Jump to content

Talk:Grateful Dead

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleGrateful Dead was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 23, 2005Good article nomineeListed
October 23, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 10, 2004.
Current status: Delisted good article

This article is terrible and needs to be completely rewritten

[edit]

I've never seen a worse article on a major musical group than the present article. The meat of the band's career is treated haphazardly (and that's putting it kindly), with digressions (the New Orleans bust) being given more space than significant musical developments in the band's career. The release of albums together with the band's musical progression during its 1969-1978 glory days is all too poorly documented, if it is documented at all. And far too much attention is paid to the period after 1995, when Garcia died and the band effectively ceased to exist. This whole article needs to be rewritten. Someone below talked about doing so a year and a half ago, but it appears the effort devolved into bickering and accusations of sock-puppetry. Nice. I think there needs to be a consensus that this article needs a ground-up overhaul.Jhw57 (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhw57: Hello. New sections should be added to talk pages at the bottom, as described in Help:Talk pages#Starting a new thread. So, I'm moving this section to the bottom. P.S. Most likely I will reply to the substance of your post at a later time. Briefly, though, I agree that a major rewrite is in order. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree it needs to be rewritten. There's no reason for it to look like this and for it to be so scattershot. There's a whole section on their sponsorship of the Lithuanian basketball team that's longer than the portion of the history section that covers their career in the 1980s. I've been working to re-write the Phish article to cover more of their history than what was there before, and I think that could be used as a model on how to re-write the Dead page. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, yeah. A rewrite sounds good. I agree with the specific points made by Jhw57, and Doc Strange too. But, how would it be best to proceed? That's what I'm not sure about. Perhaps we should try to formulate a plan of some kind. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I did when I rewrote the Phish page was work on the history first before doing the other sections. I had to piece that together from news articles, the most popular (and semi-official) fan website, and a few books. With the Dead, there's a ton of great sources to use, especially books. There's also about 120 sources in this article already, and those could probably be used to piece together a much better article than what currently stands (and there's even more in the individual member, song, album and other errata pages). There can be multiple sections for the history, maybe grouped by albums or tours like the Phish article. The Dead have a long, colorful and famous history and this is designated as a level 5 vital article; As such an important American band, it shouldn't be a problem to make their history section as long as the one for The Rolling Stones. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 03:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good. Although for the Grateful Dead, their history probably shouldn't be divided by album releases, or even by tours. I'm sure we could come up with good historical divisions, though. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the breach of WP talk page protocol, but frankly, this thread is of more importance than anything else on the page. In any event, as far as historical divisions go, if you run through their first 15 years, you can break things down (and I'm not saying we should) pretty much like this: formation and early years covering 1965-66; their 1967 "breakout"/first album/summer of love year; the 1968-69 period culminating in the release of Live Dead; the shift in 1970 marked by Workingman's, American Beauty, and their electric/acoustic shows; the 1971 departure of Mickey and the original-5, shoot 'em up, rock n' roll bar band sound, followed by the temporary departure of Pigpen/arrival of Keith/return of Pigpen; Europe '72, permanent departure of Pigpen, Veneta, and into 1973; the wall of sound and "last" shows at Winterland; the 1975 hiatus; the return in 1976 to "smaller" venues, the famed Spring 1977 tour, and into 1978 and the trip to Egypt, the closing of Winterland, and the departure of Keith and Donna; and 1979 and the arrival of Brent Mydland through... dunno, I got off the bus for a while around then and have never paid much attention to this period. Jhw57 (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might be more important then everything else on this page, however, if you put it in the wrong place it will be ignored as old news. Just a perspective on why it is important to place it in the right spot ;) (of course shit happens too so not a terrible thing just a mistake). Of course I am in favor of a rewrite, any real fan doesn't mind seeing the same material that is redone night after night right and if it is better then the night or in this case article before all the better. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The band's influence on audio technology

[edit]

Observers have written about how the band was very influential in the field of concert sound, pioneering a number of concepts in audio technology. The documentary Dead Sound talks about this. More should be written here about this aspect. Some sources listed below. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Photo

[edit]

Mention Photographer and Location? It was used by record company, but Herb Greene did work for others. This version is from a copy of Billboard at Google Books, and there are better versions...

"The Grateful Dead in 1970, from a promotional photo shoot. Left to right: Bill Kreutzmann, Ron "Pigpen" McKernan, Jerry Garcia, Bob Weir, Mickey Hart, Phil Lesh."
0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@0mtwb9gd5wx: Hello. The general guideline is not to mention the photographer in the image caption in the article -- see MOS:CREDITS. Mr. Greene is credited on the page for the photo itself, you can see that if you click through. — Mudwater (Talk) 04:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mudwater: Olompali State Historic Park is the location re: Kreutzmann, mention that? The picture in the Billboard ad does not have a copyright notice, are all reproductions from the original negative without copyright?→→0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@0mtwb9gd5wx: I've read about where that photo was taken, but I can't find or recall that info at the moment. I think it was not the state park, though. We'd want to establish that pretty definitively. Then, is it worth mentioning in the image caption here? Maybe. About the copyright, the image page says that it's in the public domain. That's probably right, but I'm not an expert on image licensing. — Mudwater (Talk) 04:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@0mtwb9gd5wx: Looking around some more, I believe the photo was taken at a ranch that Mickey Hart rented for some years in Marin County. He lived there and had a recording studio there. Apparently the location is now part of Olompali State Historic Park, as you said. So far I don't have a good reference for this, but it should be possible to find one. Again, I'm not sure how much of this is worth going into in the image caption here in the article. — Mudwater (Talk) 05:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genre in inobox -- less is more

[edit]

A consensus was established a long time ago that, for several reasons, "Rock" is the only genre that should be listed in the infobox. This was determined in the archived discussion section Talk:Grateful Dead/Archive 1#Genre. If you wish to discuss the matter further, please do so here and not on the archived talk page. Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware this "consensus" was established over a decade ago. I may be in the minority here in which case I'll back down, but I feel that simply putting "Rock" in the inbox is very misleading to those seeking to gain a broad understanding of the band and their wide array of influences by simply skimming the page briefly, especially given that it's standard on Wikipedia that for other bands, the genre infobox is a little more of a specific indicator of the phases that a band went through during their development. I get that it's hard to know where to draw the line when considering a band like the Grateful Dead who has been influenced by virtually the entire Western popular music tradition and beyond, however, I feel that four other relatively broad categorizations in addition to "Rock" sufficiently encapsulate nearly all of the band's musical styles. The genres I propose adding are "Roots rock" which encapsulates blues, country, folk, Americana, bluegrass influences, etc., "Psychedelic Rock" as the band's overall sound and improvisational ethos is heavily influenced by psychedelics and the music associated with them, Jazz-rock (Jazz fusion) because of the amount that musical structure, theory and rhythm from the jazz tradition influenced every member of the band, this also indicates the band's later funk and debatably progressive leanings, and finally "Jam band" for the self-evident reason that the Grateful Dead founded the structure and culture of the jam band scene. Tell me what you all think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxWM7096 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox musical artist#genre says to aim for generality. For the Grateful Dead, once you start adding subgenres, you end up with a big list, with no good way to decide what to include and what not to include, because they had many styles and influences. A lot of music really defies categorization, and that's particularly true for the Grateful Dead. They played psychedelic rock, folk rock, country rock, blues rock, jazz rock, Americana, and straight ahead rock and roll, along with a few gospel songs for good measure. And don't forget the popular "jam band music", which is also true. For subgenres, there's really no good place to draw the line. In my view this would apply to many other rock groups as well, but the Dead are the paradigm example, since they drew their music from so many different genres. It's rock music, and the other points should be discussed in the article itself. — Mudwater (Talk) 06:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox musical artist#genre also says to preferably list two to four. "Roots rock" is general enough to encapsulate nearly everything you mentioned above, with the exception of jazz, psychedelic rock and jam band. Given that its standard on Wikipedia for the infobox to give a broad sketch of a musically diverse band's sound without digging into the article, and the fact that the first sentence of the article categorizes the Grateful Dead as "a rock band" I think it's a little redundant and unhelpful to someone glancing at the box. Not to mention the fact that it would be a stretch to call a few of the band's songs rock (space, some of the more avant-garde moments in Dark Star, and many of the acoustic tunes that are pretty much straight up blues, country or bluegrass), hence the jam band label better describing the diversity present in the musical structure of these songs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxWM7096 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the band as "The Dead"

[edit]

Hi - in some articles (such as the one for Europe '72) - I see repeated references to the band as 'the Dead.' Of course, most any fan of the band knows them by this abbreviated name, and once the reference is made to 'The Grateful Dead' - understanding that 'the Dead' refers to 'the Grateful Dead' seems drop-dead (pun intended) obvious.

However - is it proper to use nicknames/abbreviations in Wikipedia articles? What do others think?

Jpbjoel (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! In my view, it's perfectly fine. (There's also the Dead as a closely related but different band, but in most contexts our readers won't get the two confused.) — Mudwater (Talk) 23:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pigpen article title

[edit]

There is currently a discussion about the best name for the article about Pigpen, who, as many people reading this post already know, was a member of the Grateful Dead. That's at Talk:Ron "Pigpen" McKernan#Name of this article. Interested editors are encouraged to join in the discussion there (and not here, to keep the discussion all in one place). — Mudwater (Talk) 17:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Track listings in album articles

[edit]

@Elephantranges: Hello! For a number of Grateful Dead album articles, you have reduced the track listings by removing the separately listed bonus tracks from later releases. In your edit summaries you mentioned WP:ALTTRACKLIST, which says, "Include track listings for alternative editions only when they are significantly different and when the tracks are the subject of extensive commentary in the article. In such cases, additional track listings can be listed under subheadings...." But, I definitely think that for Grateful Dead album articles, the bonus track listings should be included. These additional tracks are of great interest to me as a reader of Wikipedia, and I'm sure that many other readers feel the same way. Yes, they make the articles better, not worse! Anyway, WP:ALBUMSTYLE is a style advice page. As it says there, "It is intended only as a guide, to assist in writing well-developed articles. There will be occasional reasons to modify or ignore some of the suggestions here and there are many sections which will not apply to many articles. Just use your best judgement and work together with other editors trying to improve coverage of albums." So, for Grateful Dead album articles, I'm going to put the bonus tracks back in, soon. As always, other interested editors are encouraged to add their opinions to the discussion. Note: The articles I am referring to are: Anthem of the Sun, Aoxomoxoa, Workingman's Dead, American Beauty, Europe '72, Wake of the Flood, From the Mars Hotel, Blues for Allah, Terrapin Station, and Shakedown Street. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The removal that surprises me the most is of the 1972 remix of Anthem of the Sun. Mudwater highlighted a passage of WP:ALTTRACKLIST which describes that remix: There are significant differences between the two versions and they are discussed in text. The 1972 remix should be restored to that album's page. Also, WP:ALTTRACKLIST reads "In such cases, additional track listings can be listed under subheadings." Isn't that what those bonus track sections were? Then why were they removed? I think those should all be restored as well. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 00:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mudwater: sorry went a little too trigger-happy with the deletions. I think per the discussion in MOS:ALBUMS about large track listings, the bonus disc full of live concerts shouldn’t be listed and would be gratuitous to include, but the 2002/2003 era bonus tracks aren’t intrusive imo. Ofc it’s not really up to me but that’s my 2 cents Elephantranges (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elephantranges: Thanks for the reply. In my view, the bonus discs with live material should also be included. Many readers who are interested in Grateful Dead albums would want to see those. I know that because I'm one myself. So I'd say let's leave them in too. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mudwater: Per the MOS:ALBUMS discussion, I feel the bonus discs really don’t deserve to be there - in most (if not all) cases there’s nothing to show why they’re notable in the body of the article other than that they exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice&diff=1023281454&oldid=1019454437

That being said, I’m not gonna revert any edits you make adding them back or something. Maybe the best way to go about it could be to give the 50th anniversary releases their own sections in the albums’ respective articles? That way the tracklists could exist without feeling cluttered, and would also allow for more elaboration on the contents of those releases for each album in general. Elephantranges (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The additional track listings don't have to be notable in the Wikipedia sense. Like it says at WP:N, "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article." Of course, I'm open to expanding the articles to explain in prose, more than they do already, the background or significance of the track listings. Anyway, I'm planning on putting those back, unless other editors beat me to the metaphoric punch. @Elephantranges: I do think that you're working to generally improve album articles, which I appreciate, even if other editors don't necessarily agree with everything you do. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mudwater: hey it’s no big deal, I was pissing people more from insisting on using the template for tracklists - which I’ve since tried to rectify (in my defense, seems a lot of new users tend to fall into that)

although as a side note i will say that due to the numerous lead vocalists the grateful dead tracklists do warrant the template imo but that seems to be generally agreed upon here anyways Elephantranges (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I put back the additional track listings. So, we should be all set. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lyceum Theatre, London, England 5/26/72 album

[edit]

There is currently a discussion about the article "Lyceum Theatre, London, England 5/26/72", which is about a Grateful Dead album. The article was renamed, and the text changed, without prior discussion. So, let's talk about it now. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion, at Talk:Europe '72: Lyceum Theatre, London, England (5/26/1972)#Requested move 8 December 2022 (and not here, to keep the discussion all in one place). Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hornsby as a past member

[edit]

Hey Community,

I had added Bruce Hornsby in the past members section, and it was reverted by a community member stating Hornsby was not a ‘full time member’. Hornsby had a storied time as a member of the band, contributing greatly to the band’s history. I’d like to advocate for his addition and open to hear any objections. EazyAnswers (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EazyAnswers: Hello! There have been previous discussions about this, with most editors agreeing that, while Bruce Hornsby played a lot of concerts with the Grateful Dead, especially from September 1990 to March 1992, he was never an official member of the band. One such discussion, with links to earlier discussions, is at Talk:Grateful Dead/Archive 3#Band membership. (That's an archived talk page, so please make any new posts here and not there.) That discussion is pretty old, and is not necessarily the last word on the subject, but I think it brings up some good points. Also... In that discussion there is general agreement that Robert Hunter and John Perry Barlow were not official members of the Grateful Dead either. They've been added to the infobox since then, but I think I'll use this opportunity to take them back out. As always, other editors are encouraged to post their thoughts here. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mudwater I appreciate the thoughtful response and link to the archived discussions. The link to the Grateful Dead’s own site is a strong case against Hornsby’s addition. I am happy to advocate for his addition in order to reach consensus, but it seems to be an unlikely result. EazyAnswers (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Branford Marsalis ought to be mentioned

[edit]

"Branford Marsalis was easily the best ongoing guest collaborator that the Grateful Dead had over their 30 years"

https://liveforlivemusic.com/news/branford-marsalis-birthday-grateful-dead/ Kombo the mzungu (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grateful_Dead&oldid=1252179612"