Grateful Dead Music Forum

strumminsix wrote:Really, dude, really? I think you don't understand what original vs, cover means.

I think I do.

I'll try again:
The GD did not write these traditional songs but played them, they are covers. Copyright has nothing to do with authoring.

See my response to tcsned. I understand the differnece between copyright and authoring, as I have made my living in that space for decades. If you want to have technical discussions on this topic, I am sure I can hold up my end.

I still don't see where I called them a cover band.

You wrote: "I'd struggle call the GD an "original band". They included covers in every show they performed. For crying out loud "Me & My Uncle" was the #1 performed song. Even their albums had cover songs on it." and you are having trouble understanding where you called them a cover band? You are saying they aren't an original band and pointing out that they included covers in every show and on their albums but you don't think that is calling them a cover band?

Read again before turning into a hothead.

Given your history of ad hominem attacks on me, I'm guessing this is a joke?

I chose my words careful...

Yes, I can see that.

and you are choosing to misread them.

I don't think so.

JonnyBoy wrote:That being true, there is also the fact that many African American musicians lacked the funding, the rights and the help to get their rightful due on their music, (its amazing the resentment still alive over that fact within the AM musical community). That also goes for many immigrants and poor from many other nationalities. Many of the Southern country singers would snag blues songs and country fry them into their own, it was a common practice. Either way imo, if you didn't write it, its a cover, traditional or copyright aside, not knowing the confusing laws surrounding copyright protection doesn't negate that fact, imo. I don't think the Dead would argue that fact either... Plus a lot of the songs they played, that they didn't write, had known authors aside from not having copyrights. I think the term "cover" can be loaded with all kinds of meaning, negative and positive. To me it simply means you are not the author of the song and you are playing it in tribute to the author or culture. Some people hear cover and think of a band named KISSES that paint their faces like Kiss and only play their music just like they did, which is a different and extreme use of the term, which I agree the Dead was not doing with their covers.

I don't disagree strongly with anything you wrote above. If people want to think of playing traditional tunes as "covering", it's no sweat off my ass, I just think it is different.

Copyright ownership was very poorly managed in the music industry until the 1960s or so when the artists started getting the economic power to push back. There is nothing inherently wrong with your publisher owning the copyright of the works they publish, as long as the contracts are structured properly, which they weren't prior to that period.

I'd say there are two kinds of originality. I've seen and heard plenty of bands who write their own songs but really don't do anything all that creative or different.

Mick, I guess we just disagree. Don't know what I ever did to you but if you'd like to take it up, PM me. I don't have an issue with anyone here.

I'll always say it's the band is covering any song they didn't write themselves.

And yes, I would say the GD is an original band if I had to state original vs covers but they did too many covers . Years ago a buddy had this show (I'll never remember the date) where if you took out space and drums something like 75% of the time of the show was of non GD original material.

strumminsix wrote:Mick, I guess we just disagree. Don't know what I ever did to you but if you'd like to take it up, PM me. I don't have an issue with anyone here.

No, I don't want to take it up in PMs. After 15 years of posting on message boards, it's probably been a decade or so since I expended the emotional energy to care what some guy on the internet says about me, so you can continue to attack me if that is what floats your boat. I just think it is funny that someone with your posting style would tell me to not be a "hothead". BTW, the "I feel strongly" part of my first post in this thread was a joke, as obviously I really don't care.

I'll always say it's the band is covering any song they didn't write themselves.

Like I said, no sweat off my ass. I see there being a substantial difference between playing a tune that is under copyright and one that is not. Maybe that is because I make my living in the copyright space, maybe not. As long as you're not stepping on my copyrights, I don't care.

And yes, I would say the GD is an original band if I had to state original vs covers but they did too many covers . Years ago a buddy had this show (I'll never remember the date) where if you took out space and drums something like 75% of the time of the show was of non GD original material.

The musical sea is wide enough that if a band plays too many covers for you, I recommend you find another band. Back when I was going to a lot of concerts, I was a big GD fan and also a big fan of The Rolling Stones. Most stones fans I knew also knew I was a Dead fan, and used to bust my chops about the whole cover thing. Most of them hadn't a clue what they were talking about. They would point out that the Dead put covers on their albums etc, apparently blissfully unaware that the Stones put songs like "Not Fade Away" and "It's All Over Now" on their albums too.

Not only was covering much more accepted in the '60s than it seems to be today, but the GD as a touring band was quite different than say the stones. The stones would do an album, and then do a tour. The shows on that tour would be very heavy with the songs from the recent album, with some old favorites thrown in. Then, they would more or less repeat the process. If they wanted to tour, and hadn't written anything, they would issue a "Greatest Hits" album and tour in support of that. It was a tour in support of an album model, where the Dead were the opposite, put out an occasional album to help maintain interest in their near constant touring. I don't know how many shows the Dead played in an average year, but if I was going to play a hundred shows a year for a decade, and only play what I wrote, even if I was a prolific writer it wouldn't be long before the shows were just repetitive and boring. Few people would follow a band for a whole summer catching 25 shows if they were all the same 30 or 40 or 50 songs playing over and over and over.

Said another way, I can't think of many acts of that era that had a substantially larger cadre of original music at their disposal than the Dead. I also can't think of another act that played more shows than the Dead. Lots of shows = greater need for different songs = heavier reliance on covers.

tcsned wrote:Some of the tunes we know who wrote them, but they are so old that their copyright protection has long run out. GDTRFB is traditional, and I believe Beat it on Down the Line is too. I believe the author of BIODTL is known, though I don't remember who off the top of my head. I

Jesse Fuller wrote Beat It On Down The Line.

joethepainter wrote:

tcsned wrote:Some of the tunes we know who wrote them, but they are so old that their copyright protection has long run out. GDTRFB is traditional, and I believe Beat it on Down the Line is too. I believe the author of BIODTL is known, though I don't remember who off the top of my head. I

Jesse Fuller wrote Beat It On Down The Line.

All songs were written by somebody. "Traditional" basically means that the author is unknown/forgotten, and that the piece has probably changed as its been passed around. I've seen GDTRFB attributed to Woody Guthrie, but he could have picked it up from the front porch or kitchen of a thousand different unknown pickers.

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, certainly BK. Duly noted, too, that Billy has always been about as subtle as a flying mallet in past demeanor.

But it lacked a certain amount of class. To demean JK in the process was utterly lacking in class. Warren is a great guitar player and from what I hear, a fabulously supportive human being to other musicians and I only wish Billy would have extended the same courtesy toward his old bandmates and the players.

Sure, when Jer checked out, I think everyone realized that the big dog had left the building, with little or no going back. But to implicate JK as some sad echo of Jerry is utterly unfair and unkind to the spirit of what music is about in the first place. Do we stop playing Ellington's music because he passed? Do we argue incessantly about those who followed in his footsteps. Reasonable people don't, I would like to think.

For me, I enjoyed the Dead while the intact band was alive and I am enjoying the offshoots and well-intentioned mutations of it. No holy Grail in the mix when it comes to Kimock vs Warren vs John K vs Larry, etc... It ain't a contest, folks.

It IS a matter of taste, I suppose. However, I found Billy's comments utterly tasteless.

tigerstrat wrote:

joethepainter wrote:

tcsned wrote:Some of the tunes we know who wrote them, but they are so old that their copyright protection has long run out. GDTRFB is traditional, and I believe Beat it on Down the Line is too. I believe the author of BIODTL is known, though I don't remember who off the top of my head. I

Jesse Fuller wrote Beat It On Down The Line.

All songs were written by somebody. "Traditional" basically means that the author is unknown/forgotten, and that the piece has probably changed as its been passed around. I've seen GDTRFB attributed to Woody Guthrie, but he could have picked it up from the front porch or kitchen of a thousand different unknown pickers.

From Wikipedia...
"...the Grateful Dead covered a few of Fuller's songs, including "The Monkey and the Engineer" and "Beat It on Down the Line". Others who have covered his work include Hot Tuna, Peter, Paul and Mary, Glenn Yarbrough, Eric Clapton, Paul McCartney, and Bob Dylan, on his debut in 1962."
I point this out to clarify that this particular song (BIODTL) has a known author, namely Jesse "Rodney Dangerfield" Fuller.

tdub wrote:Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, certainly BK. Duly noted, too, that Billy has always been about as subtle as a flying mallet in past demeanor.

But it lacked a certain amount of class. To demean JK in the process was utterly lacking in class. Warren is a great guitar player and from what I hear, a fabulously supportive human being to other musicians and I only wish Billy would have extended the same courtesy toward his old bandmates and the players.

Sure, when Jer checked out, I think everyone realized that the big dog had left the building, with little or no going back. But to implicate JK as some sad echo of Jerry is utterly unfair and unkind to the spirit of what music is about in the first place. Do we stop playing Ellington's music because he passed? Do we argue incessantly about those who followed in his footsteps. Reasonable people don't, I would like to think.

For me, I enjoyed the Dead while the intact band was alive and I am enjoying the offshoots and well-intentioned mutations of it. No holy Grail in the mix when it comes to Kimock vs Warren vs John K vs Larry, etc... It ain't a contest, folks.

It IS a matter of taste, I suppose. However, I found Billy's comments utterly tasteless.

Well said! Especially the point about Duke Ellington's music. We could say the same about thousands of other artists and people whose influence extends beyond their living days. Not only in the realm of music, but in art, literature, mathematics, philosophy, psychology, science, the list goes on.

Jerry Garcia liked to think of himself as a conduit, a messenger, for the music to flow through. I would think he's smiling down on us seeing that his bandmates are still happy and healthy, bringing people together, sustaining his legacy, and experiencing the joy that is the gift of music.

Amen to that! The music is not the only part of our cultural heritage, but it is a big part. Anybody working to preserve that heritage is ok with me. Even if they're bad; probably somebody's liking it. All these Dead tribute bands and Dead inspired and influenced jam bands are great to have around if you like that kind of thing. And if you've never heard that kind of thing, they are essential. My wife's sister saw Furthur at the Vibes last summer and it blew her mind. She had never seen anything like it in her life. Well where would she? Not in corporate-media land. So here's one more girl that will be singing Dead songs to her babies at night, which is how folk music and cultural traditions are passed along.

Grateful Dad wrote:

tdub wrote:Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, certainly BK...But it lacked a certain amount of class. To demean JK in the process was utterly lacking in class...to implicate JK as some sad echo of Jerry is utterly unfair and unkind to the spirit of what music is about in the first place. Do we stop playing Ellington's music because he passed? ...No holy Grail in the mix when it comes to Kimock vs Warren vs John K vs Larry, etc... It ain't a contest, folks...It IS a matter of taste, I suppose. However, I found Billy's comments utterly tasteless.

Well said! Especially the point about Duke Ellington's music. We could say the same about thousands of other artists and people whose influence extends beyond their living days. Not only in the realm of music, but in art, literature, mathematics, philosophy, psychology, science, the list goes on. ...

I hope you guys don't mind my parsing of your posts, it's just that I agree with you!

javalina wrote:Amen to that! The music is not the only part of our cultural heritage, but it is a big part. Anybody working to preserve that heritage is ok with me. Even if they're bad; probably somebody's liking it. All these Dead tribute bands and Dead inspired and influenced jam bands are great to have around if you like that kind of thing. And if you've never heard that kind of thing, they are essential. My wife's sister saw Furthur at the Vibes last summer and it blew her mind. She had never seen anything like it in her life. Well where would she? Not in corporate-media land. So here's one more girl that will be singing Dead songs to her babies at night, which is how folk music and cultural traditions are passed along.

Well said.

I can say that as a 21 y/o who had nothing but his Dad's tapes from the 80s, American Beauty, and Hundred Year Hall to turn him on to the GD, its nice to be able to see the music played live.

Seeing the Dead in May '09 was a dream come true. Seeing DSO once a year was also killer. Me and my buddy stumbled onto the Furthur site the day it went up by complete accident and before we knew it, were going to see their first show for dirt cheap. The fact that I paid $45 to stand a JKs feet one day (DSO) and $35 to stand between him and Bobby makes me feel like all this time I've spent getting really into the music isn't wasted. Its alive and its current, not some one else's past or fantasy.

I'm sorry Billy doesn't dig Furthur. Maybe he is upset about it. I've heard rumors that the band wasn't particularly happy with the behind the scenes stuff of the Dead '09 tour, but Bobby and Phil didn't want to give it up. Hence Furthur. But when it comes down to it, until you go to the show and dance like the rest of us, you can't say all that much about it. After all, I only know what the GD sound like on tape or look like on DVD. Never went and never danced. But hell if I don't listen to 'em every day of the week. Kimock, Herring, Warren, JK... they're all great to me. Even if I might like one over the other one, at least the music never stopped.

Peace,

Jommy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBlXEGLXlV0&sns=fb

I can't seem to get this to post correctly under the "youtube" option.

Sorry folks