Grateful Dead?

Hi Intruder, I don't enjoy listening to the Dead but they were definitley one of the first in areas like free-improv and jazz-rock fusion.

I also agree with you about recycled copy cat bands from the mid-70s, especially when you consider progressive rock was profitable for a few years there, and most of those bands went pop when those profits dried up.

I would be careful about naming specific bands though, because it will get those band's fan-boys out of the closet and the whole conversation will be de-railed.

I still think there is some confusion about how progressive rock came to be. There are many who won't recognize that Hendrix was a huge influence on all the major originators of progressive rock, I have even heard him referred to as "just a blues artist".

if you all feel strong enough about it.... talk to the admins about it... man alive... if they found JA to be worthy of PP... you all should have no problem showing the admins ..by making a case ..that they belong. As I said before... they are probably more worthy than JA... but not touching this since I think neither belong here.  But I don't buy the idea that  'if x then y' doesn't apply... it does when talking about these kind of additions... if JA is here... then the Dead should be here... they were as influential.. if not more.

My problem is simply that prog.. in those early days was an English.. an European movement... not as one that grew up on the left coast... this time and effort might be best served pushing the Velvet Underground who really did have an impact on prog... on those European artists.  Extended jamming and psychedelia was exactly what prog was NOT about.  The bare bones essense of prog is one thing. .and one thing only...structure.

my two cents

Intruder wrote: Yeah, bad form - to make a point I belittled Styx, Rush and Kansas....I actually had "2112" on last night while cooking dinner and have been trying to track down the first Journey album ever since I sold my first copy a few years back.  Sorry to offend, but such is my passion for the Dead.  They were my first....you know, that gateway band that opens up all kids of doors.  I've been a lurker on this site since its beginnings and have been introduced to so much great stuff.  That's why I love the site....it opens eyes to bands/genres that had before been hidden.  And I'd like to do the same with the Dead...it seems the fanbase is petrifiying into just what Micky mentioned....zoned out pothead music (nothing wrong with it if it's your thing).  I'd love for Al DiMeola and Shakti McLaughlin fans to turn on to Jerry.....for Gong and Clearlight fans to see the kinship....for Ash Ra fans to freak out to one of those early Fillmore shows.     Now as for this, "The bare bones essense of prog is one thing. .and one thing only...structure."  Well, I'm sure the majority would disagree with such a narrow view....and where would PA be if this were even remotely accurate?  Amon Duul fans would disagee and, hell, so would Crismon fans (what the hell else were they doing with live shows in '69?)....to define prog as such would turn PA into a strictly symph and Italian prog site (and, though I love Genesis, I always wish they'd let Hackett loose during live shows...let him Jerry it up a bit....all those damn Genesis bootlegs I have sound exactly like the records, so I don't play 'em).   But, I hear you Marky....prog SEEMS to be a Brit/Euro thing, but where did those ideas come from?  Free-jazz, maybe?  Would the Stones/Beatles/Mayall be anywhere without Muddy Waters, Little Richard and Elmore James....the evolution is very clear and the Dead are right there at the heart.  Still, I understand those who think the Dead don't belong.....they weren't ELP and the gap is obvious, but by turning over a few stones you'd see the connection....Emerson was highly influenced by modal jazz and that third wave movement, so was Jerry; Emerson saw his music as an electrified classical music fusion and Jerry understoon this dynamic as well (though he only dabbled in it in his later music with the Dead -Flood/Allah/Terrapin - but it always had its influence, if not so overt.  I'm not trying to say that the Dead were a symophonic prog band, and if the site is solely for that type of music, then, yes, the Dead have not place here.  But this site represents so much more....   BTW, did you ever hear get into side two of Jerry's first solo album?  It could be mistaken for anyone from early Tangerine Dream to mid-70s Eno!   Sorry again for running down second generation American prog....but somehow I don't think Dennis DeYoung is losing any sleep over it.

well....  I'm going to bump an old Grateful Dead thread in the suggest new artists thread...  have fun...  you make good points... try to sell them to the admins for addition...and those who... won't agree with the idea of adding them.

StyLaZyn wrote: Intruder wrote:   But I've beaten at this door before and have been told the same old "no room for folk-country jam bands" excuse.  All I'd like to do is open more people up to the Dead....a great American progressive rock band....Styx?  Rush?  Kansas?  Recycled prog.  The Dead are the real things! What have you been smoking?  Oh, wait, Deadhead.  Enough said.

he may be smoking something but he's also quite right

I don't support their inclusion, but they were (barring Zappa as a solo artist) easily the most progressive U.S. rock band...

micky wrote: if you all feel strong enough about it.... talk to the admins about it... man alive... if they found JA to be worthy of PP... you all should have no problem showing the admins ..by making a case ..that they belong. As I said before... they are probably more worthy than JA... but not touching this since I think neither belong here.  But I don't buy the idea that  'if x then y' doesn't apply... it does when talking about these kind of additions... if JA is here... then the Dead should be here... they were as influential.. if not more. My problem is simply that prog.. in those early days was an English.. an European movement... not as one that grew up on the left coast... this time and effort might be best served pushing the Velvet Underground who really did have an impact on prog... on those European artists.  Extended jamming and psychedelia was exactly what prog was NOT about.  The bare bones essense of prog is one thing. .and one thing only...structure. my two cents

those x and y arguments are the main reason I avoid these discussions.  I'm a huge fan of the Dead, obviously, and I think their influence on psycadelia, the early experimental and jam-based groups, and krautrock is very important...but I don't know if it's worth the time and effort to add them - it will only cause controversy and there and tons and tons of unknown bands the deserve inclusion.  IMO if we repetitively use the "if x then y" logic, then we could slowly lower the standards over time to allow almost anyone in who had an impact on rock music:  if The Dead are in...why not Cream, and why not Dylan, etc...they all had influence on progressive music.  Perhaps that's why I like your second point...at least the symphonic style of prog was based on structure (but then again, I've heard experts say that this structure was developed through jamming in the first place...remember KC and Schizoid Man...Moonchild), and Pink Floyd were a prog band, and surely they were influenced by the Dead.  So maybe what I'm saying is that influence isn't enough, and that's why these bands go to PR, which IMO is almost a waste of time...why not focus on the 100 % grade A certified prog.

I think the Airplane got on here because a certain PA member campaigned very dilligently for their inclusion.

I think we all have an "x" and a "y" list, I know I do. There are certainly bands on here that I don't think belong and one's that should be added. Personally I'm more partial to bands that layed the groundwork for progressive rock to happen then bands that came a long later and copied an already established formula, but I try not to be too annoying about it out of respect for all the people who have put so much work into building this nice resource.

jimmy_row wrote: A B Negative wrote: jimmy_row wrote: Pink Floyd were a prog band, and surely they were influenced by the Dead.    Where are the Grateful Dead influences in Pink Floyd's music? Saucerful of Secrets, More, Meddle, Dark Side of the Moon...   a lot of these bands had to have heard the acid tests and then Live/Dead, Anthem of the Sun, Aoxomoxoa.  The live stuff was important for jam-based stuff and extending compostions, combining improv with compositions.  But the studio albums were important too because The Dead were doing a lot of experimenting with recording techniques and sounds, etc. Albums like Dark Side of the Moon are known for the experimentation that bands like The Dead pioneered in the studio in the mid-late sixties.

I'm not sure if many (if any) UK musicians heard the acid tests, and I think Floyd's improvisations owe more to AMM than to the Dead. But, I'll give another listen to the Dead albums you've mentioned.

^that's probably true...I'm assuming there was a trickle down effect:  bands like Soft Machine and definately Hendrix heard the Dead when they were doing something new and experimental...it's more about the novelty of long songs and weird effects than a direct compositional influence.

I think you're dancing around the really important question which is: is Jerry Garcia grateful now that he is dead?

Thanks for the info, I have books on Floyd and Soft Machine that probably mention them, seems like an interesting band that needs to be checked out. Does the AMM stand for anything?
There is a definite difference between Syd's sort of deconstuctionist approach to soloing than the more macho displays of jazz-rock technique that came from Ratledge and Hendrix.