auds. I have only to download 1979 to complete my original
>goal, and I am in the process of doing the torrents now thanks to Jerome's
>Place.
>
>I haven't paid a lot of attention to 1979 until now ... and it occurs to me
>that one reason for that is because I can't think of a show from that year
>that appears on anyone's list of gotta-have shows.
Are you kidding? Repeat after me: 1/10/79...1/10/79...1/10/79...
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>On Jul 25, 12:25 am, band beyond description <1...@456.com> wrote:
>> On 2007-07-25 13:19:28 +0900, "Richard Morris"
>> <jrmor...@trouserscomcast.net> said:
>>
>> > The series of 1979 torrents on Jerome's Place caught my attention.
>>
>> > Wutz the consensus on 1979?
>>
>> transition year, working Brent into the repetoire. there may be a
>> sense of lightweight, occasionally tentative material and performance
>> among some picky DHs, especially when contrasting shows from the
>> previous two years. I like the 10/27/79 Cape Cod Coliseum show.
>> Others may come to mind later.
>>
>> 10-27-79 Cape Cod Coliseum, South Yarmouth, Ma. (Sat)
>> 1: Jack Straw, Candyman, Me & My Uncle> Big River, B. E. Women, Easy To
>> Love You, Minglewood, Stagger Lee, Sailor> Saint> Deal
>> 2: Dancin> Franklin's, He's Gone> Caution Jam> Other One> Drumz> NFA>
>> Black Peter> Around E: Saturday Night
>> last "Caution Jam": 10-22-78
>
>
>My first show! And a very, very good one. The new remastered SBD
>doesn't exactly suck, either. Sick sound quality, especially for the
>era. One of the best Dancin's ever, and the jam after He's Gone is
>truly special. There are many awesome shows from '79. Brent may have
>been new to the group, but he did some of his best work in his first
>year in the band.
12/28 doesn't suck at all, either, although it doesn't get a lot of
attention because it only circulates in Aud.
>You will also enjoy:
>
>1/15/79 Springfield, MA This is one of the few AUD recordings in my
>collection that gets regular play. It is a sublime show
A must-have.
>11/5/79 Philly Spectrum If TD/Keeper of the Flame still posted here,
>he'd already have mentioned this show. It's rather a personal
>obsession of his to make sure that every Deadhead has a copy of it. I
>don't like it as much as he does, but the 23 minute Eyes into
>Estimated > Franklin's is pretty damn hot.
Yeah. Also, the Althea keeps showing up in a lot of the "Best
Althea" threads, although I don't personally remember what it sounds
like.
I would add 9/2/79 Augusta, ME to the list. One of the best
post-hiatus Let It Grows in the 2nd set, and a very dreamy, Just
Exactly Perfect Stella Blue.
Neil X.
>
> 12/28 doesn't suck at all, either, although it doesn't get a lot of
> attention because it only circulates in Aud.
Well, some of it does. I think my copy is SBD for the first set, and
about the first third-to-half of the second set, before it cuts off
and is patched with an AUD recording.
Peace,
Neil X.
Richard Morris
"Pepe Papon" <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote in message
news:gplga35dudsotmcok...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:19:28 -0700, "Richard Morris"
> <jrmo...@trouserscomcast.net> wrote:
>
>>The series of 1979 torrents on Jerome's Place caught my attention.
>>
>>Several years ago it was my intention to gather up all of the pre-1980
>>soundboards, and I have worked on it steadily since just before the
>>Archive
>>was limited to auds. I have only to download 1979 to complete my original
>>goal, and I am in the process of doing the torrents now thanks to Jerome's
>>Place.
>>
>>I haven't paid a lot of attention to 1979 until now ... and it occurs to
>>me
>>that one reason for that is because I can't think of a show from that year
>>that appears on anyone's list of gotta-have shows.
>
> Are you kidding?
Umm, no ... I think I have explained that I haven't spent much time in 1979.
And, my brain does not tend to organize shows by quality by date very well.
I have my favorites, sure ... but! That is why I asked the question,
knowing that there are those folks here who have that sort of information
well at hand, people's whose opinions I respect very much.
>Repeat after me: 1/10/79...1/10/79...1/10/79...
Heh ... okay!
pbuzb...@yahoo.com
Just in case others might be misled, I think Seth meant 10/28, not
12/28.
Pat Buzby
Chicago, IL
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>> Seth wrote:
Oops...I meant 10/28.
Pepe Papon
<jrmo...@trouserscomcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Pepe Papon" <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote in message
>news:gplga35dudsotmcok...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:19:28 -0700, "Richard Morris"
>> <jrmo...@trouserscomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>The series of 1979 torrents on Jerome's Place caught my attention.
>>>
>>>Several years ago it was my intention to gather up all of the pre-1980
>>>soundboards, and I have worked on it steadily since just before the
>>>Archive
>>>was limited to auds. I have only to download 1979 to complete my original
>>>goal, and I am in the process of doing the torrents now thanks to Jerome's
>>>Place.
>>>
>>>I haven't paid a lot of attention to 1979 until now ... and it occurs to
>>>me
>>>that one reason for that is because I can't think of a show from that year
>>>that appears on anyone's list of gotta-have shows.
>>
>> Are you kidding?
>
>Umm, no ... I think I have explained that I haven't spent much time in 1979.
>And, my brain does not tend to organize shows by quality by date very well.
>I have my favorites, sure ... but! That is why I asked the question,
>knowing that there are those folks here who have that sort of information
>well at hand, people's whose opinions I respect very much.
>
>>Repeat after me: 1/10/79...1/10/79...1/10/79...
>
>Heh ... okay!
>
>
See also: 1/15/79.
Pepe Papon
<jrmo...@trouserscomcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Pepe Papon" <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote in message
>news:gplga35dudsotmcok...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:19:28 -0700, "Richard Morris"
>> <jrmo...@trouserscomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>The series of 1979 torrents on Jerome's Place caught my attention.
>>>
>>>Several years ago it was my intention to gather up all of the pre-1980
>>>soundboards, and I have worked on it steadily since just before the
>>>Archive
>>>was limited to auds. I have only to download 1979 to complete my original
>>>goal, and I am in the process of doing the torrents now thanks to Jerome's
>>>Place.
>>>
>>>I haven't paid a lot of attention to 1979 until now ... and it occurs to
>>>me
>>>that one reason for that is because I can't think of a show from that year
>>>that appears on anyone's list of gotta-have shows.
>>
>> Are you kidding?
>
>Umm, no ... I think I have explained that I haven't spent much time in 1979.
>And, my brain does not tend to organize shows by quality by date very well.
>I have my favorites, sure ... but! That is why I asked the question,
>knowing that there are those folks here who have that sort of information
>well at hand, people's whose opinions I respect very much.
>
>>Repeat after me: 1/10/79...1/10/79...1/10/79...
>
>Heh ... okay!
>
>
I almost forgot to mention 1/17/79. This show is a bit sloppy, but
there's some great jamming in it, particularly the post-drums.
The whole January/February tour is great. 1/8/79 is another smoker.
Neil X.
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:08:43 -0700, "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Seth wrote:
>
> >> 12/28 doesn't suck at all, either, although it doesn't get a lot of
> >> attention because it only circulates in Aud.
>
> >Well, some of it does. I think my copy is SBD for the first set, and
> >about the first third-to-half of the second set, before it cuts off
> >and is patched with an AUD recording.
>
> >Peace,
> >Neil X.
>
> Oops...I meant 10/28.
Yeah, somehow I knew that, must have been the context. That's what I
was talking about, too. A partial SBD of 10/28 exists.
Peace,
Neil X.
Steve Terry
"Bzl." <bzl...@nelsoncable.com> wrote in message:
> Smokin' show, for sure. One of the great Scar>Fires.
How 'bout another show from Indiana? 12/7/79. This one's a soundboard with
Phil high in the mix (that's a good thing). Bzl., you even gave this one
five stars on the archive.
Steve Terry
"Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com> wrote in message:
> 12/10/79 Kansas City, KS Grateful Mark's favorite show.
Ewww, way to ruin a perfectly good show.
grunk
> talking about 1979)!
> --
> Peace,
> Steve
Man, outside of the Cape Cod "Dancing" gig, and the "Close Encounters"
jam show in Oregon (that was '79, right?) I don't know any of these
dates. Guess I've got some serious '79 catching up to do. As always,
thanks for all the great tips!!
Suppose it is about time for a fall '83 break. Had to happen sooner or
later.
Neil X.
>
> Man, outside of the Cape Cod "Dancing" gig, and the "Close Encounters"
> jam show in Oregon (that was '79, right?) I don't know any of these
> dates.
Uh, no, that's 1/22/78.
> Guess I've got some serious '79 catching up to do. As always,
> thanks for all the great tips!!
> Suppose it is about time for a fall '83 break. Had to happen sooner or
> later.
Yep, it's time to graduate from the minor leagues, and experience some
serious Brentness!
Peace,
Neil X.
Edwin Hurwitz
Pepe Papon <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:33:09 -0700, "Richard Morris"
> >
> >>Repeat after me: 1/10/79...1/10/79...1/10/79...
> >
> >Heh ... okay!
> >
> >
>
> See also: 1/15/79.
I did! It was so much fun!
Edwin
--
".....most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but
only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."
-- Michael Rivero
grunk
Yeah, I'm pretty much a Brent believer, just need to catch up on '79.
Plenty of great leads here, thanks all.
geoff
Lfh
> > Suppose it is about time for a fall '83 break. Had to happen sooner or
> > later.
>
> Yep, it's time to graduate from the minor leagues, and experience some
> serious Brentness!
Ah, Neil, you master baiter, you.
I think he was far and away the best keyboardist they ever had, but I
can't agree with your take in the least. In listening to some of these
shows from 79, I'm struck by the fact that, while he is clearly a
major upgrade over Keith, he isn't nearly what he would become a few
years later, both in tone and playing.
What do you hear in those early Brent shows that you find so
compelling that you think that it's some of his best stuff?
Fred
Lfh
> Suppose it is about time for a fall '83 break. Had to happen sooner or
> later.
You do that, grunk. Take a dip into fall 79 and get back to us and
compare the two tours. Should be interesting to hear what you think.
Fred
Bzl.
"Steve Terry" <ruthanne@TAKE_OFFccrtc.com> wrote in message
And I even gave the audio an A+ on my internal list, and a "best MNS ever"
notation. I'm getting senile; don't remember the show, offhand! But it's
great.
Brad Greer
wrote:
Agreed. Keith and Donna's last tour was a strong one.
Neil X.
> On Jul 26, 8:35 pm, "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Suppose it is about time for a fall '83 break. Had to happen sooner or
> > > later.
>
> > Yep, it's time to graduate from the minor leagues, and experience some
> > serious Brentness!
>
> Ah, Neil, you master baiter, you.
Fall of 1983 was a great period, as you know.
> I think he was far and away the best keyboardist they ever had, but I
> can't agree with your take in the least. In listening to some of these
> shows from 79, I'm struck by the fact that, while he is clearly a
> major upgrade over Keith, he isn't nearly what he would become a few
> years later, both in tone and playing.
>
> What do you hear in those early Brent shows that you find so
> compelling that you think that it's some of his best stuff?
I really don't think it's Brent's actual playing that makes '79 so
good, but rather the effect he seems to have had on Jerry and the rest
of the band. Songs like "Easy to Love You" really don't do it for me
(well, very few songs that Brent sings do it for me, so I guess that's
to be expected.) But they had it goin' on starting in Mid-October.
Before that, not so much. If you look at the list of my favorite 1979
shows, there's a couple from the end of the Godchaux era, then nothing
until late fall.
That fall run really had some of the most innovative jamming that
would be heard in a decade. If you don't think so, go listen to the
second set of 10/27 again, they do some stuff there that they would
almost never do again. The extended, organic jams of that period soon
disappeared, not to really resurface until 1989. In the interim,
there were individual shows where truly unique things would happen
(e.g. the jam out of Space on 10/15/83, and that amazing jam after
He's Gone on 5/6/81), but the free flowing spontaneous creativity that
was so apparent in many of these fall '79 shows wouldn't start showing
up again on a regular basis until 1989.
Peace,
Neil X.
Lfh
> On Jul 24, 9:19 pm, "Richard Morris" <jrmor...@trouserscomcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > In the meantime, it would be interesting to see some discussion of the year
> > from folks who pay more attention to this sort of thing than I do ... Fred,
> > Neil, Pat, Andrew, Darren, and so forth.
>
> Seth Jackson to the white courtesy phone, stat.
>
> Unfortunately for your project, the two best shows, imo, are aud only,
> 1/8 and 1/10. Not a banner year, imo, though 12/1 and 11/6 are sbds
> worth checking into. The latter is the shortest setlist I've ever seen
> at just four songs, but damn it's on.
>
> Fred
Ok, I want to revise my statement and scratch 12/1 off the list. I had
remembered it as being interesting due to the He's Gone>Gloria jam and
the NFA. But, upon listening to the whole thing last night, this is a
strictly "meh" show. Jer's just off for so much of it, though he has a
moment or three.
Listening to the 11/6, though, now that's one to track down.
Fred
Lfh
> On Jul 27, 12:33 am, Lfh <onetaste2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 26, 8:35 pm, "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Suppose it is about time for a fall '83 break. Had to happen sooner or
> > > > later.
>
> > > Yep, it's time to graduate from the minor leagues, and experience some
> > > serious Brentness!
>
> > Ah, Neil, you master baiter, you.
>
> Fall of 1983 was a great period, as you know.
Yeah, I'm inclined to lean that way, ain't I? ;)
>
> > I think he was far and away the best keyboardist they ever had, but I
> > can't agree with your take in the least. In listening to some of these
> > shows from 79, I'm struck by the fact that, while he is clearly a
> > major upgrade over Keith, he isn't nearly what he would become a few
> > years later, both in tone and playing.
>
> > What do you hear in those early Brent shows that you find so
> > compelling that you think that it's some of his best stuff?
>
> I really don't think it's Brent's actual playing that makes '79 so
> good, but rather the effect he seems to have had on Jerry and the rest
> of the band.
Ah, this is in stride with your "Hornsby theory," and I can see what
you mean. But you have stated on several occasions that Brent
specifically did some of his best work then, so that was what I was
wondering about.
> But they had it goin' on starting in Mid-October.
> Before that, not so much. If you look at the list of my favorite 1979
> shows, there's a couple from the end of the Godchaux era, then nothing
> until late fall.
Well, it's quite an uneven year to my ears, so yeah. But, boy, this
11/6 show I'm listening to right now is a keeper. (Ooh, and here comes
that Playin' jam right now.)
> That fall run really had some of the most innovative jamming that
> would be heard in a decade. If you don't think so, go listen to the
> second set of 10/27 again, they do some stuff there that they would
> almost never do again.
Shall do. I was listening to 10/28 yesterday, and that's the thing
that made me ask about Brent. I suppose some folks really like that
"glockenspiel" tone, but it doesn't work for me in the least. Also,
his playing over lots of what I heard was kind of stiff, almost
Keithian in spots, (the first part of the end jam on MNS comes to
mind) not at all of the caliber he would later bring when he had
settled in and was firing with that grisly passion I so adore.
Fred
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>On Jul 26, 6:15 pm, Pepe Papon <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:08:43 -0700, "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Seth wrote:
>>
>> >> 12/28 doesn't suck at all, either, although it doesn't get a lot of
>> >> attention because it only circulates in Aud.
>>
>> >Well, some of it does. I think my copy is SBD for the first set, and
>> >about the first third-to-half of the second set, before it cuts off
>> >and is patched with an AUD recording.
>>
>> >Peace,
>> >Neil X.
>>
>> Oops...I meant 10/28.
>
>
>Yeah, somehow I knew that, must have been the context. That's what I
>was talking about, too. A partial SBD of 10/28 exists.
>
>Peace,
>Neil X.
I didn't know that. Is it available online anywhere?
Pepe Papon
wrote:
I happen to agree that it's some of his best stuff.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>> Yep, it's time to graduate from the minor leagues, and experience some
>> serious Brentness!
>
>Ah, Neil, you master baiter, you.
>
>I think he was far and away the best keyboardist they ever had, but I
>can't agree with your take in the least. In listening to some of these
>shows from 79, I'm struck by the fact that, while he is clearly a
>major upgrade over Keith,
Clearly, his chops were far superior to Keith's, but I don't think it
was a coincidence that the band's most musically interesting years
coincided precisely with the time Keith was a member of the band.
Keith "got* the Dead's style of jamming better than any of their other
keyboardists.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
I just listened to that MNS. It's pretty good, but nowhere near best
ever, IMO. If you want to hear a version with some really intense
Jerry "fanning", check out 5/7/77.
Lfh
> I just listened to that MNS. It's pretty good, but nowhere near best
> ever, IMO. If you want to hear a version with some really intense
> Jerry "fanning", check out 5/7/77.
<cough>
10/21/83
<cough>
Fred
Lfh
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:33:37 -0700, Lfh <onetaste2...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Yep, it's time to graduate from the minor leagues, and experience some
> >> serious Brentness!
>
> >Ah, Neil, you master baiter, you.
>
> >I think he was far and away the best keyboardist they ever had, but I
> >can't agree with your take in the least. In listening to some of these
> >shows from 79, I'm struck by the fact that, while he is clearly a
> >major upgrade over Keith,
>
> Clearly, his chops were far superior to Keith's, but I don't think it
> was a coincidence that the band's most musically interesting years
> coincided precisely with the time Keith was a member of the band.
Well, I say it absolutely was a coincidence, regardless of how good
Keith was early on.
> Keith "got* the Dead's style of jamming better than any of their other
> keyboardists.
No. That's not true. He got what they were doing when they were doing
it, yes, except lots of times he didn't, either. He was sometimes
great, often adequate, and often, well, he was a cipher. That doesn't
get a lot of attention because around him was the most intense shit
going with Bob, Phil, Jerry, and only Billy. Keith may have at times
added good stuff to the mix, but he wasn't a reason why it was
happening. They were heading that way and no one could have stopped
them.
Brent had a different zeitgeist altogether when he got there. And, as
with Keith, even though he added much to the mix, the Dead were what
they were because of Jerry, Bob, and Phil, and Billy along with
Mickey. They were heading that way, and no one could have stopped
them.
Fred
mr rapidan
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:21:36 -0700, "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com>
> >was talking about, too. A partial SBD of 10/28 exists.
>
I know you guys want lossless, but -
Very strange - the miller sbd vbr mp3s *should* be available, here:
http://www.archive.org/details/gd79-10-28.sbd.miller.30655.sbeok.flacf
I know I have them, because I have a folder of the text files of all
the vbrs I've downloaded from the archive. You can get to the
braverman sbd/aud and to the rolfe-vernon-pujol aud. I wonder why the
miller sbd is gone.
The braverman sbd/aud:
http://www.archive.org/details/gd79-10-28.sbd-aud.braverman.7602.sbeok.shnf
text file for the miller sbd:
Grateful Dead - October 28, 1979
Cape Cod Coliseum - South Yarmouth, MA
Recording Info:
SBD -> Master Cassette -> Reel -> Dat
Transfer Info:
Dat (Sony R500) -> SEK'D Prodif Plus -> Samplitude v7.02 Professional -
> FLAC
(2 Discs Audio / 2 Discs FLAC)
Transferred and Edited By Charlie Miller
charlie...@earthlink.net
August 23, 2005
Patch Info:
-- End of U.S. Blues patched with (FOB) Nak 700>Cm>Dat>CD
-- Encore on end of 1st Set to fit show onto 2 Discs.
Set 1:
d1t01 - Mississippi Half-Step Uptown Toodeloo ->
d1t02 - Franklin's Tower
d1t03 - Mama Tried ->
d1t04 - Mexicali Blues
d1t05 - Althea
d1t06 - Passenger
d1t07 - Ramble On Rose
d1t08 - The Music Never Stopped
Set 2:
d2t01 - China Cat Sunflower ->
d2t02 - I Know You Rider
d2t03 - Samson And Delilah
d2t04 - Ship Of Fools
d2t05 - Playing In The Band ->
d2t06 - Drums ->
d2t07 - Space ->
d2t08 - Stella Blue ->
d2t09 - Sugar Magnolia
Encore:
d1t09 - U.S. Blues
SHNTOOL OUTPUT:
length expanded size cdr WAVE probs filename
13:41.18 144866780 --- -- --- gd79-10-28d1t01.wav
18:22.26 194453996 --- -- --- gd79-10-28d1t02.wav
2:34.28 27231500 --- -- --- gd79-10-28d1t03.wav
4:47.29 50695052 --- -- --- gd79-10-28d1t04.wav
8:06.73 85902140 --- -- --- gd79-10-28d1t05.wav
5:33.14 58774172 --- -- --- gd79-10-28d1t06.wav
8:14.62 87287468 --- -- --- gd79-10-28d1t07.wav
9:49.38 103989020 --- -- --- gd79-10-28d1t08.wav
5:48.16 61424876 --- -- --- gd79-10-28d1t09.wav
8:16.55 87623804 --- -- --- gd79-10-28d2t01.wav
7:16.58 77046860 --- -- --- gd79-10-28d2t02.wav
8:15.06 87332156 --- -- --- gd79-10-28d2t03.wav
8:10.25 86494844 --- -- --- gd79-10-28d2t04.wav
19:14.74 203739692 --- -- --- gd79-10-28d2t05.wav
4:56.51 52334396 --- -- --- gd79-10-28d2t06.wav
4:39.51 49335596 --- -- --- gd79-10-28d2t07.wav
8:39.53 91676300 --- -- --- gd79-10-28d2t08.wav
8:35.43 90947180 --- -- --- gd79-10-28d2t09.wav
155:03.45 1641155832 B (totals for 18
files)
grunk
Testify!!
Pepe Papon
wrote:
Not sure how you can state that with such certainty, particularly when
there's no evidence to support it. The period just prior to Keith's
joining was the period where the Dead were headed in exactly the
opposite direction - away from extended jams and more into just plain
ole' rockin'.
The moment Keith joined the band, they took a left turn the other way.
When he left, they once again started becoming less jam-oriented.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
I dunno. I just listened to it again. I love that show, but the MNS
doesn't seem particularly outstanding to me. The Big RR Blues is
another story.
Lfh
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 01:52:30 -0700, Lfh <onetaste2...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jul 28, 12:54 am, Pepe Papon <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> I just listened to that MNS. It's pretty good, but nowhere near best
> >> ever, IMO. If you want to hear a version with some really intense
> >> Jerry "fanning", check out 5/7/77.
>
> ><cough>
> >10/21/83
> ><cough>
>
> >Fred
>
> I dunno. I just listened to it again. I love that show, but the MNS
> doesn't seem particularly outstanding to me. The Big RR Blues is
> another story.
Fine, then 4/19/84 and 10/12/84, but that's my final offer! (These,
along with 10/21/83 are my faves.)
As for the BRR, I agree, and I know we are in accord about the
10/15/83 version, though we might place the gold and silver in
different order. But are you hip to the other monster of the tour,
10/9 Greensboro? It's right there with the other two, and that makes
it one of the three best, imo.
Fred
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>On Jul 28, 11:12 pm, Pepe Papon <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 01:52:30 -0700, Lfh <onetaste2...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jul 28, 12:54 am, Pepe Papon <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >> I just listened to that MNS. It's pretty good, but nowhere near best
>> >> ever, IMO. If you want to hear a version with some really intense
>> >> Jerry "fanning", check out 5/7/77.
>>
>> ><cough>
>> >10/21/83
>> ><cough>
>>
>> >Fred
>>
>> I dunno. I just listened to it again. I love that show, but the MNS
>> doesn't seem particularly outstanding to me. The Big RR Blues is
>> another story.
>
>Fine, then 4/19/84 and 10/12/84, but that's my final offer! (These,
>along with 10/21/83 are my faves.)
I listened to all the above. The Spring '77 versions don't have the
spacey jam at all, so maybe that disqualifies them from Best Version
Ever consideration, none of the above versions even come close in
terms of energy and intensity in the final rockin' jam. Have you
listened to 5/7/77?
Moving on to the Fall off '77, the spacey part starts to become
developed, and the intensity of the outro jam is still unabated. A
very fine example of that is 11/6/77. Wanna hear some "fanning"?
Check that one out.
I've hardly heard all of them, but I'm pretty sure that if I did, my
final vote would end up going to a version from the Keith era. Jerry
was at his best then in terms of energy, plus he wasn't hitting so
many sour notes like he started to do as his heroin habit progressed
during the '80s and on.
>As for the BRR, I agree, and I know we are in accord about the
>10/15/83 version, though we might place the gold and silver in
>different order. But are you hip to the other monster of the tour,
>10/9 Greensboro? It's right there with the other two, and that makes
>it one of the three best, imo.
>
>Fred
Haven't heard the 10/9 version yet.
Lfh
> >> Clearly, his chops were far superior to Keith's, but I don't think it
> >> was a coincidence that the band's most musically interesting years
> >> coincided precisely with the time Keith was a member of the band.
>
> >Well, I say it absolutely was a coincidence, regardless of how good
> >Keith was early on.
>
> >> Keith "got* the Dead's style of jamming better than any of their other
> >> keyboardists.
>
> >No. That's not true. He got what they were doing when they were doing
> >it, yes, except lots of times he didn't, either. He was sometimes
> >great, often adequate, and often, well, he was a cipher. That doesn't
> >get a lot of attention because around him was the most intense shit
> >going with Bob, Phil, Jerry, and only Billy. Keith may have at times
> >added good stuff to the mix, but he wasn't a reason why it was
> >happening. They were heading that way and no one could have stopped
> >them.
>
> Not sure how you can state that with such certainty, particularly when
> there's no evidence to support it. The period just prior to Keith's
> joining was the period where the Dead were headed in exactly the
> opposite direction - away from extended jams and more into just plain
> ole' rockin'.
>
> The moment Keith joined the band, they took a left turn the other way.
> When he left, they once again started becoming less jam-oriented.
Hmm. I don't know about this, Seth. This idea seems skewed on both
ends. By no means were they more jam-oriented in the post-hiatus years
than they were after Brent showed up. And, even if they had been,
Keith was in no way, shape, or form the reason why. Sometimes he's ok,
oftimes he's a cipher, and frequently, he is flat-out irritating with
his ham-fisted monotonous pounding away. He was far more often a brake
than an accelarator.
Prior to the beginning of his tenure? Again, this doesn't seem
accurate to me. With the influx of all the new material, they were
certainly in transition, neither a "plain ole rockin'" outfit, nor a
jam-oriented band, though they had elements of both.
Did they open thing up to more jamming in 72? Sure. Did Keith sound
great on lots of it? Sure, and the only time (along with some of 73)
that he ever sounded great, imo. But I just don't get the sense of him
driving any of it, nor do I think he's any kind of influence in it
coming into the fold.
With the way fusion was taking off and the Dead's jamming
sensibilities as a whole, I don't think there's much that could have
stopped them from mining this terrain and had they gotten any other
capable keyboardist to augement/replace Pig, it would have been quite
similar in general result.
He was graced to become their keyboardist at a very fortuitous plot on
their graph of development, yes, and it looked at the start that he
was going to be pure gold. But as time went on, he morphed into fool's
gold.
Fred
Neil X.
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 02:11:42 -0700, Lfh <onetaste2...@yahoo.com>
Uh, yeah, exactly right. 1971 Dead was a precursor to what went down
through most of the 80s. Keith must have had a lot to do with what
happened between 72-78, because as soon as he left, it all quickly
changed. They started to get away from the long, extended themes
within a year after Brent joined the band. You could still get a 22
minute Eyes or Playin in '79. By the mid-80s, a 12 minute Eyes was
becoming rare. I'm not quite sure why they started up again with the
extended improv near the end of Brent's life, but at least the
influence of Keith seems crystal clear.
Peace,
Neil x.
pbuzb...@yahoo.com
> I just listened to that MNS. It's pretty good, but nowhere near best
> ever, IMO. If you want to hear a version with some really intense
> Jerry "fanning", check out 5/7/77.
I've been trying to find a MNS that peaks higher than 5/9/77. Haven't
yet.
Pat Buzby
Chicago, IL
LP
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:13:54 -0400, "Bzl." <bzl...@nelsoncable.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Steve Terry" <ruthanne@TAKE_OFFccrtc.com> wrote in message
> >news:f8bfea$24lm$1...@news.iquest.net...
>
> >> "Bzl." <bzl...@nelsoncable.com> wrote in message:
>
> >>> Smokin' show, for sure. One of the great Scar>Fires.
>
> >> How 'bout another show from Indiana? 12/7/79. This one's a soundboard with
> >> Phil high in the mix (that's a good thing). Bzl., you even gave this one
> >> five stars on the archive.
>
> >And I even gave the audio an A+ on my internal list, and a "best MNS ever"
> >notation. I'm getting senile; don't remember the show, offhand! But it's
> >great.
>
> I just listened to that MNS. It's pretty good, but nowhere near best
> ever, IMO. If you want to hear a version with some really intense
> Jerry "fanning", check out 5/7/77.
I was never real fond of the fanning thing. I know Jerry meant to add
to a crescendo by doing it, but usually I find it annoying after more
than one or two bars.
LP
Fred Garvin, M.P.
>
> I've been trying to find a MNS that peaks higher than 5/9/77. Haven't
> yet.
>
> Pat Buzby
> Chicago, IL
>
I just checked that version out and it DOES peak high. I've always
thought that the one from 2/3/78 (DP 18) goes into an insane,
brain-liquefying meltdown.
John
Andrew
news:1185803012.2...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
As far as I'm concerned, I think 12/31/77 and 6/7/77 deserve consideration.
Lfh
> >Fine, then 4/19/84 and 10/12/84, but that's my final offer! (These,
> >along with 10/21/83 are my faves.)
>
> I listened to all the above. The Spring '77 versions don't have the
> spacey jam at all, so maybe that disqualifies them from Best Version
> Ever consideration,
Well, it does for me, because that swirly part is the highpoint of the
song for me.
> none of the above versions even come close in
> terms of energy and intensity in the final rockin' jam. Have you
> listened to 5/7/77?
I've heard of it, but never checked it out. Is that a good show?
Seriously, though, of course that's a fine one, as are lots of 77's.
However, for me, it's not on the level of 83-84 because of the tone.
83-84 is my favorite *sound* of the band, while 77 isn't, cause I'm
not a fan of Jer's tone overall or Keith's playing post hiatus at
all.
>
> Moving on to the Fall off '77, the spacey part starts to become
> developed, and the intensity of the outro jam is still unabated. A
> very fine example of that is 11/6/77. Wanna hear some "fanning"?
> Check that one out.
Like Larry, I'm not a big fanning fan. A little bit goes a long way,
imo, and he certainly overused it at times.
>
> I've hardly heard all of them, but I'm pretty sure that if I did, my
> final vote would end up going to a version from the Keith era. Jerry
> was at his best then in terms of energy, plus he wasn't hitting so
> many sour notes like he started to do as his heroin habit progressed
> during the '80s and on.
I don't think I can argue the sour notes part, but I dispute the
energy bit. Perhaps we just have a different notion of what
constitutes such, because as much as I like 77 (even though I'm not a
fan of Jer's tone or Keith's playing), they have more crunch in 83-4
than 77. Mileage.
>
> >As for the BRR, I agree, and I know we are in accord about the
> >10/15/83 version, though we might place the gold and silver in
> >different order. But are you hip to the other monster of the tour,
> >10/9 Greensboro? It's right there with the other two, and that makes
> >it one of the three best, imo.
>
> >Fred
>
> Haven't heard the 10/9 version yet.
Go grab it from archive. It burns, as does the whole show.
Fred
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>On Jul 28, 10:17 pm, Pepe Papon <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote:
That's merely speculation.
>Sometimes he's ok,
>oftimes he's a cipher, and frequently, he is flat-out irritating with
>his ham-fisted monotonous pounding away. He was far more often a brake
>than an accelarator.
He pounded monotonously on certain types of non-jam-oriented material.
On the open-ended stuff, he was quite fluid.
>Prior to the beginning of his tenure? Again, this doesn't seem
>accurate to me. With the influx of all the new material, they were
>certainly in transition, neither a "plain ole rockin'" outfit, nor a
>jam-oriented band, though they had elements of both.
Keith joined in late '71. Early '71 is notable for being the period
in the band's early history where there was the least amount of
open-ended jamming. That started to change in late '71, right after
Keith joined.
>Did they open thing up to more jamming in 72? Sure. Did Keith sound
>great on lots of it? Sure, and the only time (along with some of 73)
>that he ever sounded great, imo. But I just don't get the sense of him
>driving any of it, nor do I think he's any kind of influence in it
>coming into the fold.
That's a personal opinion, but there's really no objective evidence to
support it.
>With the way fusion was taking off and the Dead's jamming
>sensibilities as a whole, I don't think there's much that could have
>stopped them from mining this terrain and had they gotten any other
>capable keyboardist to augement/replace Pig, it would have been quite
>similar in general result.
>
>He was graced to become their keyboardist at a very fortuitous plot on
>their graph of development, yes, and it looked at the start that he
>was going to be pure gold. But as time went on, he morphed into fool's
>gold.
>
>Fred
He still sounded good on the jams in the later years.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>On Jul 29, 1:17 am, Pepe Papon <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote:
WTF are you talking about? If you gleaned that from what I wrote,
you need a remedial reading class.
>Keith must have had a lot to do with what
>happened between 72-78, because as soon as he left, it all quickly
>changed. They started to get away from the long, extended themes
>within a year after Brent joined the band.
That's exactly correct.
>You could still get a 22
>minute Eyes or Playin in '79. By the mid-80s, a 12 minute Eyes was
>becoming rare. I'm not quite sure why they started up again with the
>extended improv near the end of Brent's life, but at least the
>influence of Keith seems crystal clear.
Sure, they played long versions of Eyes or Fire on the Mountain during
the Brent years. But those were hardly the open-ended type jams that
characterized the Keith years. Those jams, which were commonplace
during Keith's time, were relatively rare after Keith left.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>> I've hardly heard all of them, but I'm pretty sure that if I did, my
>> final vote would end up going to a version from the Keith era. Jerry
>> was at his best then in terms of energy, plus he wasn't hitting so
>> many sour notes like he started to do as his heroin habit progressed
>> during the '80s and on.
>
>I don't think I can argue the sour notes part, but I dispute the
>energy bit. Perhaps we just have a different notion of what
>constitutes such, because as much as I like 77 (even though I'm not a
>fan of Jer's tone or Keith's playing), they have more crunch in 83-4
>than 77. Mileage.
I guess it is a mileage thing. To me, the Fall '77 is maximum
crunch. Brent's tone is downright wimpy in '84-'86.
Pepe Papon
I know what you mean, but sometimes it works.
Lfh
> >Hmm. I don't know about this, Seth. This idea seems skewed on both
> >ends. By no means were they more jam-oriented in the post-hiatus years
> >than they were after Brent showed up. And, even if they had been,
> >Keith was in no way, shape, or form the reason why.
>
> That's merely speculation.
Certainly.
> >Prior to the beginning of his tenure? Again, this doesn't seem
> >accurate to me. With the influx of all the new material, they were
> >certainly in transition, neither a "plain ole rockin'" outfit, nor a
> >jam-oriented band, though they had elements of both.
>
> Keith joined in late '71. Early '71 is notable for being the period
> in the band's early history where there was the least amount of
> open-ended jamming. That started to change in late '71, right after
> Keith joined.
This boggles the mind, Seth. I'm not saying early 71 is open-ended
heaven, but by god, how can you, a clear afficianado of the era,
overlook the fact that 77-79 is as limited in the open-end dept. as
any period?
One of the chief drawbacks to the 68-69 period is the limited
repetoire. Yes, the jamming is amazing, but it's the same batch of
stuff night after night after night. With the emergence of Hunter/
Garcia as a force in late 69 and the introduction of all that new
material, the focus shits to songs more than jamming. Not hard to
understand, given the ebb and flow nature of things. As the songs get
assimilated, they can swing back to the jamming, which they did, but
without giving up on the songs aspect.
>
> >Did they open thing up to more jamming in 72? Sure. Did Keith sound
> >great on lots of it? Sure, and the only time (along with some of 73)
> >that he ever sounded great, imo. But I just don't get the sense of him
> >driving any of it, nor do I think he's any kind of influence in it
> >coming into the fold.
>
> That's a personal opinion, but there's really no objective evidence to
> support it.
Well, certainly it's a personal opinion. Just as yours is opinion.
There's no objective evidence to support your thesis that he "got" it
better than any other keyboardist, either. The idea that because Keith
happened to be there at the time is some kind of causal certainty is
not what I would call a tight cause and effect relationship, just as
Pigpen being there through the most raging psychedelic romps of 69-69
makes him an instigator.
> >He was graced to become their keyboardist at a very fortuitous plot on
> >their graph of development, yes, and it looked at the start that he
> >was going to be pure gold. But as time went on, he morphed into fool's
> >gold.
>
> >Fred
>
> He still sounded good on the jams in the later years.
Perhaps to you he did. But as the more open-ended stuff became less
and less frequent in 77-79, what was left was the more straight-ahead
stuff, and for that he was clearly not up to the task, by everyone's
accounting. That's why Brent sounded like such a breath of fresh air
when he arrived.
Fred
Andrew
Andrew
news:1185902589.5...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> This boggles the mind, Seth. I'm not saying early 71 is open-ended
> heaven, but by god, how can you, a clear afficianado of the era,
> overlook the fact that 77-79 is as limited in the open-end dept. as
> any period?
Huh? I would say 77-79 is about the last era of open-endedness (although
perhaps 89-91 would qualify a bit) in GD history. While it is certainly not
up to the levels of 67-70 or 72-74, there are quite a number of open-ended
songs that make up the bulk of 77-79 2nd sets.
Lfh
> "Lfh" <onetaste2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
And what might they be?
Fred
Andrew
Scarlet, NFA, St Stephen, Estimated, Eyes, Playin, Other One, Terrapin,
Dancin, Wheel, Uncle John's, He's Gone, perhaps I'm missing a few others,
all of which were more consistently open-ended during the 77-79 period than
they were at any time after...
Pepe Papon
wrote:
It wasn't so much the songs, it was the fact that they extended those
song with jams on a regular basis. Even when the shows became
structured in '78 with drums as a fixture in the middle of the set,
there was almost always a jam leading into drums, and then a song with
an extended jam after drums.
Neil X.
In much of the 80s, the Dead were more of a straight-ahead rock band,
with a dimishing number of extended jams. Which is reminiscent of
1971, when shorter, harder-rocking versions of songs were more common
that long, extended opuses (opi?). What are you not understanding
about my post?
Peace,
Neil X.
Pepe Papon
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>On Jul 31, 12:48 am, Pepe Papon <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >Hmm. I don't know about this, Seth. This idea seems skewed on both
>> >ends. By no means were they more jam-oriented in the post-hiatus years
>> >than they were after Brent showed up. And, even if they had been,
>> >Keith was in no way, shape, or form the reason why.
>>
>> That's merely speculation.
>
>Certainly.
>
>> >Prior to the beginning of his tenure? Again, this doesn't seem
>> >accurate to me. With the influx of all the new material, they were
>> >certainly in transition, neither a "plain ole rockin'" outfit, nor a
>> >jam-oriented band, though they had elements of both.
>>
>> Keith joined in late '71. Early '71 is notable for being the period
>> in the band's early history where there was the least amount of
>> open-ended jamming. That started to change in late '71, right after
>> Keith joined.
>
>This boggles the mind, Seth. I'm not saying early 71 is open-ended
>heaven, but by god, how can you, a clear afficianado of the era,
>overlook the fact that 77-79 is as limited in the open-end dept. as
>any period?
Because that's not a fact. '77-'79 is infinitely open-ended compared
to any era that came after.
>One of the chief drawbacks to the 68-69 period is the limited
>repetoire. Yes, the jamming is amazing, but it's the same batch of
>stuff night after night after night. With the emergence of Hunter/
>Garcia as a force in late 69 and the introduction of all that new
>material, the focus shits to songs more than jamming. Not hard to
>understand, given the ebb and flow nature of things. As the songs get
>assimilated, they can swing back to the jamming, which they did, but
>without giving up on the songs aspect.
That's one explanation. But even on the songs they were familiar
with, the jamming was comparatively restrained.
>>
>> >Did they open thing up to more jamming in 72? Sure. Did Keith sound
>> >great on lots of it? Sure, and the only time (along with some of 73)
>> >that he ever sounded great, imo. But I just don't get the sense of him
>> >driving any of it, nor do I think he's any kind of influence in it
>> >coming into the fold.
>>
>> That's a personal opinion, but there's really no objective evidence to
>> support it.
>
>Well, certainly it's a personal opinion. Just as yours is opinion.
>There's no objective evidence to support your thesis that he "got" it
>better than any other keyboardist, either. The idea that because Keith
>happened to be there at the time is some kind of causal certainty is
>not what I would call a tight cause and effect relationship, just as
>Pigpen being there through the most raging psychedelic romps of 69-69
>makes him an instigator.
I never suggested a "tight" cause and effect relationship. It's
merely evidence. And it's the only evidence we really have.
>> >He was graced to become their keyboardist at a very fortuitous plot on
>> >their graph of development, yes, and it looked at the start that he
>> >was going to be pure gold. But as time went on, he morphed into fool's
>> >gold.
>>
>> >Fred
>>
>> He still sounded good on the jams in the later years.
>
>Perhaps to you he did. But as the more open-ended stuff became less
>and less frequent in 77-79, what was left was the more straight-ahead
>stuff, and for that he was clearly not up to the task, by everyone's
>accounting. That's why Brent sounded like such a breath of fresh air
>when he arrived.
>
>Fred
Brent was technically superior, no doubt about it. But there are
lots of keyboard players with great chops. Perhaps this won't make
sense to you, since you don't hang out with musicians like I do, but,
IMO, there's nothing special that Brent did that couldn't have been
done by hundreds of other keyboard players.
neurodancer
> Brent was technically superior, no doubt about it. But there are
> lots of keyboard players with great chops. Perhaps this won't make
> sense to you, since you don't hang out with musicians like I do, but,
> IMO, there's nothing special that Brent did that couldn't have been
> done by hundreds of other keyboard players.
> --
Sing the high harmonies?
ND
Carlisle
Brent had perfect harmony with the band--voice and keys.
His death affected the band and Jerry in particular more than they
realized at the time. It began to catch up with them by the following
spring. For whatever reasons, Jerry started getting more seemingly
strung out and exhausted. Maybe this would have happened regardless,
but it was after Brent's death that Garcia made it clear that they
lost a key guy, he wasn't enjoying it enough ("crispy around the
edges") and wanted that 6 month break from touring they never got.
Course I'm biased (aren't we all?)..a stellar memory is somehow
getting on the front row of festival seating, in front of a motorcycle
club/gang including their "bitches"..the vibe was rough, okay...and
got to soak up the power of being right in front of Bob and Jerry at
Greensboro, NC (3/31/89). Being molested and shoved was actually worth
it this time. And of course Jerry and I *connected*. It may of been
the blotter but I doubt it......
Neil X.
That would be your projection on it, not what I was attempting to
convey.
Peace,
Neil x.
Lfh
> >This boggles the mind, Seth. I'm not saying early 71 is open-ended
> >heaven, but by god, how can you, a clear afficianado of the era,
> >overlook the fact that 77-79 is as limited in the open-end dept. as
> >any period?
>
> Because that's not a fact. '77-'79 is infinitely open-ended compared
> to any era that came after.
I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing re what "open-ended"
means, but no matter, since this is about Keith. You posit that he
still sounded good on these post-hiatus jams, please point to five
where he shines and I'll go check them out.
> >One of the chief drawbacks to the 68-69 period is the limited
> >repetoire. Yes, the jamming is amazing, but it's the same batch of
> >stuff night after night after night. With the emergence of Hunter/
> >Garcia as a force in late 69 and the introduction of all that new
> >material, the focus shits to songs more than jamming. Not hard to
> >understand, given the ebb and flow nature of things. As the songs get
> >assimilated, they can swing back to the jamming, which they did, but
> >without giving up on the songs aspect.
>
> That's one explanation. But even on the songs they were familiar
> with, the jamming was comparatively restrained.
For a few months. So what do you make of this? That they were just
waiting for someone to show them the way back to the fountain of
jamming and up popped Keith?
> >Well, certainly it's a personal opinion. Just as yours is opinion.
> >There's no objective evidence to support your thesis that he "got" it
> >better than any other keyboardist, either. The idea that because Keith
> >happened to be there at the time is some kind of causal certainty is
> >not what I would call a tight cause and effect relationship, just as
> >Pigpen being there through the most raging psychedelic romps of 69-69
> >makes him an instigator.
>
> I never suggested a "tight" cause and effect relationship. It's
> merely evidence. And it's the only evidence we really have.
So if there isn't a "tight" cause and effect relationship, the idea
that Keith got the Dead's style of jamming better than any other
keyboardist is based on nothing more than his being there when they
went off a jamming during that era? Ok.
> Brent was technically superior, no doubt about it. But there are
> lots of keyboard players with great chops. Perhaps this won't make
> sense to you, since you don't hang out with musicians like I do, but,
> IMO, there's nothing special that Brent did that couldn't have been
> done by hundreds of other keyboard players.
Wow, cool JC impression, Seth. Not your usual style, so it's gonna
need a little work to get the condescension just exactly perfect, but,
still, it shows promise.
First off, you have no idea whether I hang out with musicians or not,
but regardless, let's posit that what you say is absolutely true. Why
then, wouldn't it be equally true and moreso for Keith? You surely
can't be suggesting that he had some kind of unique voice, ala a Phil,
Bobby, or Jerry, are you?
Fred
Andrew
> On Aug 1, 1:20 am, Pepe Papon <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >This boggles the mind, Seth. I'm not saying early 71 is open-ended
>> >heaven, but by god, how can you, a clear afficianado of the era,
>> >overlook the fact that 77-79 is as limited in the open-end dept. as
>> >any period?
>>
>> Because that's not a fact. '77-'79 is infinitely open-ended compared
>> to any era that came after.
>
> I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing re what "open-ended"
> means, but no matter, since this is about Keith.
Then what are you talking about in terms of "open-ended"?
> You posit that he
> still sounded good on these post-hiatus jams, please point to five
> where he shines and I'll go check them out.
7/12/76 Lightnin'>Supplication
7/17/76 Comes a Time>Other One
3/19/77 UJB
4/23/77 Franklin's
5/8/77 Scarlet>Fire
11/2/77 Estimated >St Stephen
1/10/78 Franklin's
2/3/78 Playin>Wheel>Playin
1/11/79 Miracle
Okay, there are a few more than five there, but these are certainly some
spots where Keith makes serious positive contributions post-hiatus in
open-ended jamming...
Lfh
> > I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing re what "open-ended"
> > means, but no matter, since this is about Keith.
>
> Then what are you talking about in terms of "open-ended"?
Well, it wasn't my term to start with, so I've been trying to figure
it out as we went. What I started out with was the kind of "wheels
come off" spacier stuff of 72-74, since that was the missing
ingredient in 71 according to Seth, at least as I understood him. But
given the list you presented yesterday and what you've listed below,
it's clear that's not what you are talking about, as lots of those
choices don't do such at all. I'm not saying this is at all a bad
thing, as I think the "open-ended" idea as some kind of litmus test
for "good" Dead is highly overrated.
There's also the idea floated by Neil that they didn't jam or
improvise as much through much of the 80's. I disagree with this
notion. It may not have been as spacey as pre-hiatus, but then,
neither is 77-79, these examples not to the contrary. But for just
jamming a lot, there's no dearth whatsover, and nothing about any
Scarlet Fire or Terrapin or UJB or Help Slip Frank or any of that
stuff from 77-79 has anything whatsoever on their 80's counterparts in
the jamming dept. Folks might prefer either flavor for whatever
reason, but neither flavor was more jammed or improvised than the
other.
> > You posit that he
> > still sounded good on these post-hiatus jams, please point to five
> > where he shines and I'll go check them out.
>
> 7/12/76 Lightnin'>Supplication
> 7/17/76 Comes a Time>Other One
> 3/19/77 UJB
> 4/23/77 Franklin's
> 5/8/77 Scarlet>Fire
> 11/2/77 Estimated >St Stephen
> 1/10/78 Franklin's
> 2/3/78 Playin>Wheel>Playin
> 1/11/79 Miracle
>
> Okay, there are a few more than five there, but these are certainly some
> spots where Keith makes serious positive contributions post-hiatus in
> open-ended jamming...
I'll go check them out tonight, as I've got to get going soon.
However, I did just listen to the 4/23/77 Franklin's and the 1/11/79
Miracle.
While he's alive and kicking some on the Miracle, the Franklin's is
another story. What are you talking about specifically when you point
to his positive contributions on this one? All I hear is that lame and
lazy triad stuff, only instead of pounding them as he does on the
piano, he's holding them down on that shitty-sounding pre-Casio
keyboardy thingy that is the also the bane of the 5/7/77 Half-Step and
the 5/9/77 Slipknot, to name two of the more egregious examples of his
post-hiatus playing being a low point in western civilization.
Fred
Andrew
> On Aug 1, 12:03 pm, "Andrew" <amur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing re what "open-ended"
>> > means, but no matter, since this is about Keith.
>>
>> Then what are you talking about in terms of "open-ended"?
>
> Well, it wasn't my term to start with, so I've been trying to figure
> it out as we went. What I started out with was the kind of "wheels
> come off" spacier stuff of 72-74, since that was the missing
> ingredient in 71 according to Seth, at least as I understood him. But
> given the list you presented yesterday and what you've listed below,
> it's clear that's not what you are talking about, as lots of those
> choices don't do such at all. I'm not saying this is at all a bad
> thing, as I think the "open-ended" idea as some kind of litmus test
> for "good" Dead is highly overrated.
See, to me open-ended simply means a jam that can (at least in terms of the
GD and their tendencies) go anywhere... For instance, while the jam in
Cassidy (for instance) is a killer friggin' jam by and large, it is not
really going to go into another song. It is just going to kick substantial
ass and then return to "flight of the seabirds". Conversely, when we get
into the Playin' jam, it can, and is likely to, go just about anywhere... It
can come back in to reprise Playin', it can head out to another song, it can
slide into drums. Open ended. At least this is what I assume we are talking
about. As a result, I'm excluding stuff like HSF, Scarlet>Fire, China>Rider,
if only because those jams, while they could go just about anywhere, are
most likely to wind up at a recognizable place.
And, given such a description as above, I will still contend that 77-79
certainly has more "open-endedness" than any era that followed...
> I'll go check them out tonight, as I've got to get going soon.
> However, I did just listen to the 4/23/77 Franklin's and the 1/11/79
> Miracle.
>
> While he's alive and kicking some on the Miracle, the Franklin's is
> another story. What are you talking about specifically when you point
> to his positive contributions on this one?
Errr.. It is actually the Slipknot here that is the real highlight with some
excellently weird additions for Keith and Bob. The Help jam, despite getting
off to a horrible start, is actually pretty good too, with plenty of Keith
contributions...
Richard Morris
"Andrew" <amur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:13b1v6m...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Lfh" <onetas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1186001945.7...@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 1, 12:03 pm, "Andrew" <amur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing re what "open-ended"
>>> > means, but no matter, since this is about Keith.
>>>
>>> Then what are you talking about in terms of "open-ended"?
Geez, how did we miss this one ... IRIAAHSWYPII?
Lfh
Fair enough, though I don't get the sense that that was what Seth was
talking about, nor was I. I don't know how it applies to the idea that
71 was largely devoid of such, nor that the addition of Keith added
such.
Regardless, I think there are folks who are way bigger on the novelty
thing than I am. I just don't care about novel setlists or segues or
such. There are some I find interesting, but most times it doesn't
work too well. Yeah, the China Crazy Rider is amusing, but it's also
clunky as hell in the transistion, as is the Scarlet Touch Fires or
the Scarlet Victim Fire, or what have you. Same for the Scarlet Sugar
Mags or Help Slip Fire type things. Uh, I'd rather have my traditional
pairings intact, thanks.
Fred
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>On Aug 1, 1:20 am, Pepe Papon <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >This boggles the mind, Seth. I'm not saying early 71 is open-ended
>> >heaven, but by god, how can you, a clear afficianado of the era,
>> >overlook the fact that 77-79 is as limited in the open-end dept. as
>> >any period?
>>
>> Because that's not a fact. '77-'79 is infinitely open-ended compared
>> to any era that came after.
>
>I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing re what "open-ended"
>means, but no matter, since this is about Keith. You posit that he
>still sounded good on these post-hiatus jams, please point to five
>where he shines and I'll go check them out.
>
>> >One of the chief drawbacks to the 68-69 period is the limited
>> >repetoire. Yes, the jamming is amazing, but it's the same batch of
>> >stuff night after night after night. With the emergence of Hunter/
>> >Garcia as a force in late 69 and the introduction of all that new
>> >material, the focus shits to songs more than jamming. Not hard to
>> >understand, given the ebb and flow nature of things. As the songs get
>> >assimilated, they can swing back to the jamming, which they did, but
>> >without giving up on the songs aspect.
>>
>> That's one explanation. But even on the songs they were familiar
>> with, the jamming was comparatively restrained.
>
>For a few months. So what do you make of this? That they were just
>waiting for someone to show them the way back to the fountain of
>jamming and up popped Keith?
Could be something along those lines. Who knows?
>
>> >Well, certainly it's a personal opinion. Just as yours is opinion.
>> >There's no objective evidence to support your thesis that he "got" it
>> >better than any other keyboardist, either. The idea that because Keith
>> >happened to be there at the time is some kind of causal certainty is
>> >not what I would call a tight cause and effect relationship, just as
>> >Pigpen being there through the most raging psychedelic romps of 69-69
>> >makes him an instigator.
>>
>> I never suggested a "tight" cause and effect relationship. It's
>> merely evidence. And it's the only evidence we really have.
>
>So if there isn't a "tight" cause and effect relationship, the idea
>that Keith got the Dead's style of jamming better than any other
>keyboardist is based on nothing more than his being there when they
>went off a jamming during that era? Ok.
That plus the fact that Keith sounded real good as part of those jams.
>> Brent was technically superior, no doubt about it. But there are
>> lots of keyboard players with great chops. Perhaps this won't make
>> sense to you, since you don't hang out with musicians like I do, but,
>> IMO, there's nothing special that Brent did that couldn't have been
>> done by hundreds of other keyboard players.
>
>Wow, cool JC impression, Seth. Not your usual style, so it's gonna
>need a little work to get the condescension just exactly perfect, but,
>still, it shows promise.
Figures you'd take it that way. But it's the truth. I work with
musicians as part of my trade. There are hundreds of keyboard players
who could do what Brent did.
>First off, you have no idea whether I hang out with musicians or not,
>but regardless, let's posit that what you say is absolutely true. Why
>then, wouldn't it be equally true and moreso for Keith? You surely
>can't be suggesting that he had some kind of unique voice, ala a Phil,
>Bobby, or Jerry, are you?
>
>Fred
Actually, I could. Keith certainly didn't have chops, but he had his
own style. That style sucked on certain songs, but was just exactly
perfect on the majority of the Dead's material during his time with
the band.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
Don't forget 1/22/78 The Other One, which is a prime example.
Andrew
Well, 71 was largely devoid of such things (at least early to mid 71). How
Keith fit into the change from the more or less straight ahead rock and roll
of most of 71 to the more exploratory music during his tenure is anyone's
guess really. Is the changed caused (perhaps "allowed") by Keith? Is it just
coincidence? I really don't know. But the fact is, aside from the late 60s
stuff, certainly the most exploratory music in GD history coincided almost
exactly with Keith's tenure. Take from that what you will.
> Regardless, I think there are folks who are way bigger on the novelty
> thing than I am. I just don't care about novel setlists or segues or
> such. There are some I find interesting, but most times it doesn't
> work too well. Yeah, the China Crazy Rider is amusing, but it's also
> clunky as hell in the transistion, as is the Scarlet Touch Fires or
> the Scarlet Victim Fire, or what have you. Same for the Scarlet Sugar
> Mags or Help Slip Fire type things. Uh, I'd rather have my traditional
> pairings intact, thanks.
There's nothing wrong with the traditional pairings at all (and I think you
quite miss my point on that) any more than there is anything wrong with
Playin>Terrapin or Playin>Wheel>Playin or Playin>UJB>Dew>UJB>Playin... The
point is that in some of these songs, or on the jams out of some of these
songs, there is a point where they can (and do, on a regular basis) go
anywhere... Once you're out in the middle of space at the end of a
particularly great Playin, you really don't have any idea where the song is
going to wind up. When you're out in the middle of a great China Cat jam,
you can pretty much bet that you're gonna wind up in Rider... Nothing wrong
with that at all, but that's the way it is...
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>>
>> See, to me open-ended simply means a jam that can (at least in terms of the
>> GD and their tendencies) go anywhere... For instance, while the jam in
>> Cassidy (for instance) is a killer friggin' jam by and large, it is not
>> really going to go into another song. It is just going to kick substantial
>> ass and then return to "flight of the seabirds". Conversely, when we get
>> into the Playin' jam, it can, and is likely to, go just about anywhere... It
>> can come back in to reprise Playin', it can head out to another song, it can
>> slide into drums. Open ended. At least this is what I assume we are talking
>> about. As a result, I'm excluding stuff like HSF, Scarlet>Fire, China>Rider,
>> if only because those jams, while they could go just about anywhere, are
>> most likely to wind up at a recognizable place.
>>
>> And, given such a description as above, I will still contend that 77-79
>> certainly has more "open-endedness" than any era that followed...
>
>Fair enough, though I don't get the sense that that was what Seth was
>talking about, nor was I. I don't know how it applies to the idea that
>71 was largely devoid of such, nor that the addition of Keith added
>such.
That's not what I mean. When I talk about open-endedness, I'm
thinking of jams where the music is free to morph rhythmically and/or
melodically. Slipknot! pretty much always comes back to where it
started, but it has an open-ended feel to it, in that it can get
raucous, get quiet, get wierd, whatever. "Fire on the Mountain" or
most post-1980 "Eyes" aren't particularly open-ended, as they're
pretty much constricted to a repeating rhythm and chord pattern.
The late '70s NFAs were pretty open-ended. The 80s versions far less
so. Truckin' remained somewhat open-ended through the late '70s, but
not during the '80s. Miracle was pretty open-ended during the late
'70s, but stopped being so some time during the early '80s. Even The
Other One became a lot less open-ended from '80 on.
Perhaps the only song that become more open-ended during the later
years was Terrapin. There were no post-Terrapin jams that I can
think of during the '70s that bear any resemblance to what the band
performed on, say, 6/16/90.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
OK, then I suppose I missed your point.
Brad Greer
wrote:
>Well, 71 was largely devoid of such things (at least early to mid 71). How
>Keith fit into the change from the more or less straight ahead rock and roll
>of most of 71 to the more exploratory music during his tenure is anyone's
>guess really. Is the changed caused (perhaps "allowed") by Keith? Is it just
>coincidence? I really don't know. But the fact is, aside from the late 60s
>stuff, certainly the most exploratory music in GD history coincided almost
>exactly with Keith's tenure. Take from that what you will.
>
Well, with the brief exception of 1971, everything from, say,
1968-1979 was more exploratory then what came after. Which suggests,
more than anything, that the Dead became less exploratory from the
'80s on. I doubt that many will blame Brent for that (although I'm
sure Vince will take his hits for '90 on).
Up until the hiatus the Dead were extremely exploratory. They had a
brief foray into more "song" oriented playing (started when they began
working on Working Man's Dead, although there was lots of exploration
through most of 1970, the real "song" oriented stuff could be viewed
as most of 1971). The sixties explorations were different than the
early '70s explorations, of course. The sixties had a lot more raw
energy and fury, the sign of a young band discovering what they could
do with a head full of acid, an audience similarly dosed and all that
youthful energy to burn. The early '70s (say, from '72 through the
hiatus) the explorations became a less frantic - they took them into
some interesting places, places they never would have ventured to in
the sixties, but they did it in a more relaxed, "mature" fashion. Post
hiatus, they still did explorations, but not as widely as they did
pre-hiatus. The Brent years and on had their share of explorations
but set structure became a lot more defined and some of that "anything
at all can happen" feeling went away.
I think the type of explorations, the degree of "open-endedness"
(however you want to define that, I'm not sure I've got a definition
that I would stick 100% to), etc. were much more a factor of Garcia,
Weir and Lesh than who was sitting in the keyboard chair. Keith had
the good fortune of being there for some truly geat music, before he
became lost to his demons he generally fit into them very well. His
choice of instruments impacted the overall tone of those periods but
weren't a driver in creating the style of playing. Certainly Garcia,
Weir and Lesh were aware of his style of playing, strengths and
weaknesses and adjusted what they were doing around it, but had it
been someone else in the keyboard chair they would have worked around
that player in a similar fashion and created equally exploratory,
wonderful music.
That isn't meant as a slam on Keith (or Brent, or even Vince who was a
good musician but an extremely poor fit for the Dead). It is more an
indication of how good the combination of Garcia, Weir and Lesh were.
Hell, they could have carried me if they put me in the keyboard chair
(primarily by mixing me really, really low and telling me not to play
many notes, at my best I was a so-so keyboard player).