I have to weigh in against the kind of overly-developed verbal communication used by both P&F and Ratdog, and against the kind of autocratic leadership style that they've both developed.
Part of what made the Dead so much fun to listen to is that Jerry was the leader, but he led mostly by example while the rest of the band was given a lot of creative freedom.
Also, the style of communication the Dead used was way more musical. The section changes, even the complicated ones, should happen when the music collectively dictates that they should happen, not when one guy decides it's time and tells everybody else. Having one leader on stage making all the musical decisions automatically stifles the creativity of each and every other person on stage since they are forced to defer their judgement at all times rather than playing what feels natural and musical. It also divides the leader's attention 3 ways - playing their instrument, making the decisions, and communicating to the band - so everyone is deferring to a leader whose musicianship is compromised.
Put another way, a good jam band should have no trouble staying together even if everybody's blindfolded. At most, the communication should be eye contact with the drummer towards the end of a solo or jam, and he plays a fill to cue the next section.
This business of hand-signals and talkback into the IEMs just turns what could be an exciting band into a weak version of one of Zappa's bands, but without the amazing tightness, complexity and virtuosity that made his music interesting and viable. Even Zappa never made musical decisions or cued changes in his band while he was playing guitar... for him the band was his main instrument and his guitar was secondary.
Sorry for the rant... I just really don't agree with how either Phil or Bobby run their bands. You'd think they'd have learned more from Jerry on that regard... either one could easily step into his role of reluctant, de-facto leader and the music would be 10x better.
Part of what made the Dead so much fun to listen to is that Jerry was the leader, but he led mostly by example while the rest of the band was given a lot of creative freedom.
Also, the style of communication the Dead used was way more musical. The section changes, even the complicated ones, should happen when the music collectively dictates that they should happen, not when one guy decides it's time and tells everybody else. Having one leader on stage making all the musical decisions automatically stifles the creativity of each and every other person on stage since they are forced to defer their judgement at all times rather than playing what feels natural and musical. It also divides the leader's attention 3 ways - playing their instrument, making the decisions, and communicating to the band - so everyone is deferring to a leader whose musicianship is compromised.
Put another way, a good jam band should have no trouble staying together even if everybody's blindfolded. At most, the communication should be eye contact with the drummer towards the end of a solo or jam, and he plays a fill to cue the next section.
This business of hand-signals and talkback into the IEMs just turns what could be an exciting band into a weak version of one of Zappa's bands, but without the amazing tightness, complexity and virtuosity that made his music interesting and viable. Even Zappa never made musical decisions or cued changes in his band while he was playing guitar... for him the band was his main instrument and his guitar was secondary.
Sorry for the rant... I just really don't agree with how either Phil or Bobby run their bands. You'd think they'd have learned more from Jerry on that regard... either one could easily step into his role of reluctant, de-facto leader and the music would be 10x better.
