just picked up about 4-5 hundred cassettes of the dead. cleaned out a customers basement and they let me have them. some dating back to 70 -72 and up to 90's
my favorite band is the stones and second favorite is allmans so the dead are what i think americas band like the stones are englands band.
the daead like the allmans jam band and you really need to see them live to view the performance they give you never had a bad show athe the allmans seen dozens of times just like the stones.

I saw both of these tours, several times actually, though not in Europe...

It is impossible to compare the two shows in any reasonable way. One is blindingly fast with an incredible frontman/showman...

The other is psychedelic country/blues/rock with epic numbers lasting 10-15 minutes and longer...

Crowd energy is also totally different. Stones fans in those days were dancing even more frenzy than today and the Dead audience... well, sometimes it seemed like the entire audience was tripping which may have been the truth in quite a few situations...

Both have incredible unique musicianship, just a totally different sound and vibe...

For teenagers of the time, these were among the VERY GREATEST BANDS ON THE PLANET... we loved them both equally though for very different reasons...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-20 12:10 by TombstoneShadow.

THE GRATEFUL DEAD ARE A BUNCH OF OLD HIPPIES. YOU MIGHT AS WELL BE SLEEPING AS GO TO ONE OF THEIR SHOWS.

keithfan64 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i know your right but its still agreat allbum,
> better because of the overdubs. ive also heard the
> same thing about Get your Yas Yas Out. it sure
> sounds better than Liver than youll Ever Be
> bootleg. no big deal.


But that's only because LIVER THAN YOU'LL EVER BE was recorded from the audience and therefore has not the sound quality of an official recording. If it was recorded as a well-balanced soundboard it would be superior to YA-YA'S.

timbernardis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE GRATEFUL DEAD ARE A BUNCH OF OLD HIPPIES. YOU
> MIGHT AS WELL BE SLEEPING AS GO TO ONE OF THEIR
> SHOWS.

Well first off they certainly weren't sleeping in 1972 which is what this thread is about...

But more importantly their recent tours have been incredible high energy... Did you happen to catch "The Dead" on tour in 2004, for example...

I doubt it.

timbernardis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE GRATEFUL DEAD ARE A BUNCH OF OLD HIPPIES. YOU
> MIGHT AS WELL BE SLEEPING AS GO TO ONE OF THEIR
> SHOWS.


As opposed to the young, spry lads known as The Rolling Stones?

saltoftheearth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> keithfan64 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > i know your right but its still agreat allbum,
> > better because of the overdubs. ive also heard
> the
> > same thing about Get your Yas Yas Out. it sure
> > sounds better than Liver than youll Ever Be
> > bootleg. no big deal.
>
>
> But that's only because LIVER THAN YOU'LL EVER BE
> was recorded from the audience and therefore has
> not the sound quality of an official recording. If
> it was recorded as a well-balanced soundboard it
> would be superior to YA-YA'S.

.......that's your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to......but the "Live'r" show was not that great of a performance in my opinion. They had technical problems and it was early in the tour and the band was not as tight as they would be later in the tour, like say in New York where Ya Ya's was recorded. There's actually a soundboard recording of that Oakland show but only a few tracks (like 6 or 7) circulate.

The four-CD set from a few years ago, Steppin' Out with the Grateful Dead, from the same tour blows the doors off of Europe '72. The jams are more out there, and there's none of the obvious overdubs that marred Europe '72. The vocals on Europe '72 are about as "live" as the vocals on Ya-Yas.

Anyway, the Stones and the Dead were both in top form in '72. But if they were in the same town on the same night, and I could be in the house to see both, I'd go to the Stones show.

The Grateful wha....?

The Grateful who...?

@#$%& that tired hippy shit!

Reading Rev. Robert W and Gazza's outstanding takes on the Dead in a Springsteen thread have conjured up some old thread memories.

Have any opinions changed on this or wavered slightly over the past year?

Gratefulfriggindead!!!!

There was only one band that competed and the was the 'Oribble 'Oo!

Re: This subject...

No

Christ, Donna Jean - was she the 'background' 'vocalist' on Live Dead? Awful! God, women can truly ruin rock and roll. Thanks, Yoko and Linda.

She also sang back-up on Elvis' Suspicious Minds.

I'd rather see the Stones in 72 and The Dead in 73-4.

are you insane??????????

naw, nobody could touch brussels '73; nobody in the business touring in '72, with the possible exception of the bad boyz own stateside run in '72 could touch brussels...
and there's another stop or two on that tour i've heard amazing things about but haven't heard yet (tho i've also been told that several of those Euro '73 shows had the boyz suffering from exhaustion)...

the dead are such an entirely different trip; i don't see the comparison really...i mean how could one compare the most ferocious and brilliant rock band at the dusk of one of their premiere 'golden' periods...catching it on full tilt...adtl from brussels is stunning...all time favorite version ever...

how to compare them with a band with an entirely different approach and execution style...totally different scene...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-04 00:26 by Beelyboy.

There not the best at what they do....they're the ONLY ones that do what they do! As a veteran of more than 100 Dead shows all I can say is if you missed the bus Beelyboy it was your loss. "Frisco" bands?? Please only the uninformed refer to "The City" as "Frisco"

good remedy if you want to catch some sleep

Bravo Winter..well said. The scene in the parking lot of Dead shows was amazing. Many musicians hanging out & playing. I bought my guitar to a stones show in Fla a few years back ..& didn't see another one around. Everybody goes right into the areana at stones shows. Too bad since I know there were many a guitar player around. I think the Dead provide a treasure trove of inspiration for any musician from their covers & originals. I am not into some of the longer jams that seemed to lack direction..but that is just my taste. Both bands wrote great songs & covered everthing from country, blues, rock to jazz & reggae music. I consider myself fortunate enought to have seen both bands live on numerous occasions. My musical education is in large part due to both the Dead & the Stones. Weir & Garcia are & were, great singers, songwriters & musicans. Can't ask for too much more. That said, the Stones rock & are my favorite band!

P. Had a chance to chat up Weir recently at a Ratdog show in Boca Raton Fla ...just asked about his preference for playing slide guitar in standard tuning as opposed to open.

Ditto with the Beach Boys. I don't know why anybody doesn't mention them. Everyone knows the Dead and the Stones are awesome. The Beach Boys in the early 70s were terrific as well. Just listen to "sunflower".

Charles Baudelaire
1821-1869

In a word: no.

One things for sure we can all agree on.............they were both having a real good time!

No Expectations Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One things for sure we can all agree
> on.............they were both having a real good
> time!


especially Bobby Keyes. he was having a little too good of a time

No Expectations Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There not the best at what they do....they're the
> ONLY ones that do what they do! As a veteran of
> more than 100 Dead shows all I can say is if you
> missed the bus Beelyboy it was your loss. "Frisco"
> bands?? Please only the uninformed refer to "The
> City" as "Frisco"

well i'm not from northern cal and have spent little time there; just landing htere on the way to petaluma and the golden fields...
interesting looking old city but i dont' know it...never spent time much time there but do hope to visit sometime....not too soon probably.

... and AM uninformed about the hip way to call san francisco whatever your neighborhood wants to be called...so i fail the frisco hip test...(but i passed the electric kool aid acid test!)

as for your proud claim to being "a veteran of 100 Dead shows," all i can say is the brain cells are your loss, because i said nothing critical of the Dead or their music or the effin Frisco scene at all...not one word...and you have no idea whatsoever what my relationship to their music might be...

yes i am uninformed, and your post did not offer the special information; is it a frisco secret? is there a secret handshake? so thanks for a personal criticism...with no corresponding information...is everybody in frisco so uptight?

glad i grew up in nyc, we had our own fillmore...and my twenty two years in cal were on santa monica and venice beach...rather than rice a roni land...that's what the insiders call it right? I'm just guessin' but it's got a good ring to it...
hiplessly yours,
bb



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-04 01:08 by Beelyboy.

Beely, Im from San Fransico and I call it Frisco some times its OKay. also some times I call it "The Sco".

Impossible to compare the two...they're so different from each other.

IMHO the Stones (circa 73) were the ultimate benchmark.

Peerless.

Beely, which Europe '73 shows are you referring to as being really good and where the band was suffering from exhaustion? The band? Or Keith?

Why do San Fransicans get pi$$ed of when you call their city Frisco, but folks in Los Angles have no problem being called L.A.? The answer is political, so I won't post it....it's just food for thought.

HEILOOBAAS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Beely, which Europe '73 shows are you referring to
> as being really good and where the band was
> suffering from exhaustion? The band? Or Keith?


i'm sorry heiloobaas, i can't answer that with certain knowledge...
tho i will become better informed in time...

i have brussels so i know what's there...
a couple of posters here have mentioned another stop or two from the euro tour they thought were as good or better;
and once or twice peeps have mentioned that a lot of that leg was uneven, even tired...

so i really don't know the specifics on all that. I, in my tiny circle, had not heard keith singled out as being 'exhausted' or 'tired' but friends were referring to the performances in general at a lot of stops...
is that idle speculation or is there some truth in that you think?

hopefully some Euro fans will be clued in and help fill in the blanks...
i do hear from Euro friends that the UK shows were amazing that year tho...
and will get a hold of 'em before long.

what's your experience with any of this? i saw the '72 show several times but was not privvy to any of the UK or Euro shows in '73...in fact, only got brussels within the last year...and it was totally life changing. very exciting.

BluzDude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do San Fransicans get pi$$ed of when you call
> their city Frisco,

I dont...