Grateful Dead

dead.net the official site

A superb and innovative musician-I agree. That 1968 Comeback show is incredible. He doesn't just perform music-he IS music.

....don't tell my Mom.

Saw Bruce Cockburn play last weekend at an annual, long running folk festival in beautiful northern Michigan (Blissfest). An enjoyable acoustic set bit I can't say much more as my experience with his music has always been peripheral. Mary Chapin Carpenter headlined the next night and she was wonderful. Highly recommended if she ever rolls into your town. Other acts I have seen there over the years includes John Hiatt, Los Lobos, Taj Mahal, Core Harris, Richie Havens (!)...

HBut none of these folks would of had a place to do what they did, innovate, whatever, if not for Chuck Berry.Read any of THEIR books; Dylan, Beatles, Keif, Pete, Clapton etc, etc and they all say the same thing! So all y’all know more than them? The argument about birth is ridiculous. It presupposes that something can be alive, but not yet born? Or it’s not yet born because of a certain level of popularity? You just insulted 99% of the people on this planet? If no one knows about you, you haven’t been born? RR, pop whatever, did not exist before the Beatles because of scale? I’d beg to differ that the socio-cultural impact of Chuck and Elvis was just as profound as the Beatles, just on a different scale, probably due to the widespread accessibility of television that erupted in the 60s. The Beatles were able to bring “Pop” for lack of better word to the masses as much because of TV exsposure as their music. What If Chuck Berry had been White, and had the exposure they had, in the fifties? Would “modern music” be relevant at all if not for MTV, and the widespread accessibility it afforded? And if not, does that mean it would never have been “born? Speaking of the “music” an overwhelming percentage of all popular/RR etc consists of what is known as a 1, 4, 5 chord progression, and/or evolutionary variations of. This of course is the same as most blues music, so Chuck didn’t invent that. But he wrote songs based on it, added his own RR guitar sound, wrote original lyrics influential to both RR and the times, including innuendo and satire, added a “show”, and sprinkled in a whole lot of attitude, that became hugely popular (reletive to the time period with little or no tv exsposure). Around & around, Johnny B Goode are all written like this, and many of the so called Beatles influenced music you allude to are just variations of the same, U.S Blues is a great example! This music was widely known and excepted as RR well before the Beatles. So if already widely known and part of the cultural lexicon, how could the Beatles have given birth to it? The Beatles did not start any of that, they just were able to take it to another level. And what would the Beatles have been without Sir George Martin and all that amazing new technology... Yes they brought their own style and energy that was on a different level for sure. But the reason they could even do that was because Chuck, Elvis, Dylan etc not only broke the barriers for them, they set the standard that good RR has to have all these other components, what ever happens to the actual music stylistically. Have you ever heard a real rocker that has been turned into a musac version on an elevator? ...same music, but no tude. To me that ain’t RR. But as much as the music, Chuck brought a style, energy, sound and perhaps most important to real RR, an Attitude. This is perhaps just as important to the sociological phonemnon that is part of ALL RR! There would be no legend of Keif if not for Chuck, just ask Keif! The Beatles had nothing to do with punk rock, but Chuck made attitude so important that punk was able to exist. Let’s face it, that’s what punks about, not the shitty, amateur music. So I agree with everything you guys have said about how they incomprehensibly changed RR/pop etc, their influences on the rest of the world, and all music thereafter etc, I would even say their perhaps the most influential band ever! But sorry, I cannot except the presuppositional stance that they “gave birth” to RR. Again, don’t take my word for it read the books by ALL the artists, ESPECAILLY the Beatles! (Sorry, capitals not meant as shouting, just accentuation). John Lennon at his most cockiest would have never said they “gave birth to RR. (see quote back a few posts....) Edit; see clovets Lenon guote at 10:49 am.

Thanks for that, I’m still smiling/laughing!

Agree, Elvis was a great performer an singer, but he didn’t have the full toolbox that the truly greats had.Thus, I’ve always thought him overrated like many of the biggest popular stars are, comparatively... Hell, he might of just been another obscure “hill billy” singer if not in the right time and place?

....ummm, you got a nose job?

Like that sexy telecaster instead of the “Nash” strat?

Sorry, point taken. I over generalized.....though I know many lead guitar players who would not call their signers musicians.....ok that was a joke!

i'll take the pong consoles over the odyssey any day. at least its a game. man there were a lot of them. some good some just utter failures. the pong consoles never made it to my house or anyone I know. but my cousins had Super Break Out on Atari. and it seems like the ultimate Pong Game to me.

Lol, who came up with this nonsense?

....take many forms. The sensitivity scale is off the charts these dayz. One could argue who gave birth to rock n roll all day. I'm gonna throw Bill Haley and The Comets into the ring. How bout that!....I'll respond to the video game discussion later, cause that would take forever, and I don't want to bore you people.

This rock n roll discussion is whisper down the lane on paper. People are arguing about statements that nobody made. Nobody said The Beatles had no help or influence, you're arguing to yourself. Nobody even said the Beatles invented Rock n roll or coined the term, only that they brought it to life in front of the world. The bottom line is that our generation DID witness the birth of rock and roll, and yes you can use the concept of birth, it's an appropriate form of symbolic language called personification. It's laughable that THAT part of the dicussion even came into question. And you didn't have to be alive to see Bill Haley to have witnessed its birth, you just had to have lived through at least part of rock's journey to full fruition, which basically happened in the 70s. The reason I agree we witnessed rock's birth, is because it came into existence and developed into its purest and present form right before our eyes during our lifetime. Like someone said, in a hundred years, none of the bands or people who lived through this awesome rock movement will exist anymore, and if rock is even popular in 100 years, nobody who likes it will be able to say they were around when it was coming to life. That was clearly the point that was being made. I think of it like I think of the veteran contributors here on dead.net who got to see the Dead back in the 70s or even the 60s. It's just awe inspiring. In a hundred years the think of us and think holy s*** they got to go see the Rolling Stones??? The Beatles brand is what hooked the world on rock and roll, and it was original (which is not to say uninfluenced, you can be both influenced and original). The other bands of the 60s (way too many to name) imitated the Beatles sound and grew successful doing it, at least for a short time, until they came to their creative own and developed their own sound. That's not to say that they didn't also imitate other sounds, someone mentioned the Stones first album was all rhythm and blues covers. That doesn't happen to be what brought the Stones success in the long run, it was the writing of their own music which at first sounded very Beatle-esque. These bands were all driven by record companies and the record companies wanted more Beatles because The Beatles were making them rich. The biggest reasons the Beatles gave birth to it, is 1)they were original, 2)they brought their brand to way more more people, WAY more people,(70 million people, come on now) and 3)they influenced most of the bands that followed after (as well as the popular culture at large). Nobody else went on Ed Sullivan 1st and ushered in a movement in rock pop music. None of their predecessors did that. They took what was out there, made it their own and in doing so TRANSFORMED rock and popular music. The bands that came after helped continue the movement, but there's no question the Beatles brand came first. Millions of people latched on to to the Beatles, not Haley or Berry. It was their mold that came first and endured. Chuck Berry still hugely important and I love him to death, but he didn't do what the Beatles did, that wasn't his role. His role may have been even better in the history of rock and roll as he influenced so many. That's not what this discussion was ever about. This discussion was about whether or not our generation was here to witness the birth of rock and roll. The one excellent point I agree with is that Bob Dylan brought a brand that was equally important, but I don't think you could credit him with heralding in the rock movement. Oborious, yes Chuck Berry was important and influenced many, but same thing, he wasn't the Beatles. You seem to be personally offended by all of this, as you are making statements like what if Chuck has been white or what if Elvis wasn't in the right place at the right time. The discussion is about what is not what might have been or could have been. If the queen had balls she'd be king. I think where people are getting stuck in this dialogue is that they're feeling like the birth of rock and roll on the world scale should go to (pick your name) instead of the Beatles. There is no single person or band who invented rock and roll, but the Beatles did give birth to it in the larger world, and that was the only point that was being made along with the fact that we were here to witness it. V guy you're absolutely right the sensitivity scale is just beyond words. But one thing that is clear if you read through this discussion thread is that words our being misinterpreted even after clarifications are made. It's like there's no effort being made.

....when I was 10, and I didn't give it back. He never asked why. He kept things simple. Love you Dad.

Very interesting discussion. As usual, I'm a day late, and a dollar short. I have to say Simonrob made the most cogent point, at least to my ears. As I have heard many musicians say, over many years, why do we have to put labels on music? It's just silly. Take an artist like Bill Frisell. Listen to his 60+ albums, and try to put his music in a "category". You can't. My favorite artists have always grown,changed their music, and lead from the front of the pack. Miles Davis HATED labels. As such, 3 of my all time faves constantly changed and grew, never willing to stand still. Beatles, Miles, and Bill Frisell. We can name dozens who fit the same mold. Bowie, Rundgren, Coltrane, Zappa, Byrds,Neil Young, and on we go. Have at it fellas. Anyone else wanna play the game?Zappa gets the last word here....."music is the best"

....I just like music. Always learning the nuances. Hard to pigeonhole me. But The Grateful Dead touched a synapse that kept growing, and growing until it blossomed into this. So here I am, warts and all. And I think we all can agree on that.

Reminds me of that deleted scene in Pulp Fiction: there are two kinds of people...

Help! I need some body!!!

....followed by Divided Sky. See?caspianjesus is on Mixlr http://mixlr.com/caspianjesus ....I just like the right music at the right time. This live stream is the right time.

Just anybody

For daverock, and any other Deadheads who are interested in checking out some Bruce Cockburn guitar work, here's a nice sample: https://youtu.be/Q9Uj4CTiHQI

....and it pinned me in my chair. Bravo!

We can now shut down this site Mr Ones you have sumed up everyone here no matter what our other disagreements " Music is the Best"

Sorry, I thought we were having a intellectual discussion about opposing theories, not trying to insult one another. So since I now feel insulted. I also feel I have to defend my self..... Please find Butch’s comments in quotes.... “Nobody even said the Beatles invented Rock n roll or coined the term, only that they brought it to life in front of the world. “ So the millions of folks for all the years before the Beatles did not enjoy RR, because it hadn’t yet been brought to life? Even though they did have some success; album sales, performances and quite a bit of airplay, RELETIVELY speaking? Because your statements could be interpreted that RR was such an underground, insignificant thing that not until the Beatles did it become well known? or “given birth” To me that’s an insult to all the men and women who actually made RR, long before the Beatles came along.... “The bottom line is that our generation DID witness the birth of rock and roll, and yes you can use the concept of birth, it's an appropriate form of symbolic language called personification. It's laughable that THAT part of the dicussion even came into question.” As I’ve politely stated, I agree with most of KF’s fine, articulate essay, just not this part. I’m imho, based on reading dozens of RR biographies, the only thing wrong with this is you could say all the same things about Chuck, only on a smaller scale...due to technological and cultural circumstances he had no control over. i understand your point just fine. You don’t need to insult me. Sorry to all you folks if this seems like I’m being snarky etc. Not trying to be, actually having a bit of fun participating in a verbal chess match, mental gymnastics, intellectual discourse etc. Used to stay up and party hard and do this sort of thing about authors, music, movies etc when I went back to collage in my thirties..... “The biggest reasons the Beatles gave birth to it, is 1)they were original,” And Chuck wasn’t? “2)they brought their brand to way more more people, WAY more people,(70 million people, come on now)” Never debated that, if you actually read my post, I ponder whether album sales and/or popularity alone is really a true distinction of what makes one relevant or not. I don’t believe album sales alone is. And comparing album sales from completely different technological and cultural times is like comparing apples to oranges....I’m sorry i obviously did not articulate my point well.. I don’t think that’s a fair, objective measure. “3)they influenced most of the bands that followed after (as well as the popular culture at large).” I have openly agreed with this statement throughout....? “Nobody else went on Ed Sullivan 1st and ushered in a movement in rock pop music. None of their predecessors did that.” Unfortunately I don’t know that much about the show, but I don’t believe in the fifties, a black man, with subversive lyrics was going to get a fair shot at a show of that prominence? I do think I recall reading that they did not want RR, but they felt they needed to make the show more current, to generate ratings, and because RR was already so prevalent in society, they needed to get with the times.....but please don’t quote me on that.....my memory is deteriorating rapidly... I also believe part of the reason Chuck received the airplay he did get, was many didn’t know he was black by his “sound” Another way for the suits to take “race music” and make it popuar with whites, so they could cash in. “They took what was out there, made it their own and in doing so TRANSFORMED rock and popular music. The bands that came after helped continue the movement,” Again, I’ve only supported this sentiment. But I also believe you could say the same, in a different way, about Berry et el... “but there's no question the Beatles brand came first.” This is where we disagree. Again, it’s an insult to all those who were oppressed and struggled through the early years of RR, so that eventually it was legitimized enough so the Beatles could explode and change the world! Kinda like the big brother or sister who breaks in the parents, so the younger siblings have an easier time.... “Millions of people latched on to to the Beatles, not Haley or Berry. “ So again, numbers are your criteria? Apples to Oranges.... “It was their mold that came first and endured” Not unless they had a time machine....sorry, that was snarky. I apologize! “Chuck Berry still hugely important and I love him to death, but he didn't do what the Beatles did” Never said he did. I repeatedly acknowledge that the Beatles were perhaps the greatest band of all time, influentially at least, if not more.... “that wasn't his role. His role may have been even better in the history of rock and roll as he influenced so many. That's not what this discussion was ever about. This discussion was about whether or not our generation was here to witness the birth of rock and roll.” Again, I understand perfectly what this is about. I’m sorry that because we disagree you feel I don’t understand your point, so much so that you have to insult my intelligence.... “The one excellent point I agree with is that Bob Dylan brought a brand that was equally important, but I don't think you could credit him with heralding in the rock movement.” No, not in and of itself, but one could argue that his innovations also had a unmeasurable influence on RR. Perhaps one of the few that came close to the Beatles level of influence? “Oborious, yes Chuck Berry was important and influenced many, but same thing, he wasn't the Beatles” Never said he was, only that he is constantly not given the credit myself, and more importantly, most of the RR elite all state in their books that he deserves, of which being credited as the true Father of RR is one. I believe Rolling Stone said something similar in their tribute to him? I’m sorry, but most of my personal belongings, including my RR library are currently in storage or I would stay up and provide references. . “You seem to be personally offended by all of this,” Not at all. I truly apologize to you, as well as everyone if that’s how this is coming across. I just think your making a generalized statement that ignores a huge block of actual history, which insults those who made it. By doing so, I don't think your theory is logical. “as you are making statements like what if Chuck has been white or what if Elvis wasn't in the right place at the right time. The discussion is about what is not what might have been or could have been. If the queen had balls she'd be king.” How can you not consider what America was like racially in the fifties, and how that would effect the success or failure of a black person? And to compare what a Fearless Black man did, during that repulsive time in our history; actually “give birth to”, basically a whole new cultural scene, and making it popular (sounds familiar?), with a group that did all the great things they did, in part, because of the foundation people like Mr Berry laid for them to build upon, only by comparing popularity or numbers? That’s like saying Miles Davis gave birth to Jazz with Kind of Blue, while all his predecessors, from decades before, did not? “I think where people are getting stuck in this dialogue is that they're feeling like the birth of rock and roll on the world scale should go to (pick your name) instead of the Beatles. There is no single person or band who invented rock and roll, but the Beatles did give birth to it in the larger world, and that was the only point that was being made along with the fact that we were here to witness it.” Sorry, agree with everything except the term birth. I have never disputed the rest. birth bərTH/Submit noun 1. the emergence of a baby or other young from the body of its mother; the start of life as a physically separate being. 1. give birth to (a baby or other young). "she had carried him and birthed him" “A physically SEPARATE being....” Your argument presupposes that the Beatles would be the parent, that gives birth to a new being... Mine presupposes that Chuck was the father that gave birth to the new being. The Beatles were that being when it fully matured, and became an adult force of nature....that went on to conquer the world, in part because of the DNA of the father.....now I may not be right, but I don’t think that’s so hard to follow is it? “V guy you're absolutely right the sensitivity scale is just beyond words. But one thing that is clear if you read through this discussion thread is that words our being misinterpreted even after clarifications are made. It's like there's no effort being made.” Touché my friend, no need to insult. Just because we don’t agree doesn’t mean I don’t understand, and that you need to insult me. You say “potAto”, I say “potaahto” And finally (I promise no more outta me anyway, hopefully I’ve made my point. Not looking to be “right” just properly understood. I don’t think you can fairly critique ones argument if you don’t properly understand it) So finally, I'd just like to state I’m sorry if I’ve bummed folks out. That was never my intent. Especially no bad vibes toward Keithfan. I thoroughly enjoy his articulate posts, and usually agree with like 98% of what he says. Think maybe I’ll just go away for a bit......”you know this space is getting hot” Peace!

Such nonsense. My cat can cut and paste. Stop it. Dave. You disappoint. No knowledge of Bruce? I posted about him during the worthless doors/who tripe.

Such nonsense. My cat can cut and paste. Stop it. Dave. You disappoint. No knowledge of Bruce? I posted about him during the worthless doors/who tripe.

you all need more Unicorn Jesus in your lives and less of this Devil rock music.

for intellectual discussions between non-intellectuals.

Hey hey with the Monkees! What I find odd though is that I cut my teeth on R&R in the late 60s and into the 70s. Back then, we called the 50s the oldies. Elvis, Jerry Lee, Fats Domino, Bill Haley, Buddy Holley, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Eddie Cochrane, all those guys seemed ancient to us. Thinking about 30s and 40s music back then? Fuggettaboutit. What was that even? Musicians wearing suits with skinny ties, and huge brass bands with our grandparents swirling around the dance floors all dressed up? What gets me is that now the 60s and 70s are more than twice as long ago for today's kids as the 50s were for me, and that seemed pretty far back at the time. So the circle squares, and now I listen to more jazz from the 30s-60s than I do rock and roll from any era, the GOGD being one of the few exceptions. Get off of my lawn!

"I’ve stolen every lick he ever played", Keith Richards on Chuck Berry "The Shakespeare of rock 'n' roll", Bob Dylan on Chuck Berry "No group, be it Beatles, Dylan or Stones, have ever improved on 'Whole Lotta Shakin'' for my money.” John Lennon

Thanks for the film clip of Bruce Cockburn. Some beautiful guitar playing-in fact the whole band is good. I've never heard Bob Dylan play like that!

Just had a listen to this show yesterday. I like the way Wang Dang Doodle starts and slowly builds to start off the show, makes you think something really cool is about to happen. A lack luster first set except for the opener and that great Deal at the end. Second set not so hot either, the pre drums is kinda muddy, the drums is short and goes no where, the space is nice, but really doesn't build to anything either, the post drums with a "new song" delivered like a single, Throwing Stones gets so much better in the late 80's and into the 90's. All in all, I give this show a C average and certainly not the "stunner" it is advertised as. Sure hope the next pick is better than this one. I don't know if any of you were around in the 40's, I wasn't. But I think you can trace Rock and Roll all the way back to then, or even the 30's, or maybe the roaring 20's, hard to say. Of course, back then it was "Heathen" music, "Black" music and a thing that you kept your young children away from, "no son/daughter of mine is going to listen to some muggle smoking darkie music". Segregation was in full swing back then and Rock and Roll was a thing to be feared. It was, after all, youthful rebellion which happens in every generation, that put rock and roll on the map, back then, if our parents hated it, we loved it. There were a lot of us in the 60's and music meant something back then, it was our call to arms, our mantra, we actually thought that music and love could change the world. I'm not a historian nor do I know exactly when rock and roll got it "birth". Glad it did tho, sure was an uptight world full of lies and hate back then, wow, I just got a feeling like I've been here before. I think someone said that they had been following history for X years or some thing like that, gee, they should know ;) But can you believe them? Most that were around then are gone or are so old that they just can't remember, and I can relate to that, memories are very subjective and history books can be distorted, or rewritten. I have had a conversation or two with my 93 year old mother-in-law who was a music teacher all thru the late 50's, 60's and 70's. When she is able to, she remembers rock and roll as a bad thing, one that was openly discouraged and frowned upon, until that "nice gospel singing hill billy" came around. He was "so nice, and good looking too". But that was rock just finally being accepted, not the birth of.

No wonder I like it! I cannot add much more to this than has already been mentioned.. I find the whole topic interesting albeit a little disjointed at times. For any readers out there, I recommend McNally's latest book "On Highway 61: Music, Race and the Evolution of Cultural Freedom" I'll send my copy to whoever wants to read it.. I'm done with it, the first to send a PM gets it (assumes I will get at least one response).

Before Bill Haley and Elvis, you gotta' go back to the late 40s, when big bands were no longer a viable option to make a decent living and when the small R&B combos started playing harder edge Blues; artists like Wynonie Harris, Louis Jordan, Roy Brown(who wrote Good Rockin' Tonight, later covered by Elvis); also, Hillbilly artists like the Delmore Brothers, Red Foley and Hank Penny were also pushing the envelope by adding Boogie Woogie to their folkish melodies(check out the Delmores' Freight Train Boogie, starts off as a nice hillbilly train song, but by toward the end of the song, it's fully into Rockabilly territory)My point? There's no doubt the Beatles, Stones, Dylan, etc. have made huge contributions to the genre, but they had absolutely nothing to do with the birth of rock and roll, it had already been born and immensely popular. Now, dig the two crazy, perfect guitar solos in Gene Vincent's classic Race with the Devil, courtesy of Cliff Gallup and his Gretsch Duo Jet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3gxQ1tetAQ

Got a taker on the McNally book. Glad to see it's going to good hands.

Yes nose job and I've lost weight. You didn't notice the weight loss? And my avatar is now a tele in honor of my new axe (previous avatar was Jerry's Nash strat with the alligator sticker - very similar, but the tele IS slimming..... OK, everyone - back to taking yourselves way too seriously.

I resemble that remark, and now I'm extra serious all pissed off. ...there's only one cure, the cool, soothing sounds of New Potato Caboose coming out of a triumphant an emotional Morning Dew from Winterland on 10/22/67. Enjoying the new Anthem release. ahh... all is now good with the world and I got my Sunday morning religion. On to productive things.

Glad all you early risers liked the clip of Bruce C. working out with a band. I posted an instrumental track to show his guitar skills, but he’s also one of my favorite vocalists (at least from the 70s to the 90s; he’s about 73 himself now, I think).For his American radio “hits,” check out Wondering Where the Lions Are and If I Had a Rocket Launcher - a sunny 70s track and a dark 80s track that couldn’t be much different.

Clovet and Cousins...thankfully, after all that. it sounds like SOMEONE at least understands, or has a similar view..... Simonrob. Thanks for the insult. We all forgot how fucking perfect you are! Now you can go back to futilely arguing over which version of a song played differently 400 times is better then the rest....lol

Although I listened to Bruce Cockburn's Dancing In the Dragon Jaws when it first came out back in '79, I ultimately found it had too much of a focus on Christianity for me. Stealing Fire is a bit dated, what with it's focus on the U.S-Nicaragua issues the characterize the album. My favorite albums of his have been Charity of Night, Life Short Call Now, and You've Never Seen Everything.

First time I've listened to this in a couple of weeks. It gets better every time...... Really looking forward to this 83 show. Just hoping the audio holds up.

I agree with most of what you said. But to say rock and roll was already immensely popular before the Beatles and the Stones, compared to its popularity after the Beatles and the Stones is inaccurate. None of those artists you mentioned brought 70 million people to their TV sets for Ed Sullivan. When you speak to people who where around for Ed Sullivan, or read interviews, The Beatles started a rock and roll frenzy. Bands started popping up all over garages in America and England due to the popularity of The Beatles in the Stones. They are the two groups most responsible for bringing rock and roll to the world. Just look at the record sales those two groups alone brought in in those days. I'm not talkin total record sales now, I mean record sales then. There was no Howlin Wolf Mania. I think the discussion is much more paletable for some if you substitute "brought rock and roll to the world" rather than "birth of rock and roll".

It's complicated. https://youtu.be/gELe5Rj_tXU

to Oroborous. From reading your posts it had not become apparent to me that you are an intellectual. Apologies for not appreciating how seriously you take yourself. Bearing that in mind, I am surprised you seem to have taken my post more seriously that it was intended to be.

I'm never normally one to refuse a compliment, but I have to say-here in England, we are 6 hours ahead of you. Early riser?-It was about 2.00pm when I posted!

Orobouros - Are you gonna just sit there and TAKE that??? C'mon man... let's see how over the top we can get this argument. simonrob: get a real flamethrower post ready so you can fire back quickly - judges award points for a quick counterpunch. I'll get my popcorn.... this is gonna be great.

I feel I have to jump in and say I enjoyed reading your post on rock n' roll, and appreciate the time you took writing it. At the risk of becoming a target for your untamed wit myself, I must say, Simon, that your comments struck me as more insulting than humorous. Sorry-I like you, and I normally like your posts-but that one-no.