Townsman Dr. John raised a partially fair point in a comment at the tail end of a recent thread:
You know, it sure would be refreshing for someone to critically comment on the Jefferson Airplane or Grateful Dead–without sounding like someone with an irrational fear of hippies.
Although I personally objected to this charge in the thread in which it was made, being a proponent of a large swath of “hippie music,” I do agree that those of us who do not love the Dead or the Airplane too often resort to cheap shots at any given moment. It is fun and easy to do. I think even a fair-minded chap like the Good Doctor could see that. But I believe we can do better, and I believe we can have a dialog without either side resorting to cheap shots or blanket characterizations of anyone with an opposing point of view.
Here’s what I propose we do:
1) A proponent of the Dead and/or Jefferson Airplane should begin with a statement on a strength of either band that “hatas” typically overlook or ignore. It need not be a grand statement that an unforgiving Townsperson will want to shoot down without regard for the guidelines I’m about to describe for this considerate, intelligent dialog.
2) A Townsperson who has been on the record as not liking these bands very much gives this statement serious consideration and responds to the point. For instance, unless the pro-Dead/Airplane Townsperson begins with something like, “The Dead had a great Look, highlighted by their outstanding hygiene,” there’s no reason for an anti-Dead/Airplane Townsperson to shoot back with some cheap remark on either band’s legendarily poor grooming and hygiene. Got me?
3) Having considered and responded to the pro-Dead/Airplane Townsperson’s statement, the Townsperson who enters this discussion not fully appreciating the Dead/Airplane poses a statement regarding a specific characteristic of either band that he or she finds lacking – hygiene excluded!
4) A Dead/Airplane fan then seriously considers and responds directly to that negative statement, leaving his or her own next positive statement for consideration at the end of the post. Dig?
The hope is that we will eventually have an honest, considerate discussion on these bands that sees both sides of the issue and reaches empathy if not sympathy for opposing views. Furthermore, it is my dream that as this fair-balanced discussion develops, Townspeople will find themselves changing sides on certain issues, in one round sincerely expressing a “pro” feeling and then following it up with an equally sincere “con.”
Please join me in this beautiful, healing initiative. Dr. John, Geo, BigSteve, or so forth, it’s your move!
I’m afraid I’ll miss this thread as I have a root canal scheduled for this time slot and I don’t want to be late. Carry on without me will ya!?
My prediction: three responses, including this one and Mr. Clean’s.
I appreciate that Bob Weir sings a lot of blues tunes without adding bogus “negrophonics” in his vocals. Airplane favorite Fred Neil was the king of that, singing deeply felt blues tunes without resorting to vibrato vocal wails, gospelized shout-outs and the like.
I loved improvisation, I always think rock band’s sets and songs are too controlled and its the unexpected moment that holds the magic. The Dead have such an exulted stature in rock because they are rocked most successful improvisers. The think that the root of people’s excitement with The Dead and while I have mixed feelings about them, I’m all for the idea of improvisation in music.
I like the Dead up till Pigpen croaked and like a lot of later Garcia stuff (mostly with David Grisman). I never saw them live but I enjoy a few of those early Dick Picks sets.
I think Bob Weir and Mickey Hart are kind of cool.
I remember an aged friend of my aged hippy brother playing me a live cut by The Dead, with (& I could be wrong) Pigpen on vocals, & I thought it was pretty good; kind of like a good, dark-in-tone tune from The Band’s Richard Manuel.
That’s pretty much all I’ve got, cuz the irrational fear/hatred of hippies is starting to bring on a panic/rage attack.
Oh, I don’t mind ‘White Wabbit’ & ‘Somebody to Love’, by J.A. either. Beats the hell out of the retooled, extraterrestrial version of the band doing ‘We Built This City on Rock & Roll’!
I’m encouraged by the responses – by the dialog – that has followed our expected, initial, cynical comments. That’s cool, though.
I see what db says about Bob Weir avoiding “negrophonics.” I really like that term, by the way. The shortcoming I see in Weir’s approach, which I don’t think is that different than what Ray Davies would get into around the time of some of the songs on Arthur and most of the songs on Muswell Hillbillies, is that Weir lacked the personality required to be a strong lead singer – not so much “strong” technically but in terms of projecting a personality. I hope that fans of the Dead can acknowledge my feelings along these lines without attributing them to some “anti-hippie” bias.
Similarly, I like what db says about the Dead doing all it could to bring improvisation into rock. Although I’m nowhere near as qualified to judge good improvisation as I feel I am to judge lead vocals possessing personality, I’m usually not a big fan of the Dead’s improvisations.
Whenever I hear the Dead with Pigpen I like them better, and I recall liking their first album in ways I could never like later albums. (I do own their standard Greatest Hits album, and can enjoy a few tracks from that, especially “Truckin’.” Did you know I can do a mean Bobby (or is it Jerry?) vocal on “Truckin'”?)
I’ll stop there, regarding the Dead, fully trusting that fans of the Dead will respect the intelligence and consideration I’ve brought to the table.
I will say one thing, at this point, regarding the Airplane: Why is it that their best singer, Marty Balin, seems to be the least appreciated member of the band among fans? Can you explain, fans of the Airplane, why Balin doesn’t get a 10th of the ink as Slick, Kantner, Jorma, and the other Hot Tuna guy?
Thanks.
Glad the Mod could suss out the meaning of my post, which had more than its usual share of bad tense, missing words and garbled spelling.
Yeah, Bob got a strong clear tenor voice but he never seems like he too interesting a character. Funny how Garcia makes more of an impression with his vocals although as an instrument his voice is much more limited.
Not a fan of their improvisation? I remember just recently you were giving rhapsodic play-by-play of LIVE DEAD’s “Dark Star”.
Mr.Mod, These days, rather than the antiquated ‘negrophonics’, the preferred term is ‘blackcent’, or, if you’ve got the time, ‘African-American Pre-War Vocal Inflection’, which can be abbreviated to A.A.P.W.V.I., but ‘blackcent’ is fine. And shorter.
What other Hot Tuna guy, Charlie?
Jack Cassidy – that’s the other Airplane guy who gets more ink than Balin!
There were things I dug about “Dark Star,” but beside Phil Lesh, who almost single-handedly got me through the Dead show I attended in 1982, I rarely get a chill from any musician’s playing in that band. By the way, for improvisations that I also rarely LOVE, I do like the weird sound that Cassidy and Kaukonen get. There’s a certain San Francisco hippie sound that no other scene produced, in which the bass is deep yet super-defined and the guitar sounds a bit like a doubled reggae rhythm guitar. It’s incredibly distinctive, yet I rarely find it applied to music I like a lot. I wish I could graft that San Francisco guitar-and-bass tone onto a band with songs I like, such as old Pere Ubu records.
I’ll still take Arthur Lee & Love over either band.
I can’t agree w/Moddy’s Bob Weir/Ray Davies comparison. I think Ray’s got plenty of personality as a singer. I don’t feel the same about The Dead. Vocals were always kinda nondescript to my mind (apart from Pigpen, apparently).
Also, I’m perfectly happy that more bands (rock & roll bands) don’t improvise more, because then they would be playing at being jazz bands. Leave the improvisation to the guys with the chops to make something out of it, I say. Most rockers aren’t up to the task of extended improvisation, & would most likely sound crap trying.
When I first started getting into music, one of the albums that I listened to was my brother-in-law’s copy of the Worst of the Jefferson Airplane (points for them for having a sense of humor).”Today” is still one of my favorite songs of all time. Mr. Mod was right about Marty Balin. Tt’s a surprising shame that he wasn’t utilized more, especially since he started the band.
I think the Dead are perfectly fine when taken one song at a time.
Bobby, the comparison I made between Weir and Davies was in regards to how they delivered their bluesy/rootsy material. What I was saying was that although they took similar approaches, Davies HAD a lot of personality while Weir had much less.
I’ll have to say, I’m enjoying the reasoned, intelligent, respectful dialog we’ve been having on these bands. Alexmagic, depending on the sole Dead song, I agree with you completely. That song “I Need a Miracle” in intolerable – for me – in any context.
As I mentioned previously in these Hallowed Halls, although I never considered myself a deadhead, I went to about 30 shows, including one of their New Years Eve shows (the Holy Grail of dead shows). I always hated their take on blues but I do give them partial credit for getting me into country music. They were never even close to being my favorite band (that honor was held by the Velvet Underground at the time), but they had something engaging going on. Their improvisation are probably the best and the worst thing about them.. They might stumble onto something cool but you might have to sit through some bullshit to get to it.
When I moved to San Francisco in ‘88, I started to lose interest in them and when I moved to the Haight in ’91, I started to get really annoyed by them. Now, with a little distance, I can see that it wasn’t the Dead who annoyed me but rather the deadheads, who, I felt, liked to view themselves as open minded but were really just as close minded and self indulgent as any other tribe.
I think they have some solid songs. I don’t listen to them very much anymore but I think that their first album has some cool garage rock moments on it, most notably the Golden Road. American Beauty, Workingman’s Dead and some of their late 60s/early 70s live albums all have something to offer me if I’m in the right mood. They start to run out of gas over the course of the 70’s but there are even some good moments on Mars Hotel and Wake Of The Flood.
The Airplane, on the other hand, never did much for me, although admittedly I do not know their catalog as well as I know the Dead’s. I like Somebody to Love and Volunteers, and that’s about it. The songs just aren’t there. I’m not deducting any points for their sins of the 80’s either. Part of their problem for me is that they tied themselves to an era too completely. Like any band capitalizing on being in the right place at the right time (Poison, Stone Temple Pilots, etc), once that time passes, you just end up sounding quaint (or stupid). I think they got further because of their radical 60’s stance than they would have just based on the strength of their songs. Aside from the fact that Grace Slick was smoking hot, what did the Airplane have over, say, Country Joe and the Fish? Please give Not So Sweet Martha Loraine a spin before you answer.
Ultimately though, I’ll Moby Grape’s first album over the entire catalogs of both bands.
I’m not sure this was intelligent or open minded but there it is…
Three points:
First, both JA and GD understood that the key to improv is teamwork; at their best (JA-up to Volunteers; GD-till about 73), they were really tuned in to each other.
Second, I like how they both let songs develop. It’s not that they don’t use traditional verse-chorus song structures; they do, but put space in between.
Third, their variety. They saw musical styles not as either/or but both/and. Both bands were using jazz, blues, country, folk, and rock changes–sometimes all at once. They were experienced and comfortable with traditional forms (they clearly had the proper “chops”) and yet felt just fine with messing with them.
I think the problem with Balin is that he came off as just a singer, out of step with the whole ‘change the world’ spirit of the times. That spirit may seem kind of quaint now, but being a voice for hire without vision leads you straight into a corporate rock career with no qualms.
I’m sure I said this before, but to me the best thing about the Dead is Hunter-Garcia songs. I was never big on the improvisation stuff, but those guys wrote great songs, especially the Americana stuff in the late 60s-early 70s and then in the second phase of psychedelia in the mid 70s (Wake of the Flood/Mars Hotel/Blues for Allah/Terrapin). The problem with having this discussion is that most people who are convinced they don’t like the Dead, like say someone named after a household cleaning product, haven’t listened to and won’t listen to this stuff, as is their right, of course.
Here’s a good thing about the Airplane — no reunions. Grace has been pretty steadfast about her opposition to old people rocking. It’s not necessarily a position I agree with, but I respect her opinion, as I do her willingness to look her age:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GraceSlick2008.jpg
I don’t have too much of a problem with the Airplane. They could get a little holier than thou at times, but they could buckle down and get to the point. They may be firmly rooted in the 60’s, but there’s a lot of bands like that so I don’t hold that against them. They could make good records when they put their minds to it.
The Dead on the other hand, seemed to not even try to make good records. All their albums seem to come with some caveat from their fans that goes something like, “But you should hear this live – the records don’t capture the true essence of the songs.” Rock bands should be good at making records because that’s where their fans will interact with them the most. I disagree with that totally. I saw them and they were meandering and mostly seememd like they were having a band practice. I’m not big on band practice and it really bothers me to have to pay to see one.
I saw Jefferson Starship, too. They still had Marty Balin in the band and they played all their old Airplane songs. They played for hours and they put on a real show. I definitely didn’t leave disappointed, like I did with the Dead.
Good point 2000 Man: The Dead definitely had problems translating their live show to a studio setting.
Sort of ironic, then, that Garcia “advised” the Airplane on Surrealistic Pillow, their most song-oriented, produced record.
With all their problems capturing their live approach in the studio, did the Dead ever try hiring a jazz producer to run a studio session, like that guy who did the Bitches Brew-era Miles albums (was it Teo Macero, or something like that)?
For all their occasional excesses, some of which actually work quite well, the Airplane has several radio friendly singles on everyone of their main albums. The fact that they stretch out on other songs (sometimes well, sometimes not) doesn’t change this fact. And of course, even their radio friendly numbers often push against the bounds of radio acceptability in terms of lyrics and sound effects.
I myself prefer it that they move between singles, longer songs, and suites of songs. Much of the first half of Bathing At Baxter’s needs to be seen as an extended suite of songs in a way that other bands would not try for a few more years.
Also, they’re as much an electric folk band as they are a rock and roll band, at least on on some albums, and since we’ve rarely had any discussion of folk music on this list, American or otherwise, considering them from that angle always gets neglected.
Thanks for your measured and heartfelt words, Mwall. Not knowing much about folk music, I do question the categorization of bands like Jefferson Airplane as “folk” because so little of their music sounds like it could easily be shared among common folk. I know some of them have folk backgrounds and that they sometimes use folk instrumentation, but how does something that few can hum along to become part of folk music? I’m half poking fun at the notion of the Airplane as folk musicians, but sincerely, am I missing some key criteria that they met? In the spirit of this discussion I am all ears and open heart.
Actually, Mod, you’ve got it backwards. They took folk structures and rocked them out. Listen to their cover of the traditional “Good Shepherd” (on Volunteers), and you should get what I mean.
Modman, Sorry I misconstrued your meaning on the Davies/Weir vocalisms, squire. Gotta get into the habit of reading others posts without singing cartoon theme songs in my head before I post a response.
Dr. John, as usual on this subject, is right. Of course the first Airplane record sits uneasily between folk and rock, albeit with some good songs.
By the way though, the idea that the America folk tradition consists of “simple hummable tunes for ordinary people” is pretty far off. In fact early folk music was uniquely local and often far out and almost always relatively improvisatory. Listen to how genuinely weird Roscoe Holcomb or Dock Boggs or Blind Lemon Jefferson or early Skip James or Blind Willie Johnson or even Robert Johnson sound. It’s not about the hummable; that’s an imposition of the recording industry desire for hits (for better or worse). And I’m not separating blues/folk/gospel here because those aren’t necessarily distinctions on the level of sound. And while one or two of the most hummable Woody Guthrie songs became pop hits of a sort, they hardly represent the breadth of what he does.
American folk music became more regularized because of recording–musicians from various places could actually hear each other, and that often made them more like each other.
Of course, Peter Paul and Mary folk does exist, and the Airplane came up in close relation to that kind of folk context. They clearly borrowed the idea of protest music from that context and of course from Dylan and The Byrds. I think Grace Slick coming over from The Great Society was fairly instrumental in moving them towards harder rock. She’s not a folkie.
So: folk protest lyrics and an emphasis not on rocking out (at least at first) but on ensemble playing comes from folk. I think their willingness to sound odd and off-key on the vocals comes from folk too. And while their experimental/improv edge has a relation to jazz (and didn’t always work no doubt), I think it’s connected to the folk tradition as well, if more loosely.
By the way, I love the sound of Kaukonen’s guitar. How about you?
But Mod, I’m willing to acknowledge your position too if you’ll say what it is. Isn’t that part of the point here?
I commented on how much I like the sound of Jorma’s guitar early on.
Dr. John, thanks for clarifying what Mwall first said about them being a folk band.
Mwall, thanks for further clarifying what Dr. John clarified for you. Thanks, too, for citing folk artists about whom I know little or anything. Seriously, I was impressed.
I hereby grant your combined position. I had a question to ask; you guys answered it.
Here’s something interesting I thought about regarding why I could never “hate” the Dead: they never seem like they’ve reached what it is they might have wanted to reach; they seem incomplete in a way that makes it impossible for me to hate. Contrast them with bands like Journey and Styx, who did exactly what they set out to do – and did it masterfully. Because those bands were so good at making music that I was sure I can’t stand, I feel safe in hating them. The Dead always sound like they have a few good ideas and intentions, even when they’re not hitting their mark.
Moddy, I think any “hatred” I had towards The Dead probably came more from exposure to so many of their hardcore fans. Not only were they hypocrites concerning their supposed open-mindedness (The Dead seemed to be the be-all-end-all in their world), they really were drug-addled, patchouli-reeking mooks (I went to college in NH). It kinda unfairly colored my attitude towards the band, much the way Zappa freaks went on about the musicianship involved, yet seemed to respond more to the “cornhole” jokes, than any musical intricacies involved.
Apart from that, I really am NOT a fan of the Weir/Garcia vocals. Always seemed a bit thin & weedy to my ears. Could be, I wasn’t listening closely enough, due to the reasons given above, which are, granted, an unfair way to judge a band’s MUSIC. I’ve also always been more of a fan of concise songs when it comes to the R & R realm. Plus, the arrhythmic dancing always put me off (or in stitches, depending on my mood).
Jefferson Airplane, I suppose I just didn’t pay all that much attention to. I too, had ‘The Worst of…” comp, & thought a lot of it was alright. There really wasn’t that much (compared to The Dead) fanaticism about the group expressed around me, so I truly never thought about ’em that much.
One thing I’ll say about The Dead, they always seemed in control of their career as a band, seemingly WAY more so than most of their contemporaries. It always seemed that they had their own cottage industry going. So, maybe The Dead were the original DIY band, which is much more “punk” than The Clash, that’s for sure.
Jerry Garcia had a wonderful sense of how to structure a long solo, an ability to play over multiple choruses and have each one sound different, ratcheting up the dynamics in steps. I’m not generally fond of the numerous midtempo country genre songs on Europe ’72, but again and again, he delivers guitar solos that really build on these simple changes.
I love the wild eyed Airplane. This was a group of people that just ran the gamut. Kaukonen totally learned to play electric guitar in the band, and you can hear it. He’s pretty primitive, but his style was totally slanted because of the folk background he came from didn’t provide him with the beginning rockers normal collection of riffs.
Both Weir and Kantner were interesting rhythm guitarists, with a light, jazzy Mayfield like side that underpins the sound of both bands in an unusual way that is seldom noticed.
One last thing. Please throw the Workingman’s Dead version of Cumberland Blues up if you can. This is one of the most brilliant sleight of hand productions ever. On this, their stripped down straightforward album, they begin this song as an electric band, and then gradually trade in acoustic guitars, banjos and hand percussion so that the song ends with pretty much a bluegrass line up. It’s clever and completely subtle.
Is it fair for me to say that they’re the two most extreme examples of bands I really respect (and enjoy) musically but can’t stand to listen to because te vocals annoy me so much? The male voices of the Airplane and, in particular, the combination of voices and style of harmonies just grates on me so much that I can’t get past it, even though I think a lot of the music, especially on the 3rd-5th albums, is excellent.
With the Dead, again the voices and harmony style just squelch it all for me, though I must say while they were significant innovators who make some outstanding music, I find a lot of their music kind of tepid too.
Mod, I think that’s because bands like Journey or Styx have, basically, one song that defines them–and that people either love or hate.
I don’t think the Dead can be defined by one song. Not even “Dark Star” covers what they were capable of doing.
I can understand your feelings, Pudman, although I don’t share them (isn’t this how this discussion was supposed to work?).
Actually, your point raises an issue for me that might be suitable for another thread.
What singers that lack conventionally good-sounding voices or sing in a conventionally tuneful way do you still like?
Bakshi, for instance, is often complaining that people on this list always give Dylan a pass on this problem but other similar singers not. And he has a good point, I think: why do some of us excuse Dylan but not other singers?
So: what not conventionally good singers do people around here like or not, and why?
Mwall wrote:
Definitely a setup to your response that is well within the aims of this thread!
Do we want to conduct your subthread here or move it to The Main Stage, where I think it would get the attention it deserves?
The sound of vocals is a pretty important component for me, but it’s more about making your voice fit in the frequency of the recording and the rhythm of the music. That’s what I hate Craig Finn of the Hold Steady. I feel like he just bleats arhythically, and it’s just a complete turn-off, and I don’t give a shit about his stories about drunk Catholic girls. In contrast, Dylan in his prime had great flow, in addition to an actually pretty impressive range.
But it’s hard for me to think of unconventional singers I like, maybe because there’s been so many variations on rock vocals, at this point I’m not sure if anything is really unconventional, except in the narrower confines of American Idol. I mean, I like Morrissey, Patti Smith, and Leonard Cohen’s okay. I think Sonic Youth and Yo La Tengo have fine vocals for what their songs require. Is that what you mean? Or stuff that seems to be out-and-out tuneless?
Oats has confirmed the need to keep Mwall’s side question right here, where we might also shed light on the issues some folks take with the vocalists in both the Dead and the Airplane.
I like a good deal of vocalists who don’t have conventionally “good” voices. I’m not capable or very discerning myself about whether a singer is “on key” or not, so maybe that helps me keep an open mind.
However, for every singer I love who’s not conventionally thought of as good there’s one who’s equally unconventional whom I can’t stand. The same goes for conventionally good singers as far as I’m concerned.
For me it comes down to the personality each singer’s voice projects: do I get the sense this singer is a “friend” or not? The first person who responds to this “friend” reference with something like, “How can you hear ‘friendship’ in the tone of [name an unconventional singer’s voice that may not be thought of as “friendly”] voice” doesn’t know my taste in friends. I have some friends whose main value to me is their ability to connect with my inner asshole, dig?
Some singers, “good” or “bad” voice, simply strike me as the kinds of people I’d be uncomfortable having to make small talk with at a party. It’s probably impossible for me to explain what makes one person a good time for me to hang with at a party and another a possible nightmare, but I’m pretty sure that’s all it comes down to for me.
When I hear Bob Weir’s voice I associate him with a guy I could chit-chat with for 2 minutes before needing to find an excuse to “check in with my wife.”
When I hear the mass of Airplane voices yelping in some rough harmony I don’t even want to enter the party.
For years, when I heard the voice of Randy Newman, I heard the voice of some blowhard I’d have to steer clear of at this imagined party. Over the last couple of years I’ve started to think that, if I could find common ground with him, we might be able to spend a few minutes cutting on someone across the room.
Morrissey? I can’t stand his voice, but after hearing a few of his solo albums I’ve come to the conclusion that it may be worth standing on the periphery of a conversation he was leading at this party with his buddies. I don’t know if we’d break off into our own chat, but he may be interesting enough to obvserve from afar.
The Undertones’ “Jump Boys” is playing now. I know a lot of people can’t get by Feargal’s voice and I understand why, but to me his voice connotes energy and confidence. I’d love to hang with him at a party and hear what he has to say on just about any topic. I’m sure he’d charm me.
David Thomas, on the other hand, is a highly unconventional singer who sounds like a complete asshole, but the kind of asshole I’ve attracted as friends over the years. He’d be one of those friends my other friends would know to steer clear of.
You see how I react to singers, Mwall?
I don’t know, I think maybe I only like singers who don’t have ‘good’ voices. My least favorite vocal subgenre is guys who traffic in the Jim Morrison tradition of deep baritone cheese. Too bad Iggy went down that road.
For a little while, I was really into vocals that sounded “effortless.” I really soured on latter-day Costello’s huffing and puffing. I came to the conclusion that same-era Nick Lowe was highly superior. Or Alex Chilton in his lounge singer mode. However, I realize that it’s small step from effortless to Norah Jones-style snooziness. Perhaps control is the issue. Neko Case has a big voice, but she seems in control of it.
But control isn’t very rock ‘n’ roll, is it? I do like singers in a rock setting who can overdo it or scream or just generally lose their shit: Corin Tucker, Frank Black, Robin Zander. But what they do is still appropriate within the confines of their respective bands, which goes back to what I was saying earlier, about fitting into the rhythm and the sound of the recording.
I still think the question could and should be a main stage question, now or at some later point.
And now I’m off to hours of meetings.
>What singers that lack conventionally >good-sounding voices or sing in a >conventionally tuneful way do you >still like?
Jonathan Richman is my immediate answer.
Oddly enough, I like Tom Verlaine’s vocals on MARQUEE MOON and his first solo album but find them strident on ADVENTURE. Is that because his rather whiny, high-pitched voice isn’t as suited to thin production as to richer, more bottom-heavy prioduction?
Pman brings up something that makes me question my own supposed tastes. I’ve always posited that I wasn’t into the more high pitched type of male singers, my initial resistance coming from Geddy Lee & Percy Plant. I’ve gotta admit, though, I never had a problem w/Verlaine or David Thomas of P. Ubu. These days, I’ve even come to appreciate Plant, though not Mr. Lee (but that’s part of a whole package of what I dislike). I always thought I responded more to the lower register guys (w/obvious exceptions, like Smokey R. or C. Mayfield. I guess I’m mainly talking white rock singers), but bringing up a guy like Verlaine kinda blows that idea out of the water. Sorry to be thinking out loud (or as I type), but my comments on The Dead’s “thin & weedy” vocals don’t hold much water in this context. Maybe it’s just the quality of their thin & weedy vocals that I don’t like, because, obviously, I DO like some vocalists that fall into said category. Help?
As a long time Dead fan I have a great fondness for the music and experiences I’ve enjoyed, but I can still look at them objectively and know that they’re not for everyone all the time, or even anyone all the time…(Didn’t Pres. Lincoln say something like that in the midst of a ecstasy buzz?).
For me one of the endearing features of Jerry was the frailty and fragility of his voice. A kind of wavering anti-rock sound. He didn’t scream or yell or even deliver his vocals with a huge amount of rock bravado or confidence, I think that gave him some of his heart. His voice was certainly not what anyone would consider as classicaly trained or tuned, but then neither is Dylan or Neil Young, so you really can’t hold that against him.
Bobby on the other hand had more of a classical rock and roll voice, and many of the “traditional” dead fans preferred the “Jerry” songs to the “Bobby” songs, probably for that reason…
Also the Dead are one of the few bands that can move from one style of music to another and still retain their unique sound and style (whether you like it or not), and are not afraid of covers. They do straight rock and roll classics, like Buddy Holly’s “Not Fade Away”…with a strong Bo Diddly influence, to Chuck Berry style “Johnny B. Goode and “Round and Round” to straight forward 12 bar blues, Dylan ballads, “Positively 4th Street” Traditional “Goin Down the Road Feelin’ Bad” ,Psychedelia (Dark Star, Morning Dew, the Other One) Calypso in “Aiku Aiku” and “the Women are Smarter” Country (anything on “Workingman’s”…) and even Disco influenced (anything on “Shakedown”). There aren’t a lot of bands that have that kind of versatility.
There is a sensitivity to the Deads songs that I don’t hear in other bands. Listen to “Cold Rain and Snow”, “Brown-Eyed Women” or “Althea”, and you can hear it.
But I understand there are the low points. The rudderless jams seemingly without melody or even a point. The traditional “Drums, Space, Puke” intermissions, perfect for a visit to the beer gardens or vomitorium depending on the depth of my commitment at that show… The inevitable slurring of the vocals when Bobby forgets the words, and the warbling vocals of Phil on “Box of Rain” But all-in-all it’s a musical experience I miss, and a unique style that is not often duplicated. And that makes it one of the few defining sounds that fall in the general category that make up the spectrum of our Rock and Roll.
Nice work, wheresjerry! You seem to have summed up the love Dead fans feel for the band in a completely balanced and self-aware way. Even hard-hearted Dead hatas will respect where you’re coming from. Thanks for entering the Hall to state your case. Don’t be a stranger! We need people like you.