Dead Won't Die
Published September 03, 2002
Throughout history, war has been a rallying point for peoples. Leaders have allowed or even encouraged international conflict to escalate into armed confrontation in order to divert attention away from intractable domestic woes. The best way to draw people together is to unite them against a common enemy. The first president Bush's "War on Drugs" was no accidental title.
The Vietnam War pitted two monumental forces against each other: the newly formed youth culture vs. a people's ingrained habit of uniting against a common enemy. As I discussed here, youth culture was created by the relative affluence and leisure time of the '50s and was galvanized by the birth of rock 'n' roll.
By the early-60s, the rock and roll rebellion was running out of steam. When the adult world seized upon "The Twist" as a charming and wholesome pastime, the rebellious aspect of rock 'n' roll seemed a thing of he past. Even the Queen of England liked the Beatles. What next?
The Vietnam War appeared to restoke the boilers of rebellion. The war was a perfect polarizer: it had no clear objective, our help was not particularly appreciated by the Vietnamese, it was far away, it cost many lives, and it was involuntary (the military has since learned that voluntary warriors are happy warriors). The old made the decisions, the young died.
As obvious as all of this seemed to the young and their sympathizers, war still held its old meaning to their parents and grandparents. To the elders, war was still a rallying point, and support of it a civic duty. War still meant WWII, or WWI: wars that required national unity merely to be survived. War was us (good), vs. them (bad). Nothing else mattered. To question this particular war was to question all wars, and if war wasn't a rallying point, then what good was it? And war had to be good for something, because it cost so much.
Vietnam divided the war dialectic of "us" vs. "them," into a triad of "us" vs. "them" vs."them." The war created hopelessly confused loyalties and antagonisms between the three parties. After the war was finally mercy killed, people came to realize that they had hated the internal confusion more than they had hated the external enemy. Who really cared about what happened to a bunch of crazed Asians? The people of Vietnam were never the point anyway: principle was, and principle wasn't worth this kind of internal conflict.
As a result, both sides of the internal conflict embraced the perceived highlights of the other's culture with a ferocity that was dizzying. Blood is thicker than ideology. The adults lightened up: Johnny Carson grew his hair long and joked about smoking pot, the youth embraced the acquisitive materialism of their parents with the shamelessness of Midas.
- Dead Won't Die
- Published: September 03, 2002
- Type:
- Section: Books
- Filed Under: Books: Biography, Books: Arts, Books: Entertainment, Music: Classic Rock and Oldies, Music: Rock
- Writer: Eric Olsen
- Eric Olsen's BC Writer page
- Eric Olsen's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments
Aaron, Much of their music IS dull, that was the point of trying to differentiate the best of it. obviously it's a matter of taste, but as a non-Deadhead, I can certainly appreciate the good stuff. It is largely delicate, but that isn't bad as long as it's melodic and interesting. Also, the band was very rhythmic in a subtle way.
Regarding Aaron's "Hippie capitalism" comment... you're not even in the ballpark boy. The market-place requires a medium of exchange, and it's typical to keep score in Yankee bucks, and the rolling revenue of $50 million worth of rock concerts a year sounds like a lot unless you peek behind the curtain. It's a tragedy of the American perspective that this cultural movement is so often assessed through the sterile lens of superficial financial analysis. I don't have time or space to explain it to you, but there's a big difference between a people's market trafficing in tie dye t-shirts and sand cast candles, between supporting a year round road show and an extended family of hundreds of people and so-called "hippie capitalism." For a view of hippie capitalism, peel back the covers on an enterprise like "The Nature Company." That would be a meaningful use of the word.
Not all enterprise and ambition fits neatly into a "capitalism" context.
The link you posted to what can only be counted as the puerile perspective of a business major includes the comment, "They were the first and still, to my knowledge, the only band to encourage bootlegging, allowing fans to tape concerts directly off the mixing board. The idea was to sacrifice some revenue in the short run to build fan loyalty, promoting album and concert sales in the long run, and it worked brilliantly." While the first sentence is true, the second is rank speculation, and only peripherally relevant in hindsight. The only reason they did it was because it was cool. Kind of a "why not" mentality. People wanted that access and they (the Dead) weren't hung up on IP issues. They were modeling open source behavior weren't they?
Very perceptive comments Frank - the Dead were smart and over time became organized, but they remained/remain idealistic and in many ways altruistic all along. They simply created a vibe that a large number of people responded to, especailly when they wanted to shift into their "other" selves.
I grant that I was speculating about the Dead's motives for encouraging bootlegging. But the policy made them lots of money, whether they intended it that way or not. And surely Frank speculates in exactly the same way when he writes that "the only reason that they did it was that it was kind of cool." Frank also enjoys speculating on what I majored in: math and English, for the record.
It's wrong to call free bootlegging "modeling open source behavior." You can't fix bootlegs, but you can fix source code, which is really the point of open source. It's more like writing some utility and distributing the binary for free.
In 1987, I was riding home on the school bus- when I heard an awesome song that struck me hard....indeed I was to become a gen-x "Touch of Grey-head", though at 24 I now relish "Casey Jones" and "Peggy-O" as my favorites in the Dead canon. Even more interesting is the criticisms I recieved for my essentially (not 100%) conservative beliefs which promted my most hippie-ish Culinary Arts teacher to write in my yearbook "I have never met a Deadhead who is a Republican" (He obviously neglected former MA governor William Weld). Some may scoff at a 24 year old NRA member smoking doobies and droning to a bootleg tape (I've been critisized by everyone from teachers to hoodrats). What can I say? As the biography 'Captain Trips' stated, the music (save for environmental issues) was essentially (not totally) non-political. The Grateful Dead served as a common ground for those who want the "assault weapon" ban to expire next year (such as myself) to those who want the legalization of marijuana (such as....myself!). In 2000, a 21 year old young man had just smoked some dank ass green indoor bud. He was wearing a tie-dye 25th anniversary Dead shirt. Red eyed and stoned, he went to the voting booth to place his checkmark next to the name of George W. Bush.
WHat's my point you ask? It is not a political motive, it is not bragging over my passion for the Dead's music. It is the issue of tolerance for your fellow man, and to not denounce his character based on political differences. My old Culinary teacher would indeed love few things more than to have my Ruger MK II semi-automatic pistol taken from me- I strongly disagree with his stance, but I respect the personal motives that would lead him to such a wish. Then again, maybe I'm a chickenhawk for my support of the second Iraq war (although I was unfit for army service due to a coordination problem, maybe I was better off avoiding fellow privates in boot camp seeing a Steal YOur Face skull tatooed on my left shoulder).
Very interesting Steve and I do think tolerance is a central message that can be taken away from the Dead and the Deadhead phenomenon. I don't really consider myself a Deadhead, but I love a fair amount of their music and enjoyed my time at several of their shows. I too support the War on Terror, including Iraq.
Thanks for your input and don't smoke too much weed - it'll make you stupid.
I hate the Grateful Dead. I can't stand their music and the idea of their shows with all those people getting "free" and turning into other people (at least a portion of them) is certainly not appealing in the least.
That being said, it is a pretty harmless way to go. I feel like the band was always genuine if nothing else. I don't consider them purveyors of hippie capitalism. When I think of this kind of manipulation of an audience, I think of Gene Simmons and the Dead are certainly not an example of that.
One thing that drives me crazy about all music fans is a resentment for success. This happens in Indie rock all the time and I would hate to see people resent the Dead for being successful. Ultimately music is a performance art and when you perform it for people, they invariably filter some of their spending dollars toward your art. I don't think the Dead ever catered their art to making money. Money is just the net result of capturing the love of a huge fanbase.
"I hate the Grateful Dead. I can't stand their music and the idea of their shows with all those people getting "free" and turning into other people (at least a portion of them) is certainly not appealing in the least."
Good. One less person to get in my way while I'm dancing and shaking my bones.
Hey Nat, are you admitting to being something of a hippie noodle dancer?
Good for you. I hope it makes you happy. Just give me a pair of ear plugs!
:-)
As I said, the Dead accomplished much and deserve credit for it - they were smar, organized, and made a ton of money without being greedy, not an easy thing to do. Musically they wre up and down, but when they were on they wre great. If they had never existed, there would be a large hole in the American music canon.
I really dislike the DEAD. I am prejudiced I know, I grew up in an overpriviledged suburb full of Dead Heads who would sell LSD to a 10 year old. Is their a dark side to the Dead? You better fuckin believe it.
STEAL YOUR FACE RIGHT OFF YOUR HEAD!!!!!!
Okay Im 21 and im proud to be a Deadhead. No i do not smoke pot and i never have. Stereotypes are cruel and are made by the insecure and ignorant. All this Grateful Dead hatred has thoroughly offended me. Like them or not, the band represents a crucial piece of 21st century American culture. The dead's music is something you either "get" or you dont, and you dont need to be high to enjoy it. If your not ignorant and listen to more then a studio album, you will realize they are talented musicians and lyricists. The idea that all deadheads are junkies is just a stereotype created by haters. Many deadheads went on to establish successful careers. My dad for example went to over 200 dead shows, but now makes over 200,000 a year. Or Bill Walton, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Pete Carroll, Ann Coutler and many more successful people who call themselves "Deadheads". Its more then drugs my friend, Its the music. And if you bash that then your bashing a love for music. I pity you for your ignorance.











Am I the only one who thinks the Grateful Dead's music is just dull? And that their true legacy is their undoubted mastery of hippie capitalism? Seems so.