Talk:Phish/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Save It For the Mockingbird 2 I disagree 2.1 The Truth about Trey at Coventry 2.1.1 Shows 3 Merge Sections? Restructure? 4 Forward Looking 5 New Page 6 On Coventry 7 Unsubstantiated Claims 8 Hyperbolic adjectives 9 Oswego 10 Audience Taping 11 Anyone else think this is bias or out of place? 12 LSD every day? 12.1 True Facts about LSD 13 Celebrity Fans 13.1 Celebrity Fans follow up 13.2 This section is still being discussed 13.3 Length issue 13.4 Objectives 13.5 Unsubstantiated? 13.6 Notable, but ... 14 POV and Vandals 14.1 POVs and Vandal Follow-up

Save It For the Mockingbird

I edited it for brevity and objectivity. An encyclopedia entry does not need an emotional warbly ode to the final moment with details that only devoted fanboys will care about or know. I mentioned the discussion about Trey's state because it was a very big deal to those in attendance that he appeared wasted and couldn't play, and if there are a few things worth noting about that weekend, that is one of them.

I don't think the band expects history to sanitize these things. And frankly I don't care what the band thinks, and neither should you.

Good edits, exactly what I was talking about below, the merging and moving of sections really cleaned up the article. -RI

I disagree

Now, I wasn't there, but I have a copy of the entire Coventry festival. I have not heard anywhere the speculation that Trey was wasted. It was sloppy playing at some points, but it was also the most emotional playing they've ever done. Let's keep it neutral.

Trey could still play better than most other guitarists that night, anyway.

The Truth about Trey at Coventry

Whether or not you agree or disagree with the above statement, Trey was not only drunk both nights, he was also sailing high in the euphoric utopia provided only through cocaine. Sure emotions were involved in the show, but his absence of professionalism witnessed throughout his entire career prior to Coventry was a huge kick in the teeth for dedicated followers and 'phans' such as myself. Watching Trey snort cocaine off of his guitar prior to the start of both shows (and possibly during set-breaks) suprized me greatly. Up until that moment, i thought he was different from all those other cookie cutter rock frontment who snort coke, shoot up heroin, drink booze, recieve (and possibly give) sexual favors and ultimatly destroy their lives and careers (Rolling stones among the most prominent that stick out in my mind).

There is a sense of abandonment, felt most strongly by Phishs' other members and among the phish community. Unlike Trey, who arrived in his luxury bus, many of us suffered to get conventry, both physically and emotionally, only to be extremely disappointed and let down.

Although Coventry was not one of Phishs' best moments, it changes nothing about the way i still feel about them. Phish is still one of the greatest Rock and/or Roll bands of their generation, and possibly the world. Unlike other rock and/or roll bands (Rolling Stones, U2, and various other crappy english and american bands) Phish came in a played an entirely different concert everynight, with new songs and new solos. NO TWO PHISH SHOWS WERE EVER ALIKE, and i am angered at whomever deleted that from Main article, because it is the truth. Even if there were two shows that played the exact same songs for both the first and second set (which is so highly unlikely that if someone presents a case in which that is true i will simply be dumbfounded and shocked) they are still completely different in terms of the soloing and energy produced. So take this last couple paragraphs with a grain of a salt and open your ears and your hearts to the once beloved phish.

I respectfully disagree with your statement. Go see any of the popular bands right now, Cold Play, U2, etc. and you will see identical shows. The point that that statement has in the article is that two shows were never alike because of the improve jaming that would take place. Songs usually started out with the same melody, but from there they would evolve into works of art, each seemingly very different from the night before. I see the point your trying to make, but i think removing that sentence from the article would not really convey the Phish concerts as a whole. Perhaps altering the statment would be more applicable, to keep the important content, but make make the point more clear. Also, after seeing 511 phish shows, i never saw the same set played once. I know that doesnt mean much since they played far more shows than that, but it just goes to show you how versitale they were. Let me know what you think about this. Thanks--Geppy 21:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The sentence though makes it seem like it something unique to only Phish. That isn't true since jam bands are not the only bands that can deviate from night to night. Such examples range anywhere from Pearl Jam, to Neil Young and Crazy Horse, to Herbie Hancock, to Bob Dylan. If the statement could convey that they are not/were not the only band where "no two shows were played alike", I see that as being fine. Something along the lines of "Like their contemporaries who excelled in unique live performances, such as Led Zeppelin, Cream, Pink Floyd, The Grateful Dead, ect., Phish were able to string consecutive shows together without any seeming the same in musical composition." --Moeron 21:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Shows

I have a problem with the statement "No two shows in Phish history have ever been the same, and most songs were not played exactly the same way twice." I feel it should not be included because of the fact that NO two shows by any band/group/performer can EVER be the same, making this statement void. I understand what is trying to be conveyed, but I think it should be worded better to avoid confusion, such as "Being a band that strives for creativeness, each show Phish plays is unique and its energy can not be easily replicated night to night." The statement can possibly even be dismissed, since the whole section of Their Music makes this statement clearer than one or two sentences. Thoughts? --Moeron 19:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree here. I think the sentence should be removed from the article. It adds no value, and it is wildly out of place. CharacterZero 19:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge Sections? Restructure?

The "growing popularity" section starts a bit sparse, and then seems to digress towards the end, as it is no longer the history of Phish. This part is the last on Phish's history in said section:

"After the IT festival, a few days after the Starlake show, Phish played a 4 night anniversary run from Nov. 28th - Dec. 2nd, a stellar four night New Year's run in Miami, a three night April 2004 Las Vegas run, and the final summer tour of 2004. This 2 segment tour ended with the Coventry festival on August 14th and 15th, 2004, which was a very emotional, though not well played, farewell. Coventry is further discussed below."

Then we have a rather nice digression into radio, MTV, Ben and Jerry's, Marijuana, and some other tangents. Then a seperate section is devoted to Coventry and the End. Should these two sections be together? A post-hiatus history would be better served if it were more logically placed I think, with the talk of the Final Tour following the quoted text. Instead it seems a bit out of place, or perhaps the stuff about Ben and Jerry's and MTV is a bit out of place... all in all I'm not too happy with the flow of the article. We have a short piece on the origin of Phish, followed by a Discography, and then a few lines about everything up until the Hiatus. I think the band's history, including Coventry etc., should all be in one contiguous section or sections. Having these other entries breaking up the flow seems to detract from the article IMO. I think the discography should be at the end of the article, any useful info about the live experience can be moved elsewhere.

Also a large chunk of the history section, part of "growing popularity", is devoted to 7/29/03 and Harpua! There's almost more about that than the entire pre-hiatus. Which seems a bit out of place. And we seem to have a neutral POV problem in at least one section:

"Phish is a live band, and studio albums often don't give an accurate picture of what the band is really capable of. To really hear Phish, you must get live recordings, which can be bought through the Live Phish (http://www.livephish.com) website, or traded on any number of music messageboards. Phish fans are extremely giving, and with a little cajoling, you'll be on your way."

Of course I agree whole-heartedly with the asessment, but I'm sure you can see the problem, and do we need to link to LivePhish and promote the fact that you can buy SBDs in 2 or 3 places in the article? It is worthy of noting, but I think it's overdone. Most of the information about the Live Performance, taping, downloads, etc., should all be in one section IMO. Perhaps it would best be placed somewhere in this chunk:

"Like the Grateful Dead before them, Phish (along with an increasing number of bands these days) have always allowed people to record and distribute audio of their live performances. Though soundboard copies of Phish's shows are now pressed and sold on the band's website, fans are also permitted to tape any performance they so desire, with the understanding that no profits from the recording are to be made. They may freely give or trade them with other fans, however, and many do. All net profits from the sale of soundboard recordings from their website are donated directly to the Mockingbird Foundation, a non-profit organization of Phish fans supporting music education for children."

I think some rather major changes are needed, and I thought it best to bring up the issue here before making any massive changes, input as to these issues would be appreciated.

Forward Looking

As indicated throughout the revision history, the entry was (with all due respect to the original author) essentially one long, unsegmented paragraph. To provide some fluidity without rewriting the entire entry, I decided to break it into digestable pieces. I believe this type of fragmentation should remain but not necessarily the verbosity. As for the marijuana controversy, Ben & Jerry's, etc. these to me are more cultural byproducts/elements of Phish and not necessary to understand their success as a band. Still I think they are interesting tidbits. - JWK

I would love to see this page emerge as a clear picture of the band with some analysis of history without rendering a heavily opinionated play-by-play. I think some mention of substance abuse is necessary, though not necessarily speculation about Trey's intoxication at the grand finalé. I think some discussion of their musical style is necessary, though not necessarily a grandiose dissertation on their musical roots, instrumentation, etc. We should also make mention of these things: HPB, the Internet community, taping policy, secret concerts (such as Glens Falls Halloween), mystery cover albums (New Years covers), vacuum playing, trampolines, relationship with DoL, etc.

New Page

I rewrote the history as best I could. I think we should at just one really nice picture of the band. Not a silly one; but one from maybe the reunion photo shoots or something. I can't figure out how to load pictures

Here's an idea for a photo I think would work very well. If someone could link it up somewhere in the middle of the page, that would be great:

http://www.phisharchive.com/articles/2002/nyt2.jpg

On Coventry

The page is getting a little bit into opinion territory with Coventry. I thought that Coventry was a lot like the rest of that tour: incredibly sloppy composed sections, and some really great improvisation. To say "the band played terribly" ignores all the (to me) excellent jamming that there was in that show. If some people say that it was all terrible, jamming included, that's fine, but that just means that there's a difference of opinion of how terrible the playing was.

For Trey's substance abuse, I've heard hints of that rumor from people who know what they're talking about, but, of course, nothing but rumors.

One other note about the Coventry section: Are we sure about it being broadcast to "millions" in movie theaters? That seems way off. I seem to remember that it being on the order of about 50 or 100 theaters. If you say at most 1000 people per theater (the theater I saw it in was a lot less than that), that's 50,000 to 100,000 people. It would have to be 1,000 theaters with 1,000 people in each to get to 1 million, let alone millions.

Fair enough.....you're welcomed to throw those edits in there of course.

Unsubstantiated Claims

This article makes several claims including:

• They are [were?] without question one of the most successful live bands of all time.
• Phish has [had?] a ... following larger than any other rock band in history with the possible exception of the Grateful Dead
• For several consecutive years, they were consistently ranked as one of music's top grossing concert acts
• [They hold] the record for the largest millennium concert in the entire world.

Note that I am not disputing any of these statements. I am merely stating that because this is an encyclopedia and not a fansite, it is incumbent on the editors to provide references for the claims made here. What were the gross tour revenues? record sales? cumulative audience counts? Please provide some figures and references for these impressive claims, as they will comfort those few individuals not holding Phish ticket stubs or CDs.

One more question:

• Why does the first section compare them to the Grateful Dead, and then the section Dedicated following says it is unfair to compare them to the Dead? --Blainster 10:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Unsubstantiated Claims

Another unsubstantiated claim being that Phish are/were an 'American institution'. Without getting into meta discussion about that (i.e. how can a band with such a marginal base of support be considered an institution), without something like a place in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, that just can't be proven.

I also think it's worth noting that though the band had a dedicated following within the USA, their following in Europe, for example, was non-existant. How can a band who couldn't sell out a toilet in Europe be considered to have a larger following than the Beatles or the Stones?

---

These few sentences are inaccurate

"That same weekend just a few towns away, the disaster at Woodstock 1999 was making new headlines as 70,000 people rioted and burned the concert grounds in an ugly scene. The media failed to mention that the same number of people had a peaceful, friendly weekend across the state at a Phish concert."

There was actually approximately 250,000 people at Woodstock so it shouldnt state that there was the same amount of people at both concerts.--4.17.250.5 20:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hyperbolic adjectives

How many times do "huge," "massive" and "enormous" have to be used in one article? This is an article about Phish, not my member.

Also, if you're going to describe an artistic endeavor as "the most successful," you're going to have to define your terms of success. --Ochlocrat 21:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Oswego

The info about the site of the '99 Festival is not accurate. The Oswego County Airport was, and still is a working airport.

Audience Taping

Right now there is no real mention of taping in the article, which seems like it was a key ingredient to Phish's early success and set them apart from most bands at the time. Maybe a paragraph about that was removed?

Anyone else think this is bias or out of place?

From the end of the introduction:

Others simply don't like pedophiles, or find it funny that with enough saratonin displacement, even a vaccuum can seem entertaining.

Seems to me like the article could do without this.

LSD every day?

This section:

"The band was known to experiment with various psychedelic drugs. Drummer Jon Fishman once admitted that for a whole year he would set his alarm clock for 5 AM, ingest liquid LSD, go back to sleep, and at 7:30 the acid would wake him up to go to school. He stated that this was the year in which he got his best grades. He also has admitted to the fact that he dropped acid at every single gig the first two years of the bands history."

seems to be falsified or just a rumor. LSD cannot be taken with even remotely a consistent magnitude of effects due to the massive increase and decrease of tolerance it creates. Often it will take several days or a week until a new experience is accessible.\

True Facts about LSD

This previous statement, "LSD often takes several days or a week until a new experience is accessible" is simply not true. LSD can be ingested night after night with new trips and experiences everyday. Please reconsider who or where you get your facts from, actual experiences and testing has consistently proved this educated guess wrong.

In responce to the above, I enjoy LSD often. If I take the same amount that I took the day before I get less than half the trip. It takes twice as much to experience the previous trip. AFter I learned this, I spaced it out over several weeks to get the optimum effect. It has been working ever since.

Celebrity Fans

I don't see the point of this section. I'm certain that we could have a list like this for pretty much any popular band from the last 30+ years. Coldplay and The White Stripes for instance are often bands that you see mentioned in "People" as having celebs show up at a show. I think this is pretty much irrelevant to this article, and more a topic of conversation for n00bs on PT who want to list all the celeb "Phishheads". I say we ditch this. 12.218.37.174 Read Icculus

Celebrity Fans follow up

I dont think this section warrants removal. Phish was unlike any of the above mentioned, neo-nazi facist, pop bands mentioned above whose only goal/aim is to make as much money as possible. The reason that this section warrants significance is because phish was often seen as a band that went against mainstream. Its style of music and concert atmospheres were completely different than going to a coldplay concert and hearing the same 10 songs you heard last time you saw them. Phish was against the flow of the stream, so when celebrities did go to shows or were fans it was a big deal, becuase phish did not live in LA and work with top music producers in multi-billion dollar studios, rather they lived in Vermont, recorded their albums in a barn, and worked with friends they met along the way. Lets not let some arrogant bastard who happens not to like phish restructure an article to his proportions.

First off I'm not an arrogant bastard who doesn't like Phish. I love Phish just as much as anyone here. That however will not cloud my judgement on making this article NPOV and up to the same standards we have for other bands. I too may dislike certain bands I mentioned, but you're making a POV judgement that Phish is so much better and such a phenomenon that we can do things differently for this article. Obviously they are vastly different in many ways than most any other popular band. But they are still a popular band and all bands with a good degree of popularity have a dozen "celebs" who have been to there concerts and been listed in People or Page 6. We could list dozens of people for Bruce Springsteen for example. He too has a "concert experience" associated with his shows. Phish wasn't exactly so obscure that having a celebrity show up for a concert was such a huge deal IMO. They were voted as most important band of the 90's or what have you by RS, and everyone I know has heard of them. It's not exactly a "big deal" worthy of noting in this article IMO when a celebrity happened to be seen at a Phish show. Certainly Conan went to "a" Phish show at MSG and mentioned it, but I think we as a community may be overplaying this quite a bit. Celebs went to Phish shows, Dead shows, etc. Same for SCI. I wouldn't want us to list every celebrity SCI fan on that article, they may be obscure as well, but I hardly think this deserves mention in an article on the band. And the section is woefully underwhelming as far as current lists that are being bandied about on PT. Also this section has been repeatedly vandalized with names like Chewbacca and d00dbrah, I'm getting a bit tired of editing it. 12.218.37.174 Read Icculus

This section is still being discussed

"This section is still being discussed" - Does anyone actually want to discuss this section or respond to any of my points? I waited a number of days for anyone to respond to my points and give a reason why we need to list celebrity fans for a band as well known as Phish. Please, if you have objections and something to add to this conversation, just let me know and let your views be known. I'd love to come to a consensus on this, but no one is talking. Even if "we" consider something to be a bit different than the mainstream, I fail to see how that status warrants listing just a couple of people who enjoy the thing in question. Especially as we could start up a "celebrity fans" section on pretty much any aspect of popular culture of book that is "different" and somehow deserving of special mention when famous people express even a minor degree of affection for said things. So please at least discuss this before we revert the article. I was waiting for a number of days for anyone to chime in before I removed the section in question. 12.218.37.174 23:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Length issue

As another aside, the article currently stands at ~34kb. If there is any section I would want to outright slash in order to get closer to the guidelines, it would be a listing of people who have either said they like Phish, or have been to a Phish show one or more times. I certainly welcome any thoughts anyone has on this. 12.218.37.174 21:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Also let's not let our obsessive fan-status color this article - in any way at all. We seek NPOV. And certainly as others have mentioned there have been some problems with hyperbole and outright bias creeping in here and there. Let's stick to the facts. Note that Phish has a certain different status than your average band and what have you, but we can't treat Phish differently than other bands in every respect. Please see the WP guidelines for being civil and how an article should be written. If anyone wants to discuss this further and let me know why they think we need a list of celebrities who have been to Phish concerts on this page please add you comments. Otherwise I'll be deleting that section here soon. 12.218.37.174 Read Icculus

Objectives

• The question is "what information does a celebrity list add to the article?" Very little, if any, about the band or the music. It does make a statement of some sort, but what sort is unclear. To some, it may indicate that there was something special about a non-mainstream band that captured the interest of some mainstream personalities. Does this add anything desirable to the article? The way I, and doubless many others, interpret celebrity lists is that they are intended to give a sense of legitimacy. I don't think Phish needs to be legitimized. Delete Psora 06:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The objective of a encyclopedia article is to show (through the compiling of respected references, some subjective recounting of local/national/world impact, and cold facts) why the general populace should give a rip that the person existed. It is also provided to be a reference source to curious persons. Persuasiveness, fanship, promotion or endorsement (while great things) have no place here. Saying "Al Franken and Carrot Top love Phish" has no place here, since it operates on the belief that the reader cares what Al Franken and Carrot Top think, when, if fact, the article should be written with the exact OPPOSITE notion. No matter how universally beloved, regarded, or admired the person is, an objective reader who LOATHES the person should be able to come away from the article educated, instead of drowned with pro-person information. Does that mean that interesting and even relevant content will be left out? Absolutely. But if someone wants exhaustive, fannish info, they go to B&N.com for a biography, not wikipedia. With these thoughts in mind, there could also be some judicous trimming in other areas as well.--Esprit15d 20:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated?

the thing is, half of those names are fairly unsubstantiated...and most of the musicians could be classified as onstage guests rather than fans, IMHO. MSherrick 01:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Notable, but ...

I definitely thing the celeb fans section is notable, because the list is so widely varied, and frankly, surprising. The pic of DeVito makes it a nice touch, as A.J. Jacobs' The Know-it-all reminds us. Just keep it limited to A-list celebs or notable politicians, and readibility shouldn't be impeded. BabuBhatt 10:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

POV and Vandals

Lots of minor little vandalisms here and there, people removing a link to PT and replacing it with one to Pheesh and adding in various things about Paul Glace. We might need some people to look after this article as some of these changes have been around for a long time without being taken care of. Also this article is fairly full of POV... way too many instances to note all of them. Tons of weasel words and endless talk of what the fans think about something. For instance the 10/31/98 show was a "prank" because they played Loaded?

"They kept going, but Phish had realized that there was nothing more in the music world they could do. They had accomplished more than any other touring band, and on their own terms."

How in the world is any of this NPOV?

And on the flip-side of the coin... "With lethargic record sales and little advertising, Phish depended on word of mouth to spread their music."

Now I edited "a sorry advertising rhetoric" to "little advertising", but this reeks of POV. Lethargic record sales? By who's measure? How many bands sell tens of thousands of albums? Certainly word of mouth played a massive role, but this POV is just one of the many instances I see all over the place. So it looks to me as if NPOV-ing this article is going to be a large undertaking. As I've said I'm a huge fan, but this is amazingly out of whack with Wikipedia standards as far as NPOV. We simply can't have an article that is in any way biased. Talk of the unique nature of the band and all that, but this needs some major work. 12.218.37.174 Read Icculus

POVs and Vandal Follow-up

I think that any editor of an article on wiki needs to have a strong foundation of knowledge in the subject to which they are scripting for. This allows for the author to maximize the amount and effectiveness of the material located within their article.

You sir [author/user of the original '"POV and Vandal"' section immediately above the previous paragraph] lack that expertise and professionalism that this type of article requires. My advice to you, listen to some Phish and let the music speak for itself. If you had the good fortune to have had the opportunity to attend one of their living shows, let that/those experience(s) influence your writting and expand your thought. But please do not attempt to write an article that you don't have the knowledge to do so properly. Thank you, and have a great day! --Gephart 23:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC) Read TMWSIY

• Whoa... Switch to decaf! Read Icculus makes a good point. This article is full of pov. I started in on editing the intro, but by the time I got to the rather long-winded middle section, I realized that the clean-up is going to be massive, with many toes stepped on. I love Phish, have been to many shows starting in spring 93, but in the context of an encyclopedia, the music does not, can not, "speak for itself." This article needs massive re-structuring and re-writing. I'm going to set back a while and see how this discussion develops, it would be best if we could work together on these problems in a civilized manner. Psora 06:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• Side note: Please, everyone sign your posts. Four tildes gets it done. Psora 06:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)