Re: Kreutzmann Takes a Stab at Furthur
PostPosted:Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:41 pm
Yeah, I'm seeing Furthur being equated with DSO a couple posts up and I really don't think that's even remotely fair. John played with DSO, sure. And DSO is, indeed, a tribute band, pure and simple - the best around. They make original music every show just the same as all of us aspire to do when we're jamming in our own bands, but came up with a brilliant twist on the scene with the whole replicating set lists thing. Are they covers? Yes, but aren't we all trying to achieve the same band dynamics of listening to each other and going from there, rather than play everything note-for-note from some specific show we've intensely studied (something people consistently get wrong in assuming DSO does)? At least, that's my band's take on covering the Dead: performing Dead tunes "in the style of" the Dead", but wholly limited to our own abilities and relationships with each other.
Of course nobody can replicate the original Dead versions because they changed so frequently. The tunes that the Dead covered were uniquely their own as well, so I don't really buy the S6 argument on this one.
Where Billy and some others here are wrong, IMO, is that Furthur isn't simply rehashing old GD tunes. They are playing them for the most part in completely new arrangements - if for no other reason then by simple virtue of the musicians playing them - and the music is fresh every night. I'd say that if any band was guilty of lamely covering Grateful Dead tunes, it would be the Grateful Dead themselves who for the last few years specifically, and for many a show here and there over the years, simply mailed it in or played considerably less than inspired takes on their own material. Perhaps Furthur will eventually fall into this same rut. I hope not, but for now they are as fresh a band as any out there. If people don't think so, they simply aren't listening to the music.
I defy anyone to listen to what Phil is playing these days and tell me he's rehashing the same music he played for 30 years with the GD. Or point out where John's simply aping old Garcia riffs (other than integral parts of songs - you can't just rewrite the melodic theme to Birdsong any more than you can to Birdland). Or how Russo is copping BK or MH's licks. Or Chimenti (who is most definitely NOT "tributing" Brent or Keith, but rather plays in his own unique style altogether). Even Bob's got some new wrenches to throw in the works here and again to keep things fresh.
One may or may not like the direction Furthur's taken the music, but to write it off as just another Dead cover project is as absurd as saying Mile's sextet with Adderley and 'Trane was a knock-off of his quintet with only 'Trane on sax - or that either was a cover version of his earlier band with Sonny Rollins. Or when he replaced Art Blakey with Philly Joe Jones and then Jimmy Cobb on drums, or Red Garland with Gil Evans on piano. They were all extremely talented musicians working within a genre but bringing their own takes on the jazz of the time, with styles and sensibilities that shared elements with one another, but each having their own unique voice. Each incarnation, after all, played 'Round Midnight hundreds of times over the years and most certainly played the same riffs on occasions where they were called for in the song, but the overall performances - especially the improvisations - were as different from each other as Furthur's are from the Grateful Dead's.
Of course nobody can replicate the original Dead versions because they changed so frequently. The tunes that the Dead covered were uniquely their own as well, so I don't really buy the S6 argument on this one.
Where Billy and some others here are wrong, IMO, is that Furthur isn't simply rehashing old GD tunes. They are playing them for the most part in completely new arrangements - if for no other reason then by simple virtue of the musicians playing them - and the music is fresh every night. I'd say that if any band was guilty of lamely covering Grateful Dead tunes, it would be the Grateful Dead themselves who for the last few years specifically, and for many a show here and there over the years, simply mailed it in or played considerably less than inspired takes on their own material. Perhaps Furthur will eventually fall into this same rut. I hope not, but for now they are as fresh a band as any out there. If people don't think so, they simply aren't listening to the music.
I defy anyone to listen to what Phil is playing these days and tell me he's rehashing the same music he played for 30 years with the GD. Or point out where John's simply aping old Garcia riffs (other than integral parts of songs - you can't just rewrite the melodic theme to Birdsong any more than you can to Birdland). Or how Russo is copping BK or MH's licks. Or Chimenti (who is most definitely NOT "tributing" Brent or Keith, but rather plays in his own unique style altogether). Even Bob's got some new wrenches to throw in the works here and again to keep things fresh.
One may or may not like the direction Furthur's taken the music, but to write it off as just another Dead cover project is as absurd as saying Mile's sextet with Adderley and 'Trane was a knock-off of his quintet with only 'Trane on sax - or that either was a cover version of his earlier band with Sonny Rollins. Or when he replaced Art Blakey with Philly Joe Jones and then Jimmy Cobb on drums, or Red Garland with Gil Evans on piano. They were all extremely talented musicians working within a genre but bringing their own takes on the jazz of the time, with styles and sensibilities that shared elements with one another, but each having their own unique voice. Each incarnation, after all, played 'Round Midnight hundreds of times over the years and most certainly played the same riffs on occasions where they were called for in the song, but the overall performances - especially the improvisations - were as different from each other as Furthur's are from the Grateful Dead's.
)
