Shitty songs by great artists

[Kudzu Guillotine]

I have a friend that's a refreshing exception to the rule. Though she loves the Grateful Dead, Phish, Widespread, etc. she also loves DBT's, McMurtry, Todd Snider, Gram Parsons, etc. Her tastes aren't just limited to jam bands and alt.country either, she also loves drivin n cryin, Rush, Billy Joel, Phil Collins, Gordon Lightfoot, Yes, Genesis, Boston, Tesla, Dangerous Toys and Lord knows what else. Though our tastes in music doesn't always match up, we share far more in common than most.

You would think Grateful Dead fans would have an advanced taste in music due to all the genres the Dead explored from folk to jazz but that is not always the case. I remember playing their cover of "Big River" by Johnny Cash at a party once. This couple, who were Deadheads, said they loved the Dead's version but they were not into Johnny Cash and couldn't stand country music. I also know a Deadhead that can't stand bluegrass yet he loves the Old and In the Way albums.

[Iowan]

I love a lot of "jam" bands and see plenty of cross over with the alt-country crowd. Particularly with bands like Mule and the Crowes.

[Duke Silver]

There's a large contingent of Pearl Jam fandom that has serious blinders. If it's more than one degree of separation from the band, it's by definition inferior and should not be trusted. The pecking order goes Pearl Jam--> PJ side/solo projects --> associated acts (Soundgarden, AIC, TotD, etc.) --> bands/artists they've covered or opened for (Neil, the Who, Stones, etc.) --> bands that have opened for them (MMJ, Sleater-Kinney, Ramones, Sonic Youth).

[ilockyer]

There are some terrible Springsteen ones... not least American Land, all of Working On A Dream (exception to The Wrestler - which was a bonus track) but surely Pony Boy is the biggest turd of all?

And now the Dead... Picasso Moon has been mentioned, Keep Your Day Job... what about the atrocity that is Samba In The Rain?

Dylan's got more than a few... pretty much all of Knocked Out Loaded needs on there... Wiggle Wiggle is terrible but I've always wished he'd make it a constant in his live set just because it would piss so many off. There's one line on Born In Time though, which annoys me so much with its absolute shittyness that it wins for me... "you were striped... you were plain". Really Bob, you wrote all those great songs and thought that was acceptable?

Led Zeppelin's Hot Dog is worthy of a mention here too.

[Tequila Cowboy]

I love Hot Dog!

[Slipkid42]

Well I gotta admit, after listening to that '90 version of Dear Prudence by the Dead; the Beatles version is downright wonderful.

Huh, I love that version and Jerry's lead lines are gorgeous.

It's the meandering jaminess that turns me off. You take a charming (though not for me) ditty & stretch it every which way & it just doesn't resonate with me. I like plenty of Dead stuff and even some of their live 'jams', but not that one.

[Slipkid42]

I love Hot Dog!

I'm with you on that one.

[Tequila Cowboy]

Well I gotta admit, after listening to that '90 version of Dear Prudence by the Dead; the Beatles version is downright wonderful.

Huh, I love that version and Jerry's lead lines are gorgeous.

It's the meandering jaminess that turns me off. You take a charming (though not for me) ditty & stretch it every which way & it just doesn't resonate with me. I like plenty of Dead stuff and even some of their live 'jams', but not that one.

You are describing what my lovely wife calls "deedely, deedely, deedely" usually in reference to long Jerry jams or Widespread Panic. She no likey.

[dime in the gutter]

slip....nice seeing you around. post more.

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

You would think Grateful Dead fans would have an advanced taste in music due to all the genres the Dead explored from folk to jazz but that is not always the case.

many, many Deadheads do

[John A Arkansawyer]

Well I gotta admit, after listening to that '90 version of Dear Prudence by the Dead; the Beatles version is downright wonderful.

Huh, I love that version and Jerry's lead lines are gorgeous.

It's the meandering jaminess that turns me off. You take a charming (though not for me) ditty & stretch it every which way & it just doesn't resonate with me. I like plenty of Dead stuff and even some of their live 'jams', but not that one.

If it's great Beatles covers you want, you have to go to the right source.

Exhibit A:



Exhibit B:

[Slipkid42]

^^^JAA - I definitely like Siouxsie's version better than the Dead's and maybe even better than the Beatles'; but still not enough to actually like that song.
Siouxsie's 'Skelter is not an improvement, but not too shabby.

You are describing what my lovely wife calls "deedely, deedely, deedely" usually in reference to long Jerry jams or Widespread Panic. She no likey.

Smart girl, that one. Your taste in music, TC, while impressive; is surpassed by your taste in women.

slip....nice seeing you around. post more.

Missed you too, dime. I've been in a slump for awhile now, but maybe if I hit a few seeing-eye grounders I can break out of it. Will try my best.

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

When I refer to the Deadhead community being rigid, I'm somewhat talking about the academic way Deadheads discuss the band. Those conversations read like history book text, which isn't intended to be a criticism - merely an observation. There seem to be (relatively) agreed upon true opinions about certain eras and a real depth of knowledge regarding lineups, song fragments, tours, etc that seem shockingly structured when contrasted to the other side of the Deadhead thing. Duality and all that. Throw in some narrower musical tastes and "rigid" was the word I used.

Well at times I may be one of the very people you are mentioning, but think about it: the career of the Grateful Dead is the most well-documented in rock and roll. They almost never played the same setlist and the setlist for pretty much every show they ever played is verified and easily accessible to anyone who wants to see it. Same with recordings. It stands to reason that there would be such "real depth of knowledge" when their 30 year career (and beyond with post-Jerry lineups) is so easily "knowable." I don't think this in any way generally reflects upon Deadheads not listening to and being knowledgeable about other music/artists. Speaking for myself and my large circle of Deadhead friends, the breadth of our musical worlds is stunningly expansive, and I say that with no hubris, it's just true. But this is THE band for many of us, not the only band, so it makes sense that we talk about the GD in such a different way than we would, say, the Stones, who many Deadheads also love but for whom the level of stats/minutiae/documentation/diversity simply isn't there at such a depth

In the Official Book of the Deadheads there was a piece/essay/whatever that made the analogy of baseball to the Grateful Dead. There are so many levels of baseball fandom: one can be a fact/stathead (come to the MLB thread and you can see it daily), one can go to the game and enjoy it in the moment and then be done with it, one can enjoy the sights/sounds/smells of the park and have the game itself as secondary, etc. Same with the Grateful Dead. And each way of enjoying is just as legit as the others. I have overly simplified the argument made in the book but think I did it some basic justice

[Kudzu Guillotine]

Perhaps this discussion should be moved to the Dead thread but I don't consider anything post-Jerry to be the Grateful Dead with the possible exception of the band that performed during the 50th anniversary shows last year as I'm still unclear if they were using the name (or had any sort of name at all). I also realize that probably puts me in the minority but it irks me to see the Other Ones, Furthur, The Dead, Phil & Friends, Dead & Co., etc. used interchangeably with "Grateful Dead" as though they're one and the same. Some may not share this outlook either but to me, the Grateful Dead ceased to exist when Jerry Garcia died. It would have been one thing if they had kept the name and continued to create new music but even among these various post-Garcia iterations there's been very little new compositions. It's largely a rehash of everything the Grateful Dead ever did. It's difficult for me to find any freshness or innovativeness in that.

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

Perhaps this discussion should be moved to the Dead thread but I don't consider anything post-Jerry to be the Grateful Dead with the possible exception of the band that performed during the 50th anniversary shows last year as I'm still unclear if they were using the name (or had any sort of name at all). I also realize that probably puts me in the minority but it irks me to see the Other Ones, Furthur, The Dead, Phil & Friends, Dead & Co., etc. used interchangeably with "Grateful Dead" as though they're one and the same. Some may not share this outlook either but to me, the Grateful Dead ceased to exist when Jerry Garcia died. It would have been one thing if they had kept the name and continued to create new music but even among these various post-Garcia iterations there's been very little new compositions. It's largely a rehash of everything the Grateful Dead ever did. It's difficult for me to find any freshness or innovativeness in that.

Is there anyone saying that the Grateful Dead DIDN'T cease to exist on August 9, 1995? No Heads I know would ever say otherwise. Pretty cut & dry: no Jerry, no Grateful Dead. As for using the Other Ones, Furthur, The Dead, Phil & Friends, Dead & Co., etc. interchangeably with "Grateful Dead," I only see the press/media and non-Deadheads using that name with reference to these guys. That's not on the band or the fans, that's on "the other ones"

For the 50th anniversary shows they were billed as Fare The Well: Celebrating 50 Years of Grateful Dead. This was the only time they ever used the actual name Grateful Dead in marketing any post-Jerry lineup.

[Kudzu Guillotine]

Perhaps this discussion should be moved to the Dead thread but I don't consider anything post-Jerry to be the Grateful Dead with the possible exception of the band that performed during the 50th anniversary shows last year as I'm still unclear if they were using the name (or had any sort of name at all). I also realize that probably puts me in the minority but it irks me to see the Other Ones, Furthur, The Dead, Phil & Friends, Dead & Co., etc. used interchangeably with "Grateful Dead" as though they're one and the same. Some may not share this outlook either but to me, the Grateful Dead ceased to exist when Jerry Garcia died. It would have been one thing if they had kept the name and continued to create new music but even among these various post-Garcia iterations there's been very little new compositions. It's largely a rehash of everything the Grateful Dead ever did. It's difficult for me to find any freshness or innovativeness in that.

Is there anyone saying that the Grateful Dead DIDN'T cease to exist on August 9, 1995? No Heads I know would ever say otherwise. Pretty cut & dry: no Jerry, no Grateful Dead. As for using the Other Ones, Furthur, The Dead, Phil & Friends, Dead & Co., etc. interchangeably with "Grateful Dead," I only see the press/media and non-Deadheads using that name with reference to these guys. That's not on the band or the fans, that's on "the other ones"

For the 50th anniversary shows they were billed as Fare The Well: Celebrating 50 Years of Grateful Dead. This was the only time they ever used the actual name Grateful Dead in marketing any post-Jerry lineup.

I'm honestly not trying to start an argument but I probably should have quoted your previous post where you seemed to be referring to the post-Garcia lineup as a continuation of the Grateful Dead. I bolded the pertinent part below.

Well at times I may be one of the very people you are mentioning, but think about it: the career of the Grateful Dead is the most well-documented in rock and roll. They almost never played the same setlist and the setlist for pretty much every show they ever played is verified and easily accessible to anyone who wants to see it. Same with recordings. It stands to reason that there would be such "real depth of knowledge" when their 30 year career (and beyond with post-Jerry lineups) is so easily "knowable."

Is there anyone saying that the Grateful Dead DIDN'T cease to exist on August 9, 1995? No Heads I know would ever say otherwise. Pretty cut & dry: no Jerry, no Grateful Dead. As for using the Other Ones, Furthur, The Dead, Phil & Friends, Dead & Co., etc. interchangeably with "Grateful Dead," I only see the press/media and non-Deadheads using that name with reference to these guys.

The press is the most guilty of it but yes, I've heard some refer to the post-Garcia bands as though they are the Grateful Dead, just under a different name.

For the 50th anniversary shows they were billed as Fare The Well: Celebrating 50 Years of Grateful Dead. This was the only time they ever used the actual name Grateful Dead in marketing any post-Jerry lineup.

That's what I thought. Thanks for clarifying.

When Jimmy Page, John Paul Jones, Robert Plant and Jason Bonham performed under the name Led Zeppelin after the demise of that band some said they were not going by "Led Zeppelin" despite what may have appeared on posters, packaging, tickets, etc. I'm referring here to the Atlantic Records 40th Anniversary in 1988 and the benefit for Ahmet Ertegun at the O2 Arena in 2007. While I'll be the first to acknowledge that you can not have Led Zeppelin without John Bonham, if the surviving members approve, I can't really argue with that as I'm sure they have the utmost respect for him. After all, they've never officially reformed long term, only for a few one-offs over the years which can be counted on one hand.

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

I know you aren't starting an argument so no need to worry about that, it's all good, as the younguns say.

That said, I was definitely not implying that post-Jerry lineups were in any way the Grateful Dead. To me it goes without needing to say that these bands weren't/aren't/never will be the Grateful Dead, didn't think that needed any qualification

[John A Arkansawyer]

Long hair, short hair--hair is dead!

[sactochris]

Perhaps this discussion should be moved to the Dead thread but I don't consider anything post-Jerry to be the Grateful Dead with the possible exception of the band that performed during the 50th anniversary shows last year as I'm still unclear if they were using the name (or had any sort of name at all). I also realize that probably puts me in the minority but it irks me to see the Other Ones, Furthur, The Dead, Phil & Friends, Dead & Co., etc. used interchangeably with "Grateful Dead" as though they're one and the same. Some may not share this outlook either but to me, the Grateful Dead ceased to exist when Jerry Garcia died. It would have been one thing if they had kept the name and continued to create new music but even among these various post-Garcia iterations there's been very little new compositions. It's largely a rehash of everything the Grateful Dead ever did. It's difficult for me to find any freshness or innovativeness in that.

As a veteran of 158 Dead shows, I couldn't agree more.

[Iowan]

When I refer to the Deadhead community being rigid, I'm somewhat talking about the academic way Deadheads discuss the band. Those conversations read like history book text, which isn't intended to be a criticism - merely an observation. There seem to be (relatively) agreed upon true opinions about certain eras and a real depth of knowledge regarding lineups, song fragments, tours, etc that seem shockingly structured when contrasted to the other side of the Deadhead thing. Duality and all that. Throw in some narrower musical tastes and "rigid" was the word I used.

Well at times I may be one of the very people you are mentioning, but think about it: the career of the Grateful Dead is the most well-documented in rock and roll. They almost never played the same setlist and the setlist for pretty much every show they ever played is verified and easily accessible to anyone who wants to see it. Same with recordings. It stands to reason that there would be such "real depth of knowledge" when their 30 year career (and beyond with post-Jerry lineups) is so easily "knowable." I don't think this in any way generally reflects upon Deadheads not listening to and being knowledgeable about other music/artists. Speaking for myself and my large circle of Deadhead friends, the breadth of our musical worlds is stunningly expansive, and I say that with no hubris, it's just true. But this is THE band for many of us, not the only band, so it makes sense that we talk about the GD in such a different way than we would, say, the Stones, who many Deadheads also love but for whom the level of stats/minutiae/documentation/diversity simply isn't there at such a depth

In the Official Book of the Deadheads there was a piece/essay/whatever that made the analogy of baseball to the Grateful Dead. There are so many levels of baseball fandom: one can be a fact/stathead (come to the MLB thread and you can see it daily), one can go to the game and enjoy it in the moment and then be done with it, one can enjoy the sights/sounds/smells of the park and have the game itself as secondary, etc. Same with the Grateful Dead. And each way of enjoying is just as legit as the others. I have overly simplified the argument made in the book but think I did it some basic justice

That makes sense.

I guess I understand how we got here, I just find it an interesting contrast to the free wheeling side of the Deadhead thing.

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

Well at times I may be one of the very people you are mentioning, but think about it: the career of the Grateful Dead is the most well-documented in rock and roll. They almost never played the same setlist and the setlist for pretty much every show they ever played is verified and easily accessible to anyone who wants to see it. Same with recordings. It stands to reason that there would be such "real depth of knowledge" when their 30 year career (and beyond with post-Jerry lineups) is so easily "knowable." I don't think this in any way generally reflects upon Deadheads not listening to and being knowledgeable about other music/artists. Speaking for myself and my large circle of Deadhead friends, the breadth of our musical worlds is stunningly expansive, and I say that with no hubris, it's just true. But this is THE band for many of us, not the only band, so it makes sense that we talk about the GD in such a different way than we would, say, the Stones, who many Deadheads also love but for whom the level of stats/minutiae/documentation/diversity simply isn't there at such a depth

In the Official Book of the Deadheads there was a piece/essay/whatever that made the analogy of baseball to the Grateful Dead. There are so many levels of baseball fandom: one can be a fact/stathead (come to the MLB thread and you can see it daily), one can go to the game and enjoy it in the moment and then be done with it, one can enjoy the sights/sounds/smells of the park and have the game itself as secondary, etc. Same with the Grateful Dead. And each way of enjoying is just as legit as the others. I have overly simplified the argument made in the book but think I did it some basic justice

That makes sense.

I guess I understand how we got here, I just find it an interesting contrast to the free wheeling side of the Deadhead thing.

Not saying this is the case with you, speaking generically, but perhaps the issue is more of people (non-Deadheads) having a monolithic view of Deadheads and said people falling prey to the stereotype of who Deadheads are/what they look like/etc. I can't tell you how many times I've met people and when they find out I am a head and saw nearly 140 shows they always say "but you don't look like a Deadhead." My reply is always "I look exactly like a Deadhead." The stereotype is always that of a lot rat/Wookie/flower child/whatever cliche' you like but in reality the majority don't "look the part," are overly educated, have meaningful careers/lives, bath regularly and use spoons/forks, and in general are pretty well-rounded

[Smitty]

I've had a lot of experience with former Deadheads that do come off as stereotypical cuz I spend a lot of time with the Rainbow Family of Living Light. Despite them being literally dirty, stinking hippies, I love 'em and they're great people.

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

I've had a lot of experience with former Deadheads that do come off as stereotypical cuz I spend a lot of time with the Rainbow Family of Living Light. Despite them being literally dirty, stinking hippies, I love 'em and they're great people.

they are definitely what the mainstream "sees" when they think Deadhead, though those folks are a minority in the larger Deadhead community

Interested to know what you mean by former Deadheads. I have never seen it as something you can quit or retire from, you either is or you isn't

[Kudzu Guillotine]

My nephew (whose parents were dyed in the wool hippies) hates the Grateful Dead, which is by his own admission based more on the image and hoopla surrounding the Dead than the band themselves. I think there's also a bit of inclination to rebel against whatever music your parents like. That said, he has revealed in private that he likes Workingman's Dead and American Beauty. This is some sort of effort to maintain his punk rock cred. I figure if you really want to be punk rock, you should let those tastes be known, even at the risk of being disowned by the punk rock community.

[Kudzu Guillotine]

Interested to know what you mean by former Deadheads. I have never seen it as something you can quit or retire from, you either is or you isn't

When I was traveling on the Renaissance Fair circuit with my older brother one summer back in the mid-90's, I met a person that a "no" symbol tattooed over a Steal Your Face logo he'd had tattooed on his arm. He had turned against the lifestyle, music, etc. and obviously abhorred the Grateful Dead, their fans and all that stood for at this point. I'm sure there's others out there just like him. Though the Grateful Dead is one of my favorite bands, I was never in so deep as to be consumed enough with them (or any band) to follow them around. Not that there's anything the matter with that.

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

Interested to know what you mean by former Deadheads. I have never seen it as something you can quit or retire from, you either is or you isn't

Though the Grateful Dead is one of my favorite bands, I was never in so deep as to be consumed enough with them (or any band) to follow them around. Not that there's anything the matter with that.

A point you have made clear on several occasions

[Kudzu Guillotine]

Interested to know what you mean by former Deadheads. I have never seen it as something you can quit or retire from, you either is or you isn't

Though the Grateful Dead is one of my favorite bands, I was never in so deep as to be consumed enough with them (or any band) to follow them around. Not that there's anything the matter with that.

A point you have made clear on several occasions

Lots of repeat info in this thread that is also no longer evidently about "Shitty songs by great artists." I sincerely apologize for not only contributing to the thread drift but continuing to do so. I thought I was contributing positively to the discussion. I will now gracefully bow out of it.

[Smitty]

I've had a lot of experience with former Deadheads that do come off as stereotypical cuz I spend a lot of time with the Rainbow Family of Living Light. Despite them being literally dirty, stinking hippies, I love 'em and they're great people.

they are definitely what the mainstream "sees" when they think Deadhead, though those folks are a minority in the larger Deadhead community

Interested to know what you mean by former Deadheads. I have never seen it as something you can quit or retire from, you either is or you isn't

I thought twice about using "former" to avoid this; I just meant it in the sense that there's no band to follow around anymore. I'm sure the guys I know would scoff at the term "former Deadhead".

Being out in Ca, do you know any Rainbows?

[Tequila Cowboy]

I guess it would depend if you think Paul McCartney is great, please sit this one out linkous, and I assume no one question if Stevie Wonder is great, but has anyone mentioned Ebony & Ivory? That one pretty much puts a cherry on top of this thread don'cha think? I mean sure the message is a great one but damn that one is icky bad.

[John A Arkansawyer]

I guess it would depend if you think Paul McCartney is great, please sit this one out linkous, and I assume no one question if Stevie Wonder is great, but has anyone mentioned Ebony & Ivory? That one pretty much puts a cherry on top of this thread don'cha think? I mean sure the message is a great one but damn that one is icky bad.

Lenny Bruce used to do a routine relevant to that smarmy piece of tripe, about how it took all the keys to play The Star Spangled Banner. Here's a chaser to wash it out of your ears: