|
|
 |
|
Poster:
|
Dhamma1 |
Date:
|
October 08, 2006 07:28:26am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
In Defense of Donna |
It seems to be an unusual position here, but I'm something of a Donna fan. Some of her contributions, IMHO:
1) I find that her singing is often excellent -- a fact over-shadowed by how bad it was at notorious moments, true -- but it gave the band greater range on the high-end that it otherwise lacked.
2) After she joined the band, the music loses some of its adolescent male undertones. Perhaps they were all just growing up, but it strikes me that she helped the band become more androgynous and sophisticated. Maybe this is simply due to having what is plainly a woman's voice on many songs, and any female vocalist would have had the same effect. I also wonder if maybe she had a more direct influence on the content of the songs, making them less like teenage boys' fantasies about card-players, guns, and trains (of course, there were many other women around, and from the start, who might have had a similar influence; and Hunter was always capable of much greater depth).
3) I've wondered if much of the great, post-American Beauty music (from Eyes and Weather Report Suite through Music Never Stopped and Around and Around, to the end of the decade) might not have developed as it did, if the band had not had the greater high-end and harmonic range, and the different emotional tone, that she brought into the mix.
In her defense, generally:
There is no denying that her voice being off-key sometimes disfigured otherwise great performances of some songs. A couple explanations have been offered over the years for this, laying much of the blame on the Wall of Sound: she often couldn't hear the other singers on-stage and so couldn't harmonize well; also, that the Wall required her to sing much louder than she had as a studio musician, which pushed her beyond her natural range.
It's also worth recalling that most of her bad moments occured in years when a singer's emotion was valued more than being on key (think of Janis Joplin, whom Donna occasionally seems to be trying to echo).
But the really important point in her defense, to me is that every band member had frequent really terrible moments. Bobby's guitar was out of tune often, according to many reviewers here. Phil's (at least I think it's Phil's) spontaneous experiments with feedback disfigured as many jams as Donna's voice. Jerry often forgot the words to songs, mumbled them incomprehensibly, or flat out got them wrong; and when the Persian opium was at its most powerful, he would drift away into some hazy never-never land from which the others would have to pull him. Collectively, they all occasionally lost their way in the long jams, whether those were in the middle of Pigpen's blues or in the classic psychedelic numbers (where perhaps it was more acceptable). In any event, the main difference between these lapses and Donna's is that we seem to be more forgiving of mistakes made by "the boys" than those made by Donna.
So we should also consider that she enabled a range and a depth in the music that wasn't there before her, which may have helped it evolve into some of the great directions that it did during the 1970s. That's why I'm almost always glad to hear her voice come in... almost.
:-)
Final caveat: these are just my opinions. I can't prove them as facts, so please don't waste much of your own time trying to disprove them. If there are any other Donna defenders out there, this might be a nice time to hear from you, to offset the consistent Donna-bashing that lives on in the reviews of shows here.
|
Poster:
|
doodle |
Date:
|
October 08, 2006 07:50:28am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: In Defense of Donna |
Hey Dhamma,
I'll throw my hat in your ring as I am generally one of the few voices defending Donna on here. I agree with your post, all the band members had weaknesses or bad moments. Donna did not hold that crown alone. I have said before that I find it interesting that folks go to such great lengths to bash her singing yet they chanted the "We Want Phil" to sing. To put it mildly (and no offense to anyone), he sings like a deaf guy, yet folks don't complain. That was part of the Dead, the old "warts and all" aspect. If you want perfect pitch, put on your Abba or Bee Gees records. If you want musicians exploring music, then take the good with the bad from the band members. It's a bummer that many folks create this dichotomy with and within the band - either you like Bob or you like Phil, and you must choose. This is the impression that I get from many of the themes of these threads. Someone is going to the lengths of spending hours in a recording studio to delete Donna from Playing in the Band's ??? No offense, but get a frikkin' grip and a life. If you don't like it, don't listen. Period. So much of it is posing, IMHO, and after 10 years since the band's demise, it's wearing a trifle thin.
|
Poster:
|
ganges |
Date:
|
October 08, 2006 08:13:52am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: In Defense of Donna |
Listened to 11-4-77 today ( a phantastic show IMO, also great quality from gdlive, even though I love the aud from here also) and the first 5 songs, I stopped before sunrise!, are really very good (with Donna) for me, I definitely don't like some of her Playin' contributions during the years, but she had moments/shows when I really liked her.
|
Poster:
|
Earl B. Powell |
Date:
|
October 08, 2006 08:31:51am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: In Defense of Donna |
True. True. But.
|
Poster:
|
north bound train |
Date:
|
October 08, 2006 09:25:54am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: In Defense of Donna |
Though this thread is in her defense, my wife feels its likely the "girlfriend factor," i.e., whenever you let your girlfriend or wife sing in an established band, that person becomes somewhat of an interloper in something already well established. It has nothing to do with ability, its simply perceived that she doesn't belong and fans resent this. It's not anything personal, and certainly outside her personal control.
Had they simply gone out and hired a female singer for that upper end, that would have been perceived much differently. Think of Patti's influence on Bruce and the E-Street, or Linda McCartney, or Yoko, the list goes on.
Just some thoughts to add to this debate. I posted last nite about a tremendous Wharf Rat from May 7, 1977. It would not be the same if Donna wasn't part of it, but I can understand how people perceive her presence on stage. I enjoy her backgrounds, though I agree some of the step-up-to-the-mike-and-belt-it-out are overboard, its all part of the band's history, and it makes me smile.
This post was modified by north bound train on 2006-10-08 16:25:54
|
Poster:
|
unclejohnnyd |
Date:
|
October 08, 2006 11:29:58am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: In Defense of Donna |
Sorry but I don't hear it. Yeah there might be a couple of ocassions where she adds a little something like on some Jerry Band 70's shows or a Looks Like Rain ( a song that I don't particularily like in the first place )but I don't find her contribution essential in any way. Now keith was imo. People don't seem to give him his due like they rave about Brent even though Keith was a major factor in the bands best jazzier free form years.
Back to Donna - seems like a real nice person so I don't want to bash or be mean but to me A) her screeching is absurdly horrible and b) when she is even on a studio record singing ( without the standard couldn't hear herself onstage excuse ), I don't find anything special or great about her voice. I've heard better singers at a Karoake bar, seriously.
|
Poster:
|
midnight sun |
Date:
|
October 08, 2006 04:53:10pm |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: In Defense of Donna |
since you have opened the door on comparing Donna to other band members:
subjective - i prefer Brent's voice
objective - with few exceptions, Brent did a far better job singing the same lines in his falsetto range than she did in her natural range
This post was modified by midnight sun on 2006-10-08 23:53:10
|
Poster:
|
Bear in 29206 |
Date:
|
October 08, 2006 06:24:12pm |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: In Defense of Donna |
And I'd have to argue that Keith had a better voice than Brent :) - and keyboard chops as well....but that's a different thread.
The 11-4-77 is one of the few where Donna did seem to hit the right notes and, even in Playin, fit right in and added to the experience.
Don't ge me wrong, Donna added just the right amount of extra harmony and an appreciated stage presence to make any show better....but there were those moments too.
|
Poster:
|
Arbuthnot |
Date:
|
October 08, 2006 05:19:54pm |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: In Defense of Donna |
You argue well, whether i agree or not, but the whole 'boy band' analogies just don't pass muster.
|
Poster:
|
unclejohnnyd |
Date:
|
October 08, 2006 06:29:39pm |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: In Defense of Donna |
uh yeah, considering their most " sexist " lyrics , if one wants to think of it that way which I don't, ocurred after she joined the band did they not? Loose Lucy, Money Money, etc.
|
Poster:
|
Earl B. Powell |
Date:
|
October 08, 2006 07:11:54pm |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: In Defense of Donna |
Yup, we agree that every band member to a person, well...sucked. And yet again, thats why we spend so much time in this mecca of despair. Luckily, I'll be out of town next week and will miss the Oprah pick for the week, thereby eliminating the source of these awful migranes I've been prone to since 1972.
Seriously, on two points. Androgynous? That would be David Bowie in the day. I do agree that Wake of the Flood was probably more appealing to women than the previous menu, yet androgynous 1973 the boys with Donna were not. Soft hearted, maybe...Jerry in mascara? Probably not.
The other point is the "Wall of Sound." It's design was a function of improving the stage mix by having independent and stage controllable dynamics. The fact is that The Dead had state of the art mixing equipment all along, so the Donna can't hear herself squeal doesn't wash with me. Having said that, the ability to project your voice at stage volume is much different than studio work, and could have been a real problem for her. You can tell when she was forcing her voice for volume, and it was then that she most often strayed off key.
|
Poster:
|
mmarconi |
Date:
|
October 09, 2006 05:43:23am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: In Defense of Donna |
I have to agree w/ Earl..While I have HEARD Donna's studio work Pre Dead...She just didn't "know" how to sing at gigs...she was a studio singer...perhaps that's changed?...but she couldn't work with the monitors at the time...she would have benefited from 2 in ear monitors.but..What is, is..What ain't, ain't.
TVNews
OpenLibrary