I wrote to the manufacturer and they're sending me a replacement book free of charge.

Now on tour with Hayes Carll and Jason Isbell & the 400 Unit:

Depending on the venue, tix for Neil's current solo tour are anywhere from $80 to over $200. Wouldn't it be something if fans actually organized a boycott and flat out refused to pay those prices? There's no dates set for Buffalo Springfield in NC yet but if they do play here and they're in the $300 price range I will not be going.

The Dead Recall the Colorful Life of LSD Pioneer Owsley Stanley' He’s responsible in great part for the Grateful Dead,' says Mickey Hart. 'We'd be quite a different band without him' Ed Perlstein/Redferns/Getty By David Browne On March 12, the extended Grateful Dead family lost one of its most crucial allies and collaborators when Owsley Stanley — the band’s one-time soundman, in-house chemist, intellectual stimulus, and sometime artist – died at age 76. Driving home from the Sydney, Australia, airport to his home near Cairns in Queensland (where he had lived since 1982), Stanley’s truck hit a patch of deep mud and water and flipped over, killing him instantly. Even in the iconoclastic world of the Dead, Stanley — or "The Bear," as he was known, thanks to his hairy chest — was an enigmatic figure, known for vast intelligence, all-meat diet and aversion to being photographed. His life prior to meeting the Dead included a stint in the Air Force and with the Marin Ballet Company (he was a ballet dancer) and working in a jet lab and at a radio station. After a pivotal acid trip in 1964, Stanley began making his own LSD and met the Dead at one of Ken Kesey’s acid tests the following year. From that point on, Stanley’s influence on the band was profound: He funded their first sound system, conceived the idea for the band’s iconic lightning-bolt-and-skull logo, recorded many of their early shows and designed their short-lived Wall of Sound PA system in 1974. To read the rest of the article click here.

I wasn't too big on them at first but as the years passed I grew pretty fond of their first two records. Beyond that, they really started to repeat themselves a great deal. By the time of Heartbeat City I was quite tired of them (despite some clever videos). All that said, these two new songs sound very fresh to my ears. Of course, most of the reviewers will comment on the loss of Ben Orr which is very understandable but aside from that, it sounds like they haven't lost any of their initial touch.

Anyone else find it odd that the person that started this thread hasn't returned to actually take part in it and that they only have one other post on the board?

I don't know if it will provide any answers but you might want to try this thread.

Due June 7th on Merge

There was never going to be a new Led Zeppelin record with or without Robert Plant. Page tried out other singers for a new band (that was never going to be called "Led Zeppelin") that would have also included John Paul Jones and Jason Bonham but apparently none of them fit the bill. The whole "everything is Robert Plant's fault" thing has been played out here to the hilt.

Looks more like a co-headlining show. If so, that means the setlists will be the same length.

Since when did 67 become a retirement age, especially for someone in the music business? Just take a look at Dylan, McCartney, Willie Nelson, Neil Young, etc. who are all still going strong.

Rango renewed my interest in Pixar flicks so I thought I'd give this one a shot. Loved it.

Rap and disco are mentioned because some apparently see those genres as being somehow responsible for the supposed deterioration of rock n' roll. Let's not forget that other favorite scapegoat, MTV. Evidently "minimalism" (still haven't figured that one out), a lack of experimentalism, Prince and Michael Jackson are also somehow to blame. Strange, I was born in 1962 and have seen music go through a number of changes in my 48 years yet I've still managed to find plenty of it in each decade that moves me, even in the year 2011.

Since posting even that edit, I've learned that some new audiophile 12" records are meant to be played at 45 rpm.

So, someone was forcing you, at gunpoint to listen to Michael Jackson and Prince? I remember when they were everywhere (radio, magazine covers, TV, etc.) as were Madonna and Bruce Springsteen but I wasn't being forced to listen to any of them. Then, as now, I have the option of listening to lots of other music which is an option I exercised in those days. Everywhere you turn lately it's Justin Bieber and that "Friday" video. I still haven't watched or listened to either one. They've no more contributed to the "deterioration" of music than either Michael Jackson or Prince. It's all about what you choose to listen to. I have a lot of friends that love Prince but I've never been into his music. That doesn't mean I believe he's contributed to the deterioration of anything. Instead of trying to place blame on those outside of the rock genre, why not try to find something within it that you like? Despite the proliferation of Prince, Madonna, etc. back in the 80s I had no problem finding lots and lots of music that I liked. Which just goes to show how much you misunderstand my opinion on the matter. I have no desire for people to think like me, the advice I'm trying to impart is for people to think for themselves. People seem to think that what the mainstream has to offer is all there is when nothing could be farther from the truth. If you insist upon the glass being half empty instead of half full that is all you will ever see.

I'd really appreciate it if you'd refrained from rewording my post. I never said, "We're only 3 months (well, almost 4) into 2011 and people are already show a little bit of faith in the man" (which doesn't even make any sense). My original post, which didn't need to be reworded at all reads, "We're only 3 months (well, almost 4) into 2011 and people are already giving up hope? I know it can be hard to do considering the track record behind his latest record but at least show a little bit of faith in the man."

Never heard of Jerusalem but I get what you're saying. At one point it seemed like rock n' roll got very generic (at least judging by what was getting on the radio) but I still found something to like in Styx, Kansas, Boston, Foreigner, etc. even though none of them were ever in any danger of becoming my favorite band. They came along at a point when rock n' roll had become "faceless" and a whole lot of what got on the radio sounded more like a corporate decision. Oftentimes, James Taylor is credited with helping give rise to the singer-songwriter movement of the early to mid-70s so I wasn't sure if you were including him in that or not. I was pretty young back then so during that time I was much more into Skynyrd, Sabbath, Zeppelin and the like but I had some friends that definitely more into the mellow sounds of Taylor, Jim Croce, CSN & Y, Joni, etc. Probably the closest I came to being into a singer-writer during that era was Dylan but it would be years later before I fully appreciated any of them. For me, it took getting into Steve Goodman, Jimmy Buffett, Jerry Jeff Walker and John Prine first but that was mainly via the "Outlaw" country movement and Jimmy Buffett himself because he tended to cover several of them. So now Michael Jackson and Prince are to blame and it's supposedly because of their "minimalism" and "the dirty modern sound" (I'm not even sure what's meant by that)?. I'm not a fan of either artist but I'm not even know where to begin but I'll try. How about actually making an effort to seek out the music you like and don't concentrate so much on what you don't like? You'd be absolutely amazed at the results. Just when I thought I'd heard it all. Now you're saying today's musicians don't know how to use their talent accurately? Exactly how are they supposed to use it? I can't wait to hear this one. First of all you have to wake up realize this is the year 2011 and recognize just how much the musical landscape has changed. Formats and genres of music are so splintered it would be extremely difficult for one artist to rise to stardom out of any of them. It sounds as though you're relying on the media to point your new favorite artists out to you. Instead of taking that approach, I suggest becoming pro-active by making the effort on your own to seek out new music. In 2011 you have more avenues than ever before to discover music that moves you, an option none of us had in decades previous. That's something excites me so I use it to my advantage. More than not, I find more new music on a daily basis that I like than ever before. Only thing is, I can't afford it all. That's where things like NPR's First Listen series come into play. I may not be able to own it (at least not right away) but at least I have the option of listening to it. I don't buy into any of that, especially as an avid rock n' roll fan. Rock n' roll by it's very nature has always fit into those very categories (except the less inventive one). If you think music has become less inventive, then you obviously having been paying attention. It sounds more like you want a repeat of the past because that's what you find comfortable.

We're only 3 months (well, almost 4) into 2011 and people are already giving up hope? I know it can be hard to do considering the track record behind his latest record but at least show a little bit of faith in the man.

LOVED the 80s. I'm not sure if there is such a thing as the "worst decade for music". For one, it's all up to our individual tastes. For another, each decade has it's share of shit music, that's not confined to any one decade, same for what we consider "good" music. To me, the 90s had plenty of good music. Lollapalooza helped show just how diverse music was then and that festival was just barely scraping the surface of all of the great music out there.

Grunge was heavily influenced by Zep, Sabbath, Deep Purple and the like. I liked all kinds of different music in the 80s but I'd take grunge over hair metal any day of the fucking week.