I disagree with the first reviewer here in that I found the book to be a well rounded view of the Dead. The narration was undertaken in a passive way never over praising the band, which is common in books such as these, and pointing out their many areas of fault too, the power and control the crew had, the inability to face issues of virtually any description, the drug use etc.
It was interesting that this independent view also carried into the descriptions of the protagonists - Garcia while getting most coverage has his good and bad sides described. Its easy with all bands to fall into the trap of how you think they are in real life - this book shows all members in what I choose to believe are their true colours - and as with all people they have their faults and are not always likeable.
That said I am a big fan of the Dead and have enjoyed their music for many years. It was very interesting to have the "inside view", the stories behind the songwriting and the live experience. The latter point was wonderfully covered by a number of "intermission" chapters that described parts of the show throughout the book. This format I found very interesting and enjoyable.
For those people who are generally interested in music there is a lot here to enjoy about the pyscadelic music movement, the development of the hippy generation and how this coincided with the politcal situation of the times.
The book is extremely well researched and written and gives a good well rounded view of the band.
Complaints - I would agree with one reviewer here that once you get to the late 70's onwards the chapters tend to speed up a lot in the detail and number of years covered. This is a shame as despite this not being as ground breaking as the 60's/70's there was a lot to be interested in. Such as how a band like the dead managed to become so popular with a new generation, while making some "dodgy" studio albums and not exactly looking like a boy band. Its the quality of the music and the ability to perform live I guess....
Also I would say there is no reference to the money the band made in the 80s/90s. They only refer on a couple of ocassions to the money the fans brought to towns when the dead toured their. While money does not indicate everything, it is significant that they led the annual tour grosses in the US for a number of years and how that money changed the organisation and how it was invested in the workers pension plans, health schemes etc. Again it is another interesting aspect of the band.
You also get the clear impression that the Dead became popular in many ways despite themselves. They played what they wanted, how they wanted and were certainly not afraid of experimentation. You also get the sense that the financial rewards that came late in their careers really did not change them. It was just a by product of doing what they loved. In many cases they reinvested this wealth in new instruments new stage sound equipment oh and drugs...It also looks like even if the band had not gone on to be what they were that they would still be playing in bars and still getting pleasure out of making music.
So there it is the Dead in all their glory. If you want the in depth "muck racking" there are books on this band that will do that for you this is not one. Its just an even view of what went on - "you were either on the bus..or your weren't"