From: mattb@ctron.com (Matt Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.music.gdead
Subject: Re:  Deadheads
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:31:19 GMT
Reply-To: mattb@olympus.ctron.com (Matt Brown)
Organization: Cabletron Systems INc.

sjeck@isi.com writes:
>mattb@ctron.com (Matt Brown) writes:
>|I don't want to knock the sentiments.  However, they have to be recognized as
>|idyllic for the majority of people who like the Dead, but lead "normal"
>|lives by choice or obligation.  Most of us are caught between the flowers
>|and the rocks -- longing for one, but stubbing our toes daily on the other.
>
>I don't know where you get off generalizing so.  That's what has happened to
>the Deadhead community in the last 6 or 7 years, it has diversified 
>tremendously.  Whenenver someone says, "Most of us" and I do not relate,
>I have to assume that they are really saying "I am."

Maybe the writer is implying that he is a member of the mainstream, and here
he may be correct or incorrect, but he is dishonest only if he is
using it in a propagandistic bandwagon sense ("We all support family values"
-- the unspoken meaning being the speaker's family values, which could
range from homphobia to bigamy). If by implication, you do not consider your-
self part of that alleged mainstream, that maY be good or bad. You decide. 

Maybe I "mosted" too fast, but if EVERYONE who likes the Dead tried to go on
tour, things would be a bit more crowded.  Now, not many of these fans
would be considered a true DEADHEAD - core follower - by this piece's standard.
So if the article defines the quintessential deadhead for you, fine. If you
fit that description closer than my part-time head description, that's great
too, and a part of me envies that. (It defines the essence of a true Deadhead
for me too; I just can't pretend to be that.  It's not me, but I respect the
sentiments and motives.)

You are absolutely right about the diversity.  It is detrimental in many ways.
In r.m.gd we have a bit of intolerence brought on in part by the diversity.
We have instances of minor differences turning to verbal brawls. I am glad
to see more people appreciate the Dead, but if everybody gets on the bus,
the bus gets too crowded, and some of the peace and freedom departs (Shit,
I almost put a "most of us" in there again. Thanks, Steve).

On the other hand, the band has encouraged this through more promotion and
touring, and by incorporating musical diversity into their performances,
recordings, and charitable efforts.  I would like to see us heads do a better
job of incorporating this diversity into our "community". This is a harder
job than the musical effort, but it can add a great deal to spreading the
best elements of the "deadhead ethic" from the article we're discussing.

If indeed people believe it should spread.

>|Times have indeed changed. The intrusion of politics etc. into this "commune"
>|is perhaps disliked or is distasteful to some of the inhabitants.
>
>Politics have *always* been a part of this thing.  Shit, it started in
>the 1960's when damn near everything was some kind of political statement.
>I still contend that it is the diversity of view that have congregated 
>around the Dead that old Deadheads find "distasteful."  

Right again, in a sense.  My statement was to the pretty apolitical article
describing a deadhead.  On reflection, that "ethic" is a reflection of a part
of 60's politics, I realize.  You are right in saying that the diversity 
constitutes the intrusion.  Deadeads are less homogenous politically now.
Damn! How can these fascists like the same music I do?  Not surprising that
this is tough to take.  Now of course, some of these opinions are fascist
by comparison, not absolutely.  But they are a far cry from what 1967 means
to some of the older and more liberal (Damn, almost said it again, and I
know that nobody will agree) deadheads, including myself.

>Can you imagine
>someone standing up and shouting the kind of "Establishment" rhetoric
>that Brian Jeffery Cook does at the Human Be-In?

Wasn't there. But my guess would be "not likely" then. If held now, sure.
I'd almost be surprised if it wasn't.  I'd hope the reaction of the crowd
wouldn't be to beat the shit out of such a misguided soul.  Wouldn't that
be kinda antithetical?  Maybe the Dead have led  (damn!)  certain people to
the point where the music and the movement don't so neatly coincide?

It ain't pure and easy.  But I contend that if the things the Dead represent
(to me and perhaps no one else) are worth spreading, they will have to 
contend with and integrate lots of these elements.  If (me and nobody else)
are lucky, it will convert more than it will be converted.

>The new battle cry of the 90's "Don't Trust Anyone Under 30???"

I wish we didn't need one.  But I wish concerts were free, so...

Matt
That guy nobody agrees with

Hey Steve, I'm just funning a little with this "most" stuff. Loose generaliz-
ations are either sloppy or sleazy, and only a step or two below unqualified
absolutes on the scale of bogosity.  It's hard to examine all assumptions
in this forum of written but conversational discourse.  Catch me when you 
can.  I think it's mostly slop, not sleaze, but you be the judge (or one
of them, anyway).