Dead. Where Is Thy Sting?

@petaluman 

That's the nature of improvised music.

Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean but playing in time and in tune is not a matter of subjective interpretation. These factors can be measured. Whether one enjoys whatever is being played in tune and in time is subjective.  

The percentage of wholly improvised music in any given Dead show varied but a large percentage of each show was, aside from solos spots, not improvised. They were playing arrangements. 

The Dead could be as sloppy and out of tune while playing arrangements as venturing into "Space". 

Jazz musicians engage in copious improvisation. They rarely play out of tune/time. 

Live Dead is a superb album and Working Man's Dead is reasonably good but just about everything else is terrible. 

There's a big difference between "I don't like it, even though I haven't heard 99% of it that's available", and "it's terrible". 

The Dead is not everyone’s cup of tea for sure. I think that there were a lot of factors that combined each night that could make it a killer show, a dud, or a mix. You have, generally, six musicians, each having their own day, a venue, and very importantly for the Dead, the crowd, all combined to make it happen. When it all came together, it was quite magical.

I can still recall the first show I attended, the energy in that place was palpable, unlike anything I had experienced, and to clarify I only had a few beers that night. I have been to a lot of concerts, with plenty of average performances by great bands playing the same show they played in the last town. The difference is that the Dead took huge chances on stage, and sometimes it didn’t work. But when it did it gave credence to the saying, ‘there is nothing like a Grateful Dead show’.

It seems to me that the core of this discussion is extremely subjective. I might frame it as a difference of opinion/perception in terms of "do the highs compensate for the lows?", which reflects my priority of tight musicianship. But a deadhead would never ask this question because from their perspective, there are no highs without lows-- the two figure equally in the overall gestalt. I’ve encountered deadheads who fervently believe that consistently tight musicianship = "soulless professionalism". 

Frankly, I don’t see much common ground here for debate. I will never grok the "ragged is right" ethos" but I don’t have to in order to enjoy my favorite Dead recordings. 

Another difference appears to be that deadheads belive when the  Dead played at their best they reached a level unmatched by other bands, which in some way justified the Dead's off nights. I simply don't experience this as accurate. The Dead at their best were wonderful. But not more so than the original Allman Bros., The Who or countless others. Again, there is a fundamental difference of perception that from my perspective, cannot be bridged.