Talk:Grateful Dead discography

Reworking

If anyone would like to know, I am working on making this section into a table, ala what I did with Phish discography. You can see my progress so far at User:Moeron/Sandbox01 and feel free to comment at User talk:Moeron/Sandbox01. Cheers! --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 17:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Live albums

This is one case where putting the studio albums and the live albums in separate sequences makes no sense. The original Dead live albums, such as Live Dead, Skull & Roses, Europe '72, were just as much new releases of new material as the studio albums, and just as much as part of the Dead evolution and story. As such, they deserve to be intermixed. 02:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have this page watched. If you want to go to the trouble to intermix them, that is fine with me; all I would ask is to have the Dick Pick's and Digital Download Series kept seperate since they are more of a group of albums within the GD timeline. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 03:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and did this, and you can see which live albums I moved into the first section. None of the DPs or DDSs qualified by my criterion, so no worry there. However I hadn't realized that the formatting of the studio albums table has different columns than that of the live albums table, so my straight copying has produced a somewhat messed result in places. I don't have the will to fix this all up, so if someone else does, thanks; otherwise, just revert away my changes. Wasted Time R 02:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I fixed up the first table, IMO it looks okay now. Wasted Time R 19:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Categorization

Moeron, are you sure that Bear's Choice really belongs in the "current" list? The concert was already three years old at its time of release, and as the article says, it was sort of released as a tribute to an earlier sound of the band. On the other hand, it did have a lot of material in it that hadn't appeared before. Wasted Time R 19:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I know you hate to hear this, but I can source some Dead books for reasoning. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 20:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No sourcing necessary, it's arguable either way, you deciding is fine. Wasted Time R 20:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should explain the reasoning itself then, and not just allude to it. While I can see some wispy argument on the side of currency--as with most of the live albums, some of the Bear's Choice tunes weren't out on GD records--it is also indisputable that the incarnation of the band represented was no longer current. The star of Bear's Choice shows was Pigpen. By the time of the record's release, Pig was in his grave.

By way of comparison, Infrared Roses is listed here as a "retrospective" album, and while it too features a deceased bandmember, Brent Mydland, it also features his successors in the then-current incarnation of the band, and in any event is much more representative of what the band was doing (for portions of their shows) at the time of its release, than Bear's Choice.

As noted, perhaps there are arguments each way, but I can't see the argument that calls Bear's Choice "current" AND Infrared Roses "retrospective." Personally, I'd flip them. Spark240 (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and while I'm at it, what's the rationale for describing Grayfolded a "live" GD album, while Anthem of the Sun is described as a studio? Both involved audio tracks that were recorded in live performances and then recombined and manipulated to form the issued record; in the case of Grayfolded this (massive) manipulation wasn't even done by the band! What amount of studio work makes a live recording into a studio album? (Merl's overdubs on Europe '72?)

Grayfolded isn't really a GD album at all; it's a John Oswald studio remix of the GD. Spark240 (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again the Grateful Dead defy easy categorization. Or any categorization. (1) Is Bear's Choice a current or retrospective album? To me it seems somewhat retrospective, having been released three years after it was recorded. Maybe it should be moved to the retrospective section then, but I'd be interested in hearing more opinions about this. (2) Infrared Roses also seems somewhat retrospective. Is there any documentation on when the different tracks were recorded? At least some of them were a few years old when the album was released. (3) Anthem of the Sun is in amalgam of studio and live material mixed together. It's more studio than live, but it is a hybrid creation. Perhaps there should be a brief note about this in the article. (4) "Grayfolded" is a Grateful Dead album, albeit a highly unconventional one that was not produced by them. Since it was created using all live recordings, of various ages, I think it makes sense to leave it in the retrospective live albums section. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the most important question is not the provenance of particular sounds (whether they originated in a live performance) but whether, having been played in live performance, they are then issued as an essentially truthful presentation of that performance. Europe '72 is this, despite some overdubs and minor studio manipulation. Anthem and Grayfolded certainly are not; while they are reminiscent of GD performances, they are certainly not truthful presentations of them. Grayfolded is a GD (as opposed to John Oswald) album only if you deny the creative role of producers/remixers that has devloped in musical fields like dub and techno; it's something like saying that the real author of a painting is the manufacturer of the paints. FWIW, I understand Phil said it was Oswald's record, not theirs. I agree with this conception. As for Infrared Roses, yes, some of the source material may have been as much as five years old at the time of release. It's probably best to think of Roses in the same category as Anthem--a studio album which was constructed using live material, but dated according to its assembly in the studio, not the playing of component parts in earlier concerts. Spark240 (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You've brought up some good points, but do you have any specific suggestions for changing the discography? One idea we've discussed is whether or not to move Bear's Choice from the Current to the Retrospective section. Also, I'd be in favor of very brief explanations in the Notes column about how Infrared Roses and Grayfolded were created. Other than that, what? Are you suggesting that Grayfolded be moved to the Studio and Current Live section, on the basis that it's not a live album in the normal sense of the term? That would be one approach I guess. As far as Infrared Roses, I do still think it's a retrospective live album. I'm pretty sure that each of the tracks is a straight recording of parts of Drums and/or Space. Please reply with your specific suggestions, and thanks for the discussion. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"Multiplatinum"?

In the RIAA column, does "Multiplatinum" mean two-or-more times platinum, or does it mean exactly two times platinum? Normal English usage would suggest the first, but the entry for Skeletons in the Closet suggests the second. Wasted Time R 23:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

At RIAA.com here, they denote albums as Gold, Platinum, and Multi-Platinum, suggesting your first assertion. Glancing at other musical artists discographies, they seem to denote higher than platinm as 2x Platinum or 3x Platinum, ect. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 03:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the M's for multi-platinum have numbers in parentheses after them, (2) or (3) or whatever, indicating how many times platinum. The trick is you have to keep reading, as each certification going up in amounts is listed. Wasted Time R 04:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, no, I meant glancing at other musical artists here on Wikipedia, like Barbra Streisand discography. I know the searchable database at RIAA.com lists G, P, M(2), and M(3). -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 04:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I see you've fixed the article to indicate "Double Platinum", so this is resolved. Wasted Time R 12:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Dead & Dylan

Is Dylan & The Dead missing from the discography by accident or on purpose? Wasted Time R 04:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Its a bit hairy, but from what I read, even though Garica, Culter and Charbonneau worked on the post-production it is considered a Dylan release since it was released under his Columbia Records name/contract. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 17:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, but then why is it threaded into the GD album infobox chronology? Wasted Time R 18:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, you should fix it then. I have been to the page and touched it only once when I was blindly correcting dates. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 18:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I would vote for including D & D in both the thread and the discography, since it was really a joint tour (Dead played almost a full length), even if the album doesn't reflect that. Wasted Time R 18:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I vote to make it reflected as a Dylan album because of my reasons above. Perhaps we can add it to the discography here, but it should be a Bob Dylan album and so reflected in the chronology section of the infobox and category. For a similar situation, see Crazy Horse (band) as back up to Neil Young and such albums as Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere and Greendale (album). I will see what Wikiprojects: Albums has to input. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 18:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Situation isn't similar, for reasons given in previous response. But not the end of the world either way :-) Wasted Time R 19:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

How isn't it similar? Crazy Horse toured with Young, joint touring and opening shows for him before playing as his backing band. They even did a live album with Young in the same vein, Weld (album), which is also considered a Young album. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 19:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the Dylan and the Dead Tour featured two very famous acts who were co-headliners, with one headliner happening to back the other during half of the show. Crazy Horse has always been primarily a backing band, not a top-billed act. Wasted Time R 19:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with that, but it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 19:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Album art.

I don't know if this is the right place for this, and if it isn't I'm sorry, but is anyone working on the Grateful Dead album pages that currently have no artwork or track listing information? I'd very much like to add those to the pages, but I can't do much about the information on the albums because I'm just now getting into the Grateful Dead and I'm still learning. Thanks. RitchieM4812

The answer to this kind of question on Wikipedia is almost always, you want something done, you gotta do it yourself. Usually it doesn't take deep knowledge to put in album covers and track listings, since the images and information are readily available on amazon.com and its ilk. For obscure GD issuings, maybe it's harder, I don't know. Wasted Time R 00:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I usually use allmusic.com to get cover art and track listing. RitchieM4812

Singles Discography

hiya, i just created a Singles discography, the information is from this website: http://tcgdd.freeyellow.com/tcgdd.html. Thank You Doc Strange 15:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Grayfolded

Any particular reason why Grayfolded (a collection of a bunch of Dark Stars) is left out from the list? I'd add it, but I'm not good enough with tables yet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grayfolded OSU871316 02:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. I just added it. -- Mudwater 02:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of album cover images.

An editor has removed the album cover images from this article, saying "rm fair-use images from list/gallery per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #8". However, I believe the album cover images are in fact allowed in discography articles under fair use guidelines and policies. I have submitted this question to "Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)", here. — Mudwater 21:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

On what basis do you believe this use fits our policies, in light the policies I have cited? I genuinely don't understand how this is remotely ambiguous. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that non-free content criterion #8 does not apply to discography articles because they are not lists, galleries, or interface elements. The images are not decorative but serve a legitimate purpose of identification. I liked the example that was given on the Beatles discography discussion page, that I quoted in the Village Pump: "... the covers serve an educational purpose and improve the article by their presence. One purpose of this page is to help people find particular albums when they don't know (or can't remember) the title. For example, a reader who is not familiar with the Beatles but who remembers an album cover as 'the one with them crossing the street' or 'the one with them in costumes' might look at the discography page to find the album with the given cover. Otherwise, they have to hunt through multiple articles." It seems that a number of other editors also feel that way. I understand that you have a different perspective on this, but I think the policy is in fact somewhat ambiguous, and I believe at this point in the discussion it's a good idea to solicit opinions from the general Wikipedia community, which is why I posted the question on the Village Pump. I certainly agree with you that it's important to follow the fair use guidelines so that Wikipedia is not in violation of copyright laws, so it's good that this issue is being discussed. — Mudwater 21:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm copying the discussion below from Morven's user talk page, where I asked for his opinion on this matter. Although he is an administrator and a member of the Arbitration Committee, he is giving his views here unofficially, as a fellow Wikipedia editor. I thought that what he has to say is interesting and adds to the discussion, so I'm posting it here. My own opinion is still that (1) the album cover images are allowed in discography articles under fair use guidelines, (2) the guidelines are more than a little ambiguous on this particular question, and (3) there is not a consensus about this issue. That said, there clearly are a number of editors who believe that the images should be removed, and I appreciate that their intention is to protect Wikipedia by preventing it from violating copyright laws. — Mudwater 23:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Greetings, Morven. There is currently a dispute about whether or not including images of album covers in discography articles is allowed under the fair use guidelines. Some editors are removing the album cover images from the discography articles. Other editors feel that the images are allowed under fair use.

(1) What is your opinion on whether or not the album cover images are fair use in discography articles?

(2) Do you think this is an appropriate question for the arbitration committee?

Here is a discussion of this question on the talk page of a discography article. Here's one on a user talk page. I posted this question two days ago on the Village Pump here, but only one person has replied so far. Here is a lengthier discussion, on the administrators' noticeboard, of a different but somewhat similar question, whether screenshots are allowed in articles about all the episodes of a television show. To see an example of a discography before its images were removed, click here.

If you reply here I'll check back and see what you wrote. Thanks in advance. — Mudwater 01:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a complicated question, and not really one the arbitration committee is set up for. We generally arbitrate user behavior, rather than making or determining content policy. The arbcom on occasion has gone outside this, on issues to do with fundamental site policy, but it's not really our role.

That said, I have some personal feelings and opinions, of course! What follows is my quick opinion and should in no way be interpreted as anything binding:

It is Wikipedia policy to produce an encyclopedia that is free in all senses of the word. However, it's impossible to be absolute about this; producing a useful reference work about the real world means touching on topics that are legally protected in certain ways: by copyright, by trademark, by rights of publicity, moral rights of authors, etc etc etc. Unless we decide to not cover any topic that may be covered by these laws, we must determine how to produce a work that is both sufficiently free and sufficiently comprehensive.

For works covered by copyright, that means fair use under US law. We make fair use of copyrighted works all the time, including in text. We have rules on that, of course. For text used in an encyclopedic work, the rules of fair use are generally pretty simple and understood pretty well by everyone.

It's more complicated with images in terms of the law, and Wikipedia's policy on when we can use fair use for images is more complicated as well. This is partly because it's so damn tempting to use images under fair use. In text, it's nowhere near as tempting to use copyrighted material and claim fair use. For images, because they're much harder to acquire (among other reasons), and because it's very desirable for many editors to want to decorate articles and make them look better/flashier.

Many Wikipedia editions ban fair use images altogether; the English-language one has not, possibly partly because of the United States' fairly open fair use law. The rules have generally come down to forbidding them except when there's good reason; the article needs them (rather than simply looks prettier with them) and no free image could be made that could fill the same need.

Images in TV show episode lists have been controversial, but it does appear that the argument against them is carrying the day. Since no still image from an episode is uniquely identifying for that episode, for instance, the argument that an image is needed for identification is poor; similarly, in a list, there is insufficient discussion or mention of the image to justify it under that argument.

The case is, I believe, a little stronger for album covers in a discography, especially in the sense of identification. The images are instantly recognizable and are strongly associated with the album. However, there is no greater argument that there is any point or description in the text that needs the image to be complete, because a discography is generally an un-annotated list and does not discuss the cover art.

I think it also depends on several other factors:

1. Is the discography simply a list of links to articles on each album? If the discography is the sum and total of Wikipedia's coverage of that album, I think the argument is a little stronger.
2. Does the article go beyond being simply a discography? Is it more like a merged 'super-article' discussing several articles, all of which haven't enough text to really justify an individual article?
3. Is there is any mention of the cover art in the text?

In the end, the arbcom will simply make you all be civil when discussing and arguing whether this should be allowed under the fundamental tenets of our fair use policy. Better to simply make a good argument. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful response. If it's all right with you, I'd like to copy this dialog onto the talk pages of one or two discography articles. — Mudwater 11:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free, so long as this is not put forward as any kind of official arbcom position ;) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

---

There is now a further discussion of album cover images in discography articles, at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Why remove images from discographies? — Mudwater 19:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

At the current time there are a number of discussions going on about the use of album cover images in discographies, and also in articles about albums. Some of these discussions include other, related topics, such as what fair use rationales should be required for images, and the fair use of copyrighted images other than album covers. To see or participate in some of these discussions, see multiple sections of Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, Wikipedia talk:Fair use rationale guideline, and Talk:The Beatles discography. — Mudwater 00:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Part of the debate is about what fair use rationales should be required for copyrighted images such as album covers. Some images have an album cover template but don't also have a separately worded rationale, or they have a rationale that might not be up to standards, whatever those are. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#BetacommandBot and Fair use. — Mudwater 16:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Studio and current live albums

The "Studio and current live albums" section was recently split into two subsections, studio and live. I think it would be much better to go back to one combined section, with all those albums in chronological order. As it says in the article, "More so than most bands, the Grateful Dead frequently released live albums that filled the role of conventional studio albums, in that they were recently recorded and often contained newly-written material not on any studio album. An integral part of the contemporaneous evolution of the band, such live albums are included in this section." So, in sharp contrast to some other bands, their non-retrospective discography is much better viewed with studio and live albums combined. Also, there is a previous discussion about this on this talk page, in the #Live albums section. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I made the change because while yes, live releases are an integral part of the discography of the band, there have been several occasions where I've been looking for only their studio albums, not "current" live releases. I kept it under the same section for the purpose that it was combined for; I just split them into subsections because I thought it would make it more readable. --Son (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It was easy to tell which albums in the "Studio and current live albums" section were studio and which were live, because the live albums say "Live" in the Notes column. The studio and live albums form a continuous time line of the band's evolution and of their recording history. You lose this if you break it into two sections. While this doesn't apply to many other bands, it's certainly the case for the Dead. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 15:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The Grateful Dead's current live albums were recently recorded and included previously unreleased original material, and so filled the role of traditional studio albums. In the table for this section, it's very easy to tell which of these albums were live albums, because they say "Live" in the Notes column. So, I have restored this section of the discography to list these albums together rather than separately. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Recently the "Studio and contemporary live albums" section was split into two sections, one for studio and one for live. However, as it said in the discography until this change was made, "Unconventionally, the Grateful Dead made the release of live albums a common occurrence throughout their career. Because many were recently recorded and included previously unreleased original material, they often filled the role of traditional studio albums. An integral part of the contemporaneous evolution of the band, such live albums are included in this section." So, those two sections should be recombined. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and recombined these into one section. But, I've kept the recently changed table formatting, which more closely follows the current suggested guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

View from the Vault merge proposal

An editor has created a new article called View from the Vault, and is proposing that four Grateful Dead album articles be merged into this one new article -- View from the Vault, Volume One, View from the Vault, Volume Two, View from the Vault, Volume Three, and View from the Vault, Volume Four. Editors who are interested in articles about Grateful Dead albums are requested to comment on this proposal, at Talk:View from the Vault#Merge with constituent albums. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The Sunflower albums

I think we should add Vintage Dead and Historic Dead to the discography -- either in the "Studio and contemporary live albums" section or in a new section. (They're already listed in the "Live albums by recording date" section.) These albums were recorded live in 1966 and were released on the Sunflower Records label, a subsidiary of MGM records, in 1970 and 1971, respectively. I read somewhere that these are legal, non-bootleg albums, but that the band had no say in their release and didn't like them. There are also two compilation albums that contain tracks from Vintage Dead and Historic Dead, but I'd suggest leaving those out of the discography. It's hard to find references for all this, but for starters see http://www.deaddisc.com/GDFD_Grateful_Dead.htm#semilegal. "P.S." I'd also be in favor of Vintage Dead and Historic Dead having their own articles. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added a new section for the Sunflower albums, called "Unauthorized legal releases". — Mudwater ^(Talk) 16:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created articles for the albums -- Vintage Dead and Historic Dead. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You could have just created one article called "The Worst Grateful Dead Albums Ever - Two Deformed Abortions That Never Should Have Been Committed to Vinyl" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.118 (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Box sets, compilations, and live albums

I'd like to propose the following guidelines for classifying Grateful Dead albums, for purposes of setting the "type" parameter in the infobox of album articles, and for deciding which section of the discography to put them in. I've looked at WikiProject Albums and elsewhere, but I haven't found any clear guidelines or definitions about this.

• A box set is a collection of previously released albums, sometimes with bonus material, for example The Golden Road. So what is or is not a box set is determined by content, not packaging. For example, Winterland June 1977: The Complete Recordings comes in a box, but it's a live album, not a box set.
• A compilation is an album that entirely, or mostly, contains selections that were previously released, for example, What a Long Strange Trip It's Been. Albums of songs that are "compiled" from different concerts but were not previously released are not compilations. For example, Postcards of the Hanging is a live album.

This would mean that the only box sets are Dead Zone, The Golden Road, Beyond Description, and The Warner Bros. Studio Albums. It would also mean that, in the discography, So Many Roads and So Many Roads Sampler should be moved from "Compilations and box sets" to the "Traditional releases" sub-section of the "Retrospective live albums" section. If I get a chance I'm going to move those two, and also update some album article infoboxes, but either way other editors are encouraged to give their opinion here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If something has never been defined before then a new definition is probably needed, but I don't think it's a good idea to make things up when they have already been usefully defined for decades long before Wikipedia ever arrived. A box set, as defined by the music industry and the rest of the world for some time now, is a set of recordings that comes in a box regardless of whether the recordings in question have been released before or not. The So Many Roads box set is indeed a set that comes in a box, and therefore belongs under box sets. Putting it under retrospective live albums is not accurate either, since eleven of the set's 42 tracks are studio recordings. I have moved it to the more appropriate location. Its companion sampler, which also contains a couple of studio tracks, probably does not belong strictly under retrospective live albums either, but I'll leave that for other editors. PJtP (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Nobody's making anything up. The definitions in my previous post are generally accepted. Beyond that, the definitions in my previous post are also much more useful and informative to the reader. The packaging of an album is much less important than its contents, and concept. Is it a set of previously released albums, possibly with bonus material? That's a box set. So Many Roads does not qualify, so this edit should be undone. So Many Roads is a live album, or possibly better yet, an album that's both live and studio. Take a look at the Eat a Peach article for an example of that, the infobox says that it's a "studio album / live album". It doesn't matter much if it comes in a box, a slipcase, several jewel cases, or a digital download. As always, other editors are encouraged to join the discussion. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Restoration of deleted material

Recently a number of updates were made to this discography. As part of that some very useful material was removed. I'm going to restore the deleted section "Live albums by recording date". When I get a chance I'll check back and see if I think there's any other information that needs to be restored. Note: Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#Ignore all rules, "Every artist is different, and therefore no two discographies will be exactly the same. Therefore, if there is a reasonable justification for deviating from the above guidelines to most accurately or appropriately document an artist's body of work, then ignore all the rules and go with what's best for the article...." — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the deleted information about the recording dates and locations of the "traditional" retrospective live albums. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 15:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

16. 1973-80 Albums

The Grateful Dead table shows the 7 albums released between 1973 & 1980 as being on Warner Bros. Records; this is incorrect. Wake of the Flood, Mars Hotel, Blues for Allah & Steal Your Face were on Grateful Dead Records while the others were on Arista. The 1987-90 albums are also shown as being released by Warner Bros. when in fact they too were released by Arista (In the Dark, Built to Last & Without a Net). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.20.235 (talk) 08:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

oh, thank you for that-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, quite right. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Europe '72 "Swinging" Singles

Discussion moved to Talk:Europe '72: The Complete Recordings#Europe '72 "Swinging" Singles. Please comment there so we can have one centralized discussion. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grateful Dead discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110704041118/http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)