I was mulling that over since bzfgt was talking about it yesterday, that Garcia was a better guitarist, especially a pure soloist in the 80s vs. earlier. What I had thought of was something like he expanded his breadth after the mid 70s, but not his depth, which is kind of another way of saying 'more sophisticated, less adventuresome.' Like he has a larger palette of sounds in the 80s, but pre-hiatus you had the breaking of form whereas post hiatus its more variation of standard forms. Partly this has to do with how the band overall was playing, how they gelled after Brent got there, etc. I have no hatred for Brent, I just don't think he was musically as adept and creative as Keith in his prime. I also see that tendency in his solo work, where you see a kind of 'electric jazz combo plays rock standards' with Merle Saunders/LOM and more experimental stuff with Ned Lagin give way to the Nicky Hopkins bar band JGB and eventually the gospel/R&B revue style of the 80s and 90s Garcia Band.
The point about Garcia liking Brent's playing and being inspired by him musically is the most important I think. The other point (in bold) is tricky because Brent was the guy in the band; I don't think anyone is saying he was terrible, just that they liked the group better before he was around. And now that I think about it, I doubt in the 70s I would have said, 'hey man, let's go see the GD, they have this great piano player,' it was more about the way the band played when he was first in it. I thought that more people were going to see them than ever in 94-95, that was part of the grind for the band, and part of the problem with the scene. You could go by record sales etc. but its hard to say because they didn't release anything new after 1989. I hardly ever listened to anything outside of 66-70 when I first got into them, but I still wasn't going to miss seeing them in 94 when they came to town.
He has said that, but it's incredibly simplistic and sounds pseudo-scientific to me. If he really had to start from scratch, in any case, he would not have been able to get to where he was, playing with such a similar style, in 5 months. Nope, I don't buy any of that...but maybe I'm interpreting it wrong and there's a way to explain it that makes more sense than I'm getting out of it.
The version of "Eyes of the World" from 4/2/73 Boston is one of the best, as are versions of "Greatest Story Ever Told," "Big River," "China Cat > Rider" and "Playing In The Band." But the highlight has to be the JAM segment following "Here Comes Sunshine." - Dick Now playing CD 3: Here Comes Sunshine > Jam > Me and Bobby McGee > Weather Report Suite: Prelude > Eyes of the World > China Doll Sugar Magnolia Casey Jones Encore: Johnny B. Goode > And We Bid You Goodnight
As a scientist and a musician, I'll offer my take. I went through a similar musical hiatus due to damaging the ulnar nerve in my left hand/arm in 2001 or 2002. Just a bit of context: I started on stringed instruments in 1977 w/ guitar, moved to electric bass in 1980 and took up double bass in 1992. By 1996 I was gigging jazz fairly regularly and by 2000 I had branched out into several other genres. I was over-working, but loved it. One night while tuning up, I lazily fingered a low G on my double bass with my ring finger (stupid move on my part) and felt a twang from my left elbow up to the tip of my ring finger. No big deal; played the gig and went home. Next morning; my left hand was almost completely disfunctional. I ended up not playing any music for about six months and after I was able to resume playing, I was not starting from scratch, but I was starting as if a marathoner who still had the meddle and knowledge of how to do something, but lacking in the stamina. Eventually, I was able to relearn left-hand fingering on double bass without use of my third finger up until the octave. I then moved to fretless electric, but that's beyond my point. I think @US Blues is spot on because I went through a similar thing (sans coma, of course and that's no minor point). I didn't have to start from scratch; I had to start from a mentally-capable position but without the day to day, week to week, month to month dexterity that comes from playing all the time. Eventually I got that back, but I know to this day that I have to be careful about that finger and so my playing style on all stringed instruments has fundamentally become more conservative. I don't think Jerry lost the mental concept of playing by being in a coma, so I think what I went through and what he went through are fairly similar even if the reasons were quite different.
A lot of things I agree with and things I disagree with are all mixed together there, and I needed to try to separate them out a little bit...and in doing so I got a little wordy and maybe got lost a few times, so sorry in advance, particularly for the length; I am trying to chop it down a little before I hit "post." If it gets too annoying just stop reading, I guess. First, I'm not sure I said he was a "better guitarist," without at least qualifying it with an "in some ways" or maybe an "in many ways," but I'm not going to look through it all and figure it out, so if I did, I will add those qualifiers now. And I am not really thinking of the "palette of sounds," exactly (in other words that is less significant to me, although maybe not to you), although I am thinking about tone. And I don't think the "breadth/depth" contrast captures it, if I were to make that contrast I'd make it in the opposite way you do (from breadth to depth rather than vice versa), although I probably don't think that's the way I want to think about it. On the other hand, I do agree with this: "'more sophisticated, less adventuresome," so clearly I guess I don't think that's another way of saying the same thing. Garcia is what I would call a stylist, someone who works on his playing in a manner in which he is more or less consciously developing a style. This is true, to some extent, both early and late, but in the late stuff he's had more time to work on the style, so the style is more pronounced. Note that this can, although it needn't, be a negative thing--a stylist can become hidebound, ossified, the style can become a "straitjacket," etc. While I don't think this happened to Jerry, it's also probably not just an "either/or" proposition, and what you identify as his working with standard forms may be a result of a certain hardening or ossification of style, which I would also acknowledge. So if we disagree, it may be that we disagree about the extent to which Garcia's rounding into form is a process of blossoming or simply aging (again, though, I think we should avoid getting entrenched on opposite sides of this divide, as neither of us will learn anything that way). Regardless of the scientific plausibility, or lack thereof, of the "total loss of muscle memory" theory, to me Garcia's style develops in a fairly linear fashion from the 60s to the 90s. In the late 80s/early 90s, his style has reached the terminus of its development as far as I'm concerned (either it stops developing or even declines after 1990, or I don't sufficiently know the work after that to judge; for my purposes it's all the same). I won't be tendentious and say it reached the peak of its development, however. There are things Garcia does in the 1970s that he no longer does in the 80s, and these are good things, so I'm not going to give a Whiggish account of Garcia's playing. The beauty of having all these recordings is that none of it is lost to us, we can--and should!--learn to appreciate his playing throughout his career as a continual development, rather than a "progression" in any strong sense. Nothing need be discarded. The 7-minute "Other One" from 1987 doesn't erase the 40-minute one from 1972. So, Garcia's playing in the late 80s is, as compared to his earlier stuff, more the expression of a style than it is a pursuit of ideas (and not incidentally this is true of the band as a whole). I think that's what you were saying above, too. I just conceive this a bit differently than you do, and it affects me differently. For instance, if one repeats a phrase or figure frequently (or, in Garcia's case it's more likely to be a type of phrase or figure, as he didn't really repeat himself very much, for instance if you listen to various "Scarlet Begonias" from the same tour, I've found that no matter how kick ass the phrase is, it's usually gone the next time they play the song, although there are songs that had less variation due to their nature), then this may be perceived as lacking inspiration, or it may be perceived as confidently pursuing your unique vision of music. For me the characteristics of 80s Garcia are more along the lines of the latter. So we may agree about what was happening, but not entirely agree about its value or meaning. I will say that Garcia's tone was outstanding throughout his career, but to me the late 80s was a peak in this regard (but not the only peak; 1974 comes to mind). His attack was lighter or less direct in 1987 than it was in 1977 (with many exceptions), just as it was lighter and less direct, I think, and also with many exceptions, in 1977 than it was in 1969. He had certainly developed certain strategies to evoke certain feelings, which in itself means that the playing was a bit more calculated and less exploratory. And, he was playing in an older, less experimental, and perhaps even more hidebound band in the later years. I don't see this as breadth vs. depth--in some ways his playing was more subtle and more concerned with mood and tone later than earlier, and could in a way be called "deeper." From that perspective, experimenting with novel note sequences rather than evoking familiar patterns could be seen as having more breadth and less depth. But again, I think this way of putting it pushes us into a polemical way of understanding where we are committing ourselves to one thesis or the other rather than trying to see clearly, and I think this obscures Garcia's playing rather than illuminating it for us. I think the ideal outcome of an exchange like this is for my appreciation of the 70s stuff, and yours of the 80s stuff, to be enhanced. Because it's all worthy, it all has its own merits, it's all the Grateful Dead. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ I thought "Friend of the Devil" would be a good contrast, so I searched for an earlier and later one. It's not a perfect set-up, the late one is 1993 which is later than I usually listen to--the CW is that he had a bounce-back year after declining in 1992, then declined again; that's probably true, although I'm not sure if he bounced back all the way, or if I should have found one from 1989. I think it's a very nice solo, though. These were chosen randomly, I had no idea what either sounded like before playing them just now, and I didn't listen to any other versions. Let me preface this by saying only listen to these if you genuinely feel like it, and by saying that the results were inconclusive in many ways, but I'm too lazy to dig up and compare more solos. I'm not going to do a detailed comparison, in any case (I don't know that I could), just a few quick remarks: 12/31/1978 : Garcia starts at 6:45, after Keith and Bobby dick around pointlessly a couple times through...his solo here is more intellectually exciting than the one in 1993, there's something admirable about the way he puts it together. Both are based on a scaffolding of basic runs, and both sort of take little turns and feints that spruce it up...Garcia swoops and dives and uses repetition to get his point across. The dominant impression I get is that his playing is interesting, different, and very soulful. 3/25/1993 Friend of the Devil - Grateful Dead - 3-25-1993 - Chapel Hill, NC (set1-07) : Garcia's at around 6:04. The first thing I notice here is how utterly beautiful the guitar sounds when it comes in. Tone is a huge thing for me and it's great on both renditions, but the tone on this one is king, I think. It doesn't hurt that Bobby makes some pointless, gutteral sounds for the first time through the progression after Brent; like on the old China>Riders where Bobby took the first solo of the segue, we get a nice contrast (I mean, I wouldn't program it that way, but it's the Grateful Dead, what are you going to do?). In many ways I think these bear out what we've been saying--the later one is perhaps a bit less interesting, less exploratory and more assured, and even if we haven't heard this exact solo before the strategies here are recognizable, typical swoops and bends connected with scale runs. To me it's a master in the late phase of his career, in full possession of his powers and with a strong idea of how his music should sound. It's about execution, more than exploration. And it's about feeling much more than ideas, and although this is a matter of degree, as both renditions are soulful, the scale tips further in that direction on the late solo than on the earlier solo. Anyway these seem like an appropriate soundtrack to my notes above the line, and I'm glad I listened to both solos, but I don't really have a neat conclusion about the particulars of these renditions that would drive my points home.
I am not a musician and frankly couldn't produce a single worthy note of music to save my life; but what I hear, probably '77 onwards, is Jerry finding a more straightforward rock vernacular. Now you may well be right that technically he was better in the 80's, but I would contend he limited his overall music listening palette to do so; or said another way, he didn't listen for far flung worm holes in which to travel down; he was more interested in perfecting that which was about his feet, working the small ball if you will, grinding out runs rather than swinging for the fences to then be fearful of the Mendoza line. He was a showman, meant to deliver, no longer an astronaut with a rag tag audience who were appreciated probably not a whole lot more than they were afterthoughts in those early halcyon days. The music drove the band less than the band now drove the music. He learned shortcuts not to put too fine a point on it; he knew what worked and he worked it rather than searching for what other things might possibly work. I would also add that as I have gone back over the tapes over the years, I feel I can hear less tools in his toolbox after the Summer of '86; but that is not to say he didn't get the job done or find his previous form in patches, or that '77 onward never had genius again, it just wasn't the same level of genius in my book; and if I were to venture a reason why, there simply wasn't the sense of awe and patience in his bones to find new unknown worlds musically. That fact is totally understandable of course, it was slowly turning into a more conventional rock and roll grind. I don't think Long Strange Trip is overly influencing me (although when you see it you probably will say it is), I have had this notion for decades; and I would never diminish the thrills of my '85-'95 touring years, but I just can't argue it was all with an equal gravitas as the first decade of that band, and I only need a handful of second or third generation cassette tapes of that first decade to confirm this fact. Someone recently said they were never more popular than the 80's, but I was there and it had little to do with the music and far more to do with gaggles from the body politic seeking a salve from the mundanity of the day, all of them becoming a growing majority of the audience. I hate to quote more from Long Strange Trip as I think everyone needs to see it and see it fresh, but my guess is Phil has already said this elsewhere; to paraphrase, he said as the '77-'78 years played in the background, some of their most famous shows were played then, and it was great playing to him, but something was missing according to him; there was a hole in it he said. The movie moved on too fast to address it, and Phil has since said the movie doesn't tell the whole story; and if I had to guess, Phil would have spent another hour lamenting the loss of the pure unadulterated improvisation, the never ending search for musical worm holes they furiously chased in their youth. You can clearly hear that demarcation, or so I think; and when a fairly new fan with jazz improv roots like @Dahabenzapple hears it a mile away; or a second derivative music theorist like @Archtop can all but map the diminishing musical variations and connections for you, well I don't feel so much like I need to be a musician. Let me wrap up by saying I totally appreciate your stance and your opinion, and I am thankful that anyone loves anything about this band that I love; so please know I am not trying to be right as much as I am trying to split hairs-- although this one is a pretty big hair to split. Peace and more GOGD.
Yeah that seems more realistic, although you did have to alter your technique whereas he didn't. But I do think his post-coma style is informed by his pre-coma style, and ultimately the dispositive evidence for that has to be from listening to him play rather than his self-reporting. On the other hand US Blues doesn't think so, which is in line with what Garcia has said. So I suppose the coma story is less significant to me because of what I hear in Garcia's playing, and more significant to US Blues due to what he hears... Anyway, thanks for that account, that makes a lot of sense.
@USBlues and I have a fairly long history of friendship, so I won't speak for him, but I'm not sure you've completely understood his opinion on this (Or you may have; I'm listening to the Byrds from '65, so I'm possibly too complacent). Y'all aren't necessarily that far off, but maybe not all that close. And I can't be sure that Jerry didn't have to alter his technique. Perhaps from a mental perspective he did have to, but from a physical perspective? I can't speak to that. A second derivative music theorist. I like that and I'm not sure why.
Thanks for that, bmoregnr. Check out my response to ianuaditis above; I think we do not disagree on a lot, as I said to him, we may agree about what is happening, but disagree about its meaning or value. I asked if you were a musician not as a kind of "gotcha," but because few people seem to identify any development in Garcia's playing after the 70s, and this always perplexes me; I suspect that guitar players might appreciate things about the late stuff that others may not. Anyway I will read your post carefully after I go see what the hell my wife wants, I'm being cut off here, but thanks for your response... EDIT: Yes, exactly. I see the truth in most of what you say, and I think my response--which isn't a polemic, or a claim that either of you are wrong--is contained in my response to ianuaditis. Thanks again for the response, I get it.
Yes I wrote my thang before reading everyone else's, and I think we would agree it is hard to separate his pure playing from his role in facilitating pure improvisation on that stage. Two different animals I have to think. It is the at least partial closing off of what was previously a fully dilated mind's eye of near otherworldly improv from that band, which may or may not be Jerry's issue, that is more the root crux of the biscuit; but it seems, to me anyway, that where Jerry went everyone followed. Having said that, and at the same time, it should be remembered that who in their mortal coil could ever keep up that pace anyway; so no blame anywhere. Jerry always delivered on the playing and singing front, heck you can look at his long body of JGB work as well, so I also appreciate a musician much less a guitarist pointing the way to remembering that fact. And I do agree he did more in smaller spaces playing wise, or the genius was more technical or nuanced. We always said it in our hometown, Cal Ripken lost a step with age but he knew where to be to not need to take the step anyway; both ends if his career were plenty fun to watch.
I think it's precisely because he was a 'stylist' that the muscle memory didn't hurt him. If he was a guy who had to go out and do the same thing every night it would have been totally different. I'm in the skeptic camp on the 'never the same after the coma' theory, but then I'm also not sure there really was a decline, heard plenty of beautiful Jerry playing in the 90's with JGB and the Dead and David Grisman.
Let me split another hair, so to speak. The muse that Jerry followed was the same before and after his coma, his musical North Star and goals as a musician were constant, and I believe that you are hearing that continuity. Yet Jerry said after his coma that there was a lot he did not remember, but he was not bothered by this because he could not remember what he had lost, so it didn't matter to him. And all this plays within the larger context of the band making the conscious decision after the Hiatus to be more focused, and as they grew more and more popular in the 80's they transformed into an arena rock band with psychedelic overtones (and still more fun and interesting to me, and others than anything else happening in the 80's), and in part Jerry's style fit that to a T. I'd also make a case that Jerry's playing changed when he got the Tiger in 1979, but he was also chasing the dragon hard that year, so it is hard for me to discern whether the changes I hear are from the guitar and how it worked for him, or the opiates.
Personally I prefer the 88-90 period to the 6 years I saw shows before the coma. Can't realistically compare it to the 15 years I did not see live as recordings really are not comparable. But in the 15 years I saw Garcia, I thought there was a decline for about 9 months after the coma, then back to the same ascending quality until the loss of Brent dealt him a blow, temporarily made up for by enthusiasm of Bruce, followed by physical and cognitive decline a couple years after that. Have not seen LST yet.
Earliest photo of Jerry playing electric guitar. A series of eight photos purportedly from 1959 or 1960 that show a teenaged Jerry Garcia surfaced on the internet today. The images include Jerry’s prom photos and what is thought to be the earliest photo of Garcia playing an electric guitar.
Four songs into the fine Tuscaloosa 5/17/77 show. Great Mississippi Half-Step. Looking forward to the rest of this show although I am probably not going to get much further before having to go do other stuff. RecerbWatch(TM): Betty adds the reverb on this one like a French chef adds butter.
Continuing my run of May 77...in chronological order...on Dicks 3 today. Love the Sugaree. A boatload of intensity.
A microcosm of this distinction may be the distinction between GD and JGB: exploratory jamming vs. soulful song presentation with hefty solos. The Dead gravitated more toward the latter in their later phases (although they started opening things back up in late 1989, to an extent). I dig each just as much as the other, really, for different reasons...in some ways I wonder if Phil wasn't the more adventurous one and Jerry always gravitated a bit toward the latter approach, due to what happened in their respective bands...
