Why do punk rockers tend to hate the Grateful Dead

Courtney Love's father is Hank Harrison who briefly managed the Grateful Dead in their early days. I don't think she has the best relationship with her father, which might have something to do with Kurt's shirt.

 

Boy- talk about twisting words!
As far as what I highlighted in bold type, I never said that.

I also don't turn people onto other music for approval. I do it in case they might be open enough to check it out.
That's how I spread music around. if you or other more territorial punk fans don't, that's fine.
I've had many friends into punk that got me into the music. What can ya do?

 

At least you gave it a shot.

 

Well, I don't know about twisting your words. After all, you the one that said that you "actually try to understand different styles of music and bands.", which basically insinuates that punk rockers are incapable of doing that as well. I'm not trying to persecute you, but at the same time it's almost as if you have it out for an entire sub genre of rock n roll fans, stereotyping them all into one convenient package. It'd be one thing if you were comparing Dead fans to Ramones fans or Sex Pistols fans, or Black Flag fans, or what have you, but you're going the full gamut. It's an extremely lop sided argument.

It's one thing to recommend bands to people that genuinely express an interest in the subject, but when they dont and you keep pushing? That's not being helpful, that's proselytization.

 

I guess my posts are vague.

I don't KEEP PUSHING! Jeez! I'm not FORCING anything! You seem to see it that way. I even said that if you aren't open to something, then that's it.
YOU'RE insinuating that I said punk rockers are incapable of sharing music. Well, according to you, SOME are.
I try to NEVER run the gamut or put down an entire genre. That's putting people in boxes.

 

ANARCHY

 

I am not surprised that you don't get my point, or that you think it is others who are in ignorance.

 

Footwear.

 

Your not speaking for all "punk rockers" I know that. I would imagine though some "punk rockers" are turned off by the dead scene. Again not speaking for all but some crowds don't tend to mix.

 

"rather bland" ? Never would I describe the Dead as rather bland.

 

Thought it had to do with their jamming and covering things like Franklin's Tower which is now an extra on the cd of their first lp. Would have thought that listening to Up On THe Sun might show some indication of linkage between the 2 too.

Combination of bluegrass, jazz and seeming open-endedness that was there from early on plus the array of non-punk covers that are al over their live sets indicates something other than straight punk too.

 

(It)s'all good, man.

 

This is a drawing by J. Garcia entitled "Punk Dude", circa 1991.



Think about it, man, think about it! Do you understand what's happening here? Do you? In this thread? Do I have to point it out, when it's as plain as the nose on your face? Huh?

(Just screwing with you.)

 

Um, finally the punk rockers are taking acid?

 

most likely because, apart from being the most tediously insipid band ever, they represent(ed) all of the most egregious excesses of "rock" music.

 

I was trying to remember when the Dead went out under the Formerly The Warlocks moniker to try to get away from a following that seemed to be more into the trappings, drugs, sex whatever of the shows rather than the music. I think it might have been closer to 1990 than 1980, was going to comment on this last night as the Dead didn't seem to like the Deadheads at the time but realised I was a bit out chronologically.
I think the Dead were hitting towns, having the near festival set up in the parking lot which was causing a lotof damage and then tehy were getting hit with the bills for it which they then tried to separate themselves from. Especially since it seemed that the damage was being caused by people not really into the band, just this attraction that was cropping up wherever they happened to be playing.

 

Why do punk rockers tend to not know Wayne Coyne?

 

I think most people tend to hate Wayne Coyne and not without good reason

 

I have no opinion on Wayne Coyne, as I am unfamiliar with the vast majority of his oeuvre.

 

And that's exactly right. By the time punk arrived on the scene, The Dead, Pink Floyd, etc. were sacred. And the principle of anarchy is to destroy all things sacred, and rebuild. It's been my experience that it isn't very effective as a philosophy, but it does sound appealing, and has a cool logo. Many angry individuals are very good at tearing things down, but soon tire of any effort to rebuild and move on to other things, usually abandoning the rubble they've they've left with a certain sense of apathy.

A more charitable explanation would be that punk has certain things in common with dadaism, one of which is to de-glorify the artist as the great creator of all things, and bring them down to a more human level.

Really though, I guess I believe punk tends to attack what it can, because it can. The principle is to be angry prophets denouncing the hypocrisies of our times on some instinctive level... like having a gut reaction towards a certain artist or convention, and calling it out. That's what it's supposed to accomplish, at least. Sometimes it hits the mark, other times it's like a missile looking for a target, and not finding one.

Or it could just be for kicks.

 

it's not as black and white as you'd like it to be. bands like The Who were also sacred yet revered by plenty of punk musicians (e.g. The Sex Pistols, The Ramones). Floyd and The Dead were hated because they were seen as existing purely within a bloated aesthetic that came to symbolize everything punks thought was wrong with contemporary music. The Who, who by the mid-70s were every bit as bloated, had a ton of credibility from their early days. Folks like The Grateful Dead never had any.

 

Because punk bands are not jam bands.

 

Calm down. We're just talking here.

Perhaps your points would get across better if you'd refrain from using loaded negative terms with regards to a group you clearly don't consider yourself a part of. It isn't being "territorial" or being "incapable of sharing music", it's being respectful to people that likely don't want to have that conversation. It may not be your intention, and I'm sure it isn't, but if I can be frank your word choices do sound from time to time to be a tad bit condescending.

 

Hey that punk is going to pick that hippies pocket! No harm because there won't be anything in it! It makes sense to me that it would be rare to find people who like eating both chalk and cheese.

 

In the UK, punk began around 76 led by the likes of the Pistols, the Clash and the Damned. It was a movement, a fashion, and a style of music. It was basically anti-establishment, and in part a protest about rising youth unemployment and lack of job prospects. The punk groups disliked what they saw as tired old corporate rock, whether it was the Grateful Dead, stadium filling AOR bands, or even legends like the Stones (maybe less so the Who). Punk went through various incarnations over here and mutated into new wave and then even into glam rock and the new romantics. Lots of the bands couldn't play, some could, some stayed wedded to punk, others like the Clash drew on other influences like reggae and rockabilly for their seminal London Calling. Like it or not punk provided a much needed shot in the arm for the industry, and led to serious competition in the gigging and record contract markets, with bands like Elvis Costello, Dire Straits, Ian Dury, the Jam, Pretenders, Police and (from a group) Billy Idol, coming through. I saw many of them in the London pubs, good and bad, mostly just taking a chance and not knowing whether they would be strong or not beforehand. Looking back, there is a good case, in my view, for 77 and 79 to be ranked among the five best years for rock ever.
NB. There are reports that Joe Strummer of the Clash went to see the Dead in 82, and even that he liked them ! 5 or 6 years is a long time in rock n roll...