The N&G Listening Club V1 - Archive only

Here's something that I feel compelled to address, because I believe there might be some "misconceptions" that have the potential to taint this listening experience right out the gate. That being said, I kind of chose this album for that exact reason, so... there's no one else to blame for that and little I can do to prevent it.

The main thing is that I believe that the "jam band" concept and title in itself is kind of flawed, because the Dead is the Dead and that's all they ever were. Anybody that enters into their music with a preconceived notion in their head contrary to that already has one major obstruction positioned firmly in front of them. The Dead just kind of took more of a jazz approach to their music and allowed themselves to improvise and try new things on the spot, rather than restrict everything to tight 3.5 minute pop and rock tunes. A major reason for this is because they built their sound and approach as the house band for Ken Kesey's acid tests, where they'd trip out and play for hours to a room full of other people tripping out.

The Dead was ground zero for the "jamband" concept, the same way that the Beatles influenced so many others, but people don't refer to the Beatles sound as anything other than the Beatles. They exist in their own realm and anyone that is noticeably influenced by them is considered Beatles-esque or having Beatles influences. They aren't considered peers and the Grateful Dead doesn't really have any peers, either. The Beatles covered a lot of ground, but most people here are probably more familiar with their different eras than they would be Jerry Garcia's.

To refer to the Dead as a "jam band" groups them in with every shitty imitator that came after them, and none of them have or will ever come even remotely close to what they did, or really sound like them. When they do, they sound like cheap knockoffs. Anyone that achieves anything near their level will do so by sounding like themselves, which will, inherently, separate them and make them their own thing, as well. The Dead were carving their own path. By following their distinct path... I guess read Siddhartha for the answer on that one.

The Dead were fans of Howling Wolf and covered his music. They were fans of Otis Redding and performed on the same stages as him. They had Branford Marsalis and even Ornette Coleman sit in with them. Bruce Hornsby had a stint as their keyboardist. They had tons of different influences. They did a full tour and released an album with Dylan. They were friends with jazz musicians that tipped them off to the problems with their contracts, informing them that "rock musicians" like them were getting paid by the song, while they, as jazz musicians, were getting paid by the minute. It's why the Dead's Anthem Of The Sun album sounds like it does. It was partially assembled in studio, but -- if I'm remembering correctly -- they kept most of the money for the studio and went on tour. Then, they spliced the best bits from different shows together into one massive track. They had to, later, cut it up into tracks, somewhat arbitrarily, and designate random titles to the segments. They were the last of the Haight St bands to sign to a label, because they had so much leverage due to the fact that they made all their money playing shows and didn't need a label. So, when Warner Bros signed them, they had a ton of creative control, which drove producers mad and out of the studio. They were experimenting and doing weird shit like putting coins inside of the piano. They were doing weird shit with tape. They were fucking around the same way that someone like Amon Tobin would and does. Owsley's Wall Of Sound was revolutionary.

So... what I'm getting at is that the irony of the Dead is actually that people refer to them as a "jam band" and that term has become something reductive that's supposed to refer to a very specific concept and idea. But, the truth is that, the only reason that they were ever referred to as a "jam band," is because they did way too much different shit for anyone to know what to refer to or classify them as. Nothing like that ever existed before in that exact way. They made rootsy folk albums at one point, yet began fully working tribal and indian drums and all manners of left-field percussion into experimental electronic trip-out noise passages in live shows toward the end of the 1970s. Certain fans couldn't hang with the transition and, even stopped following them as they'd mutate and evolve, but they kept changing it up and pushing their sound forward anyway, from Blues to psych to disco-tinged funk tunes, to... whatever Terrapin Station is and beyond. They tossed gospel elements in with the country twang of the Flying Burrito Brothers. And, they played spaced out psych music, crazier than anyone. So, the fact that there was ever a psych-rock revival and some of the same people deep into it and current bands like King Gizzard (2 drummers?) still hate on the Dead would be mindblowing, if it wasn't so absurd, especially since those very bands will tell you who influenced them. For the outsider, it sounds surprising that a lot of their favorite artists are fans of Jerry and his crew, but for anyone that knows what the Dead actually did and what they actually [have the ability to] sound like, it's glaringly obvious. Anyone who likes The War On Drugs should know how shamelessly they rip them off -- while wearing Steal Your Face shirts, no less. They aren't hiding it and aren't trying to; it's a means of tribute. In fact, all you have to do is just look at the roster of who contributed to The Day Of The Dead box set -- The National, Bonnie Prince Billy, Phosphorescent, Jim James, Kurt Vile, Wilco (w/Bob Weir, mind you), Cass Mccombs, Hiss Golden Messenger, The Flaming Lips, Stephen Malkmus & The Jicks, Oneida, Real Estate, Courtney Barnett, etc. etc. etc. -- none of them even remotely surprising to me.

This isn't a "jam band" album, but I know that some people are still going to have difficulty entering into this without saying/thinking, "I don't know if I'll like this. I'm not really into jam bands." Somehow, folks are even still hearing "noodling" even though Jerry is playing incredibly restrained and is using a pretty straight ahead jazz guitar approach in the only areas that I can hear, which might be construed as such. I knew that I wasn't going to be able to present this album blind, which is the best way to do it, because that would help prevents anybody from bringing their pre-conceived notions in with them. But, I am hoping that this is an opportunity to hear something unexpected, which can make some folks recognize that Garcia existed -- and continues to exist -- beyond their limited current understanding of him. If nothing else, they can say, "Well... I did hear one project from him that wasn't completely terrible." The real truth of the matter is that, while this may be a bit of an outlier in his catalog, the idea that he had a full career with endless deviations -- a large portion of which most of the uninitiated might be equally surprised by -- is the bigger point.

And, to be completely honest, the misconceptions that I feel might exist -- I mean, some can argue that they've heard plenty and I'm wrong about this, and I might be -- aren't solely on the shoulders of those with limited experience with their music. There was a writer for the local weekly in town who wrote an incredibly sincere post about wanting to try and be open to hearing more of the Dead. He asked for recommendations and an entry point to explore them. But here's the problem: there are typically only two types of suggestions that people ever make. The first is that they tell the person inquiring to check out really basic radio friendly tunes, which they feel might be more accessible. The problem there is that there's nothing particularly special with those songs, so, while the listener might not hate them, it also makes it hard to see what all the hype is about. The other suggestion is always the polar opposite, where they urge them to listen to some super spaced out 35 minute jam that's incredibly inaccessible. I offered to send the guy a bootleg of the 1982 show of Jerry Garcia playing acoustic with John Kahn at the Oregon State Penitentiary. He thanked me, because he'd never heard that side of them and really enjoyed it. Then he sent me a drawing of Doc Ellis. I tricked my girlfriend by playing Shady Grove -- Jerry's album of traditional covers with mandolin player David Grisman -- and then later played a 1994 live video of the Dead playing Peggy O, which has such an incredibly beautiful sound to it that it completely penetrates my emotions in a way that no other band ever has. She hated them more than anything. Now she loves them. I'm not saying that's going to happen to anyone else, because it probably won't for most, but stranger things have happened. It's no secret that the fans can of anything can very easily tarnish the image of whatever they are a fan of. A lot of these "jam bands" out touring, are just fans.

To anyone giving this a chance, I chose this album knowing full well that you might hate HOOTEROLL?, but I do implore you to try and check it out with an open mind and I really do appreciate that it seems like everyone is doing their best to approach it that way. Thanks again for listening to it; I promise to do my best to try and remember to check out whatever album is posted in here next, because that's what this thread is all about and it's awesome. Hooteroll? really doesn't sound like the Dead. But, the truth is that, there's a really good chance that you might listen to bands that sound like the Dead, already, and are fans of it, to some extent, without even being fully aware of it.
now this is what I call a write-up

I've taken notes sir, thank you for the recommendations
 
now this is what I call a write-up

I've taken notes sir, thank you for the recommendations

At least one member on this forum has stated to me that it was that Day Of The Dead box that finally got them listening to the Grateful Dead. I think the Dessner brothers did an amazing job curating and assembling that thing, and you can really feel a tangible reverence that they, and most of the artists on there, have for that catalog. Over 10 LPs, they really covered a lot of ground, as well. Even if you don't wind up loving the band that inspired it, there's a good chance that you'd still gain a new appreciation for their songwriting and, to a degree, how and why they influenced a lot of other acts that you might really like. I'm sure that's a major reason why they made it.
 
I was wrong.

I made an attentive listen on the morning commute. Restrained is a good term for the guitar playing. In my defense I think the system in my car is drastically different from my home system (where the speakers are not at all optimally arranged).

Uncle Martin's was the track I had perceived to be overly noodly. I got an entirely different (read better) dynamic in my car. Imagine if the guitar part were doubled in presence and the organ relegated to a homogeneous mess with the percussion section. That's what I got out of my system at home. In proper balance with the rest of the band the guitar here is a restrained lead capable support to the organ theme.

If anyone can be accused of noodling it's Wales but his playing is really standout and never dwells too long. In fact, all tracks are sufficiently brief to adequately set tone and theme and convince the listener of the technical chops behind them without progressing too far into overt showmanship (organ bits notwithstanding). If anybody gets robbed here it's the drummer with the bassist coming in close second.

I never did figure out if the flute was live or organ synthesized. I'm leaning strongly towards live with some kind of patch through the organ.

A+ album.
 
My home setup has forced one speaker in a corner of the living room and another pointed perpendicular placed about 30' away in the connected dining room. In any mix where there is a strong separation such as guitar in one channel and vocals in the other the living room listener hears one thing while the dining room listener hears another. There's a reason most listening is done in the car or on headphones.
 
Here's something that I feel compelled to address, because I believe there might be some "misconceptions" that have the potential to taint this listening experience right out the gate. That being said, I kind of chose this album for that exact reason, so... there's no one else to blame for that and little I can do to prevent it.

The main thing is that I believe that the "jam band" concept and title in itself is kind of flawed, because the Dead is the Dead and that's all they ever were. Anybody that enters into their music with a preconceived notion in their head contrary to that already has one major obstruction positioned firmly in front of them. The Dead just kind of took more of a jazz approach to their music and allowed themselves to improvise and try new things on the spot, rather than restrict everything to tight 3.5 minute pop and rock tunes. A major reason for this is because they built their sound and approach as the house band for Ken Kesey's acid tests, where they'd trip out and play for hours to a room full of other people tripping out.

The Dead was ground zero for the "jamband" concept, the same way that the Beatles influenced so many others, but people don't refer to the Beatles sound as anything other than the Beatles. They exist in their own realm and anyone that is noticeably influenced by them is considered Beatles-esque or having Beatles influences. They aren't considered peers and the Grateful Dead doesn't really have any peers, either. The Beatles covered a lot of ground, but most people here are probably more familiar with their different eras than they would be Jerry Garcia's.

To refer to the Dead as a "jam band" groups them in with every shitty imitator that came after them, and none of them have or will ever come even remotely close to what they did, or really sound like them. When they do, they sound like cheap knockoffs. Anyone that achieves anything near their level will do so by sounding like themselves, which will, inherently, separate them and make them their own thing, as well. The Dead were carving their own path. By following their distinct path... I guess read Siddhartha for the answer on that one.

The Dead were fans of Howling Wolf and covered his music. They were fans of Otis Redding and performed on the same stages as him. They had Branford Marsalis and even Ornette Coleman sit in with them. Bruce Hornsby had a stint as their keyboardist. They had tons of different influences. They did a full tour and released an album with Dylan. They were friends with jazz musicians that tipped them off to the problems with their contracts, informing them that "rock musicians" like them were getting paid by the song, while they, as jazz musicians, were getting paid by the minute. It's why the Dead's Anthem Of The Sun album sounds like it does. It was partially assembled in studio, but -- if I'm remembering correctly -- they kept most of the money for the studio and went on tour. Then, they spliced the best bits from different shows together into one massive track. They had to, later, cut it up into tracks, somewhat arbitrarily, and designate random titles to the segments. They were the last of the Haight St bands to sign to a label, because they had so much leverage due to the fact that they made all their money playing shows and didn't need a label. So, when Warner Bros signed them, they had a ton of creative control, which drove producers mad and out of the studio. They were experimenting and doing weird shit like putting coins inside of the piano. They were doing weird shit with tape. They were fucking around the same way that someone like Amon Tobin would and does. Owsley's Wall Of Sound was revolutionary.

So... what I'm getting at is that the irony of the Dead is actually that people refer to them as a "jam band" and that term has become something reductive that's supposed to refer to a very specific concept and idea. But, the truth is that, the only reason that they were ever referred to as a "jam band," is because they did way too much different shit for anyone to know what to refer to or classify them as. Nothing like that ever existed before in that exact way. They made rootsy folk albums at one point, yet began fully working tribal and indian drums and all manners of left-field percussion into experimental electronic trip-out noise passages in live shows toward the end of the 1970s. Certain fans couldn't hang with the transition and, even stopped following them as they'd mutate and evolve, but they kept changing it up and pushing their sound forward anyway, from Blues to psych to disco-tinged funk tunes, to... whatever Terrapin Station is and beyond. They tossed gospel elements in with the country twang of the Flying Burrito Brothers. And, they played spaced out psych music, crazier than anyone. So, the fact that there was ever a psych-rock revival and some of the same people deep into it and current bands like King Gizzard (2 drummers?) still hate on the Dead would be mindblowing, if it wasn't so absurd, especially since those very bands will tell you who influenced them. For the outsider, it sounds surprising that a lot of their favorite artists are fans of Jerry and his crew, but for anyone that knows what the Dead actually did and what they actually [have the ability to] sound like, it's glaringly obvious. Anyone who likes The War On Drugs should know how shamelessly they rip them off -- while wearing Steal Your Face shirts, no less. They aren't hiding it and aren't trying to; it's a means of tribute. In fact, all you have to do is just look at the roster of who contributed to The Day Of The Dead box set -- The National, Bonnie Prince Billy, Phosphorescent, Jim James, Kurt Vile, Wilco (w/Bob Weir, mind you), Cass Mccombs, Hiss Golden Messenger, The Flaming Lips, UMO, Stephen Malkmus & The Jicks, Oneida, Real Estate, Courtney Barnett, etc. etc. etc. -- none of them even remotely surprising to me.

This isn't a "jam band" album, but I know that some people are still going to have difficulty entering into this without saying/thinking, "I don't know if I'll like this. I'm not really into jam bands." Somehow, folks are even still hearing "noodling" even though Jerry is playing incredibly restrained and is using a pretty straight ahead jazz guitar approach in the only areas that I can hear, which might be construed as such. I knew that I wasn't going to be able to present this album blind, which is the best way to do it, because that would help prevents anybody from bringing their pre-conceived notions in with them. But, I am hoping that this is an opportunity to hear something unexpected, which can make some folks recognize that Garcia existed -- and continues to exist -- beyond their limited current understanding of him. If nothing else, they can say, "Well... I did hear one project from him that wasn't completely terrible." The real truth of the matter is that, while this may be a bit of an outlier in his catalog, the idea that he had a full career with endless deviations -- a large portion of which most of the uninitiated might be equally surprised by -- is the bigger point.

And, to be completely honest, the misconceptions that I feel might exist -- I mean, some can argue that they've heard plenty and I'm wrong about this, and I might be -- aren't solely on the shoulders of those with limited experience with their music. There was a writer for the local weekly in town who wrote an incredibly sincere post about wanting to try and be open to hearing more of the Dead. He asked for recommendations and an entry point to explore them. But here's the problem: there are typically only two types of suggestions that people ever make. The first is that they tell the person inquiring to check out really basic radio friendly tunes, which they feel might be more accessible. The problem there is that there's nothing particularly special with those songs, so, while the listener might not hate them, it also makes it hard to see what all the hype is about. The other suggestion is always the polar opposite, where they urge them to listen to some super spaced out 35 minute jam that's incredibly inaccessible. I offered to send the guy a bootleg of the 1982 show of Jerry Garcia playing acoustic with John Kahn at the Oregon State Penitentiary. He thanked me, because he'd never heard that side of them and really enjoyed it. Then he sent me a drawing of Doc Ellis. I tricked my girlfriend by playing Shady Grove -- Jerry's album of traditional covers with mandolin player David Grisman -- and then later played a 1994 live video of the Dead playing Peggy O, which has such an incredibly beautiful sound to it that it completely penetrates my emotions in a way that no other band ever has. She hated them more than anything. Now she loves them. I'm not saying that's going to happen to anyone else, because it probably won't for most, but stranger things have happened. It's no secret that the fans can of anything can very easily tarnish the image of whatever they are a fan of. A lot of these "jam bands" out touring, are just fans.

To anyone giving this a chance, I chose this album knowing full well that you might hate HOOTEROLL?, but I do implore you to try and check it out with an open mind and I really do appreciate that it seems like everyone is doing their best to approach it that way. Thanks again for listening to it; I promise to do my best to try and remember to check out whatever album is posted in here next, because that's what this thread is all about and it's awesome. Hooteroll? really doesn't sound like the Dead. But, the truth is that, there's a really good chance that you might listen to bands that sound like the Dead, already, and are fans of it, to some extent, without even being fully aware of it.
got it they are The Dead "the jam band"
 
Hooteroll? is pretty incredible. I'm on my 4th listen. I made an apple music playlist to pick out the 7 tracks and place them in order. I will probably get this record too. I'm really digging A Trip to What Next. I've found myself appreciating this more when listening on headphones as opposed to the car...just get to hear more of all that's happening. Each time I hear Up from the Desert, I think it's going to be some Wu Tang track. Great sample worthy content on that one. A great pick @Dead C Thanks for broadening my horizons.
 
Hooteroll? is pretty incredible. I'm on my 4th listen. I made an apple music playlist to pick out the 7 tracks and place them in order. I will probably get this record too. I'm really digging A Trip to What Next. I've found myself appreciating this more when listening on headphones as opposed to the car...just get to hear more of all that's happening. Each time I hear Up from the Desert, I think it's going to be some Wu Tang track. Great sample worthy content on that one. A great pick @Dead C Thanks for broadening my horizons.

Glad you liked it! I believe that "A Trip To What Next" is actually the one they removed on the reissue. I'd say that the track they added to the beginning of that one, "Morning In Marin" is worth checking out now that you've heard the original version.
 
Never (knowingly) listened to the Dead in any way, shape or form, but thought I'd enter into the spirit of things and give this a go. Listening to the Spotify version.

As many have already said, it's far jazzier than I expected, though still with some serious psych tinges.

South Side strut stood out (but maybe that's because I love funk, and this is the closest track on the album to that), A Trip to What Next started well, but lost the plot a little for me about 2/3rds of the way through, before bring it back together. One AM Approach is wonderfully chilled, and probably my favourite track

Interesting, but I'm just not that much of an organ music fan (no matter how well it's played)
 
Last edited:
Here's something that I feel compelled to address, because I believe there might be some "misconceptions" that have the potential to taint this listening experience right out the gate. That being said, I kind of chose this album for that exact reason, so... there's no one else to blame for that and little I can do to prevent it.

The main thing is that I believe that the "jam band" concept and title in itself is kind of flawed, because the Dead is the Dead and that's all they ever were. Anybody that enters into their music with a preconceived notion in their head contrary to that already has one major obstruction positioned firmly in front of them. The Dead just kind of took more of a jazz approach to their music and allowed themselves to improvise and try new things on the spot, rather than restrict everything to tight 3.5 minute pop and rock tunes. A major reason for this is because they built their sound and approach as the house band for Ken Kesey's acid tests, where they'd trip out and play for hours to a room full of other people tripping out.

The Dead was ground zero for the "jamband" concept, the same way that the Beatles influenced so many others, but people don't refer to the Beatles sound as anything other than the Beatles. They exist in their own realm and anyone that is noticeably influenced by them is considered Beatles-esque or having Beatles influences. They aren't considered peers and the Grateful Dead doesn't really have any peers, either. The Beatles covered a lot of ground, but most people here are probably more familiar with their different eras than they would be Jerry Garcia's.

To refer to the Dead as a "jam band" groups them in with every shitty imitator that came after them, and none of them have or will ever come even remotely close to what they did, or really sound like them. When they do, they sound like cheap knockoffs. Anyone that achieves anything near their level will do so by sounding like themselves, which will, inherently, separate them and make them their own thing, as well. The Dead were carving their own path. By following their distinct path... I guess read Siddhartha for the answer on that one.

The Dead were fans of Howling Wolf and covered his music. They were fans of Otis Redding and performed on the same stages as him. They had Branford Marsalis and even Ornette Coleman sit in with them. Bruce Hornsby had a stint as their keyboardist. They had tons of different influences. They did a full tour and released an album with Dylan. They were friends with jazz musicians that tipped them off to the problems with their contracts, informing them that "rock musicians" like them were getting paid by the song, while they, as jazz musicians, were getting paid by the minute. It's why the Dead's Anthem Of The Sun album sounds like it does. It was partially assembled in studio, but -- if I'm remembering correctly -- they kept most of the money for the studio and went on tour. Then, they spliced the best bits from different shows together into one massive track. They had to, later, cut it up into tracks, somewhat arbitrarily, and designate random titles to the segments. They were the last of the Haight St bands to sign to a label, because they had so much leverage due to the fact that they made all their money playing shows and didn't need a label. So, when Warner Bros signed them, they had a ton of creative control, which drove producers mad and out of the studio. They were experimenting and doing weird shit like putting coins inside of the piano. They were doing weird shit with tape. They were fucking around the same way that someone like Amon Tobin would and does. Owsley's Wall Of Sound was revolutionary.

So... what I'm getting at is that the irony of the Dead is actually that people refer to them as a "jam band" and that term has become something reductive that's supposed to refer to a very specific concept and idea. But, the truth is that, the only reason that they were ever referred to as a "jam band," is because they did way too much different shit for anyone to know what to refer to or classify them as. Nothing like that ever existed before in that exact way. They made rootsy folk albums at one point, yet began fully working tribal and indian drums and all manners of left-field percussion into experimental electronic trip-out noise passages in live shows toward the end of the 1970s. Certain fans couldn't hang with the transition and, even stopped following them as they'd mutate and evolve, but they kept changing it up and pushing their sound forward anyway, from Blues to psych to disco-tinged funk tunes, to... whatever Terrapin Station is and beyond. They tossed gospel elements in with the country twang of the Flying Burrito Brothers. And, they played spaced out psych music, crazier than anyone. So, the fact that there was ever a psych-rock revival and some of the same people deep into it and current bands like King Gizzard (2 drummers?) still hate on the Dead would be mindblowing, if it wasn't so absurd, especially since those very bands will tell you who influenced them. For the outsider, it sounds surprising that a lot of their favorite artists are fans of Jerry and his crew, but for anyone that knows what the Dead actually did and what they actually [have the ability to] sound like, it's glaringly obvious. Anyone who likes The War On Drugs should know how shamelessly they rip them off -- while wearing Steal Your Face shirts, no less. They aren't hiding it and aren't trying to; it's a means of tribute. In fact, all you have to do is just look at the roster of who contributed to The Day Of The Dead box set -- The National, Bonnie Prince Billy, Phosphorescent, Jim James, Kurt Vile, Wilco (w/Bob Weir, mind you), Cass Mccombs, Hiss Golden Messenger, The Flaming Lips, UMO, Stephen Malkmus & The Jicks, Oneida, Real Estate, Courtney Barnett, etc. etc. etc. -- none of them even remotely surprising to me.

This isn't a "jam band" album, but I know that some people are still going to have difficulty entering into this without saying/thinking, "I don't know if I'll like this. I'm not really into jam bands." Somehow, folks are even still hearing "noodling" even though Jerry is playing incredibly restrained and is using a pretty straight ahead jazz guitar approach in the only areas that I can hear, which might be construed as such. I knew that I wasn't going to be able to present this album blind, which is the best way to do it, because that would help prevents anybody from bringing their pre-conceived notions in with them. But, I am hoping that this is an opportunity to hear something unexpected, which can make some folks recognize that Garcia existed -- and continues to exist -- beyond their limited current understanding of him. If nothing else, they can say, "Well... I did hear one project from him that wasn't completely terrible." The real truth of the matter is that, while this may be a bit of an outlier in his catalog, the idea that he had a full career with endless deviations -- a large portion of which most of the uninitiated might be equally surprised by -- is the bigger point.
I've never listened to a Grateful Dead album once in my life, but seeing someone so passionate about them makes me want to listen to as much of their discography as I possibly can
 
I've never listened to a Grateful Dead album once in my life, but seeing someone so passionate about them makes me want to listen to as much of their discography as I possibly can

I do love that band, but I'm mostly passionate about the idea behind this listening club, right now. I haven't been able to devote time to be involved like I wanted to and forgot about it, until I was just selected. I really want to make sure to listen to that Dr John and give my quick impression on it, even if it's late in the game, because, if people are listening to my selection, I should be doing the same. I already like Dr John, though, so I feel like there's a good chance I'm going to love that selection. Mostly, I'm very aware that we all have these preconceived notions about things we don't really have a history with and I want that experience in here where I'm snapped out of something and opened up to it. On some level, that's how we all wound up here in the first place, because of an openness and desire to discover new music from each other. As a fan of the Dead, though, it gets tiring hearing the same responses uttered about them, only because they don't ring true for me. I was just hoping to address exactly why that is. I can only imagine how Juggalos feel.

I'm passionate about a lot of different music, but I definitely chose something with Jerry Garcia on it, because I felt like it might work best here in that spirit of checking out new things we wouldn't, otherwise. A lot of people might enter more closed off to it, so just that act of giving it a shot feels like a big step that we should all be taking when we jump into something like this. I know that I've been an equal offender toward so many other things.
 
I've found I can generally get behind music I wouldn't otherwise with repeat listens and some context from an enthusiast. There have been some notable failures over the years but I'm particularly pleased when I can overcome some preconceived idea based on limited experience. I'm hopeful to be alive when my turn comes up and to be able to take people to a place they may not have ever gone.
 
I do love that band, but I'm mostly passionate about the idea behind this listening club, right now. I haven't been able to devote time to be involved like I wanted to and forgot about it, until I was just selected. I really want to make sure to listen to that Dr John and give my quick impression on it, even if it's late in the game, because, if people are listening to my selection, I should be doing the same. I already like Dr John, though, so I feel like there's a good chance I'm going to love that selection. Mostly, I'm very aware that we all have these preconceived notions about things we don't really have a history with and I want that experience in here where I'm snapped out of something and opened up to it. On some level, that's how we all wound up here in the first place, because of an openness and desire to discover new music from each other. As a fan of the Dead, though, it gets tiring hearing the same responses uttered about them, only because they don't ring true for me. I was just hoping to address exactly why that is. I can only imagine how Juggalos feel.

I'm passionate about a lot of different music, but I definitely chose something with Jerry Garcia on it, because I felt like it might work best here in that spirit of checking out new things we wouldn't, otherwise. A lot of people might enter more closed off to it, so just that act of giving it a shot feels like a big step that we should all be taking when we jump into something like this. I know that I've been an equal offender toward so many other things.
Speaking as someone whose favorite band is Radiohead, I definitely know how it feels when a band you love has a "reputation".

I, and a lot of others I assume, had the album you chose as their first big dosage of Garcia's work. It can be hard to know how to introduce someone to the work of an artist you love - especially when they're an artist who has been through so many phases. There was a whole discussion in the Radiohead thread about what album you should use to expose people to them with, and it's interesting to hear different people's rationales for their choices and why they feel that album best summarizes the band's work for a newcomer.

I feel that the discovery of new music is one of those experiences that can't be beat. A lot of people have hang ups about jumping into an artist's newest album without hearing their previous work, but that's just limiting to me. If I had never heard Be the Cowboy by Mitski last year, I would have never listened to Bury Me at Makeout Creek either - and that's an alternate reality I don't care to live in.

Having an open mind when it comes to music is almost, at times, required. I've made it a point to try to figure out the "appeal" of an artist to people, be it Joanna Newsom, Sunn O))) or Soulja Boy. Art is art - I don't ever want to be someone who dismisses an artist or their work because of my preconceptions of who they are or what they *should* be. There's been several albums by bands over the year that have been met with mixed to negative reception from most fans (Turn Blue by The Black Keys, Pacific Daydream by Weezer and TBH+C by Artic Monkeys are a few examples that come to mind) that I've personally greatly enjoyed because I let myself enjoy those albums as their own works and didn't try to make them conform to a greater narrative that I wanted them to. (But even then, I'm guilty of that - I was one of many who were disappointed by Humanz by Gorillaz when it first came out for many of those same reasons.)

But at the same time, I understand why those albums got the reception they did - the subversion of expectations can be risky. Not all risks pay off, especially in music, but I feel it's important to acknowledge when they are taken. I have tremendous respect for the risk-takers throughout music history, and before reading your post, I might not have considered the Grateful Dead among those names, but, regardless of my feelings on the band themselves, their impact can't be disregarded or minimized, as you showed.
 
Speaking as someone whose favorite band is Radiohead, I definitely know how it feels when a band you love has a "reputation".

I, and a lot of others I assume, had the album you chose as their first big dosage of Garcia's work. It can be hard to know how to introduce someone to the work of an artist you love - especially when they're an artist who has been through so many phases. There was a whole discussion in the Radiohead thread about what album you should use to expose people to them with, and it's interesting to hear different people's rationales for their choices and why they feel that album best summarizes the band's work for a newcomer.

I feel that the discovery of new music is one of those experiences that can't be beat. A lot of people have hang ups about jumping into an artist's newest album without hearing their previous work, but that's just limiting to me. If I had never heard Be the Cowboy by Mitski last year, I would have never listened to Bury Me at Makeout Creek either - and that's an alternate reality I don't care to live in.

Having an open mind when it comes to music is almost, at times, required. I've made it a point to try to figure out the "appeal" of an artist to people, be it Joanna Newsom, Sunn O))) or Soulja Boy. Art is art - I don't ever want to be someone who dismisses an artist or their work because of my preconceptions of who they are or what they *should* be. There's been several albums by bands over the year that have been met with mixed to negative reception from most fans (Turn Blue by The Black Keys, Pacific Daydream by Weezer and TBH+C by Artic Monkeys are a few examples that come to mind) that I've personally greatly enjoyed because I let myself enjoy those albums as their own works and didn't try to make them conform to a greater narrative that I wanted them to. (But even then, I'm guilty of that - I was one of many who were disappointed by Humanz by Gorillaz when it first came out for many of those same reasons.)

But at the same time, I understand why those albums got the reception they did - the subversion of expectations can be risky. Not all risks pay off, especially in music, but I feel it's important to acknowledge when they are taken. I have tremendous respect for the risk-takers throughout music history, and before reading your post, I might not have considered the Grateful Dead among those names, but, regardless of my feelings on the band themselves, their impact can't be disregarded or minimized, as you showed.

Definitely agree. Hooteroll? definitely isn't my favorite of Garcia's works, either. It wasn't even an album that I was considering selecting -- I wasn't considering a Dead related album at all -- but then it crossed my mind and I thought, "Hmm... that might be a good one." And for all of the reasons that I mentioned before. I figured that there might even be Dead fans who'd never heard it, so it could work from two very different directions.

I'd imagine the Radiohead conversation was interesting. I'm someone that's listened to Amnesiac more than Kid A, so everyone is different. I'm a huge fan of the David Byrne film, True Stories, so I'd have to respect any band calling themselves Radiohead, even if I didn't already like them. It's sort of how I love The Jerk, so I'd have to give props to a group if they put out an album titled A Whole Half A Bottle Of Lilac Vegetal.

If you're not already a fan of WEEN and are ever into checking them out, I've probably had the question about what to start with asked regarding them the most. For most people, I say listen to White Pepper and watch Live In Chicago, not because it's my personal favorite, but because I think it's an accessible enough combination that also demonstrates their range and depth -- especially, live. Then you can get really weird from there. If someone hadn't already chosen The Mollusk early on in this listening club, I might have selected The Pod this time around. I'd be really interested in seeing how that would have went over and what kind of conversation unfolded from that gem.
 
If you're not already a fan of WEEN and are ever into checking them out, I've probably had the question about what to start with asked regarding them the most. For most people, I say listen to White Pepper and watch Live In Chicago, not because it's my personal favorite, but because I think it's an accessible enough combination that also demonstrates their range and depth -- especially, live. Then you can get really weird from there. If someone hadn't already chosen The Mollusk early on in this listening club, I might have selected The Pod this time around. I'd be really interested in seeing how that would have went over and what kind of conversation unfolded from that gem

At some point we'll probably start repeating artists. I'd be interested in the reactions to The Pod as well...
 
Definitely agree. Hooteroll? definitely isn't my favorite of Garcia's works, either. It wasn't even an album that I was considering selecting -- I wasn't considering a Dead related album at all -- but then it crossed my mind and I thought, "Hmm... that might be a good one." And for all of the reasons that I mentioned before. I figured that there might even be Dead fans who'd never heard it, so it could work from two very different directions.

I'd imagine the Radiohead conversation was interesting. I'm someone that's listened to Amnesiac more than Kid A, so everyone is different. I'm a huge fan of the David Byrne film, True Stories, so I'd have to respect any band calling themselves Radiohead, even if I didn't already like them. It's sort of how I love The Jerk, so I'd have to give props to a group if they put out an album titled A Whole Half A Bottle Of Lilac Vegetal.

If you're not already a fan of WEEN and are ever into checking them out, I've probably had the question about what to start with asked regarding them the most. For most people, I say listen to White Pepper and watch Live In Chicago, not because it's my personal favorite, but because I think it's an accessible enough combination that also demonstrates their range and depth -- especially, live. Then you can get really weird from there. If someone hadn't already chosen The Mollusk early on in this listening club, I might have selected The Pod this time around. I'd be really interested in seeing how that would have went over and what kind of conversation unfolded from that gem.
I've been racking my brain for possible choices if I ever get chosen to pick an album for the Listening Club, and I think I finally landed on one today. I'm in the boat of picking an album I love from an artist I feel deserves more attention than they get.

And yeah, with Radiohead, it always seems like everyone has a different favorite album by them, which is part of why I like them so much. (And for what it's worth I prefer Amnesiac too, so you're not alone)

I think the first full length I listened to by Ween was Pure Guava, even though I'd heard some of their other more well-known songs like "Freedom of 76", "Voodoo Lady" and "Ocean Man" prior
 
Back
Top