Forum MVP Mango Posted July 1, 2014 Author Forum MVP Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 I believe that Vince only played one keyboard, a synth. Brent had a whole array, including the b3, a Rhodes in the earlier 80s(and maybe beyond?), some kind of synth, and some kind electric piano. I imagine he was choosing his own sounds. I really can't imagine allowing some one else to choose for me....if you listen, Vince's sound would change mid song! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forum MVP found Posted July 1, 2014 Forum MVP Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Two souls is a top fiver. Easy. Melts my heart. I ain't gonna go through all the keyboardists cause each one brought a new and unique sound to the dead, which is important to me because they were a band that in some ways depended on always changing and evolving their sound. Even little nuances just from year to year and tour to tour. I love everything that every keyboardist brought to the table. I think Vince was very talented but after Brent's death, the band, primarily jerry, was not very much into it. Vince, bless the man for trying, had some big shoes to fill and he didn't have the power to keep them playing at a high level. Now I'm not the biggest fan of the 90s and I've never really listened to a show and been wowed but what Vince brought to the table but the band did have their moments. Vince was a good singer and player and he got thrown into a bad situation. Sort of became a victim of circumstance. I do agree with Tea though, the Tubes sound wasn't the best fit for the GD to begin with but the guy could play and I think it's unjustified when people rag on Vince. I think it was more jerry and the boys fault most of those shows aren't classic and heavily listened to. Vince just happened to be there. Wrong place, wrong time. If I'm gonna listen to jerry in the 90s, 90% of the time it's JGB. I just rambled about nothing when I should be working. Oops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonomajon Posted July 2, 2014 Report Share Posted July 2, 2014 In terms of keyboard players...c'mon folks Keith Godchaux! It may be that I saw more 70's shows than any other era...I remember being bummed when Brent came on board...He too had some cheesy synth sounds going on early on in his tenure with the band...I remember Baracco telling me it took him being in DSO to fully appreciate Brent. That I can understand and I do concur that Brent became a driving force in the band as time went on...I just feel sorry for Vince...Truly a tragic story...Listened to 5-4-72 today...best of both worlds...Pig and Keith! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forum MVP Tom Banjo Posted July 2, 2014 Forum MVP Report Share Posted July 2, 2014 Pig is in his own category not for his virtuosity as a keyboard player but his incredible talent as a showman. He's captivating. Its not even his talent as a singer per say but just his ability to hook the listener in. Just a different category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forum MVP gr8fulpair Posted July 2, 2014 Forum MVP Report Share Posted July 2, 2014 As my avatar would suggest, I agree that Pig was a grass roots blues, funkabilly, rock, psychedelic, bad ass musician. The Dead changed after Pig's passing. Not worse, not better, different. The combination of his piano playing, harmonica, and vocals made him a knockout. Love me some Keith and Brent but there will never be a sub for Ron McKernan. Peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forum MVP Mango Posted July 2, 2014 Author Forum MVP Report Share Posted July 2, 2014 Pig Played organ not Piano. I love the 70s, the Godchaux's...but the era is not great to my ears because of Keith's Piano playing. He was a good player and he totally changed the sound of the band. Over time, though, his playing got very monotonous, especially in the later 70s. Perhaps it was the drug usage paying it's toll. To me his playing was just very standard a lot of the time, not very adventurous or dynamic. That being said, I feel like like his skills are better highlighted in JGB. A quieter soundscape with no rhythm guitar and one drummer. Donna as well. I can't say for sure but I think if I had been there in 79 I would have been stoked to hear Brent play. The Fender Rhoads, the Hammond b3, his bubbly playing. And it only got better over time until his very unfortunate demise. I always wonder what it would have been like if he had stayed alive....maybe they'd be still playing today? Oh well, Grateful for what is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forum MVP Tom Banjo Posted July 2, 2014 Forum MVP Report Share Posted July 2, 2014 I've been chipping them rocks from dawn til doom while my rider hides the bottle in the other room Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advisory Board Dr. Barry Posted July 2, 2014 Advisory Board Report Share Posted July 2, 2014 All my opinion here, no more valid than anyone elses... The first large period of the Grateful dead was everything up until NYE 12/31/71. This period actually had several distinct periods that could and should be looked at, but this was the greatest period of all. Pigpen was the heart and soul of the band and his passing was only eclipsed by Jerry's passing 22 years later. TC's addition in 1969 was an epic period for the band. His keyboard style was/is unequaled. Listen to 9/1/69. Baton Rouge. Listen now. TC is dominant. First Easy Wind also... Keiths addition to the band heralded the beginning of a massive change in style. This is the second great period of the band. The Keith/Donna period. Change is inevitable for survival, but his honky tonk keyboards, often low/absent from the mix is not my taste. Additionally his addition quickly brought with it Donna. The tasteless way she howled and butchered is unforgivable. Bobby was either deaf or misguided if he really thought she was improving the sound when she wailed on his songs. This time period is a very polished sound, Europe 72, Wake of the Flood, May 1977. Polished and refined. Powerful, beautiful. This period still represents a great time for the band, and let's remember that the Garcia/Weir/Lesh trio at any time was the best music on the planet. But this period, it "Ain't my cup of meat". I prefer my GD more raw. The band had its third great period with the addition of Brent. This was a rebirth for the band. Enough cannot be said about Brent's contribution, so I will leave it at that. Unfortunately it is during this period that the death march of addiction, ennui, etc took its toll on the band. Finally the last period after Brent was the last gasp of the fish who doesn't quite know it is about to be someone's dinner. In perspective, like I said above, ANY Grateful Dead, any GARCIA is great. I love it all. I find the best in all of it, but when I look at it as a body of work, that's my two cents... Dr. B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forum MVP John A Posted July 2, 2014 Forum MVP Report Share Posted July 2, 2014 I like the Doctor's 4 periods, but with further delineations necessary into "sub periods". The first period is tricky, as the evolution was fast, furious, and constant. Periods 2 and 3 are easier to define. The Godchaux period can be broken up nicely by the '75 hiatus. And Keith's playing suffers mightily in the latter stage, deteriorating until by '78 he's often not there at all. He is certainly a force during the '72-'74 sub period. Period 3 can be broken up by Jerry's coma, as the band needed to rebuild gradually from 12/86 through Fall '89. And the first sub period is all about the integration of Brent then the long slow slog into the depths of addiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.