Talk:Grateful Dead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Grateful Dead was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: October 23, 2006


This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated GA+-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Arts. It has been rated Top-Importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] The Grateful Dead

I thought I understood the whole "move page" thing, but why can't I move this to The Grateful Dead? Tokerboy 18:28 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)

A redirect is in the way. You have to cut and paste it over there. Lir 18:29 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)

Question: any reference on the group's name referring to the Egiyptian Book of the Dead? I always understood it to relate to English Balladry. --Jmabel 22:39, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)

  • This is something I picked up in the late 60's and which was mentioned in a number of interviews, but you could try looking in Tom Wolfe's The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test. (It would only be in one of the final chapters.) I never came across such a name during my involvement with English Balladry. unkamunka. 12:33, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • It is pretty well documented in several books where the name comes from:

According to Dennis McNally (aka Scrib, the band's publicist), Jerry Garcia, Phil Lesh, Bob Weir & Bill Kreutzman were at Lesh's house on High Street on November 12, leafing through Bartlett's Familiar Quotations without any inspiration, when Garcia opened Phil's girlfriend Ruth's Funk and Wagnall's New Practical Standard Dictionary (1956) and stabbed his finger at a random page on the entry: Grateful Dead. McNally, Dennis - A Long Strange Trip p. 100 (2002).

Quote, regarding changing the name from the Warlocks: "(probably not the New York Band Velvet Underground, but instead a band whose guitarist would eventually form ZZ Top)." This bit is wrong for three reasons. First, the Grateful Dead became the Grateful Dead in 1965. The band members of ZZ Top were born in 1949, and none of them had released an album by the time they were sixteen. Second, Dusty Hill (ZZ Top's bass player) was in the Warlocks, not Billy Gibbons. Third, Phil Lesh mentions in the book "Playing in the Band," by David Gans and Peter Simon, that the record he came across by a band called the Warlocks featured a band from "back East." Although Texas (where the members of ZZ Top are from) may be east of California, NOBODY refers to Texas as "back East." I am removing this quote for these reasons.JSC ltd 16:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

(not sure what was here - vandalism deleted) Dave C. 05:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the Unix fortune cookie program has this line in it's database:
"In the land of the dark the Ship of the Sun is driven by the Grateful Dead." -Egyptian Book of the Dead
Was it ever documented that any of the band members had read or were familiar with the Egyptian Book of the Dead? ChardingLLNL 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems certain that someone in the Dead's crowd had at least a passing familiarity with the book: On the cover of their first album, the crypitc writing across the top spells out this very sentence. I haven't seen any documentation that a band member requested this feature, nor have I seen any documentation that the Egyptian Book Of the Dead was on any band member's reading list. They were a pretty well-read bunch of guys, though, so it seems likely to me that possibly Jerry or Phil would have read it.....FWIW. JSC ltd 23:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The cryptic writing on the cover of the first album says, "In the land of the dark the Ship of the Sun is driven by the Grateful Dead"? That's a cool theory, but, how do you know, and what language is it in? — Mudwater 00:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The language is English. The letters are highly stylized "because (as Garcia later said) [the band] worried that the content of the lettering might be seen as 'pretentious'["Grateful Dead: The Illustrated Trip," pg. 67]," but the phrase reads right-side up, left to right. One source for this theory is the liner notes from the 2001 Rhino reissue of the album, pg. 14. Another source is "Skeleton Key: A Dictionary for Deadheads," pg. 121. JSC ltd 20:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A list of all musicians who were in the band at the bottom of the page would be nice. heidimo 15:14, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Original members:
    • Jerry Garcia, lead guitar and vocals
    • Bob Weir, rythyhm gutar and vocals
    • Ron 'Pigpen' Mckernan, keyboards and vocals (beginning- June 1972)
    • Phil Lesh, bass guitar and vocals
    • Bill Kreutzman, drums
  • Other members:
    • Tom Constanten, keyboards (1967?- Jan 1970)
    • Mickey Hart, drums and percussion (1967-1971; 1975-present)
    • Keith Godchaux, piano (Oct 1971 - Feb 1979)
    • Donna Godchaux, vocals (1972?- Feb 1979)
    • Brent Mydland, keyboards (1979-1990)
    • Bruce Hornsby, piano (1990-1992)
    • Vince Welnick, keyboards (1990-1995)
  • Major Lyricists:
    • Robert Hunter
    • John Perry Barlow Joobie 16:03, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC) unkamunka. 22:52, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Somebody's got to have a great onstage pic they can donate :) Kwertii 02:23, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well I might happen to have a few. Dragged my camera to one NYE run, and quite a few in Philly. Probably late 80's, early 90's. Gonna have to find them, then dust off the scanner and its s/w, so it could be a bit.--PA Jed aka J Clear 00:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed the thing about the origin of the name being the book of the dead. I find no support for this and several creditable references to the name coming from the old folk tale...including references on www.dead.net. Hope don't offend anyone, but this seems like a rather important point that is in error...as the folk tale is quite important to understanding the band "The Grateful Dead" (IMHO) Maybe I, or someone, should write a section on this.

The (Egyptian) book of the dead origin for the group's name came from an interview given by Phil Lesh in the late 60's. Until the Egyptian Book of the Dead experience (supporting the folklore reference), the band was uncertain whether yet another name change might be appropriate. It appears that the band subsequently viewed that as being of secondary importance. unkamunka. 19:30, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

3 shows were cancelled between Brent's death and Vince's first gig. See contemporary press cuttings at http://www.kazart.com/bus_stop/scrapbk1.htm. Thus, "Without missing a show..." has been changed to "Almost immediately...." unkamunka. 14:25, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


_________

[edit] from the fat man's mouth

Garcia remarked, "We discovered there was a band back East recording under that name [the Warlocks]. We decided, 'Oh, no, we can't have that, we can't be confused with somebody else.' So we were trying to think up names, and for about two or three weeks we went on the usual thing of coming up with thousands and thousands of very funny names, none of which we could use."

They used the name Emergency Crew when they cut a demo on November 3, 1965, in San Francisco for Tom Donahue's label, Autumn Records. Later that month the band was sitting around on High Street in Palo Alto trying to come up with a suitable name when Garcia happened upon a phrase that stuck. He explained how they finally found their name: "One day we were all over at Phil's house smoking DMT. He had a big Oxford dictionary, I opened it, and there was grateful dead, those words juxtaposed. It was one of those moments, y'know, like everything else on the page went blank, diffuse, just sorta oozed away, and there was GRATEFUL DEAD, big black letters edged all in gold, man, blasting out at me, such a stunning combination. So I said 'How 'bout Grateful Dead?' and that was it." garcia added, "It was funny because we didn't really like it at first and it kind of made us shudder. We were worried that nobody was going to go for it -- it's too weird."

--- from Captain Trips by Sandy Troy pp 73-74

[edit] THE

How come The Beatles article title includes the word THE, but the Grateful Dead article title does not? Kingturtle 00:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because The Beatles always went by "The Beatles", whereas the "Grateful Dead" generally did not. Some googling reveals mixed use for the Grateful Dead (with the lack of an article appearing to be more common), while The Beatles almost always have the article attached. Tuf-Kat 01:07, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • I see. I noticed that even on their LPs, it can be one or the other. Kingturtle 02:09, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] No discography?

Am I missing it somewhere? Any reason for this? -- Dave C. 05:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's too long --User:Zaorish. It's on a separate page.

[edit] Leary

What about Timothy Leary?

And Owsley???

[edit] write it yourself

How about instead of complaining about what sections are missing, you write the section yourself. I did, I wrote the original draft of the "wall of sound" section. And if you don't know enough about the topic to write a full section yourself, then research. —preceding unsigned comment by 66.212.196.150 (talk • contribs) 14:24, May 4, 2005

[edit] Is Grateful Dead a one-hit wonder?

People may be interested in looking at the article 1980s One-hit wonders in the United States where there is an edit war (which I am involved in) over whether Grateful Dead is a one-hit wonder. Samboy 19:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is tricky, because while the Dead did have a 'hit,' it was late in their career, long after they had produced several records and established a large audience. Most one hit wonder bands are unknown to mainstream audiences until a catchy single catapults them to fame, then they fail to keep their audience or have another hit song.
The Dead, on the other hand, were an important band, in the cultural sense. They played Woodstock, They played Montery Pop Festival, they were a large part of the Fillmore/Winterland Bill Graham concert scene. They are very identified with the Haight-Ashbury hippie scene of the '60's (along with bands such as Santana, Jefferson Airplane, etc.)
One might even consider the song "Truckin'" to be a minor hit of its time, reaching #64 on the Billboard Pop Singles chart and getting considerable FM radio play (the album "Truckin" appeared on, "American Beauty," peaked at #30 on Billboard's Pop Albums).
The Dead were contemporaries of The Allman Brothers, CSNY (Garcia even played pedal steel guitar on their hit song "Teach Your Children"), Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and the Band. Are any of those other bands "One Hit Wonders?" Janis Joplin didn't really have alot of "hits" but is she considered a failure because of it? Would "Another Piece of My Heart" be her 'hit'? Is Janis Joplin a one-hit wonder also? I think you'll see that it doesn't really apply to artists such as these, who have been legitimized through time.
The song that was the big radio hit for the Dead was "Touch of Gray." But all this means, really, is that mainstream audiences liked this song, and the Dead never really measured success on radio play or album sales. The Dead was a touring band, and the legion of fans who devotedly followed them around to see their performances speaks to the power of their concert's impact. If you are judging the band solely on mass exposure you might claim they were a one hit wonder. More accurately, the band had a large cult follwing and unexpectedly had a mainstream hit one year.
Finally, the Dead was very popular, even a household name, before "Touch of Gray," filling large ampitheaters such as Nassau Coliseum and other large venues with their fans. After the inital success of "Touch of Gray," the Dead stayed popular with their fan base up until the band's last performance. Even now, without Garcia, the surviving members of the Dead can fill a stadium such as Jones Beach in New York, which speaks to their enduring popularity. I'd say that the Dead was NOT a one-hit wonder, but rather they were a band that, while being a popular concert draw, failed to make considerable impact on mainstream radio or in album sales. However, cultually, the Dead were well known, in fact they epitomized a certain kind of music. Compare this with one-hit wonders such as Gerardo or whoever was behind the Marcarena etc. and you will see that the Dead are not really in the same category as those.

[edit] Dick's Picks MIA

The Dick's Picks series represents a huge and unique component of the band's recordings. Was it intentionally omitted from the discography? It would be easy to add, as the data is readily available. —preceding unsigned comment by Juanpoe (talk • contribs) 14:56, July 21, 2005

Bruce's performances with The Grateful Dead are captured on: "Dick's Picks 9 - Madison Square Garden - 16 Sept 90", "Dick's Picks 17 - Boston Garden - 25 Sept 91", Infrared Roses (Hornsby is given credit as co-composer of "Silver Apples of the Moon"), "A View from the Vault II", and "So Many Roads". For a non-member his contribution to "The Dead's" body of work is notable.

[edit] Bruce Hornsby was NEVER a "member" of the Dead

"I have to disagree, Bruce toured with the Dead long enough after Brent's death, and that although he never recorded with them he is in the minds of a lot of people, still a full member of the band's past."

The 'mind's of a lot of people' do not determine Grateful Dead membership. Bill Bruford toured with Genesis for years, but he was never a MEMBER. He helped out on tours. Big difference.

Bruce Hornsby was NEVER a member of the Grateful Dead...he was a sideman that helped the band out for a year and a half. He had NO SAY in the songwriting or decision-making of the band. He would be the first person to tell you that he was never a member. That's like including the sax player for Pink Floyd tours as a band member.

>>> Actually, Bruce does say that he "became a part-time member of the Grateful Dead and, from September 1990 to March 1992, performed with the group on more than 100 concerts in America and Europe." See, his website at http://www.brucehornsby.com/bio.php <<< SteveHopson

But by this reasoning, was Donna a MEMBER of the band? Did she have a say in the songwriting or decision-making of the band? Was T.C. a MEMBER by that reasoning? What is the point of aruging about whether we put the label "MEMBER" on someone? Did Bruce Hornsby bring anything valuable to the table with respect to the Dead is the question to consider.

The Dead did consider Hornsby in the process that resulted in hiring Brent.

My two cents:
One reasonable way to gauge whether someone is a member might be: During the individual's tenure, did he or she participate in nearly every performance of the band (i.e., except for illness, pregnancy, death in the family, etc.)? By this standard Bruce was not a member and Donna was. FWIW, I usually liked Bruce's contributions, but I never considered him a member, since his participation was not full-time.
--Steve M (a different steve than above)

I am in no way an expert, most of my knowledge comes from McNally's book "A Long Strange Trip". To claim that Donna was a member and Bruce was not is IMHO a complete misunderstanding. By following Steve M's logic, the only true "members" then are Phil and Bob ( :/ [post-2005]). In fact, in the early years (pre-74) the crew was considered to be as much a part of the decision making as the band. Maybe even more so... Point being, with the Dead, definitions such as "membership" are not easily and/or typically defined. Questions of "membership", based on singing/songwriting decisions, are completely lost on those claiming to be fans. --bean

If there was ever any question about this, I think you go straight to the front of Phil Lesh's recent book -- where he includes Bruce as one of the 12 members of the band. If Phil includes him on the list, that's good enough for me! It makes no sense for folks to say TC and Donna were band members while saying Bruce was not. The guy toured with them for a year and a half (not to mention numerous other guest appearances before and after the 1990-92 stint with the band) -Sam

Actually, that list in Lesh's book is of "his brothers in music," not specifically of Dead members per se, even if we read it as such. Another guide might be the inductee list for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Under those inducted as members of the Grateful Dead, there is Tom Constanten. There is Donna Jean Godchaux. There is Vince Welnick. There is NOT Bruce Hornsby. I am most assuredly high on Hornsby, but he was, at best and by his own definition, a part-time member (however much he deserved full status - perhaps Bruce was trying to distance himself from the curse?). - Natalie Davis (RIP Vince! http://gratefuldread.net/archives/cat/001544.html )

Please also see Talk:Grateful Dead#Bruce Hornsby...Again for newer discussion on this topic. -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 20:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The section on the page is LINEUPS, and, since Bruce WAS a regular, uninterrupted (with zero or very very few exceptions I can find) member of the LINEUP from September 1990 through March 24, 1992, he ought to be included in a separate subsection 1990-1992. Having only one section, 1990-1995 is really misguided. Bruce, whether his playing falls within one's personal taste or not, did make significant contributions to the band's style of improvisational performance in the wake of Mydland and pre-Welnick...thankfully, as per the band taping policy, we have ample evidence to support those contributions. Many feel that Bruce's solos and call-and-responses with Jerry actually kicked Jerry into another gear on his own playing (one need only check out the JGB Richmond, VA '91 performance, currently available in part on YouTube, to understand these views). Jerry's playing pre-Bruce and post-Bruce was influenced and changed, so much so that Jerry went on to collaborate on several Bruce solo albums, and, in fact, one of Jerry's final studio sessions was with Bruce in Williamsburg. He did impact the sound and style of the band's core improvisitory member. That said, I'd be happy to boot him for his accordion playing (which was often off-the-mark and/or way to high in the soundboard mix), but the fact is the guy was a contributing part of the lineup...to omit him is to suggest that the Dead of 1990-1992 sound the same as the Dead of 1992-1995...that's simply not true. (In fact, there were many moments during 1990-1992 when I hoped Vince would get the boot...he was experimenting with really cheesy synth sounds, especially when he was high in the mix he really ruined lots of softer, soulful lyrics in Set I's...he had this ridiculous Super Mario Brothers soundtrack sound for quite some time. It was great to see him come into his own, though...)

[edit] Need more music history

This leaves off at 1970. What about post 1970?

[edit] Busted Down on Bourbon Street

Garica or the whole band was busted for pot in New Orleans either in the late 60's or 70-71. Garica/The Band may have vowed to never return there (see bottom of [[1]]); the line from Truckin ("busted down on Bourbon Street") is a reference to it (as are the lines immediately before it, "Got a tip they're gonna kick the door in again," etc.).

Anyone have the dish on this bust? When did it occur? Pot and/or other drugs? What became of the case? I haven't seen much info on it; its just a known fact they were busted in New Orleans and it is mentioned in Truckin.Friendlyliz 18:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The bust is mentioned on the official documentary "Anthem to Beauty", at some point. Also that represenatives for Warner Bros. bribed the police.

[edit] Article kinda sucks

The PHISH page is so incredbily imformative that it almost makes me upset that the Dead page is as weak as it is.

Check out what those fans did with the Phish page (with detailed links and all) and we might be able to make this Dead page creative instead of full of boring facts. I never "got" Phish but their entry sure made me want to explore their music

The Phish article is very creative and informative, but I think it's also POV. Joey Q. McCartney 00:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article is generally not particularly well written -- there's a lot of redundancy and repetition, sometimes even of the same vague phrases and references. (E.g., "Deadheads" and their "dedication" are mentioned more than once in broad terms, as is the assertion that Garcia was the "de facto" leader but did not welcome that role.)

[edit] Featured Music Project evaluation

[edit] 2005

I entirely agree about the current sitution of the Dead. I Saw them live at their live show on 8/19/04 in Atlata. (My first show) I do hope that the "core four" snd others put on a show again, but I doubt it.

Grateful Dead has been evaluated according to the Featured Music Project criteria, most recently affirmed as of this revision.  The article's most important issues are listed below.  Since this evaluation, the article may have been improved.
The following areas need work to meet the criteria: Lead - Comprehensiveness - Pictures - Audio - References
The space below is for limited discussion on this article's prospects as a featured article candidate. Please take conversations to the article talk page.
  • Lead: Too long
  • Comprehensiveness: Needs more on musical style, legacy and influences
  • Pictures: Needs fair use rationales
  • Audio: Needs more, use a template
  • References: Needs inline citations
  • Discography and external links could probably be trimmed

[edit] Deadheads

This section needs serious help, IMHO. Also, can we tune down the whole grilled cheese sandwich thing? Veggie buritos were WAY more prevalent. Also, needs much more about tie-dye, hair, communal living, micro buses, ect. I 'll start.....Tom 23:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Be sure to have sources and not stray into POV territory.--Moeron 00:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I put back in the Main article link to Dead Heads, which should help a bit. Although my quick glance at that article says it needs TLC. I've also added a bit to the section, some of which probably belongs in Dead Heads. The trick is to keep the section here short and focused on how Dead Head's impacted the band. Put the bulk in the DH article, where the focus can be more on the DHs themselves. Who's got my miracle?--PA Jed aka J Clear 00:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spinal Tap comment

Can we source this?? It seems that in the movie This is spinal Tap, the drummers deaths parodied the deaths of DRUMMERS from OTHER bands, ie The Who, Led Zepplin, ect and wasn't in regards to the Dead's keyboardist deaths...please correct me or lose this line. Thanks!Tom 15:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I see that in the article This is Spinal Tap they referrence the Dead. My problem would be the Dead had ONE member die while part on the group and the other in question, Keith, LEFT before he died. Also Spinal tap came out in 1984 before Brent died in 1990. Both articles should be edited IMO. And I'll do so :) Tom 15:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

-I've thought about another dead reference in the movie when I first saw it which is when they flashed back to their days as the flower people. I thought this might be a possible allusion to the dead's history of constantly changing the sound of thier music. Any other thoughts on that or other possible dead references in the movie? (68.48.191.17 17:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

Well, uh, you could make the point that everyone who played keyboards on a released album (Pig, Keith, Brent, Jer) all met an early demise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.241.76 (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychedelic from the start?

"The Grateful Dead’s early music (in the mid 1960s) was part of the process of establishing what "psychedelic music" was"

I'd quibble with this statement. Recordings that circulate of early shows - and there are a good many of them - indicate that up until late 1967 the group was playing more or less post British Invasion R&B. The first LP bears this out - the only psychedelic thing about it is the cover. The Grateful Dead's psychedelic phase really only kicks in early in 1968, just before and during the tour of the north-west. Ironically, it was at this time that many other musicians were trying to distance themselves from the phenomenon. BTLizard 09:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

-I would say that the dead were a jam band in the mid 60s, but didn't really play "psychedelic" music until they released of anthem of the sun, which was designed specifically to mimic a psychedelic trip. Though I would argue that the band itself could be considered culturally "psychedelic" ever since they did the acid tests. (68.48.191.17 17:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Bruce Hornsby...Again

I guess its time to revist this. Since I see another wheel war developing here. Should we do a vote?? I hate them, but at least everybody can way in. How would that work? --Tom 16:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Bruce H was an "offical" member of the Dead and should be listed as such in this article:

  • No support - Although Bruce played alot with the Band, he maintained his own group and didn't play EVERY show since Vincent was there to tickle the ivories "full" time. I always thought of Bruce as a "special guest" more than a full time member....--Tom 16:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No support - In the Jerry Garcia biography, An American Life, Hornsby comments something along the lines of "They wanted me to be a member, but I was never a member of the Grateful Dead because I had my own other stuff going on." When I get home from work, I will find the page and correct quote. Also, in the Illustrated Grateful Dead, in the sidebox for Hornsby, it mentions that he played temporarily for the band after Brent's death, but didn't stay because of his own projects. Again, I will find the information when I get home. I will also look to see what Phil Lesh has to say in his autobiography that I have. --MOE.RON talk | done | doing 16:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Further, at the official website, http://www.dead.net, under the tab The Band Hornsby is not a listed as a member. --MOE.RON talk | done | doing 16:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Another thing from the official site, under Archives and there under 1990, it says "The band selects Vince Welnick as the new full-time keyboard player, and Bruce Hornsby as a most-of-the-time sit-in player." --MOE.RON talk | done | doing 16:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Some more; under Archives and 1990, you can select a photo of Bruce which says the following, "In the wake of Brent's death, Garcia and Lesh went to see Bruce at a Bay Area concert and eventually invited him to join the band. But Hornsby had a booming solo career, and while happy to fill in, was reluctant to commit completely. In Dead fashion, the band decided to include Bruce where and when available, but also search for a permanent new keyboard player, which turned out to be Vince Welnick." --MOE.RON talk | done | doing 16:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No support? I posted this above, then saw that this is a new thread...sorry:

The section on the page is LINEUPS, and, since Bruce WAS a regular, uninterrupted (with zero or very very few exceptions I can find) member of the LINEUP from September 1990 through March 24, 1992, he ought to be included in a separate subsection 1990-1992. Having only one section, 1990-1995 is really misguided. Bruce, whether his playing falls within one's personal taste or not, did make significant contributions to the band's style of improvisational performance in the wake of Mydland and pre-Welnick...thankfully, as per the band taping policy, we have ample evidence to support those contributions. Many feel that Bruce's solos and call-and-responses with Jerry actually kicked Jerry into another gear on his own playing (one need only check out the JGB Richmond, VA '91 performance, currently available in part on YouTube, to understand these views). Jerry's playing pre-Bruce and post-Bruce was influenced and changed, so much so that Jerry went on to collaborate on several Bruce solo albums, and, in fact, one of Jerry's final studio sessions was with Bruce in Williamsburg. He did impact the sound and style of the band's core improvisitory member. That said, I'd be happy to boot him for his accordion playing (which was often off-the-mark and/or way to high in the soundboard mix), but the fact is the guy was a contributing part of the lineup...to omit him is to suggest that the Dead of 1990-1992 sound the same as the Dead of 1992-1995...that's simply not true. (In fact, there were many moments during 1990-1992 when I hoped Vince would get the boot...he was experimenting with really cheesy synth sounds, especially when he was high in the mix he really ruined lots of softer, soulful lyrics in Set I's...he had this ridiculous Super Mario Brothers soundtrack sound for quite some time. It was great to see him come into his own, though...)


Not to include Bruce in the lineup is crazy, he was a member for 18 months and is on 4 GD albums, Satelite member, Sit-in player, a stone is a stone, he was a big part of 1990-1995 in GD history, even after the band with The Other One's etc... probably more impactful than Vince (imho). To not include him in the lineup for 1990-1995 is insane.Testerer 08:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, in the Illustrated Trip, they mention that Hornsby "was never a member of the Grateful Dead, but was able to appear as a guest when his schedule permitted." -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 08:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


"The section on the page is LINEUPS, and, since Bruce WAS a regular, uninterrupted (with zero or very very few exceptions I can find) member of the LINEUP from September 1990 through March 24, 1992"

Exactly. So long as this is a LINEUP timeline it should reflect the lineup, not to include bruce at all from 1990-1995 is clearly misleading. You need to prove that he wasn't part of the 1990-1995 Lineup in order to toss him from the LINEUP. Testerer 08:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

FWIW- in Oliver Trager's "American Book of The Dead, The Definitive Grateful Dead Encyclopedia" it says. "Hornsby joined the band for an eighteen-month stretch beginning in September 1990". It doesn't matter, this timeline is Lineups anyway. Testerer 08:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would go with what the official website and books say about him not being part of the lineup, just a guest, before the unauthorized ones, but I will not fight you over this since you feel strongly about this. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 08:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel that strongly about this at all. I don't know of any website or book that says Bruce Hornsby was not a part of the Lineup. I'll agree with Dead.net and others who make a distinction with words, but mere words alone cannot define who got up and jammed with the boys night after night for a year and a half. There are books that say he was a member, say he "joined the band", there are websites who say he was a satelite member, regular sit-in, etc... I'll debate that with ya anytime, but I see this timeline as a Lineup timeline, I think it should be broken down by tour frankly, but I don't have the time to do that, it certainly would more accurately represent history no? I guess I'm just saying that if you have a GD Lineup from 1990-1995, you gotta include Bruce. If you have an issue with that then I pose a question to ya. Was Donna a member of the band, well of course she was right? Was she a member every year? The answer probably has something to do with why wiser people before us chose the word Lineup for this section, and I think Bruce fit's in during this time period. Testerer 09:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Donna is a different story, because like you are saying we are looking at lineups. She was a member because she was listed as such at the official page, inducted into the Hall of fame as part of the band (not Hornsby, who actually was the one who did the inducting), and is listed as so in the various "official" books I have, such as The Illustrated Trip and An American Life. No matter, I am fine with him as part of the lineup. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 17:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Lineups section of the page should, in part, reflect what someone listening to a show from that timespan should expect to hear. To include someone like Branford in the lineup section would obviously be a bit extreme (Branford guested on a few occasions), but to remove Hornsby from the lineup section is pretty stupid...anyone listening to shows from the Hornsby dates (1990-1992) knows that he was there...what are you suggesting, that we attribute all of that piano playing to Vince (HA! Hornsby always played circles around Vince!). Regardless, he was there. Whether he belongs in the "member" section is disputable, whether he was a regular member of the lineup from 1990 to 1992 is not disputable at all...it is a fact that he was a member of the lineup.

I agree that Bruce Hornsby should be listed in the lineups, since he played in almost every show for a year and a half, and I agree that occasional guests such as Branford Marsalis should not be listed. But, as stated in the article, after March 24, 1992, Bruce went back to being an occasional guest. By that line of reasoning, Bruce should be listed for 1990 - 1992, not 1990 - 1995. So, I've changed the lineups table, splitting the last row into two rows -- 1990 - 1992, with Bruce included, and 1992 - 1995, without Bruce. I can see that this issue has been the subject of some debate here, but I decided to go ahead and make this change since it more accurately reflects who was playing and when. "P.S." I feel that the current arrangement of listing Bruce Hornsby in the lineup table but not including him in the infobox as a band member is the best approach. -- Mudwater 03:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Mudwater: Thanks for finding the Sept 15th date. I'm the one who added Sept 1990 to March 24, 1992...but I couldn't ever find the exact date in Sept. Also, when I made that edit (months and months ago) I also ALREADY made the split that you describe in the lineups section (1990-1992 and 1992-1995, not 1990-1995)...it is really irritating (to say the least) that the lineups section keeps switching back. There must be a solid block of anti-Hornsby fascist editors ("we can rewrite history just by deleting what we don't like"). I'm the one that made the comment above as well...Hornsby needs to be in the lineups section because his additions to the band are obvious in the live recordings...the music is completely different in texture and sound with him than without him (which some like more than others, and some probably don't like at all)...but the fact is that he was there and Wikipedia should aim to record that fact (whether everyone likes his contributions to the band or not is an opinion).

[edit] Haynes wasn't in "The Dead" version of the band

Regarding the section "Dissolution and Continuation of the band": While Warren Haynes has played/toured with the surviving members of the dead, it was Jimmy Herring who played lead guitar on the tour when the band started calling themselves "The Dead" instead of "The Other Ones" (and other variations). I removed Haynes name and replaced it with Herrings.

Haynes was with the band the whole "Wave that Flag" Tour in the Summer of 2004. For confirmation, see http://www.dead.net/thedead/2004/summer-tour/grid.html --MOE.RON talk | done | doing 21:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I would guess that both guys could count as members of the Dead, in as much as both could be considered members of the Allman Bros. (since both Herring and Haynes have toured with that band also). It's tough to tell. I mean, is Joan Osbourne a member? or did she just tour with them as a vocalist (similar to how Bruce Hornsby 'wasn't in the Dead'?)

I've re-added Jimmy's name to the article along with Warren's. Here's a link that proves that Jimmy was a member. http://www.korg.com/sbytes/article.asp?ArtistID=165

[edit] Where are the other band members?

Both Robert Hunter and John Perry Barlow have always been considered de facto band members. When artist Stanley Mouse was creating the portraits of each band member to be used on the album "Workingman's Dead", he painted a portrait of Hunter, too. It was removed from the layout at the last minute for reasons no one has told me about.

Would anyone have any objections to me adding the two lyricists to the list of band members?

--Jfulbright 18:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was going to object at first, but after looking at the "Band" section of http://www.dead.net , it seems they are both very much credited as part of the band (unlike Hornsby whose dicussion is mentioned above). I might be good, though, to add a "(lyricist)" after their names. To avoid confusion that they were preformers in the band. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 18:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added Hunter with lyricist after his name, even though I think it looks a bit odd to have "lyricist" after his name and nothing after any other. Hunter should be listed as he was considered a member and was inducted into the Hall of Fame with the rest of the group Barlow was not. Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Robert Hunter should not be listed in the infobox. He did not perform onstage with the band, and would not generally be considered an official member, I believe. Of course, his contribution to the Dead's music was very significant. I think it's cool that he and John Perry Barlow are listed as band members at http://www.dead.net/band, and I'm shocked to learn that Hunter was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame with the Dead -- thanks for the link to that, by the way. Still, I think the list of members in the infobox should be limited to musicians only. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Mudwater. We should not include people as band members who did not appear on stage as part of the band. In general, people who are considered "members" of a band appear onstage and perform as part of the group, or appear in the recording studio and can be heard on or heavily influence the recording. People understand the term "band member" to mean a person who plays within a group of musicians. We can understand that the Grateful Dead were not interested in keeping with conventions, and they are entitled to count whomever they see fit as "band members." How they do things is not necessarily the way darn near everyone else does things, however, and in order to maximize the usefulness of this article, we need to take the broadest view in constructing an informative article. We can note, for example, that the band considered Hunter and Barlow to be "members," and that the Rock Hall concurred to the extent that it inducted Hunter as a "band member." Conventional understanding precludes including either of them as such here. Regardless of the importance of an individual's contribution to the group project, it is confusing, and possibly misleading, to list a person as a "band member" who doesn't play in the band. JSC ltd (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Robert Hunter wasn't a band member in the conventional sense, even if he was a member of the Dead "family". So, I've removed Hunter from the list of band members in the infobox. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rap

Like the term hacker, rap has taken on new meaning since the 60's. Pigpen's little dialogues with the audience were considered rapping then. Pop on "Ladies and Gentlemen..." and queue up Lovelight about 9 minutes in. However I've come to realise that wasn't so much an influence as a technique so I won't revert the edit. I wonder what ever became of Chris and Marsha. Remember "tell her Pigpen said it was OK".--J Clear 12:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge of The Dead (band) Discussion

I noticed someone had started "The Dead (band)" article but there is already a section with much of the same information within the Grateful Dead article. I think the two should merge on this page to consolidate the information seeing as The Dead is "risen" from the Grateful Dead as it were. ju66l3r 06:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


I really think the article about The Dead should remain separate from this one. The Grateful Dead and The Dead are two different things. Obviously they're closely related. The Dead includes -- or included, since it's unknown whether they'll play together again -- most of the former members of the Grateful Dead, and plays a lot of the same songs. In many ways The Dead is continuing the legacy of the Grateful Dead, and that's great. But, it's not the Grateful Dead, and never can be. The members of The Dead recognize this, and that's why they don't call themselves the Grateful Dead. I also really think that The Dead should continue to have its own article. It's definitely a notable band, and there's quite a lot that could be said about it. Its article is only one of many that are related to the Grateful Dead.

No one's said anything else about the possible merge since it was suggested more than four months ago. So, I'm being bold and removing the merge suggestion from the two articles. -- Mudwater 18:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kula Shaker tribute

Kula Shaker's first album K has a track paying homage to the Greatful Dead entitled "Grateful when your dead/Jerry was there". I dont know how best to incorporate this into the article, or if to incorporate it at all. I'll let someone who knows the band better than I to make the decision. Robinoke 14:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal on categorizing "Taper-friendly bands"

Hi, I've created a proposal for categorizing "taper-friendly bands", aka "bands that allow taping" within Wikipedia, and I wanted to invite people interested in this article to offer comments and feedback, since the Dead are one of the most prominent bands in the category. The proposal is at User:Xtifr/BTAT, and I'd be very interested to hear what people have to say about my suggestions. Let me know whatcha think. Thanks, Xtifr 11:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 02:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA De listing

After reviewing the article in accordance to the Good Article Criteria, I unfortunately have to delist the article from the GA listing due to concerns listed below. I encourage the article's editors to work on the improving the article and addressing the concerns below. I also encourage the editors to considering resubmitting for GA status once these concerns have been addressed.
1. It is well written. - Needs Improvement

  • The lead section is a bit thin in accordance to the WP:MOS expectations of WP:LEAD. A glaring omission in the lead is mentioning of the break up and reuniting of the band. While obviously the full details of those items come later in the article, the lead's summary of the entire article should make mention of these items.
  • There is some "over wiki-linking" throughout the article, but particularly in the lead section. In general, an item only needs to be wiki-linked on its first appearance in the article. If there is a long gap in text between appearance, then a reason to duplicate a wiki-link could be made. But there is no need for things like psychedelia being linked twice in the same paragraph.
  • There are some awkward sentence constructions that could be written a little better for sentence flow. Like this first sentence in the Membership section."Lead guitarist Jerry Garcia was the de facto bandleader; however, although he was often seen both by the public and the media as 'leader' or a primary spokesperson for the Grateful Dead, he was reluctant to be seen that way, especially since Garcia and the other group members saw themselves as equal participants and contributors to their collective musical and creative output. " While grammatically correct, it is still a tad awkward.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Needs Improvement

  • The article is very lean on in-line cites with many important claims in the article being difficult to verify in their absence. For brevity, I will only tag a few claims in each sections with fact tags. However, I encourage the editors to thorough vet the entire article for items that would be well served with an in-line cite.

3. It is broad in its coverage. - Needs Improvement

  • There should be some prose and text summary in the Steal Your Face section instead of just a hyperlink to an off-wiki site.
  • I would also include a general summary of the Discography (major albums, etc) rather then just having the wiki-link to the main article.
  • The Grateful Dead were certainly an influential band in musical history. While scant mention is made at different points in the article (like the Wall of Sound), I was surprised that there wasn't a section discussing the Dead's influence on music in general. I'm sure there are comments from music historians and critics that could be incorporated into a section on this topic.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Weak Pass

  • Overall the article maintains an NPOV tone but it's a weak pass because a few areas skirt the line like this example from the New type of sound' section "Often (both in performance and on recording) the Dead left room for exploratory, spacey soundscapes—a form of psychedelia that might run the gamut from strange to exotically beautiful". It is a bit POV to say (at least without a cite from an objective reliable source) that at the best end of the gamut the Dead's music is "exotically beautiful"

5. It is stable - Pass

  • The article is sufficiently stable.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Needs Improvement

  • Image:Gdead1.jpg is not tagged at all, much less a fair use rationale given
  • For the purpose of GA status the article's images need to be properly tagged and the image noted above is the image that fails in this regard. However, there is ample room for improvement in the overall quality and presentation of the images which will be noted below.
  • I would work on including the Fair use rationale in the image listings that is applicable to its fair use on the article. Currently they just have the tag but no rationale is given. As the tag itself notes a detailed fair use rationale that follows the Wikipedia:Image description page should be given.
Image:Gdead2.jpg Info box photo
Image:Grateful Dead - concert.jpg Concert poster in Membership section
Image:Gdead5.jpg Rationale only given for use in the San Francisco page
Image:Gdead3.jpg Two GD images
Image:Grateful Dead-American Beau.jpg American Beauty album cover


Again, I encourage the improvement and resubmitting for GA consideration. This article has a lot of positive merit and I want to thank the article's editors for getting it up to this point. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Agne 23:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PA

See the section Wall of Sound - what is PA wtf? Do not use well known abbreviations in articles. Blowup 11:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You've been UMAGA'D?

I struggle to imagine what the picture labeled Gdead2.jpg has to do with this article or for that matter the Culture of San Francisco, California article. Maajid 12:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone vandalized that photo by uploading a different one on top of it. If you click on the photo you eventually will find the edit history for the photo and there are buttons, marked (rev), for reverting to older versions.-Crunchy Numbers 15:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of Philadelphia sellouts?

I'm suprised that there is no mention of the sellouts of the Wachovia Spectrum in Philadelphia. They sold out the entire arena 50-some times. TheOneCalledA1 20:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jerry Garcia Band

In the info box at the beginning of the article, I've added Jerry Garcia Band as an associated act. However, at this time there is no article for Jerry Garcia Band, which redirects to Jerry Garcia. In my opinion, such an article would be a welcome addition to Wikipedia, so, if anyone's looking for a good topic for a new Grateful Dead related article, you know what to do. -- Mudwater 00:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


I've taken my own advice and created the Jerry Garcia Band article. -- Mudwater 01:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deleted section

I just removed the Gentiles section from the article as it appeared as original research. --Tom 13:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Thanks. -- Mudwater 01:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A message to the editor who wrote the deleted "gentiles" section: I happen to not be a big fan of Broadway show tunes. I can see why some people like them a lot, but to me they seem corny and old fashioned. I also don't care for the taste of tomatoes. Although they're very popular, I find them to be too sour. Like you and your friends' views about the Grateful Dead and other jam bands, those are perfectly legitimate things to think and to talk about. But, those opinions wouldn't necessarily add value to encyclopedia articles on those subjects. Yes, a lot of people don't like the Dead's music, or certain aspects of the Dead's music. That's fine, and I respect your opinion. A lot of people don't like any genre of music you can think of. That goes without saying. I just don't think it's helpful to point it out in an encyclopedia article. I would encourage you to contribute to Wikipedia by adding verifiable factual information to articles about subjects that interest you. I would also encourage you to create and use an account, it's really easy and your privacy is well protected -- see Wikipedia:Why create an account?. -- Mudwater 19:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

well said Mudwater, thank you. --Tom 13:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solid/solid-state sound system

I changed the line "In 1971, the band purchased their first solid sound system from Alembic Inc Studios" to read "solid-state sound system," as it is supposed to be, judging by the stated year and incoherence of the original sentence. As I don't know how, would someone be so kind as to link that to the article on solid-state electronics?

Done. To link a phrase such as "solid-state" to another article, surround the text to be linked with double square brackets. If the name of the article is different from the phrase itself, add the name of the article, followed by a vertical bar, right before the phrase. For example, in this case I changed "sold-state" to "[[solid state (electronics)|solid-state]]". Check out Wikipedia:Tutorial for some basic and very useful information. There's a tab called "Wikipedia links" that talks about what I just said. See also Wikipedia:Why create an account?. As a final tip, it's customary to sign talk page edits (but not article edits) by adding "~~~~" to the end of your post. P.S. Welcome to Wikipedia. — Mudwater 04:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hornsby...again

I reverted the Hornsby stuff. The first cite says he was a "temporary" member?? The other cits are garbage. I am not impressed with the quanity of cites rather there quality. Does "temporary" member qualify as "member" of the band?? Thanks! --Tom 14:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The previous consensus was that Bruce Hornsby was not an official member of the Grateful Dead, so he should not be listed as a band member in the infobox, but, since he did play in almost every show for a year and a half, he should be listed in the lineups table. See "Bruce Hornsby was NEVER a "member" of the Dead" and "Bruce Hornsby...Again" above. — Mudwater 01:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. --Tom 01:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that the Lineups section says "band members by year". So it makes it appear that Hornsby was a member during that time?. No biggie.--Tom 01:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I just changed it. — Mudwater 01:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laurence Shurtliff up for AFD

Someone has put Laurence Shurtliff up for AFD due to lack of references, I know he is covered well in many Grateful Dead related books, perhaps someone who has those books can provide references and speak up at the AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laurence_Shurtliff. Russeasby 22:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The nomination to delete was withdrawn on 17 August 2007, so the article will not be deleted. See AFD link above. — Mudwater 07:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More about the music?

More about the music? This needs more written about the music, the albums, the songwriting style and craft. It covers upto to 1970 but they carried for 25 years after that! A talk through of their albums and musical changes would be ideal. A little less said about Garcia and his personal and more on the music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.55.96 (talk) 08:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone add some info about the icons?

I came to find out the history behind the Dancing Bears and the "Steal/Steel Your Face" icons and was let down.Bodhi.peace 18:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to request information about the dancing bears. It seems a major that the dancing bears are not mentioned on this page; from my experience they are a ubiquitous symbol of this band and its fans! Cazort (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. I've added that to the article. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genre

OK I think they're to many genres on the page I think we sould narrow it down to just a few. Thanks. Audiofile65 23:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Audiofile65

I would go farther and suggest having just one genre, [[Rock music|Rock]]. Once you start adding subgenres, you end up with a big list like the one we have now, with no good way to decide what to include and what not to include, especially with the Dead who had many styles and influences. Also, Template:Infobox Musical artist#Genre says to aim for generality. — Mudwater 01:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have an opinion on this? If not I'll remove all the genres other than Rock. — Mudwater 01:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this, should be reduced to one cat and Rock makes most sense in the general. Russeasby (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The band certainly played a wide variety of music, but I agree that "Rock" makes the most sense as an overarching category. They played blues, country, reggae, jazz, and Grateful Dead music, but it just doesn't work for me to think of them as a "blues band," "country band" or a "combo." I think Bill Graham was right when he said, "they're not the best at what they do, they're the only ones who do what they do;" however, listing them as their own musical genre would be silly and counterproductive. JSC ltd (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been more than a month and there seems to be a consensus, so I've changed the genre in the infobox to just "Rock". — Mudwater 18:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I personaly think a bit more specification is needed. Psychedelic rock and folk rock were the two fields the band worked in during their career, I think these two genres should be included (rock is way to general). --~Magnolia Fen (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The more general, the better, in my view. A lot of music really defies categorization, and that's particularly true for the Grateful Dead. They played psychedelic rock and folk rock, you say? Quite true. But they also played country rock, blues rock, jazz rock, and straight ahead rock and roll, along with a few gospel songs for good measure. And don't forget the popular "jam band music", which is also true. For subgenres, there's really no good place to draw the line, hence the discussion points made above in this section. In my view this would apply to many other rock groups as well, but the Dead are the paradigm example, since they drew their music from so many different genres. It's rock music, and the other points should be discussed in the article itself. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, they can't be summed up in just a few genres, but on the other hand, "rock" is so general that you might as well write "arranged noises" in the genre section. I think the two genres I suggested earlier are the best way to describe the Dead's sound without excesses. --~Magnolia Fen (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Anything beyond "rock" seems somewhat arbitrary to me. I think most people would agree that Anthem of the Sun is psychedelic rock, and American Beauty is folk rock. But what about a recording of a Dead concert from their last 20 years of touring? That seems to be neither, or maybe both with a whole bunch of other stuff mixed in. Also, I don't see a big benefit in this. People who want it explained further should read the article, or better yet, listen to the music.

Also, Template:Infobox Musical artist#Genre says, "The genre or genres of music performed by the act. Aim for generality (e.g. [[Hip hop music|Hip hop]] rather than [[East Coast hip hop]])."

In the discussion about this earlier this year, higher in this section of the Talk page, we seemed to have established a consensus that listing only "Rock" was the best approach. If you feel strongly about having more genres, maybe we should continue the discussion here for a while. By "we", I mean any editors.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this? What should the genre or genres be, and why? — Mudwater (Talk) 13:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Problem?

...considered to be a masterpiece

Considered by who? You and two of your friends? Band members? A middle school girl who you met on the street? Your little brother?

Luna

All of the above! El_C 21:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to what the article says about American Beauty? Two references are given as footnotes — the All Music Guide review (which says "American Beauty remains the Dead's studio masterpiece....") and, secondarily, the listing as #258 in the Rolling Stone list of the greatest albums. — Mudwater 00:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be changed to "considered by some", I think that would make more sense. Odd though to make such a statement in a photo caption though if its not supported by the article text. Russeasby (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] tapers section

I removed some unsourced material. TIA --Tom 14:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deadheads for Obama

Deadheads for Obama should probably be merged into this; it's not notable enough by itself. I've tagged it appropriately. Adam McMaster (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are probably right. Addionne (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Jerry would approve. Strike it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.165.253 (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If anything, file it under separate article on Deadheads as subsection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TkerTimeSeeker (talk • contribs) 17:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal opinion: Current politics should be kept out of music history. The band members' political leanings would be relevant to this article, but current events aren't particularly meaningful in an article discussing people or music from a factual, historical perspective. It would be similar to adding a section entitled "Democrats' love of "The Marriage of Figaro" to the biograpghy of Mozart. Strike it. Bruno (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


Yeah I tend to Disagree as well. Politics should be kept completely out of a band informational history. Deadheads for Obama would belong more under a Barak Obama article with a link to this page. Deadheads is more about who is supporting Obama than about the band.contribs) 17:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Yes the seperation of church and state and all that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.1.80 (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

>> Please do not include Deadheads for Obama in this article. It's a divisive topic that has no place here. mixing politics with music or sports is bad form. All it does is alienate a certain portion of people who are fans of a band, player,etc. Mickey Hart should have kept his mouth shut. Not that his opinion ever counted anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeah92101 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that there are two different questions here. The original question is whether or not the Deadheads for Obama article should be merged into this one, or left as a stand-alone article. I'd be mildly in favor of the merge, on the basis that a concert wouldn't be notable enough to have its own article unless it was some fairly historic occasion, such as Monterey Pop Festival, Woodstock Festival, and Summer Jam at Watkins Glen. The second question that has arisen is whether or not the Deadheads for Obama concert should be mentioned in this article. I'd say definitely, because it was the only reunion in the last few years of multiple members of the Grateful Dead. I think it would seem less political though if the second of the two sentences (the one with the quote) was deleted. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Upon further review, I believe that "Deadheads for Obama" meets the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The concert received widespread coverage in the news media. It is therefore notable, so I'd be opposed to the suggestion to merge that article into this one. I'm planning on adding more references to that article to support this position. If "Deadheads for Obama" is kept, then it would make even more sense to have just one sentence in the "Grateful Dead" article, briefly describing the event and with a link to the other article. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added more references to the Deadheads for Obama article. I've also deleted the second sentence about Deadheads for Obama from this article. That deemphasizes the politics in this article, while still mentioning the concert, which is significant in the history of the Grateful Dead. But, I think it would be fair and appropriate to expand the Deadheads for Obama article to include more politically oriented quotes from the musicians, if anyone cares to do that. After all, Deadheads for Obama was a political event as well as a rock concert. I'll wait a while before removing the "suggestion to merge" tags from both articles, to allow more time for any discussion. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
An anonymous editor has removed the "suggested merge" template with this edit. So, I've also removed the template from the "Deadheads for Obama" article. But, if anyone has any further comments on this question, please continue the discussion here. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Beauty album cover

In this recent edit, an image of the American Beauty album cover was deleted from the article, without the use of an edit summary or other explanation. I believe that this image should be restored to the article. The caption said, "The cover of the album American Beauty (1970), which is considered to be the Grateful Dead's studio masterpiece. In 2003, the album was ranked number 258 on Rolling Stone magazine's list of the 500 greatest albums of all time." The caption had two footnotes citing reliable references for these statements. Since American Beauty is one of the key works of the Grateful Dead, and since, as an album, it is uniquely identified by its album cover, and since the use of this image was explained, with references, in the caption, the use of the album cover in this article falls under Wikipedia fair use guidelines. — Mudwater 18:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No, no it doesn't. Your idea of a fair use rationale was to add article names to a single rationale, [2], rendering one rationale written for three articles. Per WP:NFCC #10(c), a rationale for each usage in a article and a link to the article should be provided (i.e. one article link has one rationale, two article links has two rationales). I explained this last time in my edit summary a couple of months ago and you stated that you had done this in your edit summary when you clearly did not. — Κaiba 18:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
And I see you did it again on Image:Brothersandsistersallmanbrother.jpg.
...but it is covered by U.S. fair use laws for inclusion in the articles "Brothers and Sisters (album)" and "The Allman Brothers Band discography" because....
Another violation of WP:NFCC. That is for two reasons. One being the previous mentioned WP:NFCC #10(c) violation and the fact that consensus shows that album covers to not meet standards for NFCC #3(a) and #8 for when they are used in discographies. — Κaiba 18:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
So, the use of the American Beauty album cover image in this article, with the old caption, would be okay, if the image had a separate fair use rationale for this article? I'll update the image page accordingly then. I believe the rationale for use in this article can be copied from what I wrote above. How about this: "American Beauty is considered to be the Grateful Dead's studio masterpiece. In 2003, the album was ranked number 258 on Rolling Stone magazine's list of the 500 greatest albums of all time. Since American Beauty is one of the key works of the Grateful Dead, and since, as an album, it is uniquely identified by its album cover, and since the use of this image is explained, with references, in the caption, the use of the album cover in the article "Grateful Dead" falls under Wikipedia fair use guidelines". Then there would be a separate fair use rationale for the "American Beauty (album)" article. — Mudwater 19:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Y Done Additional rationale written with that other information written in the 'purpose of use' section. Image readded to article. — Κaiba 19:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the help. — Mudwater 19:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem, if you need anything, drop me a line again sometime. — Κaiba 19:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1974-1975 band lineup

I changed the date delineation from "1974-79" to "1975-79" because it was misleading to treat Mickey Hart as a part of the band in 1974. One single guest appearance on stage does not make someone a part of the "lineup." If that was the case, for example, then Bruce Hornsby would have been in the "lineup" for much more than just 1990-92. Samstein (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's true that Hart was in the lineup for only one concert in 1974, but it was the last concert, and starting with that appearance he was always in the band for the rest of its history. So, he returned to the band on October 20, 1974 and was in the lineup from then on. I would therefore say that it's more accurate to show that lineup as "1974 – 1979". — Mudwater 16:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I would not say he "returned to the band" that night. It was more like he just "dropped in." He only played with them for roughly half the show. And tellingly, he left the stage for a while shortly before they played Eyes of the World, which you could argue is the quintessential 1974 song. Sounds very much like a simple guest appearance. Additionally, they didn't start recording Blues For Allah until March 1975, so it's not like was formally back in the band, recording music with them a few weeks later or something. Samstein (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Hornsby was not an official member, part 4

There is currently a new discussion about whether or not Bruce Hornsby was an official member of the Grateful Dead. It's at Template talk:GratefulDead#bruce hornsby. All editors are encouraged to join the discussion -- there, not here, to keep the discussion in one place. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)