Grateful Dead Music Forum

I can understand BK's point of view if he actually said that. The GD are an original band that toured for 30 years and Billy was a core part of that. I can totally understand not wanting any part of a GD tribute act.

I still think the current Further are the best post GD band any members of the GD have been in so far. It is a chance to see Phil and Bob play with talented improv musicians. They still are kinda like a really good GD tribute band though.

mijknahs wrote:The GD are an original band that toured for 30 years and Billy was a core part of that. I can totally understand not wanting any part of a GD tribute act.

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.

Cover songs with count:
Me And My Uncle 616
I Know You Rider 550
Not Fade Away 531
New Minglewood Blues 435
Good Lovin' 428
Promised Land 427
Around and Around 418
El Paso 388
Big River 397
Samson and Delilah 364
Turn On Your Love Light 341
Beat It On Down The Line 325
Don't Ease Me In 316
Mama Tried 302

Originals:
Sugar Magnolia 594
Other One, The Weir 583
Playing In The Band 582
China Cat Sunflower 554
Truckin' 519
Jack Straw 473
Deal Garcia 423
Looks Like Rain 417
Mexicali Blues 435
Tennessee Jed 433

When I say "original" I don't mean they didn't play songs written by others. They were very much in fact an "original" band as in "they're not the best at what they do, they're the only ones who do what they do". No other rock/jam band will ever get close. They inspire others to imitate their style. Playing songs that you wrote doesn't make you an "original" band. You can play all originals and still sound exactly like "Slayer" or "Duran Duran" or whatever. I think the Grateful Dead were the most original band ever. Ever their "covers" were done in their own totally original psychedelic style.

I think if this is true, then BK and MH are just plain grumpy old farts. Eating off the never ending plate that can feed hundreds of bands? They should only be so proud, imo. Like Mozart and other classical musicians from the past, the music has inspired life long connections where people will congregate to replicate its power and spirit. To be angry about that is just plain selfish, they must have forgotten what they stood for man years ago. Yes they are an original band, but nothing original about what they are doing, which is the same thing JK, and the rest of us are. I would be giddy if I aged past touring and playing out or died and my band could pull from a bunch of bands that imitate us to fill a slot that gave me a lot of happiness and further the music that was born. Strum is right, they are arguing hair line points, like the old women in the retirement home that have nothing better to do but get angry life is almost over. Well guess what, it is the same for all of us and most of us have never come so close trying to do the same thing, which play the music that inspires us the most and actually make more than gas, free beer and fried chicken. That attitude just flies all over me for some reason, like some of them have contempt for musicians that like to play music they wrote, like they did years ago to other musicians. Actually, they made money off old blues songs where the guys that wrote them never saw a dime. Those guys should be pissed not BK and MH.

JonnyBoy wrote: Actually, they made money off old blues songs where the guys that wrote them never saw a dime. Those guys should be pissed not BK and MH.

+1

.

I am on neither side of this (not even sure there are any "sides" of this, other than what is being projected by posters here)

...but to say the GD weren't an original band? That's the logical brain grasping for straws when the creative side knows the truth. The improv jams alone easily qualify them as one of the most original acts in rock n roll, imho. Then add the stupendous amount of published songs, many in styles that are impossible to pigeon-hole... it's a slam dunk. I don't see how the inclusion of covers is even relevant unless they relied on them completely, a la a Top 40 cover band or tribute act. The Beatles, Stones, Who and Hendrix all did a lot of covers too.

tigerstrat wrote:I am on neither side of this (not even sure there are any "sides" of this, other than what is being projected by posters here)

...but to say the GD weren't an original band? That's the logical brain grasping for straws when the creative side knows the truth. The improv jams alone easily qualify them as one of the most original acts in rock n roll, imho. Then add the stupendous amount of published songs, many in styles that are impossible to pigeon-hole... it's a slam dunk. I don't see how the inclusion of covers is even relevant unless they relied on them completely, a la a Top 40 cover band or tribute act. The Beatles, Stones, Who and Hendrix all did a lot of covers too.

Did I ever say that? No.

They were over reliant on cover tunes plain and simple. I never head BK bashing shows that were disgustingly filled covers.

My response was to BK being quoted as saying, "Those guys have been eating off someone else's plate for years now."

Look at my list above to see the plates the GD were eating off of for 30 plus years and BK is still eating off the GD plate with various musicians. He's a hypocrite.

strumminsix wrote:

JonnyBoy wrote: Actually, they made money off old blues songs where the guys that wrote them never saw a dime. Those guys should be pissed not BK and MH.

+1

I missed the part where BK and MH are "pissed". Can someone help me find that?

There is a huge difference in how the Grateful Dead interpreted their "cover songs" and how DSO interprets their covers. One is an original band covering someone's material in a totally original and new way so that it becomes "their own". The other is playing the song in such a convincing way to make you think of the way the Grateful Dead "did it". One band is original and the other is the exact opposite. DSO is not even pretending to be an original band. They're trying to re-create the Grateful Dead experience. And there's nothing wrong with that - I try to do the same thing with my Grateful Dead cover/tribute band. It's a lot of fun. Playing Jerry guitar is not original - but Jerry was. No one played like Jerry. He had a distinct, original style regardless of whether he was playing his own tune or someone else's.

The Grateful Dead played their covers just like they played their originals - Grateful Dead style. The fact is DSO is not just a band that plays covers like the Grateful Dead played covers. They are a "Tribute band" in the best sense of the term who are totally dependent on the Grateful Dead.

I can understand Billy's unwillingness to associate himself with that. He wants to avoid being a "tribute" act. That's why he's purposely playing with guys that don't sound like the Jerry. I don't necessarlily agree with him and I thing he's possibly a bit bitter but I understand where he's coming from as well.

Here's the rest of what BK said, in its full context (at http://www.stateofmindmusic.com/entry/1 ... ann/page=3 ):

You played Gathering of the Vibes this summer‚ the night before Furthur performed. Have you seen them yet?
I haven't. I haven't really got much interest in them. They sound just like the other bands out there doing it. What do you call those bands that copy other bands? Anyways‚ I don't feel they're doing anything really new with their music. We play Grateful Dead tunes in 7 Walkers and Rhythm Devils‚ but with our own take on everything. We don't play them slow‚ we play it loud and up-tempo. The saddest thing is that they hired a guitar player that's not Warren Haynes. It's too bad. They should have hired a great solo guitar player.
At the All Good Festival last year‚ I remember you said some interesting things to JamBase about Dark Star Orchestra ("I think if you're going to spend that much time on music you should work on your own music.").
I really felt bad after I said that. They have the right to approach me the way they want to. For me to say they aren't doing their own thing‚ that's making a judgment. I'm not God. I can't make judgments on people. I wish I could take that back. I forgave myself for making that statement. What I really wanted to say is that I wouldn't have done it that way. Not to say that it's good or bad.
How's your relationship with Bob [Weir] and Phil [Lesh] these days?
We saw each other at the [San Francisco] Giants game for Jerry's birthday. We talk on the internet all time. We have our Grateful Dead meetings‚ too.
Good terms?
Yeah‚ definitely.

I said on page 1 there has to be more to the story....

But I still say he is being a hypocrite. The GD relied on covers and BK3 plays Dead, etc.

Just cuz BK and MH decided to bow out doesn't mean the music doesn't go on.

And it's even more fucked up for him to weigh in since it sounds like he hasn't spent any time listening to what is being produced.

JK is alot less JG than he was in DSO and that I thought he would be and I for 1 appreciate it. As far as Furthur goes it is very unique and it's so obvious that what Phil and Bobby learned while in their respective bands is being brought in as well as top notch keyboardist who "tributes" Brent and Keith. Add in a few back-up singers and you find the vocal harmonies to be STELLAR and the players more relaxed going into them.

I'll repeat, BK's statement do not seem to reflect what is actually going on... I think he is simply hung up on JK's background of being a JG tribute artist.

I am using the word "Pissed" in its vague wide open definition of not being generally supportive and being somewhat negative towards whats going on, refusing to be in the band after one tour is statement enough. I was also Referring to Vic's statement also, not so much the article. I also preface the statement, "if that's true". but between what I have heard from other sources, here and this article its not much to jump to a conclusion. I will change it to, they are being "pissy". Slamming your life long brothers and other musicians on open public record is just that. He knows how to act within the press, he's been a celeb his whole life, I assume some intention on his part.

Edit: he has made kinda the same statements in the past, I guess telling it like he see's it and I respect that, I just thought he was more open minded than that. He makes apology for knocking DSO then again kinda says it again in so many words. He says he hasn't heard or seen further but then goes on to critique the sound and approach? I know I'm reading into things, but he is writing between the lines quite boldly.

You know, ever since Mozart died, I refuse to support any of these hack orchestras re-creating the mozart experience. The spirit really died for me when he passed.

It doesn't have to be a soap opera. Let the haters listen to their Dick's Picks collection for the 8 millionth time while the rest of us have fun at the shows. Go Furthur / Go DSO / Go Splintered Sunlight (local guys)...Sh*t, I'm gonna go find a Phish cover band while I'm at it

Im not sure where I stand on all of this but for the record...Billy K has PLAYED with DSO!!!!!! just sayin.
7.12.2002 Oregon County Fairgrounds, Veneta OR