Talk:Grateful Dead/Archive 1

message: I thought I understood the whole "move page" thing, but why can't I move this to The Grateful Dead? Tokerboy 18:28 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)
A redirect is in the way. You have to cut and paste it over there. Lir 18:29 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)
Question: any reference on the group's name referring to the Egiyptian Book of the Dead? I always understood it to relate to English Balladry. --Jmabel 22:39, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems certain that someone in the Dead's crowd had at least a passing familiarity with the book: On the cover of their first album, the crypitc writing across the top spells out this very sentence.  I haven't seen any documentation that a band member requested this feature, nor have I seen any documentation that the Egyptian Book Of the Dead was on any band member's reading list.  They were a pretty well-read bunch of guys, though, so it seems likely to me that possibly Jerry or Phil would have read it.....FWIW.  JSC ltd 23:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cryptic writing on the cover of the first album says, "In the land of the dark the Ship of the Sun is driven by the Grateful Dead"?  That's a cool theory, but, how do you know, and what language is it in? — Mudwater 00:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The language is English.  The letters are highly stylized "because (as Garcia later said) [the band] worried that the content of the lettering might be seen as 'pretentious'["Grateful Dead: The Illustrated Trip," pg. 67]," but the phrase reads right-side up, left to right.  One source for this theory is the liner notes from the 2001 Rhino reissue of the album, pg. 14.  Another source is "Skeleton Key: A Dictionary for Deadheads," pg. 121.  JSC ltd 20:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I might happen to have a few.  Dragged my camera to one NYE run, and quite a few in Philly.  Probably late 80's, early 90's. Gonna have to find them, then dust off the scanner and its s/w, so it could be a bit.--PA Jed aka J Clear 00:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Grateful Dead

message: How come The Beatles article title includes the word THE, but the Grateful Dead article title does not? Kingturtle 00:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Because The Beatles always went by "The Beatles", whereas the "Grateful Dead" generally did not.  Some googling reveals mixed use for the Grateful Dead (with the lack of an article appearing to be more common), while The Beatles almost always have the article attached. Tuf-Kat 01:07, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
*I see. I noticed that even on their LPs, it can be one or the other. Kingturtle 02:09, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE 

message: Am I missing it somewhere?  Any reason for this?  -- Dave C. 05:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No discography? 

message: "I have to disagree, Bruce toured with the Dead long enough after Brent's death, and that although he never recorded with them he is in the minds of a lot of people, still a full member of the band's past."
The 'mind's of a lot of people' do not determine Grateful Dead membership. Bill Bruford toured with Genesis for years, but he was never a MEMBER. He helped out on tours. Big difference.
Bruce Hornsby was NEVER a member of the Grateful Dead...he was a sideman that helped the band out for a year and a half. He had NO SAY in the songwriting or decision-making of the band. He would be the first person to tell you that he was never a member. That's like including the sax player for Pink Floyd tours as a band member.
>>> Actually, Bruce does say that he "became a part-time member of the Grateful Dead and, from September 1990 to March 1992, performed with the group on more than 100 concerts in America and Europe."  See, his website at http://www.brucehornsby.com/bio.php  <<<      SteveHopson 
But by this reasoning, was Donna a MEMBER of the band? Did she have a say in the songwriting or decision-making of the band?
Was T.C. a MEMBER by that reasoning? What is the point of aruging about whether we put the label "MEMBER" on someone? Did Bruce Hornsby bring anything valuable to the table with respect to the Dead is the question to consider. 
The Dead did consider Hornsby in the process that resulted in hiring Brent.
My two cents:
One reasonable way to gauge whether someone is a member might be: During the individual's tenure, did he or she participate in nearly every performance of the band (i.e., except for illness, pregnancy, death in the family, etc.)? By this standard Bruce was not a member and Donna was. FWIW, I usually liked Bruce's contributions, but I never considered him a member, since his participation was not full-time.
--Steve M (a different steve than above)
I am in no way an expert, most of my knowledge comes from McNally's book "A Long Strange Trip".  To claim that Donna was a member and Bruce was not is IMHO a complete misunderstanding.  By following Steve M's logic, the only true "members" then are Phil and Bob ( :/ [post-2005]).  In fact, in the early years (pre-74) the crew was considered to be as much a part of the decision making as the band.  Maybe even more so... Point being, with the Dead, definitions such as "membership" are not easily and/or typically defined.  Questions of "membership", based on singing/songwriting decisions, are completely lost on those claiming to be fans.
--bean
If there was ever any question about this, I think you go straight to the front of Phil Lesh's recent book -- where he includes Bruce as one of the 12 members of the band.  If Phil includes him on the list, that's good enough for me!  It makes no sense for folks to say TC and Donna were band members while saying Bruce was not.  The guy toured with them for a year and a half (not to mention numerous other guest appearances before and after the 1990-92 stint with the band)
-Sam
Actually, that list in Lesh's book is of "his brothers in music," not specifically of Dead members per se, even if we read it as such. Another guide might be the inductee list for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Under those inducted as members of the Grateful Dead, there is Tom Constanten. There is Donna Jean Godchaux. There is Vince Welnick. There is NOT Bruce Hornsby. I am most assuredly high on Hornsby, but he was, at best and by his own definition, a part-time member (however much he deserved full status - perhaps Bruce was trying to distance himself from the curse?). - Natalie Davis  (RIP Vince! http://gratefuldread.net/archives/cat/001544.html )
:Please also see Talk:Grateful Dead#Bruce Hornsby...Again for newer discussion on this topic. -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 20:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bruce Hornsby was NEVER a "member" of the Dead 

message: The PHISH page is so incredbily imformative that it almost makes me upset that the Dead page is as weak as it is. 
Check out what those fans did with the Phish page (with detailed links and all) and we might be able to make this Dead page creative instead of full of boring facts. I never "got" Phish but their entry sure made me want to explore their music
:The Phish article is very creative and informative, but I think it's also POV. Joey Q. McCartney 00:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article kinda sucks 

message: This section needs serious help, IMHO. Also, can we tune down the whole grilled cheese sandwich thing?
Veggie buritos were WAY more prevalent. Also, needs much more about tie-dye, hair, communal living, micro buses, ect. I 'll start.....Tom 23:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be sure to have sources and not stray into POV territory.--Moeron 00:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put back in the Main article link to Dead Heads, which should help a bit.  Although my quick glance at that article says it needs TLC. I've also added a bit to the section, some of which probably belongs in Dead Heads.  The trick is to keep the section here short and focused on how Dead Head's impacted the band.  Put the bulk in the DH article, where the focus can be more on the DHs themselves.  Who's got my miracle?--PA Jed aka J Clear 00:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deadheads

message: Can we source this?? It seems that in the movie This is spinal Tap, the drummers deaths parodied the deaths of DRUMMERS from OTHER bands, ie The Who, Led Zepplin, ect and wasn't in regards to the Dead's keyboardist deaths...please correct me or lose this line. Thanks!Tom 15:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spinal Tap comment

message: "The Grateful Dead’s early music (in the mid 1960s) was part of the process of establishing what "psychedelic music" was"
I'd quibble with this statement. Recordings that circulate of early shows - and there are a good many of them - indicate that up until late 1967 the group was playing more or less post British Invasion R&B. The first LP bears this out - the only psychedelic thing about it is the cover. The Grateful Dead's psychedelic phase really only kicks in early in 1968, just before and during the tour of the north-west. Ironically, it was at this time that many other musicians were trying to distance themselves from the phenomenon. BTLizard 09:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychedelic from the start? 

message: I guess its time to revist this. Since I see another wheel war developing here. Should we do a vote?? I hate them, but at least everybody can way in. How would that work? --Tom 16:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, at the official website, http://www.dead.net, under the tab The Band Hornsby is not a listed as a member. --MOE.RON talk | done | doing 16:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thing from the official site, under Archives and there under 1990, it says "The band selects Vince Welnick as the new full-time keyboard player, and Bruce Hornsby as a most-of-the-time sit-in player." --MOE.RON talk | done | doing 16:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some more; under Archives and 1990, you can select a photo of Bruce which says the following, "In the wake of Brent's death, Garcia and Lesh went to see Bruce at a Bay Area concert and eventually invited him to join the band. But Hornsby had a booming solo career, and while happy to fill in, was reluctant to commit completely. In Dead fashion, the band decided to include Bruce where and when available, but also search for a permanent new keyboard player, which turned out to be Vince Welnick." --MOE.RON talk | done | doing 16:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, in the Illustrated Trip, they mention that Hornsby "was never a member of the Grateful Dead, but was able to appear as a guest when his schedule permitted." -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 08:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I would go with what the official website and books say about him not being part of the lineup, just a guest, before the unauthorized ones, but I will not fight you over this since you feel strongly about this. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 08:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Donna is a different story, because like you are saying we are looking at lineups. She was a member because she was listed as such at the official page, inducted into the Hall of fame as part of the band (not Hornsby, who actually was the one who did the inducting), and is listed as so in the various "official" books I have, such as The Illustrated Trip and An American Life. No matter, I am fine with him as part of the lineup. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 17:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bruce Hornsby...Again

message: Both Robert Hunter and John Perry Barlow have always been considered de facto band members. When artist Stanley Mouse was creating the portraits of each band member to be used on the album "Workingman's Dead", he painted a portrait of Hunter, too. It was removed from the layout at the last minute for reasons no one has told me about.
Would anyone have any objections to me adding the two lyricists to the list of band members?
--Jfulbright 18:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was going to object at first, but after looking at the "Band" section of http://www.dead.net , it seems they are both very much credited as part of the band (unlike Hornsby whose dicussion is mentioned above). I might be good, though, to add a "(lyricist)" after their names. To avoid confusion that they were preformers in the band. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 18:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Robert Hunter should not be listed in the infobox.  He did not perform onstage with the band, and would not generally be considered an official member, I believe.  Of course, his contribution to the Dead's music was very significant.  I think it's cool that he and John Perry Barlow are listed as band members at http://www.dead.net/band, and I'm shocked to learn that Hunter was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame with the Dead -- thanks for the link to that, by the way.  Still, I think the list of members in the infobox should be limited to musicians only. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree with Mudwater.  We should not include people as band members who did not appear on stage as part of the band.  In general, people who are considered "members" of a band appear onstage and perform as part of the group, or appear in the recording studio and can be heard on or heavily influence the recording.  People understand the term "band member" to mean a person who plays within a group of musicians.  We can understand that the Grateful Dead were not interested in keeping with conventions, and they are entitled to count whomever they see fit as "band members."  How they do things is not necessarily the way darn near everyone else does things, however, and in order to maximize the usefulness of this article, we need to take the broadest view in constructing an informative article.  We can note, for example, that the band considered Hunter and Barlow to be "members," and that the Rock Hall concurred to the extent that it inducted Hunter as a "band member."  Conventional understanding precludes including either of them as such here.  Regardless of the importance of an individual's contribution to the group project, it is confusing, and possibly misleading, to list a person as a "band member" who doesn't play in the band.  JSC ltd (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  Robert Hunter wasn't a band member in the conventional sense, even if he was a member of the Dead "family".  So, I've removed Hunter from the list of band members in the infobox. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? If the band's web site and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame consider Hunter a member, who are we to say no? Why? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the reasons outlined above.  The Dead liked to be unconventional and inclusive, which is great, but a Wikipedia article should be designed so that the average reader will be informed rather than misled.  Of course, Hunter's status can be discussed as part of the article text, but he should be left out of the list of band members in the infobox, because he did not perform onstage as part of the band. — Mudwater (Talk) 10:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Performing When Brian Wilson wasn't performing with the Beach Boys he didn't cease to be a member of the band - quite the opposite, if anything. Just because he didn't perform with them doesn't preclude him being a member; this is especially true if they themselves consider him a member. It seems like they would get a kind of veto on who is in their band. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but Brian Wilson did perform with the Beach Boys.  Hunter never performed with the dead.  There is a difference there. Addionne (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

text: If you bother to read my comment above, you can infer that I was thinking about Wilson specifically when I mentioned influence over and contributions to recording sessions.  Hunter didn't arrange, orchestrate, or perform any of the music recorded by the Grateful Dead; Wilson, on the other hand, did all that for the Beach Boys.  Furthermore, I don't think that the topics of Wikipedia articles get some kind of veto power over the content of articles about them.  Such a situation would remove any veneer of objectivity, which is one of the things we're trying to achieve here.  Even if they did have such power, you are hardly in a position to exercise it on their behalf.  JSC ltd (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the other band members? 

message: Like the term hacker, rap has taken on new meaning since the 60's.  Pigpen's little dialogues with the audience were considered rapping then.  Pop on "Ladies and Gentlemen..." and queue up Lovelight about 9 minutes in.  However I've come to realise that wasn't so much an influence as a technique so I won't revert the edit.  I wonder what ever became of Chris and Marsha.  Remember "tell her Pigpen said it was OK".--J Clear 12:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rap 

message: I noticed someone had started "The Dead (band)" article but there is already a section with much of the same information within the Grateful Dead article.  I think the two should merge on this page to consolidate the information seeing as The Dead is "risen" from the Grateful Dead as it were.  ju66l3r 06:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of [[The Dead (band)]] Discussion 

message: Kula Shaker's first album K has a track paying homage to the Greatful Dead entitled "Grateful when your dead/Jerry was there". I dont know how best to incorporate this into the article, or if to incorporate it at all. I'll let someone who knows the band better than I to make the decision. Robinoke 14:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kula Shaker tribute 

message: Hi, I've created a proposal for categorizing "taper-friendly bands", aka "bands that allow taping" within Wikipedia, and I wanted to invite people interested in this article to offer comments and feedback, since the Dead are one of the most prominent bands in the category.  The proposal is at User:Xtifr/BTAT, and I'd be very interested to hear what people have to say about my suggestions.  Let me know whatcha think.  Thanks, Xtifr 11:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal on categorizing "Taper-friendly bands"

message: Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 02:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: After reviewing the article in accordance to the Good Article Criteria, I unfortunately have to delist the article from the GA listing due to concerns listed below. I encourage the article's editors to work on the improving the article and addressing the concerns below. I also encourage the editors to considering resubmitting for GA status once these concerns have been addressed.
1. It is well written. - Needs Improvement
* The lead section is a bit thin in accordance to the WP:MOS expectations of WP:LEAD. A glaring omission in the lead is mentioning of the break up and reuniting of the band. While obviously the full details of those items come later in the article, the lead's summary of the entire article should make mention of these items.
* There is some "over wiki-linking" throughout the article, but particularly in the lead section. In general, an item only needs to be wiki-linked on its first appearance in the article. If there is a long gap in text between appearance, then a reason to duplicate a wiki-link could be made. But there is no need for things like psychedelia being linked twice in the same paragraph.
* There are some awkward sentence constructions that could be written a little better for sentence flow. Like this first sentence in the Membership section."Lead guitarist Jerry Garcia was the de facto bandleader; however, although he was often seen both by the public and the media as 'leader' or a primary spokesperson for the Grateful Dead, he was reluctant to be seen that way, especially since Garcia and the other group members saw themselves as equal participants and contributors to their collective musical and creative output. " While grammatically correct, it is still a tad awkward.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Needs Improvement
* The article is very lean on in-line cites with many important claims in the article being difficult to verify in their absence. For brevity, I will only tag a few claims in each sections with fact tags. However, I encourage the editors to thorough vet the entire article for items that would be well served with an in-line cite.
3. It is broad in its coverage. - Needs Improvement
* There should be some prose and text summary in the Steal Your Face section instead of just a hyperlink to an off-wiki site.
* I would also include a general summary of the Discography (major albums, etc) rather then just having the wiki-link to the main article.
* The Grateful Dead were certainly an influential band in musical history. While scant mention is made at different points in the article (like the Wall of Sound), I was surprised that there wasn't a section discussing the Dead's influence on music in general. I'm sure there are comments from music historians and critics that could be incorporated into a section on this topic.
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Weak Pass
* Overall the article maintains an NPOV tone but it's a weak pass because a few areas skirt the line like this example from the New type of sound' section "Often (both in performance and on recording) the Dead left room for exploratory, spacey soundscapes—a form of psychedelia that might run the gamut from strange to exotically beautiful". It is a bit POV to say (at least without a cite from an objective reliable source) that at the best end of the gamut the Dead's music is "exotically beautiful"
5. It is stable - Pass
* The article is sufficiently stable.
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Needs Improvement
* Image:Gdead1.jpg is not tagged at all, much less a fair use rationale given
* For the purpose of GA status the article's images need to be properly tagged and the image noted above is the image that fails in this regard. However, there is ample room for improvement in the overall quality and presentation of the images which will be noted below.
* I would work on including the Fair use rationale in the image listings that is applicable to its fair use on the article. Currently they just have the tag but no rationale is given. As the tag itself notes a detailed fair use rationale that follows the Wikipedia:Image description page should be given.
:Image:Gdead2.jpg  Info box photo
:Image:Grateful Dead - concert.jpg  Concert poster in Membership section
:Image:Gdead5.jpg Rationale only given for use in the San Francisco page
:Image:Gdead3.jpg Two GD images
:Image:Grateful Dead-American Beau.jpg American Beauty album cover
Again, I encourage the improvement and resubmitting for GA consideration. This article has a lot of positive merit and I want to thank the article's editors for getting it up to this point. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Agne 23:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA De listing 

message: See the section Wall of Sound - what is PA wtf? Do not use well known abbreviations in articles. Blowup 11:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PA 

message: I struggle to imagine what the picture labeled Gdead2.jpg has to do with this article or for that matter the Culture of San Francisco, California article. Maajid 12:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone vandalized that photo by uploading a different one on top of it. If you click on the photo you eventually will find the edit history for the photo and there are buttons, marked (rev), for reverting to older versions.-Crunchy Numbers 15:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: You've been UMAGA'D?

message: I'm suprised that there is no mention of the sellouts of the Wachovia Spectrum in Philadelphia. They sold out the entire arena 50-some times. TheOneCalledA1 20:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Philadelphia sellouts? 

message: In the info box at the beginning of the article, I've added Jerry Garcia Band as an associated act.  However, at this time there is no article for Jerry Garcia Band, which redirects to Jerry Garcia.  In my opinion, such an article would be a welcome addition to Wikipedia, so, if anyone's looking for a good topic for a new Grateful Dead related article, you know what to do. -- Mudwater 00:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerry Garcia Band 

message: I just removed the Gentiles section from the article as it appeared as original research. --Tom 13:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call.  Thanks. -- Mudwater 01:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: well said Mudwater, thank you. --Tom 13:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: deleted section

message: I changed the line "In 1971, the band purchased their first solid sound system from Alembic Inc Studios" to read "solid-state sound system," as it is supposed to be, judging by the stated year and incoherence of the original sentence.  As I don't know how, would someone be so kind as to link that to the article on solid-state electronics?
:Done.  To link a phrase such as "solid-state" to another article, surround the text to be linked with double square brackets.  If the name of the article is different from the phrase itself, add the name of the article, followed by a vertical bar, right before the phrase.  For example, in this case I changed "sold-state" to "solid-state".  Check out Wikipedia:Tutorial for some basic and very useful information.  There's a tab called "Wikipedia links" that talks about what I just said.  See also Wikipedia:Why create an account?.  As a final tip, it's customary to sign talk page edits (but not article edits) by adding "~~~~" to the end of your post. P.S.  Welcome to Wikipedia. — Mudwater 04:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solid/solid-state sound system 

message: I reverted the Hornsby stuff. The first cite says he was a "temporary" member?? The other cits are garbage. I am not impressed with the quanity of cites rather there quality. Does "temporary" member qualify as "member" of the band?? Thanks! --Tom 14:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous consensus was that Bruce Hornsby was not an official member of the Grateful Dead, so he should not be listed as a band member in the infobox, but, since he did play in almost every show for a year and a half, he should be listed in the lineups table. See "Bruce Hornsby was NEVER a "member" of the Dead" and "Bruce Hornsby...Again" above. — Mudwater 01:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. --Tom 01:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed that the Lineups section says "band members by year". So it makes it appear that Hornsby was a member during that time?. No biggie.--Tom 01:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I just changed it. — Mudwater 01:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hornsby...again

message: Someone has put Laurence Shurtliff up for AFD due to lack of references, I know he is covered well in many Grateful Dead related books, perhaps someone who has those books can provide references and speak up at the AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laurence_Shurtliff. Russeasby 22:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The nomination to delete was withdrawn on 17 August 2007, so the article will not be deleted.  See AFD link above. — Mudwater 07:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laurence Shurtliff up for AFD 

message: More about the music? This needs more written about the music, the albums, the songwriting style and craft. It covers upto to 1970 but they carried for 25 years after that! A talk through of their albums and musical changes would be ideal. A little less said about Garcia and his personal and more on the music.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.55.96 (talk) 08:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More about the music? 

message: I came to find out the history behind the Dancing Bears and the "Steal/Steel Your Face" icons and was let down.Bodhi.peace 18:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would like to request information about the dancing bears.  It seems a major that the dancing bears are not mentioned on this page; from my experience they are a ubiquitous symbol of this band and its fans!  Cazort (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  I've added that to the article. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone add some info about the icons? 

message: OK I think they're to many genres on the page I think we sould narrow it down to just a few. Thanks.  Audiofile65 23:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would go farther and suggest having just one genre, Rock.  Once you start adding subgenres, you end up with a big list like the one we have now, with no good way to decide what to include and what not to include, especially with the Dead who had many styles and influences.  Also, Template:Infobox Musical artist#Genre says to aim for generality. — Mudwater 01:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone have an opinion on this?  If not I'll remove all the genres other than Rock. — Mudwater 01:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this, should be reduced to one cat and Rock makes most sense in the general. Russeasby (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The band certainly played a wide variety of music, but I agree that "Rock" makes the most sense as an overarching category.  They played blues, country, reggae, jazz, and Grateful Dead music, but it just doesn't work for me to think of them as a "blues band," "country band" or a "combo."  I think Bill Graham was right when he said, "they're not the best at what they do, they're the only ones who do what they do;" however, listing them as their own musical genre would be silly and counterproductive.  JSC ltd (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I personaly think a bit more specification is needed. Psychedelic rock and folk rock were the two fields the band worked in during their career, I think these two genres should be included (rock is way to general). --~Magnolia Fen (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree, they can't be summed up in just a few genres, but on the other hand, "rock" is so general that you might as well write "arranged noises" in the genre section. I think the two genres I suggested earlier are the best way to describe the Dead's sound without excesses. --~Magnolia Fen (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre  

message: ...considered to be a masterpiece
Considered by who? You and two of your friends? Band members? A middle school girl who you met on the street? Your little brother? 
Luna
All of the above! El_C 21:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to what the article says about American Beauty?  Two references are given as footnotes — the All Music Guide review (which says "American Beauty remains the Dead's studio masterpiece....") and, secondarily, the listing as #258 in the Rolling Stone list of the greatest albums. — Mudwater 00:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it should be changed to "considered by some", I think that would make more sense. Odd though to make such a statement in a photo caption though if its not supported by the article text. Russeasby (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Problem? 

message: I removed some unsourced material. TIA --Tom 14:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: tapers section

message: Deadheads for Obama should probably be merged into this; it's not notable enough by itself. I've tagged it appropriately. Adam McMaster (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that there are two different questions here.  The original question is whether or not the Deadheads for Obama article should be merged into this one, or left as a stand-alone article.  I'd be mildly in favor of the merge, on the basis that a concert wouldn't be notable enough to have its own article unless it was some fairly historic occasion, such as Monterey Pop Festival, Woodstock Festival, and Summer Jam at Watkins Glen.  The second question that has arisen is whether or not the Deadheads for Obama concert should be mentioned in this article. I'd say definitely, because it was the only reunion in the last few years of multiple members of the Grateful Dead.  I think it would seem less political though if the second of the two sentences (the one with the quote) was deleted.  — Mudwater (Talk) 02:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon further review, I believe that "Deadheads for Obama" meets the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."  The concert received widespread coverage in the news media.  It is therefore notable, so I'd be opposed to the suggestion to merge that article into this one.  I'm planning on adding more references to that article to support this position.  If "Deadheads for Obama" is kept, then it would make even more sense to have just one sentence in the "Grateful Dead" article, briefly describing the event and with a link to the other article. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added more references to the Deadheads for Obama article.  I've also deleted the second sentence about Deadheads for Obama from this article.  That deemphasizes the politics in this article, while still mentioning the concert, which is significant in the history of the Grateful Dead.  But, I think it would be fair and appropriate to expand the Deadheads for Obama article to include more politically oriented quotes from the musicians, if anyone cares to do that.  After all, Deadheads for Obama was a political event as well as a rock concert.  I'll wait a while before removing the "suggestion to merge" tags from both articles, to allow more time for any discussion. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An anonymous editor has removed the "suggested merge" template with this edit.  So, I've also removed the template from the "Deadheads for Obama" article.  But, if anyone has any further comments on this question, please continue the discussion here. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deadheads for Obama 

message: I changed the date delineation from "1974-79" to "1975-79" because it was misleading to treat Mickey Hart as a part of the band in 1974.  One single guest appearance on stage does not make someone a part of the "lineup."  If that was the case, for example, then Bruce Hornsby would have been in the "lineup" for much more than just 1990-92. Samstein (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that Hart was in the lineup for only one concert in 1974, but it was the last concert, and starting with that appearance he was always in the band for the rest of its history.  So, he returned to the band on October 20, 1974 and was in the lineup from then on.  I would therefore say that it's more accurate to show that lineup as "1974 – 1979". — Mudwater 16:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would not say he "returned to the band" that night.  It was more like he just "dropped in."  He only played with them for roughly half the show.  And tellingly, he left the stage for a while shortly before they played Eyes of the World, which you could argue is the quintessential 1974 song.  Sounds very much like a simple guest appearance.  Additionally, they didn't start recording Blues For Allah until March 1975, so it's not like was formally back in the band, recording music with them a few weeks later or something. Samstein (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1974-1975 band lineup 

message: There is currently a new discussion about whether or not Bruce Hornsby was an official member of the Grateful Dead.  It's at Template talk:GratefulDead#bruce hornsby.  All editors are encouraged to join the discussion -- there, not here, to keep the discussion in one place. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bruce Hornsby was not an official member, part 4 

message: The article says that the dancing bear icon derives from artwork specially done for the "Bear's Choice" release.  However (and I can't provide a source here, which it's why I'm talking in the discussion page), I'm certain I've seen the same "dancing bear" artwork on contemporary (late 60s/early 70s) Warner Bros. record sleeves (Warner was the band's label in this period) for records of other artists, and consequently that the dancing bear icon both predates the 1973 release of "Bear's Choice" and has origins separate and apart from the band.  If anyone can back that up with something more solid, I think it would be a good addition.  J. G. Graubart (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See this link  on Owsleys web site. Hard to get a more solid source then from Bear himself. Russeasby (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard a different story about the origin of the dancing bear, which might not be true and which I won't repeat here.  Even though Bear of all people should know the real story, I definitely think we can include alternate theories in the article -- if, that is, we can cite reliable references for them. — Mudwater (Talk) 19:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dancing Bears - Invitation to research 

message: I don't recall them playing any reggae music  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.10.2 (talk) 05:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Crazy Fingers."  "Estimated Prophet."  "Liberty."  Check out the discussion above, under the heading "Genre," for a fuller treatment of what genres of music are included in the infobox and article, and why.  JSC ltd (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reggae?