Jerry Garcia's Toilet

I can only ask why would anyone want one?????http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4484640.stm

be-bop wrote:

I can only ask why would anyone want one?????

Well, its the best place I can think of to keep his CDs.

Beestie wrote:

Well, its the best place I can think of to keep his CDs.

Meee Owwww! Baby, Mee Oww!

Tsk! Jerry was an artist, baby. One of the greats! Ok, sure, he was out of his skull on Smack most of the time, but he WAS a great artist. Kids these days... :headshake

Beestie wrote:

Well, its the best place I can think of to keep his CDs.

based on what i know about your taste in music, that doesn't really surprise me all that much. it does, however, make me sad that you are too busy listening to electric trance dance mixes that are indistinguishable from each other, and fail to appreciate what his music represents. very sad indeed.

Point taken.

But don't be surprised if I don't rush to defend the artistic merit of trance. Matter of fact, I wouldn't even categorize trance as music any more than I would categorize abstract painting as art. I wouldn't put trance "artists" in the same league as musicians - they are more tactical than artistic. Nothing against abstract painters, trance artists or those who enjoy either but the fact that they both use the same medium as their artistic brethren does not confer brotherhood in the artistic community upon them.

Music and painting that rise to the level of art are expressions - there is a message, a medium and an audience. Music and art are experienced. Abstract painting and trance produce an effect - tools devoid of content or message (and, therefore artistic merit).

Over the last few years, I've just gotten to the point where I am so bored with my 400 or so LPs and CDs from 1968 through the mid 90s (which includes no electronica and one Dead album) that I can't listen to them anymore. That coupled with the creativity vacuum in the popular music industry over the last ten or so years have limited my interests to a pretty narrow band of music. Even if its not music.

So while Jerry Garcia does make my skin crawl (no offense) you might be surprised to know that I have a lot more respect for him as an artist than I do for the people cranking out the stuff I listen to now.

Jerry & the Dead were rebellious pioneers in the music industry that transformed music into what it is today. Of course they werent the only ones who molded the music change, as there were many others with ground breaking talent who did not share the glittering (and tragic) story of The Dead.
I, for one am not greatful Jerry's Dead. I like to imagine what they would sound like today, had Captain Trip not died.

They're album covers alone are a gallery of fine art IMO. I say we dig him up and plug him in. :shred:

Oh dear. I really need to learn the difference between Jerry Garcia & Jimmy Hoffa. I don't know why I have them linked in my mind, but it does lead to some bizarre misunderstandings (like explaining to a friend why I found Ben & Jerry's Cherry Garcia ice-cream a little distasteful)

cause the ice cream has little bits of ground up Jimmy Hoffa in it? Distasteful is an understatement.

So while Jerry Garcia does make my skin crawl (no offense) you might be surprised to know that I have a lot more respect for him as an artist than I do for the people cranking out the stuff I listen to now.

Jerry Garcia was definitely an artist along with several others that he shared the stage with.....brilliant solos.
What the "Dead" were not is a cohesive band. :headshake

Of course this is going on while the "band" is starting to fight on-line exchange of the music... Jerry really is gone.

Well, I for one, miss Jerry something awful.... but I don't really want his toilet. Of course I'd love to have one of his guitars, preferably Rosebud, but who wouldn't eh?

And the shows are back up on archive.org. Yay!

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

Jerry Garcia was definitely an artist along with several others that he shared the stage with.....brilliant solos.
What the "Dead" were not is a cohesive band. :headshake

What makes you say this bruce?

jinx wrote:

And the shows are back up on archive.org. Yay!

I was thinking about this, and wondering what the fair thing is, I realized I don't have enough information.

When the tapers recorded a show, did they have the option of plugging into the soundboard and taping off that? If they did have that option, were they then allowed to share that soundboard tape, the way the other tapers shared their tapes they made with their microphones?

I understand that the soundboard recordings were the main point of contention. And that seems resonable to me that the Dead be able to control those, but if the ticket holder was allowed to tape from that source, then I don't see how the band can protest now.

Yes, tapers could plug in to the soundboard.

Relix News wrote:

The Grateful Dead have long been known for their policy of allowing fans to
record their concerts-even allowing Deadhead tapers to plug directly into
the band's mixing console (resulting in the high-quality "soundboard"
recordings)-then disseminate the recordings freely. The band's freewheeling
taping policy has been widely credited for maintaining the band's success,
even during decades of lukewarm attention from critics and the mainstream
commercial music industry. </pre>

"When we're done with it, it's yours"
-Jerry



"Jerry put it the best, as he frequently did, 'Let 'em have it. When we play it, we're done with it."
-Phil
</pre>

jinx wrote:

Yes, tapers could plug in to the soundboard.

When I first read this I wondered why you would want to stick a candle into a soundboard.

jinx wrote:

What makes you say this bruce?

Listen to the concert recordings of the same song. 10 concerts, 10 different renditions of what was called a song. That's because much of the time they were winging it which was their style and part of the attraction to catch as many shows as possible. :D

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

Listen to the concert recordings of the same song. 10 concerts, 10 different renditions of what was called a song.

I always thought people considered them to be more cohesive as a band because they could follow each other, and explore so well ad lib.

I guess that depends on your view of what a band is and what they're supposed to do.
Having the ability to be able to jam well together doesn't make a tight band. Jamming gives the players a chance to try different chops with the riffs the others are playing. Some combinations work well, some don't. When they accumulate enough combinations that work well, those can be woven into a tune that cooks all the way through instead of high and low spots.
It's hard work and once it's completed, should be repeated the same way each time it's played. That's what makes a band tight.

The Dead took a different approach, developed their own style. They never wanted to be a tight band and to their credit they were successful at doing there own thing and keeping a loyal (read rabid :lol: ) fan base. I think their success was as much to do with the (counter)culture and lifestyle as the music.

There is plenty of room in music for all kinds of styles and variations. Unfortunately there is less leeway to be commercially viable.