snoot: Those Dead concerts were overrated for the most part, unless you were stoned, or juiced up pretty good.
slipkid: This is why I don't like free jazz. Yet I don't have a problem with it in a rock setting if it has a start, middle, and finish. So which period of the Grateful Dead are you speaking?
Somewhere in the early 70's, what year I'm not exactly sure now. I went on the urging of a friend since they weren't exactly on the top of my lists of "must see's." They are a good jam band, I'll give them that, but there was so much improvisation going on that I was never sure where the beginning, middle and end of each tune, or even segment, was. The concert went on soooo long I was actually getting a bit weary (and thus why I implied it might have been better if I was stoned, or lit up more). A lot of spacey fusings and stylings, some not bad either, but it was hard to find a cohesive flow to it all (aside from a few clever segues, and some admittedly driving moments found within).
Beyond that, the PA system they were using seemed to be hit and miss, so that too was distracting and a bit of a letdown. And yet I heard it was one of the best, even custom designed for the Dead! So while I'll say their Wall of Sound was very distinct and even trailblazing for its day, it also suffered from drawbacks like excessive free form, and complications arising thereof. Hey, for all I know, it may have been a less than stellar night, so who knows! The Dead were a pretty good act overall, and always gave it their all live. But sometimes I think they're amped up a bit "high" by their extremely devoted (ergo, partisan) fans, and proponents of abstract, free flow improv. Truth be known, I prefer more the live framing of the Who, or ABB, or IABD, or Jethro Tull - or hell, The Moody Blues.
What's that old saying, to each their own?