--- In [email protected], doctordumbass@... wrote: > > "I think they were on the side of the angels - unique, genuine and fun. And boy, do we need fun in today's troubled times." > > True, but they just weren't very good, for the times - these days, with the dearth of good, original music, they'd probably kick ass, but in the late 60's and early 70's? > > We had Hendrix/Clapton/Zeppelin/Procol Harum/Cream/Jethro Tull/Blind Faith/Fleetwood Mac/Beatles/Rolling Stones/Byrds/CSN&Y/J Airplane/King Crimson/Yes/Joni Mitchell/Joan Baez/Dylan/Motown/Doors/Eagles/Doobie Brothers/38 Special/Credence/Lynyrd Skynrd/Allman Brothers/Riders of the Purple Sage/Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention, and Pink Floyd, to name a few. The dead never had a chance.
Gotta disagree on the "not very good" thang. Of the bands named above, *as musicians* the only one even in the same league as the Grateful Dead was Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention. Maybe Jimi Hendrix towards the last year of his life, when he'd started playing more jazz. The Dead were, as noted by some here, a live band. They just didn't "translate" to albums because they were so "in the moment," playing the rock equivalent of jazz, riffing off of each other and allowing a basic tune to just be the framework for an extended improvisation, between 5-8 people. I would probably suggest that those who neither understand nor appreciate jazz would be the same ones who don't "get" the Grateful Dead. As for "they couldn't sing," obviously whoever said that never heard either Workingman's Dead or American Beauty. Some of the most complex and inventive harmonies ever on those recordings.
