@InstituteJerry ...except the multiple '77-'78 versions that don't have any space, i hope? those tours where space happened some nights but not all is an important part of the evolution. i strongly believe those should be visible/searchable at a glance. likewise the random shows later when space came first.
@bourgwick Yes, that is the plan. During those years 77-78 when the sequence was still evolving, if there is just a drum break, those will continue to be listed as Drums as they are today.
@InstituteJerry while i think "jam" should usually be eliminated, i do think of drums & space as a multi part suite that could potentially be annotated even more granularly in the '90s, when solo beam & solo bralove portions occur.
@bourgwick re: Drums/Space, in theory I agree. The issue is we do not have the cycles to do it justice, I tried and lost my mind. However, the door is wide open for a contributor to provide us the data. If it is, say 90% complete, we will use it.
@InstituteJerry also feel compelled to add: semantically, from my perspective, putting "and" in between causes my brain to grind pretty hard in terms of describing what's happening musically.
@bourgwick The actual name of the suite could be changed at any time. It would be a 1 minute change, feel free to suggest something. No one is in love with Drumz or "Drums and Space". But at least "Drums and Space" matches the term people use in conversation.
@InstituteJerry from an official legal publishing POV, "drums" and "space" are separate pieces of music with separate composers (with "and" sometimes used when there's a piece of bralove in the middle). that feels most accurate to me.
Jesse, rolling back to your "jam should usually be eliminated" comment, how do you think we should be handling, for example, the music that followed the last song before drums during the fall '79 tour? The band was doing a lot of stuff before the drums which no longer sounded like the proceeding song. I feel there should be some term used since at some point it was no longer "He's Gone" but it was something.
@dminches@InstituteJerry unless there's a pause in the music/pulse or a new set of identifiable chord changes, i don't think that deserves a separate setlist labeling. that's just a long awesome "he's gone." however you wanna label it on your j-card is up to you. to my mind, if something is labeled "he's gone ->", the "->" already covers jams.
@bourgwick@dminches we are trying to use this term more judiciously in #jerrybase, kick-out-the-jams project still underway. But on our j-card we will still sometimes list "jam".
@FateMusic@dminches@InstituteJerry yes, ironically because "space" was a clearly differentiated & copyrighted garcia/saunders/kahn/vitt piece separate from "drums" before it was ever a term in GD publishing.
@FateMusic@bourgwick@dminches@InstituteJerry in all seriousness, this work is in a context where much is undefined, ambiguity is common and much comes down to semantic interpretation. In that context, the official release publishing legalities strike me as one of few potentially solid foundations we could agree to respect - arguably all of them, but certainly those issued up through 1995. For this reason above all I believe that drums and space should be treated as separate entities.
@InstituteJerry so, the more i ponder this, the more i think this is a mistake that will muddy the waters in terms of representing what happened in a way that's consistent & searchable. people say "scarlet fire" out loud, too, but that doesn't make "scarlet" & "fire" the same song. they're separate pieces with a transition, which is what the segue mark represents. what's the logic in combining "drums" & "space", except that there's an undefinable transition? the > is already an elegant solution.
I am more attached to part 1, and some of my reasoning is utilitarian. We have many, many setlists where this portion of the show is just listed as Drums > Space, and there is a bunch of variation that we are missing, which we do not want to take the time to detail and perhaps invent new terms to represent, although we admit this would be a better solution. [1/2]
@bourgwick [2/2] As well (still on part 1) we are recognizing that this entity is it's own beast. The percussion portion was NOT similar to other Drum solos listed in setlists from the early 70's, and likewise with the Space section.
On part 2, I care way less. The underlying system knows this section as song 1693. We can flip flop on the name as much as we want.
@InstituteJerry to answer this "problem" directly.
1.) the grateful dead never gave a distinct name to the suite but have always listed & treated them as 2 separate individual components with separate composers. "drums" is credited to kreutzmann/hart, "space" to garcia/weir/lesh/keyboardist-du-jour. assimilating them into the borg-like "song 1683" is musically incorrect & will make things more confusing for anyone interested in using jerrybase to study these aspects of the dead's music.
@bourgwick I have a feeling I am not going to convince you ;)
As far as things with ids being "borg-like", well sorry, most objects represented by software have ids. On official releases sure they've always been broken out, but the setlist community has not always done that. Deadbase handled this just as I am proposing, perhaps the name was funky, but I did not find it confusing.
On imprecision, it is already there, we are not losing resolution here, just admitting it was never there.
@InstituteJerry strongly disagree, calling it drums > space is already precise & understandable. heads break them out consistently across tapes & archive.org, too. to me, the borg-like part isn't that it's code but condensing 2 pieces into 1 container, which doesn't happen for scarlet/fire or dark star/st. stephen. (incidentally, the twitter user formerly known as on-this-day-in-space is currently on my couch & is so fired up that he might join mastodon to pop into this conversation.)
Add comment