[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]
Megafaun — Real Slow
Album: Megafaun
Avg rating:
6.9

Your rating:
Total ratings: 1878









Released: 2011
Length: 4:46
Plays (last 30 days): 1
Rise up early and seize the day
Sing along, walk inside, get it before it goes away

To break your stride
They want to know
They tell you when to get here
They tell you where to go

Sing along, walk inside
Take a seat, watch the show

Take your time when everyone knows
If it starts too fast it's gonna end real slow

Days of wine, windless road
People come from house
Just to take a seat and watch the show

And nobody leaves
Goes through the door
Songs that you sing
Are the songs that you've sung before

They broke your stride
They had to know
They told you how to get there
Then they told you where to go

Make a wrong turn and you end up
On the dead end road

Take your time 'cause everyone knows
That if it starts too fast it's gonna end real slow
Take your time 'cause everyone knows
That if it starts too fast it's gonna end real slow

It's gonna end real slow
It's gonna end real slow, real, real slow
Comments (171)add comment
Absolutely Dead.
Great tune.
Thanks RP.
pink floyd meets grateful dead

And they say; "how ya doing?' 
I like this song.  10.  That is all.

See, that was easy.
 fredphoesh wrote:

Does anyone else find the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived? Seriously people, it is moronic.

Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same
10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent
FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.

Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too
7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.

The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal
They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.

Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....

So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.



RP gives you four indications of the relative values of the decile scoring values:

Numbers
Descriptors
Colors
Relative Location

Since they all mean the same thing, just use the one that works for you. If you don't like the descriptors (and it seems that you do not) and numbers aren't your thing, just think: I like this, I will give it a #84f800.
 fredphoesh wrote:

Does anyone else find the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived? Seriously people, it is moronic.

Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same
10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent
FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.

Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too
7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.

The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal
They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.

Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....

So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.



Does anyone else find "Really, very, very" also very redundant?
 ImaOldman wrote:

Dude, lighten up! The ratings don't mean shit, they're a totally arbitrary, personal reaction to art. It has no effect on ANYTHING except evidently to annoy you, which I personally find a good thing...


We need something that has multiple dimensions to provide complete contexts for our ratings.  I could see ratings along the lines of 9-7-3-6-8-8-5.  Each number would have an assigned meaning in its own context.  Then perhaps a combinatoric description that captures the rating in a single pithy word, phrase, or paragraph.  For example, a rating of 1-1-1-1-1-1-1 would boil up to "Nickelback".
 fredphoesh wrote:

Does anyone else find the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived? Seriously people, it is moronic.

Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same
10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent
FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.

Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too
7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.

The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal
They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.

Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....

So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.




To answer your question in the first sentence, I think the answer is "No"
 DavidStrand wrote:

I gave this a 9 rating. Here's another good Megafaun tune:

Edit: Links not allowed? Search for "The Fade" at YouTube then

I did! And, although I enjoy their talent abundantly, Real Slow blows The Fade outta the water! IMHO, of course! 

 WannabeBanned wrote:
God I Love this Song.  
It's likely God likes all songs, being that He is basically the "creative genius"  that gives each bands members the " calling", to perform as they feel best with producing. To God, the glory! 

 tm wrote:

this is a feel good slow down chill out enjoy a beer with friends at a bbq kinda song…

Or, consume party favors of choice, and just let go, and immerse yourself into the groove! This particular cut.... I don't even need any party favors... I get quite immersed in the groove of it! 

 ImaOldman wrote:

Dude, lighten up! The ratings don't mean shit, they're a totally arbitrary, personal reaction to art. It has no effect on ANYTHING except evidently to annoy you, which I personally find a good thing...
I believe, even though there is NOTHING earthly that is God-like. Only God and Jesus Christ are God-like. That's really my only discrepancy! However, I do believe, if not visually observed, by Bill or, his daughter, they "tally" the ratings and, thereby have a basis for his/their selection process for the playlist lineup. 

 lily34 wrote:

same exact thing for me.
i hear the dead and pink floyd influences, but that's not why i like it. there's just something calming about this one.

i want to hear more. 


feel the same way as i did 10 years ago. (particularly like the little half-step in "you had to know"
I hear some Super Furry Animals sounds in there.
sounds like the intro to "St. Stephen" sounds good.
I gave this a 9 rating. Here's another good Megafaun tune:

Edit: Links not allowed? Search for "The Fade" at YouTube then
One of my favorite bands. So sad they broke up. Reunion!?
 ImaOldman wrote:
Dude, lighten up! The ratings don't mean shit, they're a totally arbitrary, personal reaction to art. It has no effect on ANYTHING except evidently to annoy you, which I personally find a good thing...

Dude, this is a little harsh. Pretty sure that Bill/William has commented elsewhere that he does look at song ratings, like maybe he considers them more important than individual song comments. (Sorry I don't have a reference.)
Anyway, it's amusing that one rant led to an even more emotional counter-rant. Lighten up indeed.
 fredphoesh wrote:

Does anyone else find the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived? Seriously people, it is moronic. ...

Well, if we are going to change things as to avoid the end of the world in music rating systems. May I suggest that we have a multiple rating matrix consisting of the following individual scales:
1. intro (1-10)
2. songwriting/lyrics (1-10)
3. musicianship/arrangement (1-10)
4. want to listen again and give it more time (T/F)
5. Thought this was new but it is over a decade old (T/F)
6. Should be a national anthem (T/F)
7. Can't Rate GODLIKE (T/F)


;-)

 scrubbrush wrote:

Unnecessary rant.  One might even say puerile and annoying.



Heartily agree! If this guy has nothing better to do, at least go somewhere else! Jeez! 
Like The Dead and Pink Floyd had a baby.
Very enjoyable.
 ImaOldman wrote:

Dude, lighten up! The ratings don't mean shit, they're a totally arbitrary, personal reaction to art. It has no effect on ANYTHING except evidently to annoy you, which I personally find a good thing...



Hey friend,
What is your plan for a rating system?
I'm sure this station will consider it.The content does not cost you a dime if you
don't want to contribute.
Please pick up your hat at the door sir!
 dandueck07 wrote:

The criticism is a bit too long maybe, but I've also had similar thoughts. However, 1-10 is 1-10. You can use it to mean whatever you want. 
 sunybuny wrote:

I wish Bill would add another selection or two so we get a better feel for Megafaun.



Get a streaming service and its at your finger tips
 fredphoesh wrote:

So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.



Speaking of which...

Of all the things to get upset over.
 jwilson277 wrote:

Shades of the Dead....




Very much so:  really the best Garcia guitar since he died.  Sadly, the rest of the album isn't nearly so good.  Gave the song an 8.
 sunybuny wrote:

I wish Bill would add another selection or two so we get a better feel for Megafaun.



I was just wondering what other megafaun sounds like!
I wish Bill would add another selection or two so we get a better feel for Megafaun.
this is a feel good slow down chill out enjoy a beer with friends at a bbq kinda song…
God I Love this Song.  
Posters of such lengthy comments as can be found here should better redirect their texts to a peer reviewed journal.   
Boring and repetitive.
Love it.  If The Deadand Pink Floyd did a Tedeschi Trucks.
They're huggin' and twirlin' again Bill! Thanks!
 m_logie wrote:
> Applying a definition of "outstanding" to 9 also prevents the over-application of 10s, and a definition of ho-hum to 3 means we can even give songs 3s with relative impunity.
 
Your entire post quite well explained the system. I give it a 9.

I also like the addition of labels to the numbers. Often, I have hesitated between two numbers, trying to decide if a given song is truly "most excellent" or merely "pretty good".

I give the system itself a 10.

This song I gave a 3. It's ok, it doesn't make me want to hit the "skip" button but it doesn't sound that interesting to my ears. I'm willing to hear more music from Megafaun.
fredphoesh wrote:

Does anyone else find the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived? Seriously people, it is moronic.

scrubbrush wrote:
Unnecessary rant.  One might even say puerile and annoying.
 
... or one might say the rant is sucko-barfo.

============================

Dear fredphoesh (if that is indeed your real name):

The Radio Paradise rating system has been functioning satisfactorily for a decade or more.

Your comment is timely and appreciated.  I expect BillG will act on it as quickly as he acts on comments to remove certain songs from the playlist.

Have a nice day!
unclehud
 fredphoesh wrote:
Does anyone else find the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived? Seriously people, it is moronic.

I agree that the words chosen, like most adjectives, are based on one's subjective opinion of one adjective versus another, but I think you've missed the point.

With this attempt to apply labels to point ratings, we are provided with some guidance as to what each score means.  I am absolutely sick of ratings where anything less that 9 means crap.  By saying "5 means pretty good" we are guided to give 5s and not feel like we're disparaging the song.  Applying a definition of "outstanding" to 9 also prevents the over-application of 10s, and a definition of ho-hum to 3 means we can even give songs 3s with relative impunity.

Applying these adjectives to scores also removes some subjectivity on the meaning of numbers.  I give ratings of 4 stars frequently on tripadvisor for good meals/activities, as to me 4/5 means very good.  However, to most vendors, 4 stars can feel like a condemnation.  I really wish they'd only let you give one 5 star rating for every nine other ratings you've given of 4 stars or less.

RP's system allows for a much greater range of scores and a much more meaningful scoring system, despite minor ambiguity in the selection of categories.  I'll take this scoring system over the broken scoring system of tripadvisor or amazon any day.

P.S. Most excellent DOES NOT mean THE most excellent.  It is a common construct in British and American English to say "most [adjective] [noun]" to mean "very [adjective] [noun]". See this discussion for guidance: 
https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/a-most-excellent-choice.68121/
Also, the word marginal in isolation lacks an adjective, I agree, but the etymology of the word is from the Latin margo meaning edge.  Therefore I take it to mean on the very cusp of sucko-barfo - it is marginally better than the worst possible rating.
 ImaOldman wrote:

Dude, lighten up! The ratings don't mean shit, they're a totally arbitrary, personal reaction to art. It has no effect on ANYTHING except evidently to annoy you, which I personally find a good thing...
 
I agree, no need to correct the dog with a sledgehammer.  Such tools are often counterproductive.   However, I too would prefer a simplified  rating system.  A five point system from "Hate it" to "Gotta have it" might do the job more efficiently.
 fredphoesh wrote:
Does anyone else find the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived? Seriously people, it is moronic.

Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same
10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent
FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.

Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too
7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.

The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal
They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.

Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....

So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
 
Dude, lighten up! The ratings don't mean shit, they're a totally arbitrary, personal reaction to art. It has no effect on ANYTHING except evidently to annoy you, which I personally find a good thing...
 fredphoesh wrote:
Does anyone else find the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived? Seriously people, it is moronic.

Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same
10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent
FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.

Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too
7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.

The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal
They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.

Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....

So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
 
Unnecessary rant.  One might even say puerile and annoying.


 fredphoesh wrote:
Does anyone else find the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived? Seriously people, it is moronic.

Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same
10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent
FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.

Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too
7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.

The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal
They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.

Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....

So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
 
Methinks that someone got up on the wrong side of bed, or is spending too much time in their head, or both.  Just appreciating the great music mix on RP might very well be the cure for these ailments.
Does anyone else find the RP rating categories to be really, very, very poorly conceived? Seriously people, it is moronic.

Firstly, the top 3 are more or less the same
10-godlike 9-outstanding 8-most excellent
FFS, MOST excellent is the most excellent something can be, so how is "outstanding" better than something that is already "most" something? And if it is "most" something, it might be your "godlike" level of greatness too, so there is no distinction of note here.

Then the second bunch of 3 are interchangeable too
7-quite likeable 6-pretty good 5- decent are all saying pretty much the same thing, that the music is OK. Just OK. None of these ratings are necessarily better or worse than the other, so another stupid bunch of ratings.

The third bunch of similar ratings are 4-acceptable 3-ho-hum 2-marginal
They are all saying the music is not terrible, but is not great either. Acceptable in that you will not turn it off, but it is a bit boring perhaps (ho-hum) and on the verge of not being worthy of a listen.

Then we go from something that is marginally acceptable to completely "sucko barfo". Seriously RP, this is a really rubbish rating system. I think it would be much better if the numbers 1-10 did not have some daft attempt at making sense out of a 1-10 rating system. People rate something 7/10 for different reasons. You may love the song, but find that version to be a bit disappointing. That is completely different from someone who gives it 7/10 because though they don't like the song that much, they love the artist and also the musicianship is excellent....

So please remove the nonsense score descriptions, they are puerile and annoying.
Thought I heard Bill say the group's name was Mega Thong  
Yep, late on a Friday, gotta take this one to a 9. Lovely, thanks RP!
I liked this so much I tried to buy it but apple music and amazon don't seem to have this song/album...anyone have any suggestions?  
Many thanks,
Amy
Like others, I like it in a Dead kind of way.
This is good. Reminds me of early Pink Floyd.  This is one of the things I really like about RP - turns me on to new artists. Thank you, Bill and Rebecca.
Very refreshing, Johnny likes it!
when is the "starts real fast" part?
Isn't there a Jenny Lewis song that sounds like this? Or was it Nekko Case?
nice sound to this. added to the Bearsville mix.
This is a really good studio tune. I've seen some live versions that just paled in comparison though.
Sounds like coming from the seventies, in a good way.
Way down down, down by the docks of the city...
 dew34 wrote:
Reminds me of Dead songs sung by people other than Jerry Garcia.

 
Me too....in fact I almost had an acid flashback during that trippy little meandering bit they did there :^ /
This appeals to me.
Very nice. 
Reminds me of Dead songs sung by people other than Jerry Garcia.
Before it breaks down.
 pfreet wrote:
This sounds at first like a Ryan Adams song. Anybody else think that?

 
It reminds me of all sorts of things, which I can't point out exactly. Either they stole a lot of elements from everywhere, or it's just one of those unique songs with genuine catchy elements. 
This is Cold Roses by Ryan Adams, right??
This sounds at first like a Ryan Adams song. Anybody else think that?
I only rate it a 3 but after hearing it late the other night around the fire I like it better. For me, late night song only.
 ColdMiser wrote:

Dead Pink Phish

 
I like salmon.
It's been a while - if EVER - that I've heard Megafaun on RP. Had no clue this is what the Dead sounded like; that's what I get for being young, I guess.
Whoa.... TOTAL early-seventies Floyd. (Not a bad thing!) Free Four, Fearless, etc...
 LowPhreak wrote:

Dead Floyd?  {#Cheesygrin}

 
Dead Pink Phish
 easmann wrote:

I like both. I'll give "Grateful Floyd" the vote though. : )

 
Dead Floyd?  {#Cheesygrin}
Grateful Floyd  - cool!

Or Pink Dead.  You decide. 
Some of those sustained harmonies...were almost Floydian.
Love this.  8
 LPCity wrote:

Stand in line.

 

 chinaski wrote:

{#Cheesygrin} Follow Megafaun's "Slow" with Jerry Garcia's "The Wheel" and you've made my day...or night as the case may be. I rarely if ever post in here but after Bill played us some rather tasty Hot Tuna these past few days I finally have to voice my appreciation! Thanks Bill!

P.S. If you happen to be browsing around for info about Megafaun out of North Carolina know there is a similarly named band called Megafauna out of Austin. Both are cool bands and now you are aware.



  Interesting because I immediately thought of "Wharf Rat" from the album, "Dead Set"

{#Cheesygrin} Follow Megafaun's "Slow" with Jerry Garcia's "The Wheel" and you've made my day...or night as the case may be. I rarely if ever post in here but after Bill played us some rather tasty Hot Tuna these past few days I finally have to voice my appreciation! Thanks Bill!

P.S. If you happen to be browsing around for info about Megafaun out of North Carolina know there is a similarly named band called Megafauna out of Austin. Both are cool bands and now you are aware.


thought this was chris robinson brotherhood for a bit.  they're also truly carrying the dead torch.  {#Cowboy}
This IS So Dead-like! Just saw Warren Haynes symphonic tribute to Jerry! Was interesting and very different.
DEAD since '68, and yeah, it does remind me a lot of the DEAD. Good stuff.   {#Good-vibes}
Thought it was a cover of  Wharf Rat for a second.
 BBoyes wrote:
Almost sounds like Gratetful Dead, if they were starting in now?

 
Yeah it sure does!  Like it...
Almost sounds like Gratetful Dead, if they were starting in now?
 Ag3nt0rang3 wrote:


I can't imagine a set more likely to drive me to the PSD.

 
Then go PSD off!
It's exactly how i feel right now..
 jchap5 wrote:
Roxy, Fleet Foxes, Megafaun - nice set

 

I can't imagine a set more likely to drive me to the PSD.
"They told you how to get there and they told you where to go...", isn't that the truth.
still stinks of patchouli... {#Doh}
Roxy, Fleet Foxes, Megafaun - nice set
 LPCity wrote:
Stand in line.
 
I'm in line with you ....
Been grooving on this one for a while now-Just checked out some of their live performances on YouTube. I think they are using, like Triple auto tune on this recording!
 scraig wrote:


 
Stand in line.
 stegokitty wrote:
It's like Grateful Dead and Pink Floyd had a baby.

 
and they say that baby is kinda slow...


also, that band logo looks like that of some snow ski area....
 Krispian wrote:

With Paul McCartney on bass

 

Yeah, thought it was Phish at first.
I'm going to check out more of Megafaun's music.
Fine song on it's own legs but.... sure does start like "Wharf Rat" to my ears.  Not a bad thing...
 stegokitty wrote:
It's like Grateful Dead and Pink Floyd had a baby.

 
With Paul McCartney on bass
 stegokitty wrote:
It's like Grateful Dead and Pink Floyd had a baby.
 
i was just wondering, 'is the only PF song that sounds like GD?' 
It's like Grateful Dead and Pink Floyd had a baby.
Has GD written all over it.......very nice.
RIP Jerry.  08.09.1995
Great song, excellent recording ~> 8.
Well, that sounds like Sam Roberts …
Delicious bass line.
 This music is really sloooooow! Ráaaaaaa.. {#Bananapiano}
 BBoyes wrote:
I was hooked just by the intro. Shades of the Dead... that lilting synchopation.

 

so very Dead-ish that i had to check who it was...
I was hooked just by the intro. Shades of the Dead... that lilting syncopation.
Only caught the end of that..want to hear it again and again....think I have fallen in love with it{#Daisy}
This song is merely the tip of the album's iceberg--an amazing collection of very different and very compelling songs. You will not be disappointed.
daedalus wrote:
The harmonies remind me so much of Barefoot Jerry - Wayne Moss & Mac Gayden's band from the 70's.
just not as exciting! 
 
I agree! It's like Barefoot Jerry vocals with the Grateful Dead backing them up. Could be Mother Nature's Way Of Saying High?



Great Sunday Morning Pick!!
The Dead meet Ryan Adams in the tradition of great NC guitarists: Jamie Hoover and Mitch Easter.
amazing love this
loe this
this sounds up on sun met puppetsl oooove his
 gvan wrote:
Wish this song would end real fast. And their album cover looks like a logo for a consulting corporation.

 
Agree with the album cover comment, but not with the eager hope of song ending; kind of enjoyed this this evening.
The harmonies remind me so much of Barefoot Jerry - Wayne Moss & Mac Gayden's band from the 70's.
just not as exciting! 
Wish this song would end real fast. And their album cover looks like a logo for a consulting corporation.
Shades of the Dead....
 kysmet wrote:
I think I like this...a lot.
 
Yup.  Me too!
Derivatively Delicious!
or the Band....

{#Sleep}   4 —> 3  {#Sleep}

I think I like this...a lot.
Jammi' Jam!