tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195590583641426943.post7349090507226845181..comments2024-03-26T23:10:34.814-07:00Comments on Grateful Dead Sources: Looking Back at the Dead: England 1974Light Into Asheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06943335142002007213noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5195590583641426943.post-35174696839682847502022-02-04T13:01:54.615-08:002022-02-04T13:01:54.615-08:00Two contrasting articles from the New Musical Expr...Two contrasting articles from the New Musical Express in 1974 (prior to the Dead's visit), summarizing the Dead's career. Nick Kent has a very dyspeptic view; Mick Farren is gently positive. (Farren's article seems to be a reply to Kent's, a "hippie appeasement page" perhaps prompted by upset reader feedback.) But they share some points in common, both feeling that the golden sixties have long since receded and the Dead are "last year's thing," still awkwardly hanging around & getting old. <br /><br />It's worth mentioning that as recently as 1972, Kent had actually been a big Dead fan, praising them in various articles, calling Live Dead "near to the feel of free jazz." For instance, his review of the Bickershaw Festival show: <br />"When Garcia and chums took the stage, the whole thing became a real festival. Everything was together and the Dead played for five hours, maybe more. Fireworks exploded, freaks danced and the band went through every change conceivable. A beautiful 'Dark Star' and a sizzling Pigpen workout on 'Good Lovin'' might be considered standouts but really it was all music flowing like a river." <br />Various Nick Kent quotes on the Dead here: <br />http://deadsources.blogspot.com/2014/09/may-5-7-1972-bickershaw-festival.html <br /><br />But, two years later, all that's embarrassing and old-hat, and he seems to be writing with extra spite, "pouring scorn" on his own earlier idealism. Who believed all that cosmic nonsense anyway? Live Dead's just a murky antique now, acid muzak! Although he still praises their 1970 albums, their records since then have gotten increasingly worse, their live shows are a snooze, and their new work just "depressing." Clearly a band that's outlived its time and can't even offer the old nostalgic charm anymore (and weren't even good back then). <br /><br />Mick Farren has a more balanced view of the Dead's progress, acknowledging that they're not the same anymore and times have changed. But even though Wake of the Flood was "badly received" and the Dead have gone "out of favour," he likes Mars Hotel as a work of relaxed maturity. (Rock for adults, if you will.) The Dead have changed direction, but (perhaps a little dig at Kent) "their erstwhile supporters neither understood the change nor welcomed it." <br /><br />Kent focuses more on the music, the sixties idealism and the old "acid curio" albums. Farren looks more at the Dead's place in society and how they've dealt with the changing culture.<br />For all their differences, it's interesting to see the opinions they share. Both consider the Europe '72 album a big mistake, a "major miscalculation" that turned the bored public & critics against the Dead. (Weir's Ace, on the other hand, is all right.) Sometimes it's just a difference in perspective: for Kent their recent work is "funereal" & miserable, for Farren it's "front porch relaxation." The lack of urgency on the newer albums sounds "tedious & weary" to Kent, but to Farren it's the mellowness of growing up. <br />Kent: "The Dead always had a loose, tired feel...they never could rock out too well." <br />Farren: "Even at their funkiest they still managed to retain a trace of contemplative reserve."Light Into Asheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06943335142002007213noreply@blogger.com