Talk:Grateful Dead/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4


Genre in infobox

A consensus was established 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) 00:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added a comment to the infobox in the genre section to direct future editors to the talk page about the genre. Hopefully this will help everyone to save some time in the future, and people won't have to get their changes reverted. -Addionne (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I would encourage anyone interested in this question to read the archived talk page section at Talk:Grateful Dead/Archive 1#Genre. It's only about a screen's worth of discussion but it covers the subject pretty well. To summarize: (1) The Grateful Dead had many musical influences and so there are many sub-genres of rock that could be applied to their music -- so many that it would be hard to choose just a few. (2) Their style tended to change and evolve over time. (3) Template:Infobox musical artist#Genre says to aim for generality. With that being said, I for one am open to further discussion about this. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I';d put Jam Bands and acid rock BruinsFan24 (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Band membership

In the past there were a number of discussions about who should be listed as band members in the infobox, and the consensus was not to include Bruce Hornsby, Robert Hunter, or John Perry Barlow. As part of these discussions it was also agreed to list Hornsby in the table of band lineups. If anyone wants to reopen the discussion, feel free to do so here, but first please read (without updating) the following archived discussion threads:

— Mudwater (Talk) 22:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hate to bring up this again but I still feel that Hunter should be listed as a member. The RnR hall of fame should be enough to have him listed. The band's website also clearly lists him as being in the band. Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I still think that Hunter should not be listed as a band member in the infobox. It's nice that the band officially considers him one of them, and that he got into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a band member. But, he didn't perform onstage with the Dead, so in conventional terms, that a casual reader is likely to understand, he wasn't a member of the band. And that's my understanding too -- no matter how much the musicians like you, you have to get up onstage and play music with them to be a member of a band. Of course the article itself should explain his very substantial contributions to the Dead's music. As always, the more editors who participate in this discussion, the better. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
From a band point of view, they considered him a member, so we should list him as a member. From a Wikipedia policy perspective, reliable sources (such as the R&R hall of fame and the website of the band, a primary source, but in this case reliable) describe him as a band member, so that's what we should present. Hunter was not a performer on stage with them, but without him, their story would have been far different. To be clear, this is not the same as the question about Hornsby, or even Barlow, who certainly has been very important to the band. From the beginning, Hunter was an essential element of their formula. Most importantly, the band considers him a member, and they get to say who is and is not a member, they're the band! --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
My vote would be to add Hunter but add "lyricist" after his name. This may help the casual reader to understand his role, it should also be better explained in the article. Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
If you look at Template:Infobox musical artist#Past members, it says, "Past members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names," so adding "lyricist" in parentheses would go against this guideline. The idea is that the infobox should contain an "at a glance" summary of only the most important information -- such as who was a member of the band -- with the full explanation in the article. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
OK then I would say add him without it. He would go between Pigpen and Mickey. I still feel that the band saying he was in the band and the Hall of Fame is more then enough to add him. Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The following comment was just posted in the archived talk page section Talk:Grateful Dead/Archive 1#Where are the other band members?. I am moving it here, to the current discussion. So, in this comment references to "above" are references to posts in the archived talk page section. -- Mudwater

In the final analysis, the opinions rendered by Wiki editors above are all irrelevant. Jerry Garcia, Bob Weir, and Phil Lesh all considered Robert Hunter to be a member of the Grateful Dead, even though he did not play with them on stage. This was decided long before Wikipedia even existed, and the opinions of the band in this matter are the only ones that count. There is ample documentation of the fact of Hunter's status as a member of The Grateful Dead in numerous biographical accounts of both the band and Garcia, and this fact was acknowledged by the Rock Hall of Fame, as stated above. If the Beatles said that Brian Epstein was a Beatle, and they continued to maintain that he was indeed in the Beatles long after his death, then he would have to be listed as one, even though he never played a note of music with them. They didn't, so he's only listed as their manager. To exclude Hunter (or possibly Barlow, for that matter) because his role in the band does not neatly fit some categorical definition of what constitutes being a band member as described by people who were not members of that particular band would be misleading and inaccurate, would remove the veneer of objectivity, not the other way around. If there was doubt in this case, if it was a question of sifting through ambiguous data as to whether Hunter could be a member of the band even though there was no real substantiation from other band members or other extenuating evidence, then some kind of categorical decision made by Wiki editors or any historian would have elements of subjectivity. There's no ambiguity in this case, however. The band has already stated to interviewers and biographers many times, clearly and definitively, that Hunter was the member of the band who did not perform on stage. To state otherwise is to contradict what they themselves have already stated, what is already part of the historical record. Do the Dead have to actually talk to a Wiki editor, or make the edit themselves, for their clearly stated pronouncement to be valid here? Hunter was in the Grateful Dead. Why? Because the Grateful Dead said he was. End of discussion. I am re-editing him back in as a member — if you have any interest in historical honesty, please do not revert this again.PJtP (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Although I am in fact interested in historical honesty, I respectfully disagree with your opinion. Hunter, and Barlow, should not be listed in the band member section of the Grateful Dead template, nor should they be listed as band members in the infobox for the Grateful Dead article, because that would mislead the typical Wikipedia reader into thinking that they performed on stage with the band. It's more or less true that Garcia and the others considered Hunter to be a member of the band, and it would be appropriate to mention that in the article -- it's already alluded to in the Membership section -- but to list Hunter as a member in the template or the infobox goes against the general understanding of what it means to be a member of a band, and would cause people who read the article to misunderstand the history of the band. That's why it's up to us, not the members of the Grateful Dead, to decide who is listed as a member in those two places. — Mudwater (Talk) 07:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Fer crissakes... If Bruce Hornsby deserves to be on this page then so do all the members of Jefferson Airplane, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I completely disagree. Hornsby played with the Dead on a couple of tours. That is not the same thing as a band member of another band opening for them (i.e., Jefferson Airplane) or another musician who happens to play with them on a weekend. Hornsby was with the Dead long enough to be considered a member. Otherwise, how can you distinguish Vince Welnick? Lottamiata (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
hate to beat this dead horse again but I see that Bruce is again listed. Has something changed? I also see Hunter in there but if he is to be left he is in the wrong order. I would just make the edits but I know there has been a lot of debate on this in the past and as far as I can tell it has been agreed to leave Bruce out as he never was a "member". I for now moved him to before Vince and also Hunter to before Micky as that would be the correct order if they are to stay.Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Nothing's changed. My opinion is still that Bruce Hornsby and Robert Hunter should both be left out of the infobox -- Hornsby because he was never an official member, Hunter because he never performed as a musician as part of the Grateful Dead and was therefore not a member in the conventional sense, even if the band made him a sort of honorary member. My reading of the more recent discussions on this topic is that most editors are okay with leaving Hornsby out, and some but not all are good with leaving Hunter out. I also still think that, as a sort of compromise, Hornsby should be left in the Band Lineups table, since he did sit in for most shows for a year and a half. What does everyone else think? If we can get a strong majority opinion on these two, we should go with that. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
That is what i thought. I have always agreed with you on Bruce and that is why I was surprised to see him in the infobox again, it also looks like he has been in there for a while now. I guess it slipped by everyone. I think that there was a pretty strong Consensus that Bruce should not be listed. Also Bruce and the boys have in the past publicly stated that Bruce was never an official member of the band and this is reflected in the article. As for Hunter I still feel that as odd as it is he should be listed as the Band considered him to "be in the band" and also perhaps a larger argument is the fact that he was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a member of the band (see http://dead.net/band). It would be nice to hear what others have to say on this. Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you okay with leaving Bruce Hornsby in the Band Lineups table if he's removed from the infobox? — Mudwater (Talk) 12:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Another point about all this: I definitely think that whatever's decided about the list of band members in the infobox should also be applied to the list of members in the navbox. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"Honorary" member? That's ridiculous. A band does a lot of things--for instance, one of the things a band does is write songs, one is play on stage, and one is make records. To say some of this activity is proper "band" activity and some is not is kind of arbitrary, since there isn't a clear definition of what a band is and is not that everyone in the world agrees on. If the band says he's a member and if he participates in some of their more important activities--writing songs, not to mention making band decisions, getting paid, etc.--then he is a member, not an "honorary" member but an actual member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.99.246 (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Retroactive straw poll

At the top of this talk page section are links to archived discussions about this subject. Ignoring those for now, the current talk page section goes back about 18 months. To decide who should be listed as a band member, we're trying to establish a consensus, by discussion and persuasion. We're not voting. But, I thought it would be interesting to see who said what in this section. Here's my interpretation of what's been said, and please let me know if you think I'm wrong:

  • Hunter in infobox?
    • Y: Drumzandspace2000, Jack-A-Roe, PJtP
    • N: Mudwater
  • Hornsby in infobox?
    • Y: [no one]
    • N: Drumzandspace2000, Mudwater, anonymous editor
  • Hornsby in Band Lineups table?
    • Y: Mudwater
    • N: [no one]

So based on that, it looks like Hornsby is out of the infobox (and out of the list of band members in the navbox), but he stays in the Band Lineups table. As far as Hunter goes, it's 3 – 1 for leaving him in. As much as I think Hunter should be left out, it looks like I'm the only one who feels that way, right now anyway, so I'd say we should leave him in, unless consensus changes. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

First time I've read any of this, but your conclusion is the one I came to while reading it. Rothorpe (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I think we're there. So, I just took Bruce Hornsby back out of the infobox, and back out of the members section of the navbox, and left Robert Hunter in. Thanks to everyone who has participated in this discussion. I for one would be willing to talk about this some more, but I do think we've achieved somewhat of a consensus. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Mudwater thanks for all your work on this and the page in general! Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Band Formed in Palo Alto, CA not San Francisco

There are dozens and dozens of references to this in books, magazine articles, etc. I don't have the time right now to look up any, but I will. This is also the noted by the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame, "Formed in Palo Alto, California, in 1965 from a previous incarnation as a bar band called the Warlocks, the Grateful Dead were at the epicenter of the sweeping cultural event that was San Francisco in the Sixties." http://rockhall.com/exhibits/grateful-dead/ Dogtownclown (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. I just double check in Phil Lesh's book "Searching for the Sound", as I had it handy, and it is Palo Alto. Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't have access to Lesh's book, but I cited another one, as well as The Music Box. Dogtownclown (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this is a matter of dispute, but rather one of unfortunate simplification by some authors (and WP editors) to get the point across that they were essentially a SF band. Even though I know better, I think of them forming in the Ashbury house. Learner001 (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Bruce Hornsby revisited

Lottamiata has re-added Bruce Hornsby to the list of band members in the infobox, and posted in this discussion here. As discussed above, there was a previous consensus to list Hornsby in the Band Lineups section and in the Timeline, but not in the infobox, as a compromise or middle position showing that he was "sort of" a member of the Grateful Dead. If you look at the first post above, under the #Band membership header, there are links to a number of previous discussions on this topic. So, maybe we should talk about it some more. Personally I'm open to further discussion. — Mudwater (Talk) 10:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Membership Either he was or wasn't a member. If he was, then he should be on the footer, in the infobox, listed in List of Grateful Dead band members, categorized in Category:Grateful Dead members, etc. Splitting the difference is just confusing. Why would you have separate entries for the same list multiple times in the same reference work? As for whether or not he was a member, he introduced the band when they were inaugurated into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and their site doesn't list him amongst their members. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
In the article it says he never "offically" was a member, I cant see the sources (books that I dont have), so he shouldnt be listed as a member. Listing as consensus previous makes sense, and is in-line with the phrasing in the article. Murry1975 (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Bob & Jerry Meeting

Everyone seems to have worked really hard on this article. While it will never be perfect, and it will never please everyone, I think this is one of the most well-written wikipedia articles I've seen.

OTOH, could we possibly include how Bob and Jerry met? Looks like Bobby gets shorted a little in the narrative.

That being said, VERY informative article. Jfulbright (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Timeline colors

Is there some standard for timeline colors for band memberships? And if yes, where is that documented? Or if not, I'll change the timeline colors back to the way they were before this edit. Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is none. The reason I did it is because I am trying to get the timelines to have the same colors for specific instruments/vocals so it's easier for people to read, instead of having random colors assigned to them. KyoufuNoDaiou (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
That's a reasonable goal, but trying to accomplish this yourself might not be the best approach. Other editors have changed those colors in different ways in the last year or two, so you might unintentionally be working at cross-purposes with them. If you want the colors in different timelines to be standardized across articles, perhaps you should start a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music? — Mudwater (Talk) 03:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Done, thanks! We'll see how it goes. KyoufuNoDaiou (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be no general agreement about this, and not much discussion in general, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music/Archive_5#Standardized Timeline Colors. So, I'm planning on changing the colors back for this article's timeline, in the near future. The colors chosen by KyoufuNoDaiou are not bad, but I think the previous color scheme was a bit easier to distinguish, and slightly more attractive too. As always, other editors are encouraged to give their opinions. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Recently the timeline colors were changed yet again. Since there's no agreement within WikiProject Rock Music, or anywhere else, on standardized colors for band timelines, I'm going ahead now and changing this article's timeline colors back to the way they've been for at lest the last few years. — Mudwater (Talk) 19:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a new discussion about standardizing timeline colors, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music#Band member timeline standards. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The color scheme that's being proposed now is the same one that was proposed a year ago, although there's disagreement about some of the details. As someone pointed out at the new discussion, a lot of articles about rock bands already use these colors, although some don't. So it seems that there's already an unofficial standard that's often followed. Based on that I'm now thinking that this article should use those colors too. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion has stalled out somewhat for the moment, but I've gone ahead and changed the timeline colors to the commonly used ones, with this edit. As always other editors are encouraged to share their opinions. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I approve! I've worked on some other timelines with this scheme too, most of them are pretty close already. Anyway, one other suggestion I may make is adding the thinner bars on this timeline to indicate lead vocalists (in addition to their other duties). I really don't know enough about this band to know where to begin. Have a grate day! — DLManiac (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Vertical lines for Studio album releases would also be helpful. —DLManiac (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I know some other band timelines have those, but I don't think it would be a big plus for the Grateful Dead. They were a lot less studio-album-oriented than most other bands. — Mudwater (Talk) 20:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, you know more than me! What about the vocals? I think those are pretty important. — DLManiac (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
You mean using multicolor bars to distinguish, for example, someone who plays keyboards and sings, versus someone who plays keyboards and doesn't sing, right? It looks like some of the band articles currently do that and some don't. I'd prefer not to do that here, or even in the other articles (as I mentioned in the WikiProject discussion, here). I like the simpler and bolder colors for the instruments, without the banding, especially for the Grateful Dead. It's quite striking how some of the band members were in the group the whole time, or almost the whole time, while there were different "eras" for the keyboard players, and the current color scheme makes that easier to see, I think. — Mudwater (Talk) 09:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's a new discussion on this topic:

Archived discussions:

— Mudwater (Talk) 07:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

An anonymous editor has changed the timeline, to (1) include a red band inside the main color bar to indicate musicians who also sang, (2) distinguish between lead guitar and rhythm guitar, and (3) indicate, with vertical lines, when studio albums were recorded. Here are before and after views of the change. Personally I prefer the "before" view for esthetic reasons, but the "after" view does contain more information. I've seen both of these color scheme variations in different band articles, though the "after" is probably more common. For now I'm going to leave it the way it is. As always other editors are invited to comment here. — Mudwater (Talk) 10:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

List of all concerts

I would like to to see a list of all GD concerts in chronological order, yes there are over 2000, so what? What is wrong with listing all of them? Constructive ideas on this topic are welcome.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.67.228 (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Adding a list of all the concerts would make the article too long. There are guidelines for how to improve a Wikipedia article, and how big an article should be, and because the Grateful Dead played so many concerts, this really isn't the best place to list them. As you may know, there are whole books dedicated to listing Dead concerts and the songs that were played. There are also several websites that contain that info in searchable form, including these:
So, while a list of all Grateful Dead concerts is in itself very interesting and worthwhile, I really don't think this article is the right place for it. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe list should be a separate article.....if venues are listed first, perhaps in its own article, followed by a list of play dates, it will be compact...also venues can be referenced to exsisting wikipedia pages... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.67.228 (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

  • One could do multiple lists, by blocks of years, for example. We have massive lists which are broken down any number of ways, including alphabetically. Look at List of states in the Holy Roman Empire. There were 1800 of those, and Wikipedia has them broken down into a bunch of different pages, alphabetically. Perhaps a chronological list of concerts, by year, or decade, or something like that. --Jayron32 19:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Discography

Recently there's been some back and forth about which albums to list in the Discography section of the article. In my opinion the list that was added two years ago, here, is still the best choice. It lists the "studio and contemporary live albums" from the Grateful Dead discography article. These are the "mainline" albums released while the band was together. And of course, the Discography section starts with a link to the main GD discography article, where readers can see the detailed list of all the albums. This is similar to what's been done in some other band articles -- see for example The Beatles#Discography, The Rolling Stones#Discography, and The Who#Discography. There's about 150 Grateful Dead albums, and it would take up too much space to list them all in the Discography section of this article (even if the Dick's Picks, Road Trips, and Dave's Picks articles are listed with one entry for each series -- and that's not a great idea anyway, because it's best not to link from articles to categories). Some of the Dick's Picks and other retrospective live albums were released while the band was still together, but they're not part of the short list or the "core canon" -- even though those are some of my favorite Dead albums! So, let's put the list back the way it was, with those 22 or so albums. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The Deadhead fan base is far more meticulous in cataloging, though. People sincerely interested aren't just buying the main hit albums like one would with the Stones and the Beatles. This is the band that played more live shows than any other band in history, and the interests of the fan base, the following of the surviving members' new bands and numerous cover bands, and the fact that new albums are constantly being released, like Dave's Picks 12 announced for a November 1st release, reflects the need to catalog a more comprehensive discography than a studio band would call for. Aequitas333 (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
@Aequitas333: You're right, of course, but that's what the main discography article is for. And there's some value to readers in having the different band articles -- Grateful Dead, Beatles, Rolling Stones, Who, etc. -- be consistent with each other in how they present this information. — Mudwater (Talk) 05:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
@Mudwater: In my opinion, creating some kind of uniformity on these radically different bands seems disingenuous to what each stand for or do. This is an article specifically on the Grateful Dead, not the Dead in relation to the Doors, or whomever. I think that it would be a disservice to water down something like this. But as always, I'm open to discussion. Regards, Aequitas333 (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm hoping that other editors will also comment on this question. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The mainline list looks good to me. Discographies are best tailored to the particular band. Wikipedia doesn't have too much uniformity, and that's not such a bad thing. Rothorpe (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia has a separate article for a reason; we don't have to duplicate the entirety of the discography article here. The discography in THIS article should be confined to the official, original albums released while the band was active. Other albums and releases (including compilations, bootlegs, and retrospectives released after they ceased to be) can be put in the comprehensive discography article. We have to have some sort of bright line to make a distinction between stuff we put in the discography article, versus stuff we put in the main band article, and unless we have that line, it becomes "whatever one person thinks is important enough". The most logical line is official, original, active releases. The other stuff can exist at Wikipedia, no one is saying we pretend they don't exist. But insofar as this article shouldn't duplicate other articles, we should have a reasonable criteria. Mudwater's notion of "core canon" is the way to go. --Jayron32 02:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@BruinsFan24: Hello. Here's the previous discussion about which albums to include in the Discography section of the article. Please read through it, and feel free to post here, to continue the discussion. For now I've taken Europe '72 Volume 2 back out, based on what was said above. But I'm open to talking about it further here. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually I haven't taken it back out again at the moment, but I think it should be taken back out. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedians who will be going to Chicago for the 50th shows

Anyone interested in meeting up?

  • Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon (7/3-7/5) (Mail order magic winner for the reserved seats). I'm one lucky sonofabitch. (Also scored Merriweather for the Jerry Tribute)
  • Can't make it, crippled, but free. Right on for the boys kicking down to the masses with these shows. North America1000 15:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

2015 reunion concerts: Grateful Dead?

Of course this article should discuss the planned 2015 reunion concerts. But, will the band that will be performing at those three shows be the Grateful Dead? After Jerry Garcia died in 1995, the Grateful Dead disbanded. Since then two, three, or even four former members of the Grateful Dead have performed together -- as the Other Ones, the Dead, and Furthur -- but not as the Grateful Dead. This seems to be another reunion of four former members of the Grateful Dead, and not officially of the band itself. If the members of the reunion band called themselves the Grateful Dead, then they would be the Grateful Dead, end of discussion. But as far as I can tell that hasn't happened. Looking at the publicity materials at http://www.dead50.net/ it says "Grateful Dead" in big letters, with the concert location and dates, but reading the whole thing it says "Fare thee well: celebrating 50 years of Grateful Dead, 1965 - 2015". And reading the text, nowhere does it actually say that the band called the Grateful Dead is getting back together. On the contrary, it refers to "the last-ever Grateful Dead concert" in 1995. So, if this band is not the Grateful Dead, the article should be adjusted accordingly. For example, "years active" in the infobox should be changed back from "1965-1995, 2015" to "1965-1995". I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, and I think it's great that these concerts are happening, but I wanted to open this question to discussion. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I was wondering about this too, and agree that we should remove 1995 until we get more information. The Wookieepedian (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
@The Wookieepedian: Do you mean we should remove 2015? — Mudwater (Talk) 04:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Oops! Yes, that's what I meant. The Wookieepedian (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
@Mudwater: "will the band that will be performing at those three shows be the Grateful Dead?" Yes. "This seems to be another reunion of four former members of the Grateful Dead, and not officially of the band itself." What? How can you possibly get that impression...? "reading the text, nowhere does it actually say that the band called the Grateful Dead is getting back together." From the site that you referenced: The performers are the Grateful Dead. The FAQ states that these are "the final concerts this band will ever perform together". Also, there are multiple sources which state this, such as this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
@Koavf: The Grateful Dead disbanded after Jerry Garcia died, and subsequently up to four of them performed together, but not as the Grateful Dead, therefore it's not true that "the performers are the Grateful Dead". That's unless they say that they are, which would be good enough for me, but if you look carefully at what the musicians have actually said, and at what's posted on their official websites, they haven't said that this band will be the Grateful Dead. In fact it seems as if they're deliberately avoiding saying that. See my previous post for more on this. It is true that there are multiple sources which state that the Grateful Dead are getting back together, but in my view they are wrong because they are missing these subtle but important points. — Mudwater (Talk) 17:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I am hoping that other editors will join the discussion and post their opinions on this question. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I would not personally consider it to be a year active as a band, it's an event they will take part in, but I don't think it warrants being considered a year in which the group was active. I'm not completely certain of the criteria for years placed under "years active", so then again I could be mistaken.SecretName101 (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Excuse my exuberance, having just got back from dropping a mail order Iffy at the post. I would note that dead50.net, and virtually every very RS is billing this performance as the Grateful Dead. Lots of bands continue under the same name after losing a key member. That the GD chose to call themselves D during their Obama run makes little difference. I need a miracle, just for 3 nights.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 01:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
@Two kinds of pork: Thanks for the feedback, but, please review my first post in this section, where I explain why I think that dead50.net is not billing this performance as the Grateful Dead, and then look at dead50.net again, with new eyes as it were. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I self-reverted because I didn't realize you were discussing this. After reading the dead50 announcement again, I see your point. But there is wiggle room either way you want to parse it. In lieu of some published sources making a clarification about the name, the RS are using GD almost exclusively. I'd be curious as to what the Dead Press say about the matter. Speaking of which, [fellow named Dennis McNally] would be a person to contact if anyone had the notion. That was from a quick google search. I do think we need. I do think we could incorporate the reunion, and the timeline of the band a bit better via the lead. The lead could use some reworking. Besides being too long, it doesn't inform the reader quickly enough. The first sentence should say something like "The GD was a band, formed by X,Y,Z in 196X and toured heavily for 30 years until the death of Jerry Garcia. The band was influential because X, Y, Z (one of which should be their fan-base, and another the magnitude of their touring work). After the death of Garcia the surviving members continued to perform in other projects and sometimes collaborated with each other. For their 50th anniversary the surviving members have scheduled a reunion in Chicago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs) 02:26, 21 January 2015‎ (UTC)

So all of the mainstream sources are still calling this a Grateful Dead reunion, while the more reliable (IMO) sources in the music industry, notably the jam band sources are calling this a tribute show. What do you think about something like "The Grateful Dead will reunite with the surviving members along with "Phish Guy" (god bless you Fox News for that headline), Jeff C, Bruce Hornsby (etc), however the promoters have stated these shows are a celebration of the Dead's 50th anniversary and will be the last time the core four will perform together." I'd also think it would be interesting to indicate notable subjects who have speculated about attending. Unless he dies, there is 110% Bill Walton will be there, Patrick Leahy expressed interest, Ann Coulter and others. I'm just kind of rambling here, but do we have a specific article for Fare Thee Well and related shows? Seems outside the realm of the reunion articles considering the intense press coverage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs) 03:46, 16 March 2015‎ (UTC)

Technically this is not the Grateful Dead. Mainstream media is claiming it is for 2 reasons. 1: it's easier and 2: they don't know what they are talking about. On the ticketmaster site the shows were appearing as "The Grateful Dead" but on the tickets themselves and all official statements about the shows it says "Fare Thee Well: Celebrating 50 Years of the Grateful Dead." This is very similar to the event in 2002 billed as "Terrapin Station: A Grateful Dead Family Reunion." This band officially has no name and in one article Bob Weir specifically said that the band is not the Grateful Dead.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sk8punk3d288 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Sk8punk3d288: As I posted above, I think so too. By the way, do you have a link to the article where Weir said that they're not the Grateful Dead? — Mudwater (Talk) 11:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

So, yeah. The Fare Thee Well concerts were not the Grateful Dead, despite many so-called reliable sources saying that they were. As I and others have explained in this talk page section, the band members didn't call themselves the Grateful Dead for these shows, having retired the name when they disbanded in 1995. The tickets and promotional materials said Fare Thee Well: Celebrating 50 Years of the Grateful Dead. That has the words "Grateful Dead", in big letters, but the band and promoters never said that these were Grateful Dead concerts, just that they were celebrating the Grateful Dead, for their 50-year anniversary. So, I'm going to go ahead and take "2015" out of the "years active" in the infobox. As always other editors are encouraged to contribute to this discussion. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the years in the infobox should be consistent with the entries in the Band lineups section. And with this recent edit, the Fare Thee Well lineup was removed from that section. So I'm going to go ahead and take 2015 out of the infobox again. In my view there's not a consensus either way in this talk page section, but like I said let's at least be consistent. (But let's for sure leave Fare Thee Well out of the Timeline, for reasons discussed in the section below.) — Mudwater (Talk) 22:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with removing 2015 if they weren't using the name. No Jerry, no Grateful. Rothorpe (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

We're still getting some edits back and forth, with "2015" being added to or removed from "years active" in the infobox. I have my own opinion on this -- see above -- but beyond that I'm still not seeing a consensus on this question. I'm wondering if we can get to some state of semi-agreement on this. All editors are encouraged to give their opinions, again or for the first time. I'm also going to ping some editors who I've noticed have been more active on GD related articles recently: @Hell in a Bucket, Rothorpe, Sk8punk3d288, Northamerica1000, Tangverse, TraxPlayer, and Ritchie333: — Mudwater (Talk) 12:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I would have personally considered that a "Grateful Dead" show. The Grateful Dead had many many different members, Jerry while responsible for a large a mount of their success wasn't the "Grateful Dead". I would also suggest there is precedence for this as this using the Beach Boys 50th tour and they were lacking two of the Wilson brothers. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Will we be getting some new recordings (a studio album, even?) over the next months/years, billed as by the "Grateful Dead"? I doubt it and I think posterity will count this as another reunion, but only time will tell. For now, I wouldn't update any timelines. Rothorpe (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense. The Dead's last studio album was done in 1989 and I believe Vince Welnick joined after, by the reasoning a studio album is what counts the Grateful Dead ended in 1989. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The majority of folks agree that Fare Thee Well was not Grateful Dead. Why does 2015 keep being added to the years active? Check you ticket stubs please. A stub has not said Grateful Dead since 1995.

The surviving members have always been careful not to call any incarnation of the band Grateful Dead out of respect for Jerry. Let's do the same here please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.107.10 (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Source it or remove it. I can provide any number of sources calloing this a Grateful Dead performance. I wonder if you have any sourcing to show that it wasn't other then a ticket stub? I can show a quote from Billy [[1]] which states " Kreutzmann says the Fare Three Well shows are meant as a final testament by the original band itself. “Fans deserve to hear great music again and this is the last opportunity for them to do it, plus I still like making music with these guys,” Kreutzmann says. “We’re not a cover band. We are the band.” So you appear to be wrong. Or again here The Grateful Dead lived an incredible musical story and now we get to write a whole new chapter.” He added: “By celebrating our 50th, we get to cheer our past, but this isn’t just about history. The Grateful Dead always played improvisational music that was born in the moment and we plan on doing the same this round. Which is also followed by "Lesh added: “It is with respect and gratitude that we reconvene the Dead one last time to celebrate – not merely the band’s legacy, but also the community that we’ve been playing to, and with, for 50 years.” Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Some sources support yea, some nay. The band (as in promoters, et al.) hedged bets likewise, undoubtedly to maximize appeal (some stubs DO say Grateful Dead, as will the upcoming album/DVD covers). Looks like consensus IS reached: to create an asterisk section, à la baseball stats, and explain just that.Tangverse (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Timeline span

I would like to propose that the Fare Thee Well concerts not be added to the Timeline. That's a graphical representation of the history of the band, which spans the thirty years of 1965 to 1995, and, according to many people (but see the talk section above) also includes about two weeks in June to July 1995. It would needlessly detract from the graphics to include those two weeks, so let's restrict the timeline to the thirty year span. Meanwhile, the Fare Thee Well shows could still be (and currently are) included in the Band lineups, and 2015 could still be (and currently is) included in the infobox, if that's what most editors think is appropriate. As always other editors are encouraged to give their opinions here. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I totally missed this discussion, but here is the topic I posted after this, and my feelings on it: With their 5 shows, billed definitively as "The Grateful Dead", would this not make them active in 2015? I know there was all kinds of contention among fans, and whether or not it was really GD without Jerry, but with the band claiming this was in fact "The Grateful Dead", I think adding 2015 as an active year, with "The Fare Thee Well performances [being] released Nov. 20 in a variety of formats, including 12 CDs and seven DVDs or Blu-ray discs".

I certainly think that qualifies 2015 as an active year, but I, too, would like to see more input Aequitas333 (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

As an addendum, tickets sold said Grateful Dead on them, and post-run media overwhelmingly referred to then as Grateful Dead shows. I agree, the original experience ended in '95, but with the band itself billed as "The Grateful Dead" I think that counts Aequitas333 (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the multiple posts, but even Rhinos records, releasing the shows, lists the band as the Grateful Dead. Source: http://media.rhino.com/press-release/fare-thee-well-celebrating-50-years-grateful-dead Aequitas333 (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Aequitas333: As I said in the first post in this section, I'd like to break this down into two questions: (1) Were the Fare Thee Well concerts officially the Grateful Dead? The main discussion about this is in the #2015 reunion concerts: Grateful Dead? section above, so please read through that. My own opinion, expressed there, is that the band did *not* bill itself as the Grateful Dead, and they weren't the Grateful Dead. But most of the media coverage said they were the GD, and some editors have stated that for Wikipedia that's important. I'd be willing to go along with a consensus on this, but I'm not really seeing one. (2) No matter what's decided, I think it would be better not to expand the time line beyond 1995, for reasons I explained in this section (Timeline span). — Mudwater (Talk) 05:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I for one know there was a huge branding difference in this tour as The Grateful Dead" vs The Dead". I think think it was pointed out Trey was a guest and not a member. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I had read through it, and as, a few pointed out, much more information would be available post shows. With not only media billing them as such, there was merchandise, tickets saying "Grateful Dead", and the November releases by Rhinos Records (Who had previously released Grateful Dead records) under the name Grateful Dead, and that the shows were under the auspices of the Grateful Dead performing one last time for the 50th, would qualify this as a Grateful Dead activity. Every other associated act used a definitive other band name, (Furthur, The Other Ones,) even getting as close to using the name "Grateful Dead" as going by "The Dead". I feel as if GD50 and Fare Thee Well are event names, not a dodge from calling themselves the GD.

As for Trey, the GD often performed with guests so I wouldn't list this as a detraction from their indeed being "The Grateful Dead". With the massive fanfare of the event, involvement in the GD mail order ticket service GDTSTOO, and the supposed finality of if all, as the very implied "This is the end for the GD", I think that this is more than notable enough to add in to the main body as active. Once again, this is just my stance, and although I stand firm in this belief, let's of course let the editorial masses converse and decide. Also, Peter Shapiro, and even Trixie Garcia have hinted at further *something*, so there may be more information forthcoming in this discussion. Looking forward to more thoughts! Peace Aequitas333 (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Year active: 2015?

I see an edit regarding them being active in 2015 being rolled back. With their 5 shows, billed definitively as "The Grateful Dead", would this not make them active in 2015? I know there was all kinds of contention among fans, and whether or not it was really GD without Jerry, but with the band claiming this was in fact "The Grateful Dead", I think adding 2015 as an active year, with "The Fare Thee Well performances [being] released Nov. 20 in a variety of formats, including 12 CDs and seven DVDs or Blu-ray discs". Does anyone object to me adding 2015 back to the years active? Aequitas333 (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Disregard this, topic already under discussion Aequitas333 (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Associated acts

What bands or musicians should be listed in the infobox as associated acts? The guidelines for this can be seen at Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts. Looking at the current version of the infobox, almost all of the associated acts are bands that had (or have) one or more members of the Grateful Dead as full-time members. The only exceptions are Bruce Hornsby, Bob Dylan, and Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, the last of which was added quite recently. Hornsby sat in on so many concerts in the early nineties that some people consider him to be a member of the band. Dylan's probably appropriate too, since the Dead did a concert tour with him, and released a live album of the tour. But I would argue that Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young are "not associated enough" to be in the infobox. Members of the Dead did contribute to a couple of their albums, but that's a lot less of an association than anything else in the infobox. What does anyone else think about this? — Mudwater (Talk) 02:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Unlike Dylan, Hornsby etc, I was surprised to see CSN&Y there. Rothorpe (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Title of article needs definite article

The title of this article needs the definite article "The.." to come before the band's name as per Wiki guidelines. The namesake of the group was "the Grateful Dead" and should be presented as such. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The guidelines, at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Names (definite article), say "An authoritative source will determine whether the word "the" is part of a band's name. For example, it should be included in the case of the Velvet Underground, but not in that of Black Sabbath." For the Grateful Dead, the "the" is not part of the band's name. You can see that by looking at any of their album covers, which say "Grateful Dead", not "The Grateful Dead". A similarly named band is the Eagles, where the "the" is also not part of the band's name. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Good point, just checking to make sure. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The Grateful Dead "was", why isn't it 'were'?

The Grateful Dead were a great band, the Grateful Dead was a great band.

Am I interpreting this wrong and did I unknowingly miss some basic grammar classes during school?

Was... were... was... were... was... were?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaostao (talk • contribs) 15:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Zaostao: The answer is at Comparison of American and British English#Formal and notional agreement. Basically, in American English you'd be more likely to say that the Grateful Dead was a great band, and in British English you'd be more likely to say that they were a great band. It's also related to whether you're talking about the band as a singular entity, or the members of the band. I can't find this in the Wikipedia Manual of Style at the moment, but since it was / they were an American band, the article should tend more towards using American English. So, Creedence Clearwater Revival "was an American rock band active in the late 1960s and early 1970s", but Led Zepplin "were an English rock band formed in London in 1968". — Mudwater (Talk) 23:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
@Mudwater: Oh okay, thanks for explaining, I didn't know about this and was (were?:D) wracking my brain trying to think of why it sounded so strange, doesn't it sound strange to American readers once they learn of the Anglican alternative though? Or does "Joy Division were..." instead of was sound strange to you? Sorry if this is off-topic and feel free not to reply as you've already answered my question. Zaostao (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
@Zaostao: I think it's different for different people. But I believe "the Grateful Dead was a great band" sounds pretty natural to most Americans. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Associated Acts - sorted

I sorted the associated acts section as follows:

First, The Other Ones / The Dead / Futher / Dead and Company, by order of formation. I think it makes sense to put these first, since they have a bulk of band members in them.

Second, the bands with one or more GD band member (BK3, Ratdog, Legion of Mary, etc), sorted by year of formation.

Finally, Dylan and Hornsby. Here are the numbers I used, which I realize may not be perfect.

1998 *The Other Ones 2003 *The Dead 2009 *Furthur 2015 *Dead & Company 1969 *New Riders of the Purple Sage 1972 *The Tubes 1973 *Kingfish 1973 *Old and in the Way 1974 *Legion of Mary 1975 *Jerry Garcia Band 1978 *Reconstruction 1980 *Bobby and the Midnites 1980 *Heart of Gold Band 1986 *Go Ahead 1987 *Jerry Garcia Acoustic Band 1995 *RatDog 1996 *Missing Man Formation 1999 *Phil Lesh and Friends 2006 *Rhythm Devils 2007 *Donna Jean Godchaux Band 2008 *BK3 2009 *7 Walkers 2014 *Billy & the Kids 1959 *Bob Dylan 1974 *Bruce Hornsby

Brianga (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

My initial reaction is that this seems fine. In fact it's probably an improvement over the previous order, which was this: (1) Other Ones / Dead / Further / Dead & Co. (like now) (2) "main" spinoff bands of each member (Garcia, Weir, Lesh, Kreutzmann / Hart, D. Godchaux, Welnick), (3) additional spinoff bands of each member, (4) Hornsby and Dylan (actually this last part was not quite right). — Mudwater (Talk) 21:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grateful Dead. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grateful_Dead/Archive_3&oldid=1077783609"