|   Jam Bands or bands that used to jam? | HYFI
Jun 17, 2003 9:34 AM | | I for one like Jam Bands. There aren't many today like in years past. There are a few bands that have been around for 20-30 years that still jam out and then there are the ones whose first few albums were great but then comercialism took over and they left the jamming behind for the money.
A few bands that still rock today are Ozzie, still putting out spiritual and rockin' tunes. The Allman Bros Band are also still rocking like they did in the 60's and 70's.
A few bands whose first few albums were killer and then they went downhill, but still stayed above average would be Bowie and Elton John and Queen. The first 2 or 3 albums from these bands are some of my alltime favs but vocals and radio play took away the better music.
Name a few bands from either list that would fit this observation, as well as any argument to my thoughts.
Hyfi |
| Gov't Mule | DarrenH
Jun 17, 2003 10:03 AM | | Warren Haynes and Gov't Mule kicks some real arse. Man, they were hitting their stride when Allen Woody died. How unfortunate. The Deep End projects were good (a heart felt tribute to Allen Woody) but their studio releases made when Allen was alive are awesome and some of the best blues/rock you'll ever hear. The live recordings Live at the Roseland Ballroom and With A Little Help From Our Friends are both jamfest extrodinaires. Warren Haynes is a tireless performer and extremely good at what he does. I hope they continue on with a new bass player.
Darren |
| Oh my.... there's lots to mention.... | tugmcmartin
Jun 17, 2003 10:30 AM | | Of the recent ilk, there's:
Robert Randolph and the Family Band, Dave Matthews, Ekoostik Hookah, Galactic, Phish, Bruce Hornsby, The Big Wu, Blues Traveller, Everything, Frogwings, Derek Trucks Band, Jazz is Dead, O.A.R (Of Another Revolution), Railroad Earth, String Cheese Incident, Leftover Salmon, Yonder Mtn String Band, Susan Tedeschi, Widespread Panic and Moe.. WP and Moe would be the forerunners in my mind. DMB and Blues Traveller seem to have gotten more boring lately. I don't even know if Everything is still together. Robert Randolph offers a cool mix of gospel, blues, rock, and jazz. Ekoostic Hookah, OAR, and Galactic are a little more spacey sounding. Railroad Earth, YMSB, Leftover Salmon, and SCI are of the newgrass variety but a hell of a lot of fun to see and hear. Susan Tedeschi and Derek Trucks would be bluesy of course and both put on rocking shows with great album support.
Of the older more established bands, i'd second the ABB and Queen. Don't know much about early Bowie or Elton John. Then of course there's the Dead. The Who certainly could rock out and jam too. I've heard a bootleg of an old Lynyrd Skynyrd show that was pretty dang good, so i guess i'd through them in there too. Oh... and George Thorogood has put on a prety sweet show when i've seen him. Though his albums are pretty tame.
Thats all i can think of off the top of my head.... |
| What is a Jam Band? | unleasHell
Jun 17, 2003 12:02 PM | | I thought a Jam band was a band that played some real LONG songs, is that right?
I don't recall Bowie (ok, Station to Station) or Queen or Elton EVER doing Jam type songs...
A Jam Band to ME, would be like Allman Bros. (mentioned) Ten Years After, Savoy Brown, Humble Pie, Grand Funk, Wishbone Ash... |
| Burn Down The Mission, Width Of a Circle | HYFI
Jun 17, 2003 3:44 PM | | Did you ever hear Elton's 11-17-71? That was a Jam Session and Bowies Man Who Sold The World is another one. Queens first two albums have some good things going on, maybe not long enough but they sure did change. |
| re: Jam Bands or bands that used to jam? | J
Jun 17, 2003 12:57 PM | | I wouldn't agree with lumping acts like Bowie, Elton John or Queen in with what I think most would agree would be considered 'jam bands,' most of which seem to follow, in one way or another, in the tradition of the Grateful Dead. And, I suppose, the Allman Bros. & a few others. To varying degrees, of course. I don't like jam bands (big surprise), but that's neither here nor there. I did see one that I liked a few years ago, an Albany band called the Super 400. But they had a sensibility that was far more akin to what I do like, and my band at the time was on the same label as them, so that's no surprise, either.
I'll try to avoid going into a diatribe about what I don't like about this genre, except to say that one thing about it, like prog, is that I tend to prefer musical ideas that can be effectively expressed within 3 minutes, rather than 6 or 7 or 8 or 15. I don't think it's a coincidence that emotions that flourish in short pieces are difficult to sustain over longer pieces. Which means that the most energetic songs, the most soulful songs, the most heartbreaking songs, the angriest songs, and the happiest songs, are songs that I hear far more in the realm of the short pop song than the extended jam or suite. There are exceptions to that rule, which isn't really a rule at all, of course, but I listen to music for songwriting & emotion more than I do for musicianship, which is something else I see common to prog & the jam genre--large pieces of work can be created around small ideas. Which is great, if you're into that sort of thing. When the songs involve large portions that are heavy on soloing, and you enter into the realm of a heavy emphasis on improv, I'm out the door. Improv is something that I find that so few players do well that, outside of a few styles of jazz, I run screaming from it. It's a factor that I find is generally well-used in jazz that, like many other aspects of jazz, just don't mix well with rock music. They're two different things.
If you're talking about bands that were known for doing things on stage that are/were akin to what the 'jam bands' of today do, in terms of approach, I suppose there were bands that did this that might've not necessarily been known for that sort of thing, specifically. But I'd think of a band like Led Zeppelin more in that context than Bowie. They were known for stretching out & extended soloing. I always thought Bowie was more interested in expressing his ideas & emotions within the parameters of the songs, as heard on his records. Lou Reed went through a 'jam' sort of period, around the time of Rock And Roll Animal, but I don't think that was typical of his overall live approach (though I should point out that both the Velvet Underground Live 1969 album & the 3-CD Quine Bootleg tapes are kinda jammy in this context. Of course, owing to the rock sensibilities of Reed, Maureen Tucker, and Sterling Morrison, it's not something I have any problem with). I suppose you'd throw Zappa into this conversation in that sense, also. I'd just throw him out. Wowie Zowie... |
| You obviously don't smoke enough dope | Troy
Jun 17, 2003 3:18 PM | | I do agree with you that Bowie, Elton John and Queen are, in no way shape of form, jam bands, J. HYFI, I'd love to hear why you mentioned these bands in this context.
The Dead, Allmans, Dave Matthews (but more in live context than studio), Phish (Ditto) and all the others on Tug's very comprehensive list. I think he's the local authority on jam bands?
I'd have to throw "Ozric Tentacles" on there too. And "Ship of Fools". Even though the timbres usually associated with jam bands (acoustic guitar rhythms and electric solos, lots of harmony vox and just a general CSNY sorta sound but not structure) don't appear with these proggy/worldy fusion bands. Their thing is that ceaseless groove. I guess by this rule, disc could be jam music too . . . but it's not.
The whole point of jam band music is that it's a simple framework to hang rhythmic grooves on. It's doper music. Good for bonging, dancing and driving and those moments when you feel like sticking in with one pulsing throb for a long time. Yeah, the point can be made in 3 minutes, but this is for those moments when time means nothing. |
| I'll take any drug you give me... | J
Jun 17, 2003 3:33 PM | | ...except pot. Gave it up nearly 15 years ago. Loved it until the paranoia outweighed the pleasurable effects. But for all the pleasurable effects, it never made 'jam band' music sound any better to me. Give me one or two Grateful Dead albums, a very small sampling of the Allman Brothers, especially the early, bluesy stuff, and take the rest of that stuff & put it on a slow boat to China.
Oh, yeah, I was never big on acid, either. Tried it 2 or 3 times, didn't like it. Mushrooms, though, that's another story. Yum. Of course, they didn't make me feel like listening to Phish, either.
>this is for those moments when time means nothing.
Maybe it's because I'm a New Yorker, but I'm just not familiar with any such concept. I always felt that time especially meant a lot when using hallucinogenic drugs. I guess if there is ever a period where time actually doesn't mean anything, you might as well listen to that stuff. Or John Cage. |
| Drugs and music and time | Troy
Jun 17, 2003 6:32 PM | | Pot changed in the 90s. It's just too dang strong now which induces that paranoia. One hit and you're toast. It's kinda taken a lot of the fun out of it for me.
I did my share of pasycedelics too, my favorite being peyote. Very cosmic and mellow, like shrooms, only more so. LSD's tone is marked by the speed. It's a twitchy thing, only good for certain situations.
Always had a thing for cough medicine too . . .
No, none of these drugs makes me want to listen to The Dead or Phish either. I've never been able to take a whole album by these bands. At the same time however I like the principle of a good extended groove in the right situation.
Yeah, you're a New Yorker alright! Slow down, let some time lapse. It's good for the mind and body. Hey, I'm not gonna tell you to do some Yoga or anything, but relax and watch some grass grow for a day. Go to the beach and watch the waves for 3 hours ( but don't bring your watch to time yourself). Just blow an aftenoon cloubusting, man! Time really does mean nothing. It's all so abstract. Yeah, I'm a Californian alright!
Awaiting YECH's response . . . |
| Music and nature and....drugs. | BradH
Jun 18, 2003 1:23 AM | | I'm with ya on this, Surfer Troy. I remember in about 1981 or so their was a new wave festival in upstate NY that was billed as a sort of answer to Woodstock. The review I read remarked that it all seemed so incongruent with the natural setting. And it's true, punk/new wave was expressly urban. It's no wonder I don't associate it with any particular season. With punk/new wave, nature doesn't even exist! Hell, even prog covered both territories. Sure, Genesis and King Crimson didn't subscribe to the 3-minute miracle but "Back in NYC" or "Fallen Angel" is a far cry from the Dead.
J, you should take Sam Goldwyn's advice and "let your breasts flow in the breeze". (Did anyone ever figure out what the hell Goldwyn meant by that?)
Oh yeah, shrooms baby! I remember I was so high one time I heard ZZ Top's "Manic Mechanic" for the first time and thought it was Gentle Giant. At first, anyway. |
| Too strong? | HYFI
Jun 18, 2003 9:25 AM | | Please send some my way. I used to get a whole lot better stuff 20 years ago than I can today, and it was only $35/oz and not the $200 it is now for crap. Gosh I'm dreaming about a good dose of paranoia.....but that's why I stopped doing T a long time ago. Talk about paranoia, that stuff always made you feel like you were not coming back and you had to go through life that F'ed up. |
| Drugs and music.. | Jar
Jun 18, 2003 9:51 AM | | general questions for ex-drug folks:
did drugs ruin some music for any of you?
is there some music that just doesn't bite "sober" ?
does being (mostly) sober effect what you chose to listen to now?
-jar |
| Drugs and music.. | Troy
Jun 18, 2003 1:15 PM | | 1. Ruin? No. Drugs intensify your feelings. If your'e happy, you're REALLY happy.
2. No, I like music, high or not. Conversely, some music is better with a heat on. Gee, look at all that lush dense music I listen to!
3. No. Besides, who said anything about being mostly sober? |
| what I meant was.. | Jar
Jun 18, 2003 1:35 PM | | <i>1. Ruin? No. Drugs intensify your feelings. If your'e happy, you're REALLY happy. </I>
I guess I didn't phrase the question right. Let me re-ask: Is there music that you can't enjoy unless you're high? |
| Naw . . . n/t | Troy
Jun 18, 2003 2:35 PM | | |
| It didn't change in the 90s | J
Jun 18, 2003 10:12 AM | | It continually changed. I remember a few years ago in my office this Baby Boomer type guy was talking about how pot was so much better in the 60s...yeah, everything was better when you were an adolescent, of course. I explained to him that this was nonsense, that people have been doing what they can to increase the strength of pot for many, many years. 15 years ago I knew a guy who cross-bred seeds in order to get the best possible hybrid. He dug a hole underneath his house & built a grow room with a 24-hour watering & lighting system. He'd been working on this stuff for years. I agree, strong pot was a little too much. Then again, prior to quitting, I found that it wasn't a major problem, so long as you smoked less. I didn't have a problem doing that; but everyone I knew continued to smoke the same amount with the same frequency even though the pot was obviously becoming progressively stronger. And when you're smoking with yr friends, it's kinda weird to pass on a joint going around, so invariably I'd end up getting way more stoned than them, I guess. But I'd have quit in spite of that. Even when I was alone the paranoia was intense enough to ruin the experience. And when I was with my friends I'm sitting there, thinking that everyone's monitoring my every move & my every word & my every thought, and that everyone hated me. Who needed that? Quitting was pretty easy. Funny thing, when I was in Jr High they told us that pot was not an addictive substance. A few years later you started hearing about people who were going into rehab because they had developed pot habits. Either something changed about human chemistry, or they just had it wrong all along, which would make me wonder how much else they have wrong (though dealing with popular perceptions about CFIDS illustrates that a lot of accepted, conventional knowledge is just plain wrong). Luckily, I'm not an addict or anything like it & never developed any dependencies. Then again, I was always very, very cautious & careful. And I saw enough friends become junkies. It's a bad riff.
I continued to do mushrooms maybe once a year until a few years ago. They're not always easy to find unless you're hooked in with someone of college age who has access. Like other drugs, I'd have been interested in doing them once in awhile, but not so much to the point where I was going to establish drug connections when I have none. Also, Giuliani changed NYC to the point where you have to be extremely careful about drug use. I don't think that's a bad thing, and though I wouldn't turn drugs down, that also served to keep me from actively pursuing them. And then, lastly, I got sick, and I wouldn't screw around with drugs in this condition. It's enough that I can now tolerate a couple of light beers. If a substance came my way, maybe I'd consider it, but certainly not a hallucinogenic. Probably not anything else, either. We're not getting any younger, and I can think of no stupider death than from a drug overdose. And I saw a friend over the weekend who had a stroke a year ago after abusing coke. Dumb dumb dumb. I could almost understand if the guy was an addict, but he's definitely not, he was just screwing around. With large quantities. And he paid the price.
As for time & the concept of just letting it go--I'm not a workaholic by any means. But since I came down with CFIDS the idea of letting any time go is a poor one. There's enough downtime to the point that when you're capable of doing something, it always seems like the best idea to just do it. So long as you keep that from being a compulsion, and just focus on it as a rational approach, I don't believe it's unhealthy. I don't think it's good to have to constantly be productive. But this condition is an X-factor that changes the whole playing field. I meditate through my writing, and playing music; and I grew up on the beach & have seen enough waves to last me a lifetime. Relaxing isn't a problem, trust me; but it's tough to just |
| weed | Jar
Jun 18, 2003 10:26 AM | | <i>And when I was with my friends I'm sitting there, thinking that everyone's monitoring my every move & my every word & my every thought, and that everyone hated me. Who needed that? </i>
I remember one stoned out night spinning a fantasy about how the Butthole Surfers could become the next Grateful Dead if they played their cards right :-) Though I doubt that THAT is ever going to happen, lots of big theories about music that were hatched over multi-bowl nights with my friends still to this day influence my thinking about music..
-jar |
| See my re-read (nt) | HYFI
Jun 17, 2003 3:51 PM | | |
| Ship of Fools? | unleasHell
Jun 17, 2003 4:31 PM | | I though only me and Dem knew about them?????
cool space jam band... |
| Ship of Fools | Troy
Jun 17, 2003 6:34 PM | | Well, the Big D turned me on to that band too.
Yeah, some of it is pretty funny. I like the Apollo mission dialogue mixed in with Wizard of Oz dialogue. Clever stuff. |
| Ozric Tentacles... | tugmcmartin
Jun 18, 2003 7:03 AM | | good call on that one Troy. I'd forgotten about them. I don't own anything by them, but have seen them live once and heard a couple of their albums through friends. They certainly fit the bill. They'd be more in line with Galactic or OAR. I think there's four main sub-genres of the jam band stuff. 1) Earthy stuff with the acoustic/bluesy sound of the ABB, Dead, Panic and Phish type stuff. 2) Aural stuff with more spacey and worldly sounds like OT, Galactic, OAR, etc. 3) Newgrass/Jamgrass ala Del McCroury, Yonder Mtn, String Cheese, Leftover Salmon, etc. 4) Jazzy stuff such as Jazz is Dead, Medeski Martin and Wood, and Bela Fleck.
And you make a great point in that most of the people into this scene are more into the long grooves than a short sappy pop song. Its definitely for people who don't mind listening to the same basic groove for 15 minutes so long as there's enough change in the overlying layers to keep it fresh and interesting. Theres certainly been some instances at live shows where there's just too much noodling and improv and it all becomes muddled. Its those moments where i feel let down. But fortunately those moments happen less frequently than not in my opinion. |
| re-read>> Jam Bands or bands that used to jam? | HYFI
Jun 17, 2003 3:48 PM | | I guess my double sided question was misleading. I was refering to bands that were great gor a few albums and then got lazy and greedy vrs those who have continued to keep playing the same way they started out. The Allman Brothers is the best example I can come up with along with Ozzie for the list of Still Jammin'. |
| early Floyd, granchester meadows, careful with that axe..nt | mtandrews
Jun 17, 2003 8:02 PM | | |
| I find Camel pretty jamming band | Demetrio
Jun 18, 2003 7:36 PM | | There's a live album from their early days (<b>Warning: Camel on the Road - 1972</b>) that really smokes...
Hey, Troy, good calls on Ship of Fools and Ozric Tentacles.
Demetrio. |
| |
