RTP-area local music and culture

[grady AT ibiblio.org]

Well, I haven't read the Esquire article (and the list seems to be 
pretty fucked-up in a lot of ways, so I don't really plan to), but if I 
were going to bother making a list of cities that "rock," I'd hope to be 
doing so in the present tense, which is generally the timeframe that 
rock music occurs in.

So citing the Dead would seem to be kinda pointless in that context, 
since Jerry's dead & all; you're not gonna be able to fly into SFO and 
actually see the Dead playing live. And no, any current thing involving 
Bob Weir doesn't count.

And if they're talking rock history as opposed to contemporary rock, 
then I think they might need to reconsider their list.

Anyway. I think Duncan was getting at the same thing I'm getting at.

Ross

p.s. I saw the Dead twice. Had more fun the 2nd time than the first 
time. I don't own anything by them anymore (although I'll admit to 
having been tempted by the DVD-A's of Workingmans Dead & American 
Beauty) but could still karaoke any number of their songs if I were 
prone to do that sort of thing. But then the same is true of the 
Carpenters, and David Allan Coe, so I don't know what any of this says 
about me.

naught AT nil.com wrote:

> Duncan Murrell <duncan AT rattlejar.com> wrote:
>
> > And then, the most absurd thing of all is including the Grateful Dead 
> > on a list of anything. San Francisco "rockers" must really love that 
> > one.
>
>
> Really?!  I'm not any sort of obsessive fan of the Dead but it's kind of
> hard to ignore their contribution to American music.  And for people who
> like guitar music, Garcia had a wonderfully inventive spirit that I
> think had no real parallel.  Maybe you're objecting to them being used
> in the same sentence as "rock?"  I might make the same case for at least
> some of the other acts listed.
>
> Mike Babyak
> -- ch-scene: the list that mirrors alt.music.chapel-hill --
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ch-scene