Re: My final post (ANyone know were to find a place to discuss Grateful Dead related topics and trading)

On May 19, 3:16 pm, Neil X <nei...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Neil X.:

While things have always been rather like a sheriff-less town in the
Wild West around here, and the signal-to-noise ratio has ebbed and
waxed through the years, I don't seem to remember as much active
effort by those making noise to drown out the signal as I've seen
around here lately.

Fred:

I guess it comes down to what constitutes signal and what constitutes
noise. Who is the arbiter of that? Do you think there is a consensus?

No, not at all, I'm just talking about my own personal opinion of what
constitutes signal and noise. Everything I'm writing here is my own
personal opinion, it's not meant to be taken as an attempt to state
objective fact.

Well, then it's a moot point then, because it's just a mileage thing,
and we all have a right to our preferences.

It's pretty much been a constant, steady effort
every time a thread about a new Dead show is initiated. I can
understand why it puts folks off.

This place has always put some people off because it flies in the face
of the kind and mellow Deadhead myth.

Well, it's not enitrely a myth, but there's no doubt that there is
way, way more than one kind of Deadhead out there. That "myth" fits
one subcategory of Deadhead perfectly. But stereotypes almost
invariably miss the mark, ascribing to the entire group what applies
only to a subset.

I think we are pretty much on the same page here. When I say "myth," I
mean the silliness of those who think there's a one size fits all
cookie cutter that pops out kind and mellow deadheads or that anyone
who doesn't fit the stereotypical mold isn't a real Deadhead and that
kind of garbage. Hell, I can be as ornery as anyone and as kind and
mellow as anyone, and I am not alone in this. As it usually is, it's
more of a both/and thing than an either/or thing.

C'mon, Neil, you know that this place isn't anywhere near as vitriolic
as it used to be back during the titanic soap opera BD/JC/Forshay/
Greene days. Not even close. It even pales against the CC/Baker
frolic. Hell, it seems now that the biggest crime here is saying
snotty things about Warren and the boys, and that's tame as can be
juxtaposed against some of the real brutishness that has gone on
here.

Yes, I agree the level of general vitriol is not particularly high at
this point in time. The folks around here who annoy each other take
the occasional shot, and then occasionally get along OK for a while.
Or not. Same as it ever was.

Exactly. So this leads me to ask of the negativity naysayers, uh,
what's the fuss, boys and girls?

The distinction I was attempting to draw was that I don't really
recollect previously encountering a steady low-level harassment of
anyone who posts Dead content, like we've seen during this tour. The
shenanigans in the past were, to my memory, more limited to non-Dead
subject matter.

Heh. I've seen your backing off on the "harassment" wording, which I
think is wise, but your substitution of "henpecking" isn't much
better. I assume you are going with the pecking party line, which has
some validity, but that's not what henpecked usually means. Geez,
Neil, first the mother-hen mauling, now this henpeck misusage. Uh,
maybe you should refrain from hen expressions altogether. ;)

Seriously, though, it's been my experience that everything about the
Dead since the start has been both trashed and treasured all along the
way. As I always say when folks get offended or go into that "how can
anyone not love this?" posture: everything you love about the Dead
(and anything else for that matter), someone else cannot stand it for
the very same reason you love it. That's just duality 101.

This was borne out to me in an unforgettable way when a friend of a
friend was over my place one day. As it happened, we were both raging
fans of the second set of 10/6/84 and were having the greatest time
listening to it and pointing out the high points. We were remarkably
on the same page, right down to *that* part right there, and *this*
little bit right here, and . . . So on we go, grooving along in
amazing synch until we get to the "juuuust" in "just a little nervous
from the fall," in China Doll and the first "naaaaah" in the following
"nah, nah, nah" part that follows. I dearly love both of them, and
just as I am about say so, he beats me to it and says how much they
suck and how it ruins the otherwise magnificent version. One man
gathers, indeed.

But I think this reflects the general dichotomy of those who are
willing to embrace Warren and the post-Jerry Dead, and those who are
not.

I don't think it's that cut and dried.

My impression is that the percentage of people who are having serious
problems with the current Dead is much higher among those that haven't
been at the shows than those who have. I haven't talked to anyone who
said "Yeah, I was at XX show, and it didn't do it for me." (I'm sure
there are folks who have said that, but the appear to be a small
minority of the show-attending Deadhead group.) On the other hand,
you hear essentially exactly that from lots (most?) folks who didn't
go to shows but listened to some of them on the archive.

Hey, I've been tossed squarely into the naysayer pile by several
people here, and I have no problem with the current Dead other than
Warren doesn't sufficiently shake my branches. Yes, I reached that
conclusion while listening to archive, but as I've said over and
again, I am certain I would have had a ball had I went, just as I've
had a ball at every post Jerry Dead thing I have attended, whether
Further, the Dead, Ratdog, or Phil, and just like I did at so many
shows in the 90's.

But I've never equated the fun factor with the quality of the show
itself because there are too many non-show related variables involved.
Also, I have the ability to be able to have a natural ball *and*
recognize when something isn't up to snuff. I have had lots of
practice at this sort of thing, given the amount of subpar music I
have had (and still have) outrageously good times dancing to.

One thing I always love about this recurring theme of "why are u
mean??!!" posts is that for all the bitching that goes on about them,
they are invariably the most responded to posts going.

No one wants people to think that they're mean, even if they are. It
strikes a raw nerve.

Perhaps for some, but I don't think that's the sole reason for the
response ratio. Hell, these two posts by this poor Salmon guy have
received far, far more play than all the other posts from the same
time frame combined, and it's hardly a matter of it just being folks
offended by his thrust.

My take is that it's these kind of posts that are the most on-topic of
posts because it's all about us. LIke it says on the door, it's a
group for deadheads and these topics are about the group itself. And
we have no plans, far as I can see, of getting over ourselves.

Fred
.

Loading