Talk:Grateful Dead discography

message: If anyone would like to know, I am working on making this section into a table, ala what I did with Phish discography. You can see my progress so far at User:Moeron/Sandbox01 and feel free to comment at User talk:Moeron/Sandbox01. Cheers! --MOE.RON talk | done | doing 17:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reworking

message: This is one case where putting the studio albums and the live albums in separate sequences makes no sense.  The original Dead live albums, such as Live Dead, Skull & Roses, Europe '72, were just as much new releases of new material as the studio albums, and just as much as part of the Dead evolution and story.  As such, they deserve to be intermixed.   02:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't have this page watched. If you want to go to the trouble to intermix them, that is fine with me; all I would ask is to have the Dick Pick's and Digital Download Series kept seperate since they are more of a group of albums within the GD timeline. -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 03:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I went ahead and did this, and you can see which live albums I moved into the first section.  None of the DPs or DDSs qualified by my criterion, so no worry there.  However I hadn't realized that the formatting of the studio albums table has different columns than that of the live albums table, so my straight copying has produced a somewhat messed result in places.  I don't have the will to fix this all up, so if someone else does, thanks; otherwise, just revert away my changes.   Wasted Time R 02:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I fixed up the first table, IMO it looks okay now.   Wasted Time R 19:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Live albums

message: Moeron, are you sure that Bear's Choice really belongs in the "current" list?  The concert was already three years old at its time of release, and as the article says, it was sort of released as a tribute to an earlier sound of the band.  On the other hand, it did have a lot of material in it that hadn't appeared before.   Wasted Time R 19:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know you hate to hear this, but I can source some Dead books for reasoning. -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 20:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No sourcing necessary, it's arguable either way, you deciding is fine.   Wasted Time R 20:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Once again the Grateful Dead defy easy categorization.  Or any categorization.  (1) Is Bear's Choice a current or retrospective album?  To me it seems somewhat retrospective, having been released three years after it was recorded.  Maybe it should be moved to the retrospective section then, but I'd be interested in hearing more opinions about this.  (2) Infrared Roses also seems somewhat retrospective.  Is there any documentation on when the different tracks were recorded?  At least some of them were a few years old when the album was released.  (3) Anthem of the Sun is in amalgam of studio and live material mixed together.  It's more studio than live, but it is a hybrid creation.  Perhaps there should be a brief note about this in the article. (4) "Grayfolded" is a Grateful Dead album, albeit a highly unconventional one that was not produced by them.  Since it was created using all live recordings, of various ages, I think it makes sense to leave it in the retrospective live albums section.  — Mudwater (Talk) 03:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the most important question is not the provenance of particular sounds (whether they originated in a live performance) but whether, having been played in live performance, they are then issued as an essentially truthful presentation of that performance. Europe '72 is this, despite some overdubs and minor studio manipulation. Anthem and Grayfolded certainly are not; while they are reminiscent of GD performances, they are certainly not truthful presentations of them. Grayfolded is a GD (as opposed to John Oswald) album only if you deny the creative role of producers/remixers that has devloped in musical fields like dub and techno; it's something like saying that the real author of a painting is the manufacturer of the paints. FWIW, I understand Phil said it was Oswald's record, not theirs. I agree with this conception. As for Infrared Roses, yes, some of the source material may have been as much as five years old at the time of release. It's probably best to think of Roses in the same category as Anthem--a studio album which was constructed using live material, but dated according to its assembly in the studio, not the playing of component parts in earlier concerts.  Spark240 (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You've brought up some good points, but do you have any specific suggestions for changing the discography?  One idea we've discussed is whether or not to move Bear's Choice from the Current to the Retrospective section.  Also, I'd be in favor of very brief explanations in the Notes column about how Infrared Roses and Grayfolded were created.  Other than that, what?  Are you suggesting that Grayfolded be moved to the Studio and Current Live section, on the basis that it's not a live album in the normal sense of the term?  That would be one approach I guess.  As far as Infrared Roses, I do still think it's a retrospective live album.  I'm pretty sure that each of the tracks is a straight recording of parts of Drums and/or Space.  Please reply with your specific suggestions, and thanks for the discussion. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorization

message: In the RIAA column, does "Multiplatinum" mean two-or-more times platinum, or does it mean exactly two times platinum?  Normal English usage would suggest the first, but the entry for Skeletons in the Closet suggests the second.   Wasted Time R 23:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At RIAA.com here, they denote albums as Gold, Platinum, and Multi-Platinum, suggesting your first assertion. Glancing at other musical artists discographies, they seem to denote higher than platinm as 2x Platinum or 3x Platinum, ect. -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 03:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the M's for multi-platinum have numbers in parentheses after them, (2) or (3) or whatever, indicating how many times platinum.  The trick is you have to keep reading, as each certification going up in amounts is listed.   Wasted Time R 04:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no, I meant glancing at other musical artists here on Wikipedia, like Barbra Streisand discography. I know the searchable database at RIAA.com lists G, P, M(2), and M(3). -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 04:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Multiplatinum"?

message: Is Dylan & The Dead missing from the discography by accident or on purpose?   Wasted Time R 04:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a bit hairy, but from what I read, even though Garica, Culter and Charbonneau worked on the post-production it is considered a Dylan release since it was released under his Columbia Records name/contract. -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 17:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but then why is it threaded into the GD album infobox chronology?   Wasted Time R 18:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, you should fix it then. I have been to the page and touched it only once when I was blindly correcting dates. -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 18:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would vote for including D & D in both the thread and the discography, since it was really a joint tour (Dead played almost a full length), even if the album doesn't reflect that.   Wasted Time R 18:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote to make it reflected as a Dylan album because of my reasons above. Perhaps we can add it to the discography here, but it should be a Bob Dylan album and so reflected in the chronology section of the infobox and category. For a similar situation, see Crazy Horse (band) as back up to Neil Young and such albums as Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere and Greendale (album). I will see what Wikiprojects: Albums has to input. -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 18:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Situation isn't similar, for reasons given in previous response.  But not the end of the world either way :-)   Wasted Time R 19:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Because the Dylan and the Dead Tour featured two very famous acts who were co-headliners, with one headliner happening to back the other during half of the show.  Crazy Horse has always been primarily a backing band, not a top-billed act.   Wasted Time R 19:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with that, but it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 19:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead & Dylan

message: hiya, i just created a Singles discography, the information is from this website: http://tcgdd.freeyellow.com/tcgdd.html. Thank You
Doc Strange 15:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Singles Discography

message: Any particular reason why Grayfolded (a collection of a bunch of Dark Stars) is left out from the list?  I'd add it, but I'm not good enough with tables yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grayfolded
OSU871316 02:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  I just added it. -- Mudwater 02:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grayfolded 

message: The "Studio and current live albums" section was recently split into two subsections, studio and live.  I think it would be much better to go back to one combined section, with all those albums in chronological order.  As it says in the article, "More so than most bands, the Grateful Dead frequently released live albums that filled the role of conventional studio albums, in that they were recently recorded and often contained newly-written material not on any studio album. An integral part of the contemporaneous evolution of the band, such live albums are included in this section."  So, in sharp contrast to some other bands, their non-retrospective discography is much better viewed with studio and live albums combined.  Also, there is a previous discussion about this on this talk page, in the #Live albums section. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the change because while yes, live releases are an integral part of the discography of the band, there have been several occasions where I've been looking for only their studio albums, not "current" live releases.  I kept it under the same section for the purpose that it was combined for; I just split them into subsections because I thought it would make it more readable.  --Son (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was easy to tell which albums in the "Studio and current live albums" section were studio and which were live, because the live albums say "Live" in the Notes column.  The studio and live albums form a continuous time line of the band's evolution and of their recording history.  You lose this if you break it into two sections.  While this doesn't apply to many other bands, it's certainly the case for the Dead. — Mudwater (Talk) 15:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Grateful Dead's current live albums were recently recorded and included previously unreleased original material, and so filled the role of traditional studio albums.  In the table for this section, it's very easy to tell which of these albums were live albums, because they say "Live" in the Notes column.  So, I have restored this section of the discography to list these albums together rather than separately. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I've gone ahead and recombined these into one section.  But, I've kept the recently changed table formatting, which more closely follows the current suggested guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studio and current live albums 

message: An editor has created a new article called View from the Vault, and is proposing that four Grateful Dead album articles be merged into this one new article -- View from the Vault, Volume One, View from the Vault, Volume Two, View from the Vault, Volume Three, and View from the Vault, Volume Four.  Editors who are interested in articles about Grateful Dead albums are requested to comment on this proposal, at Talk:View from the Vault#Merge with constituent albums.  Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''View from the Vault'' merge proposal 

message: I think we should add Vintage Dead and Historic Dead to the discography -- either in the "Studio and contemporary live albums" section or in a new section.  (They're already listed in the "Live albums by recording date" section.)  These albums were recorded live in 1966 and were released on the Sunflower Records label, a subsidiary of MGM records, in 1970 and 1971, respectively.  I read somewhere that these are legal, non-bootleg albums, but that the band had no say in their release and didn't like them.  There are also two compilation albums that contain tracks from Vintage Dead and Historic Dead, but I'd suggest leaving those out of the discography.  It's hard to find references for all this, but for starters see http://www.deaddisc.com/GDFD_Grateful_Dead.htm#semilegal.  "P.S." I'd also be in favor of Vintage Dead and Historic Dead having their own articles. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a new section for the Sunflower albums, called "Unauthorized legal releases". — Mudwater (Talk) 16:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and created articles for the albums -- Vintage Dead and Historic Dead. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

text: You could have just created one article called "The Worst Grateful Dead Albums Ever - Two Deformed Abortions That Never Should Have Been Committed to Vinyl"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.118 (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Sunflower albums 

message: I'd like to propose the following guidelines for classifying Grateful Dead albums, for purposes of setting the "type" parameter in the infobox of album articles, and for deciding which section of the discography to put them in.  I've looked at WikiProject Albums and elsewhere, but I haven't found any clear guidelines or definitions about this.
*A box set is a collection of previously released albums, sometimes with bonus material, for example The Golden Road.  So what is or is not a box set is determined by content, not packaging.  For example, Winterland June 1977: The Complete Recordings comes in a box, but it's a live album, not a box set.
*A compilation is an album that entirely, or mostly, contains selections that were previously released, for example, What a Long Strange Trip It's Been.  Albums of songs that are "compiled" from different concerts but were not previously released are not compilations.  For example, Postcards of the Hanging is a live album.
This would mean that the only box sets are Dead Zone, The Golden Road, Beyond Description, and The Warner Bros. Studio Albums.  It would also mean that, in the discography, So Many Roads and So Many Roads Sampler should be moved from "Compilations and box sets" to the "Traditional releases" sub-section of the "Retrospective live albums" section.  If I get a chance I'm going to move those two, and also update some album article infoboxes, but either way other editors are encouraged to give their opinion here. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If something has never been defined before then a new definition is probably needed, but I don't think it's a good idea to make things up when they have already been usefully defined for decades long before Wikipedia ever arrived. A box set, as defined by the music industry and the rest of the world for some time now, is a set of recordings that comes in a box regardless of whether the recordings in question have been released before or not. The So Many Roads box set is indeed a set that comes in a box, and therefore belongs under box sets. Putting it under retrospective live albums is not accurate either, since eleven of the set's 42 tracks are studio recordings. I have moved it to the more appropriate location. Its companion sampler, which also contains a couple of studio tracks, probably does not belong strictly under retrospective live albums either, but I'll leave that for other editors. PJtP (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody's making anything up.  The definitions in my previous post are generally accepted.  Beyond that, the definitions in my previous post are also much more useful and informative to the reader.  The packaging of an album is much less important than its contents, and concept.  Is it a set of previously released albums, possibly with bonus material?  That's a box set.  So Many Roads does not qualify, so this edit should be undone.  So Many Roads is a live album, or possibly better yet, an album that's both live and studio.  Take a look at the Eat a Peach article for an example of that, the infobox says that it's a "studio album / live album".  It doesn't matter much if it comes in a box, a slipcase, several jewel cases, or a digital download.  As always, other editors are encouraged to join the discussion.  — Mudwater (Talk) 23:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box sets, compilations, and live albums 

message: Recently a number of updates were made to this discography.  As part of that some very useful material was removed.  I'm going to restore the deleted section "Live albums by recording date".  When I get a chance I'll check back and see if I think there's any other information that needs to be restored.  Note:  Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#Ignore all rules, "Every artist is different, and therefore no two discographies will be exactly the same. Therefore, if there is a reasonable justification for deviating from the above guidelines to most accurately or appropriately document an artist's body of work, then ignore all the rules and go with what's best for the article...." — Mudwater (Talk) 13:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the deleted information about the recording dates and locations of the "traditional" retrospective live albums. — Mudwater (Talk) 15:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration of deleted material 

message: The Grateful Dead table shows the 7 albums released between 1973 & 1980 as being on Warner Bros. Records; this is incorrect. Wake of the Flood, Mars Hotel, Blues for Allah & Steal Your Face were on Grateful Dead Records while the others were on Arista. The 1987-90 albums are also shown as being released by Warner Bros. when in fact they too were released by Arista (In the Dark, Built to Last & Without a Net).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.20.235 (talk) 08:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: oh, thank you for that-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes, quite right.  Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  16. 1973-80 Albums 

message: Discussion moved to Talk:Europe '72: The Complete Recordings#Europe '72 "Swinging" Singles.  Please comment there so we can have one centralized discussion.  Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Europe '72 "Swinging" Singles 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Grateful Dead discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110704041118/http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified