Quote:
Originally Posted by gonz085
In my opinion it was what made their first three albums so great. The fact that they took some risks with solos and really taking each song into a completely different level. What would you think of 41, LIOG, Two Step, the stone, drive in drive out, etc. if they just ended whenever dave was done singing? I'm not calling you out with this, but i hate when I try to get people turned on to DMB and they pretty much say "why did he stop singing, put on another song, what are they doing?" It's these solos by Boyd, now Jeff, Carter that really make their music so great
|
Well, personally I think it was their songs, and the arrangements they came up with, that made them great. That's what separates DMB from Umphrey's McGee and all that other stuff; if the song isn't any good, what's the point if there's a good jam at the end? And those earlier songs were incredible, with the longer instrumental passages included, but what I don't get is when it becomes that a DMB song is not good if does not include a long, instrumental passage. For me, what is important is the vocal and the lyric being top-notch. It's that I'm excited to listen to it, and I feel like DMB is stretching their boundaries. The arrangement needs to be great, and the musicianship needs to keep drawing me back. Am I opposed to a two-minute Boyd solo at the end? Of course not, if it fits with the song. But I'm also not going to dismiss a song because it doesn't have that, or think that it's automatically inferior to a song that does. That just seems like a narrow definition of what DMB is and is not allowed to do.
I want them to be as good as their first three albums, but I think alot of people feel like that for an album to be as good as them, it needs to sound exactly like them, and have the exact same trademarks. I don't agree with that.