MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339150963 · doi:10.3138/jrpc.23.2.139

Searching for the (Sacred) Sound: Phil Lesh, the Grateful Dead, and Religion

2011· article· en· W2339150963 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Michael Kaler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion and Popular Culture · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMusic History and Culture
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenomenonCharismaReligiosityLyricsDead endSociologyEpistemologyAestheticsArtPhilosophyLiteratureTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: In addition to being recognized for their musical contributions, the Grateful Dead were also well known (indeed, notorious) for espousing a world view that can in many ways be described as religious, and for inspiring great devotion among their fans. There have been a number of scholarly discussions of religious aspects of the Grateful Dead phenomenon, but these discussions usually have to do either with the interpretive lens through which their lyrics are understood, or with sociologically based analyses of the behaviour of their followers. Both of these approaches are explicitly or implicitly etic, and they neglect the abundant testimony from band members themselves about the nature of this new religious movement masquerading as a rock band (or vice versa). In this paper, I attempt to correct this neglect by discussing some of the religious aspects of the Grateful Dead phenomenon from the perspective of the band members themselves, particularly the bassist, Phil Lesh. Drawing on his recently published autobiography, Searching for the Sound, I will describe his model of Grateful Dead's religiosity, and show how it is reflected in the Grateful Dead's performance practice. I will also discuss briefly the ways in which the Grateful Dead's attitude toward these religious ideals can be seen as efforts to resist the “routinization of charisma.”

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score0.867

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religion and Popular CultureSame topicMusic History and CultureFrench-language works237,207