It's probably not a popular opinion around here, but I love the Grateful Dead. I was too young to see them live, so I have had to experience the live music through the streams on archive.org. I'm probably a fraud for not being a heavy drug user. Still, hearing how they tweak and explore different songs over time really appeals to me.

I saw the dead live once and got a "dark star" for my troubles not that I realized the importance at the time but now I am very glad I went. They are an underated band by most since alot of their recorded work leaves much to be desired and their live shows are somewhat of an aquired taste, but at their best they were as good as anybody.

Uh-oh...and some people think singers take too long with the national anthem already. Wait until they hear the 38-minute jam version.

It's probably not a popular opinion around here, but I love the Grateful Dead. I was too young to see them live, so I have had to experience the live music through the streams on archive.org. I'm probably a fraud for not being a heavy drug user. Still, hearing how they tweak and explore different songs over time really appeals to me.

I'm both an open conservative AND a massive Deadhead. So you've got nothing to feel weird about compared to me.

My biggest love is for 1967-1972 era Dead, though I really enjoy 1973, 1974 and 1977 as well. (The less said about 1976 the better...and I'm not alone among Deadheads in feeling that way.) I do get off the bus more or less entirely after Keith leaves the group, though.

I want to get a seat in the Grateful Dead "Tribute Section." By tribute section they mean, "Place where recreational drugs will be freely available."

Andrew, "not being a heavy drug user" makes you a good guy, not a fraud.

Uh-oh...and some people think singers take too long with the national anthem already. Wait until they hear the 38-minute jam version.

They used to bring the Dead out for the national anthem at Candlestick once in awhile. I thought they did a pretty nice job, actually.

at their best they were as good as anybody

About a jillion bar bands can say that.

Obligatory Greatful Dead joke:

Q: What did the dead head say when the acid wore off?

A: My God, this music sucks!!!

It's a lot of overblown nonsense, a lot of drug nuts running wild.

You know, I think the Dead were probably a legitimately exciting and good band for some period of time. That ended in 1975, or 1978, or something like that. And after that point all the cliches were true.

I saw "The Grateful Dead," or what's left of them, at a festival last year. They were boring. I was amused to see that their Jerry Garcia replacement looks and sounds just like a young Jerry Garcia. I wonder if they found him in a cover band.

You know, I think the Dead were probably a legitimately exciting and good band for some period of time. That ended in 1975, or 1978, or something like that. And after that point all the cliches were true.

Whether you did it intentionally or not, you pretty much got the dates right, or at least close. Their temporary 'retirement' in October 1974 heralded the end of their so-called "Golden Age," but they made a major comeback in 1977, with some of the most remarkable shows of their career. (They actually came out of retirement as a touring band in 1976, but those shows were AWFUL -- the band was amazingly rusty and truly sounded like a shitshow -- and proof positive that when Deadheads debate which "year" of the band was better they're actually talking about cognizable distinctions and not just BS'ing.) Then everything got a bit flaccid in 1978 and Keith Godchaux was finally booted from the band in early '79...I never enjoyed their replacement for him, Brent Mydland.

Truthfully, though, they were easily the best live act on the planet from 1967-1972, hands down. No other group comes close: every single night was a different experience, with a different setlist, and completely different performances and sequences of songs. From late 1972 to mid-1974 you could make a strong argument for King Crimson (the Muir/Cross/Wetton/Bruford/Fripp lineup) as an equal or perhaps superior live band, but it depends entirely on how interesting you find their avant-prog stuff to be.

Truthfully, though, they were easily the best live act on the planet from 1967-1972, hands down.

You'd have to really hate the Stones to agree with that statement.

My biggest love is for 1967-1972 era Dead, though I really enjoy 1973, 1974 and 1977 as well. (The less said about 1976 the better...and I'm not alone among Deadheads in feeling that way.) I do get off the bus more or less entirely after Keith leaves the group, though.

I really like the '77 stuff. Part of it is just the sets they were playing at that point, and I even liked some of the set lists from the early 80s, but I was not a fan of when they got into the synth and electronic stuff. But yeah, 71-74 is kind of a sweet spot to me.

Andrew, "not being a heavy drug user" makes you a good guy, not a fraud.

I meant to say that I know that drug use was part of the experience and I might be missing something, but thanks for the compliment!

double

Whoa, flashback.

Caught them in and around the Boston area twice in the mid-70's -- once at the old Boston Garden, if I am not misremembering.

Did not need much of an excuse to get electric back then, and I surely was both times.

It just occurred to me that The Grateful Dead is most likely the most famous band ever that I know absolutely zilch about -- can't name any of their members, any of their songs, no clue what type of genre, etc...

So yeah. Guess everybody has at least one band like that.

You'd have to really hate the Stones to agree with that statement.

I knew someone would mention the Stones. They were a good live group, but let's not slobber all over each other with BS mythology here: they played, roughly speaking, the same show every single night for any given tour, which right then and there eliminates them from this conversation. I mean, it was a great show (except the European tour of 1967, which was terrible), don't get me wrong -- but aside from the occasional rarity, the fact is that if you've heard one great Stones show from a tour, you've heard every great Stones show from that tour. (And this isn't me just talking out of my ass, either -- I guarantee that I have more Rolling Stones concerts from the years 1967-1972 than any other person who has ever registered for BBTF.) Meanwhile the Grateful Dead could play five consecutive shows in any given week, or month, or year, and they would be five completely different experiences, with upwards of 80% divergence night-to-night in terms of setlist, or performance style for a given song.

Honestly, if you're going to make an argument for a "same show every night" band that could stand up to the Dead during the years 1967-1972 in terms of live interest despite a lack of setlist variety, it wouldn't be the Rolling Stones. It would be The Who.

How about James Brown? Of course, that was really two completely separate bands in that period, the 60's Maceo Parker group and the 70's Bootsy Collins group. No idea how you'd decide whether either was better than prime Dead, but a JB concert is sure one of the first things I'm going to do with my time machine...

If I'm going to see a band at its peak, one night between 1967-72, it's going to be Sly & the Family Stone.
Never really thought about what a band might be like five nights in a row, because I've never even considered going to see any band five nights in a row.

Ha! This Srul character's just an old hippie burnout. Posts make a little more sense in that context.

The Dead f*cking suck. Please...

/rolls eyes

The Dead f*cking suck. Please...

Your thoughtful argument is compelling.

PreservedFish, you mean this guy?

Warren Haynes

He has played with the Allman Brothers since they reformed in the 80's, has his own band, Gov't Mule (my personal favorite) and Rolling Stone semi recently ranked him the 17th greatest guitarist of all time. His new solo soul album is pretty fantastic too.



The man can flat rip it.

I have always enjoyed the dead more for their songwriting (Mexacali Blues is great) than their noodley jammy live stuff. Thats saying something, I really like a lot of noodley jammers.

Tim Flannery never played for the Giants-what role does he have?

Funny you mention Warren Haynes, because I was going to praise the Allman Brothers live shows of the early '70s, although Haynes wasn't playing with the Allmans at the time.

Funny you mention Warren Haynes, because I was going to praise the Allman Brothers live shows of the early '70s, although Haynes wasn't playing with the Allmans at the time.

Now there is some noodley jamming I could get behind. Spent a good portion of my college years in a cloudy room, with a few friends, a colored light bulb, and their Live at the Atlanta Pop Festival double disk.