Talk:Phish/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.
← Archive 5 |
Archive 6
| Archive 7 →


Contents

Phish.net.

I e-mailed the webmaster for Phish.net last night and was surprised to find a response this morning. I received a response from none other then Ellis Godard, the veritable founder of Phish.net and executive director of The Mockingbird Foundation. A Phish demi-deity. I told him of our dilemma at Wikipedia, unnecessarily spelling things out for him as he, himself, bas been known to edit here. I basically asked where the news information comes from. His response:

"The info for Phish.net headlines comes from a variety of sources, including all manner of reputable insiders. Nothing is posted based on reports from a complete unknown, although sometimes partial info is posted ASAP and then details fleshed out later. I'll add the call letters for the Trey quote this weekend."

I've responded wondering exactly what "reputable insiders" would entail, but it looks to me that we can consider Phish.net credible enough for our purposes. While they may sacrifice information in the quest for time, I think they're close enough to the source to be considered a primary source -- or something between primary and secondary. Any thoughts? —  MusicMaker 18:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on his response, I feel fine using Phish.net as a source. A primary source is a form of information that can be regarded as an artifact of its time. A secondary source is often a commentary on, or analysis of, a primary source. Phish.net reporting on the radio show, a Newsweek, a Rolling stone article makes them the secondary source. But the information in the FAQ or news broken exclusively by them makes them the primary source.
Anyway, kudos to you Maker for contacting them! --Moeron 19:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Phish Billboard chart positions

Phish albums chart positions on the Billboard I am not sure where/how I would add this information into the article, but I did not know that all but one of the studio albums peaked in the top 50 of the Billboard 200, with a number peaking above 20. Does anyone know where to check the gold/platinum status of albums on the web? --Moeron 19:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

They are certifications issued by RIAA. There is a searchable database on their site: here. Go for it! —  MusicMaker 19:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The information should probably go on the discography page. Maybe add to the table there. —  MusicMaker 19:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I will look into making a seperate column in the table on the Phish discography page. It perhaps should be mentioned in this article somewhere, though, since this shows a good amount of commercial success. Something like (from the first paragraph): "Although the group received little radio play or MTV exposure, the band had all but one of it's studio albums reach a peak of 50 or greater on the Billboard 200 chart, with some in the top 20. This was in part because Phish developed a large following by word of mouth." or something along those lines. --Moeron 20:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I think if we take out the "peak of 50" and mention how many went Gold or higher you might be on to something.
And I don't even think you need a separate column on the discography page: there's a special notes column. You could probably put what each album reached on Billboard and any RIAA status there. And because programming tables is confusing....
LOL. Or, you know, if you already have it done, that's cool, too.
Did you check out the database at RIAA? Was it helpful at all? I didn't really get a chance to check it out (as usual, was running out the door to work). I don't think we should add ANOTHER column to that table, but maybe change the Billboard heading to include the RIAA cert. I dunno -- some thoughts.
—  MusicMaker 21:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of "MTV exposure", I know I am a teenager and was not, um....well present during all of this, but I assume there were other ways to get out word of a new band. VH1? Other commerical advertisements? TommyBoy76 21:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76
Well, not really. When they were just getting started in the early eighties, it was radio and MTV. VH1 wouldn't be along for a few years (and when it finally hit, was a complete joke....). We don't really need to mention EVERY POSSIBLE OUTLET. —  MusicMaker 17:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey. just a quick thought off of the top of my head. Thanks, anyway. 02:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

"Cow funk"

I really enjoy Trey's oft-quoted line something along the lines of "Four white boys from Vermont can't play funk. I guess you can call what we do 'cow funk'." I'm trying to find a source or someone who can point me towards one so we can include it in the article. It really sort of fleshes out Trey's character, you know? We should leave it out for the time being, but I'll put it back in as soon as I have something. —  MusicMaker 21:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Scrub

Phish Band Members (By Year)
(1983-1984)
(1984-1985)
(1985)
(1985-1986)
(1986-2004)

I just finished a pretty decent scrub of the article. I didn't get rid of too many specific facts, but was able to get it down under the 30KB mark (I'd assume around 28KB). It was 34KB when I started, so that's a fair chunk of change when most of it was in rewording.
The main things that got cut were specifics about various concerts and festivals. I left the facts about the festivals themselves, but what went on at them are well-covered in their respective articles and can be left off of the main page. A full list of cuts and my rationale behind them is available here. I moved one paragraph regarding a comparison between Phish and the Dead that was kind of throwing off the narrative of their career into its own section. Nor did I think it necessary to say what they did EVERY year for Halloween.
I've removed all of the {{fact}} tags, as they apparently make people angry. What I am going to do is set up a version of this scrub WITH {{fact}}s on a userpage here and work from that, if anyone is interested in helping to get EVERYTHING cited -- that's probably what I'll be doing for awhile.
—  MusicMaker 17:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers to you, mate! --Moeron 18:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I just did some rearranging and added a blurb on Chris Kuroda (I think it's crimimal to mention him in only a CAPTION!) and a blurb about their concerts, and it brought the size to just over 30 KB. DAMMIT! I'm gonna see what I can cut. —  MusicMaker 19:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL -- removed two sentences and got it back under 30! This is crazy: maybe we should take a bigger red pen to the history section.
—  MusicMaker 19:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I also removed a box that was redundant of the information in the infobox and article and taking up A LOT of room:
—  MusicMaker 20:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

RIAA certification

Found information on gold and platinum records as per MusicMakers link. I will be adding them into the Phish discography page as well as a mention in their individual album pages. I leave it to anyone elses decision if this information should be presented in this article somewhere, perhaps even coupled with the above Billboard 200 chart position information. Here is the results of the search (sorry for the formatting, I will try and fix later ... when I am not at work):--Moeron 18:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Artist Title Cert. Date Label Award Desc. Format Category Type

  • PHISH A LIVE ONE 11/10/95 ELEKTRA G ALBUM GROUP Std
  • PHISH HOIST 08/19/96 ELEKTRA G ALBUM GROUP Std
  • PHISH JUNTA 10/09/97 ELEKTRA G ALBUM GROUP Std
  • PHISH RIFT 10/15/97 ELEKTRA G ALBUM GROUP Std
  • PHISH A LIVE ONE 10/15/97 ELEKTRA P ALBUM GROUP Std
  • PHISH BILLY BREATHES 01/08/99 ELEKTRA G ALBUM GROUP Std
  • PHISH HAMPTON COMES ALIVE 01/14/00 ELEKTRA G ALBUM GROUP Std
  • PHISH A PICTURE OF NECTAR 11/15/01 ELEKTRA G ALBUM GROUP Std
  • PHISH LIVE IN VEGAS 02/13/03 ELEKTRA G VIDEO LONGFORM GROUP Std
  • PHISH LAWN BOY 07/07/04 ELEKTRA G ALBUM GROUP Std
  • PHISH JUNTA 07/07/04 ELEKTRA P ALBUM GROUP Std
  • PHISH IT 01/26/05 RHINO HOME VIDEO P VIDEO LONGFORM GROUP Std
  • PHISH IT 01/26/05 RHINO HOME VIDEO G VIDEO LONGFORM GROUP Std
  • PHISH FARMHOUSE 01/30/06 ELEKTRA G ALBUM GROUP Std

Pork Tornado

I'm kinda tired of looking at that red link, but I don't really know too much about them. I saw them once in Philly and they rocked the house, so if any of the guys looking to "contribute" instead of "edit" wants to start on this page, go for it. —  MusicMaker 20:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The Phish table is missing Camp Oswego

Camp Oswego is missing in the festivals section of the new Phish table. I can't figure out how to edit it. Can someone please add it in there? Phish.com lists it on their events page and it was definitely an official festival and needs to be included. Thanks - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlyslighted (talk • contribs)

Agreed, and I don't know how to editthetemplate for the box, and can the box include songs so that they can be more visible and get more editing? Many of them already have articles. BabuBhatt 23:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Camp Oswego was my bad, sorry. Wasn't contesting its existance, just forgot to put it on. (MusicMaker mumbles something about short-term memory loss....)
I debated putting a section of songs on there, but it's gonna end up a huge disorganized mess. If we make the songs their own box and somehow organize it, I wouldn't oppose a second box. Perhaps by tour of debut? That would link the individual tours to the main page, too. I really think there's something to be salvaged in those pages, but we just need to put them to use.
Actually, what we could do is set up a box for the tours and list the songs debuted. This would involve an expansion of those articles into something a little meatier. There is an endless amount of information out there regarding individual tours, lets get it up there.
—  MusicMaker 01:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
How about just addng list of Phish songs and Phish tours under rlevant? BabuBhatt 06:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the just adding a Wikilink to list of phish songs. --MOE.RON talk | done | doing 13:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Done. —  MusicMaker 19:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I think the numbers are all fubar. I really need to get to work or I'd fix it, but I was going to remove the WaterWheel source. (It's sourced on the WaterWheel page and, therefore, doesn't need to be cited in the main article.) But I couldn't figure out which was which. And, of course, I need to leave. —  MusicMaker 19:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

MusicMaker's uncalled for revisions

No offense, but the actual writing quality and factual base of this article was so much better before MusicMaker's revisions. What was the point? It seems to go hand in hand with the Moreron era of not contributing anything new, but editing what was there before, which is frustrating since so many people spent hours and hours to tell the Phish story. It's gone down about 5 levels since these boring senseless edits took place..—This unsigned comment was added by Onlyslighted (talk • contribs) .

======

As much as I don't want to agree, I have to agree with that statement—This unsigned comment was added by Onlyslighted (talk • contribs) .

Provide the changes here that you think were not correct or should be reverted to previous editions. Then, we can discuss and possibly revert any old entries back. What do you mean by "factual base" for the article? Do you want to remove all sources and citations from the article, making it less encyclopedic? We can't use fans as sources because of their POV. --MOE.RON talk | done | doing 01:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I just reverted some of your minor edits just recently. If you just glanced over the history without looking at the explanation as to why I did this, here is my reasoning:
  • Revision 1 - changed back because;
    • Phish.com just mentions Anastasio leaving, not being suspended
    • Phish.net says he "decided to leave".
    • Pharmer's Alamanac confirms Phish.net's comment.
  • Revision 2 - changed back because the source that is cited here is the Washington Post article of the event. It has the crowd as 65,000. See reference #22 for the link to the article to check this. If there is another source that says a different number, let it be known here so we can reflect that a specific number was never reached.
  • Revision 3 - changed back because his name is Wiki-linked in the band infobox as well as in the first history section. Like the rest of the members, he should not be Wiki-linked again further in the article. --MOE.RON talk | done | doing 02:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't change a thing. I did no research other than to clarify things by checking the sources. When I did that, I cited it. I didn't change any numbers or dates, I was perhaps slightly less specific with everything. I consolidated sentences and made it not read like a Doctorow novel. What follows is EXACTLY what was excised from the article:

  • Songs played at first concert.
  • Exact dates
  • "The impact of Garcia's death on the Phish scene is uncertain. Although Phish's music was very different from The Grateful Dead's, the fan culture that had grown up around both bands was similar. Each concert was the centerpiece of an event that included a sort of temporary village in the parking lot. Before, during, and after concerts, people socialized and did business (buying, selling, trading of various goods) outside the venue. Many fans who toured with the Grateful Dead began to follow Phish, and there was a certain shift of parking lot vendors, artisans, and drug dealers from the Dead to Phish - many of whom made the shift in 1994, prior to Garcia's death."
I have nothing against this paragraph's inclusion, per se, however, it breaks the narrative of their carrer. Perhaps in a section regarding a comparison between the two bands.
created subsection
Also breaks up the paragraph; we don't have to say what they did each Halloween.
  • "This time around, the band had the audience make candles throughout the weekend. At the end of the show, the band lined the stage with candles, turned out all the lights, and played one long, quiet, ambient jam."
The reader is by now aware of the antics; move to The Lemonwheel page.
  • "The following weekend just a few towns away, Woodstock 1999 was making new headlines as 200,000 people rioted and burned the concert grounds. However, New York Governor George Pataki did make mention of the peacefulness of the Phish show as compared to the debacle at Woodstock.
Can be dealt with on the Camp Oswego page.
  • "At the beginning of the set, Trey Anastasio mentioned that the band had portable toilets onstage so they could use the restroom during the marathon set, and a team of security guards lined the stage to prevent band members from "wimping out" and trying to leave the stage. When the band left the stage in tears at sunrise after the extremely emotional performance, Trey Anastasio said to Jon Fishman, "we should stop."
Big Cypress
Specifics about what happened during the hiatus can be found on respective member's page
First sentence nearly uncitable and sounds like original research. However, it doesn't matter what happened to OTHER people: this article is about Phish. Neither is Bonnaroo about Phish.
  • "At 2:30 a.m. following the first night's show, the band performed an hour-long, ambient jam on top of the air traffic control tower overlooking the base. Anyone still awake was treated to the sight of an intricate light and laser show with acrobats performing suspended from the tower by bungee cords. "
Dealt with on It (Phish festival).
  • "Adding tragedy to the festival, 25-year-old Ian Niles Gardiner, of Bristol, Connecticut, was found dead in a tent at 2:18 a.m. Monday following the final show."
Tragic, but deaths happen at shows all the time. And this is a very depressing thing to have at the end of the section on their CAREER.
  • "There are still projects today that work to make entire tours available to everyone, free of charge. "
Unnecessary information
  • Various Celebs and Bands from list of fans.
A band cannot be a fan. It's members can be. I also removed people who aren't big enough celebrities to warrant inclusion in a section on celebrities.

Beyond that, I don't know how you think anyone could possibly take you seriously at this point. You just responded to your own message. And you agreed with yourself. It's nice to know that you agree with yourself, even though you might "hate to say it."
What is this, Sockpuppets for Idiots?
I feel like I've entered some alternate dimension.
—  MusicMaker 04:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Mentions of Anastasio suspension

http://www.geocities.com/deadphanhead/Trey.html

http://www.gadiel.com/phish/quiz3.html

http://pedia.nodeworks.com/T/TR/TRE/Trey_Anastasio

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/ref/trey_anastasio

http://www.treyfans.com/bio.html

http://www.treyfans.com/treystory.html

http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Phish

Fans would know this, but I have a hard time believing that the article butchers here are actually fans—This unsigned comment was added by 68.112.25.197 (talk • contribs) .

  • Very nice! Now the problem comes into whether these fan-based articles over-ride the lack of mentioning of a suspension by Phish.com, Phish.net, Pharmer's Alamanac, ect. Since these latter sources are the ones most used, it is hard to outright change the sentence back to him being suspended. This actually was a repeated discussion me and my Phish friends. It would often come up when we would see the band :) I would like to hear what other have to say. In light of these other sources, I feel perhaps we should change the sentence to something like, "...following the prank at UVM, Anastasio transferred to Goddard." Then again, the current comment of "Anastasio decided to leave the college." may still be valid because, at least with most colleges, students could fight a suspension or work it out to come back the following year. Anastasio, know this information, possibly decided against fighting it and just decided to leave. Perhaps we can contact Ellis Godard, the founder of Phish.net and executive director of The Mockingbird Foundation, again and ask his input on this issue. What do you think, MusicMaker? --MOE.RON talk | done | doing 02:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I really don't understand what you're trying to say, 68.112.25.197. It is likely that Trey was suspended from UVM, however it was not necessarily this that compelled him to leave the school. I know the lore is that Trey got "kicked out", but there is no source that says "Trey was ETERNALLY EXPELLED from UVM". Everything you just sited states that he was suspended for a semester, implying that he was free to return after that point. The article states "Trey decided to leave the college," and all sources point to confirming that fact. It is entirely possible that, had he not been suspended, he still would have transferred to Goddard. (Written during Moeron's response.)
The official word from the band is to gloss over things. We allude to the prank, then say that he decided to leave. As it stands, the article is completely factual; it might not paint the whole picture, but you get the general idea of what could have occured. Besides, I'm sure it's gone into detail on his page.
As for Ellis Godard, I'm pretty sure we don't need to run to him for clarifications on everything. I contacted Phish.net expecting to get from a response from some lackey, and don't want to abuse the kindness he showed me. Besides, he's a college professor, head of a major charity, and has a sick six-year-old: he doesn't need me whining about every little thing at Wikipedia. If he wants to lend a hand over here, he is more than aware of where to find us.
(Sorry I sound cranky.)
—  MusicMaker 04:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Suspension doesn't equal eternal explusion. And my brother WROTE the Phamrer's Almanac, and Volume 6 clearly says he was suspended. I also decided to email Tom Marshall about the situation, who confirmed the suspension.

Also, you'll find several users on this IP because I log in from a university, and I have several Phish friends that have helped CREATE this article, whereas you guys do nothing but delete and edit creativity instead of engaging in it. So no one can take me seriously, yet I wrote every single god damn Live Phish review in Wikipedia, all the video reviews, and rescued this article from absolute shit about two years ago. Any real Phish fan would laugh at the fact that you newbs think Trey just randomly left UVM for fun. It shows your lack of knowledge and just confirms your "don't create, just bitch" attitude to this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlyslighted (talk • contribs)

I'm certainly glad that you took it upon yourself to e-mail Tom Marshall, however, that would classify it as original research and, therefore, not be useful for inclusion in Wikipedia. And thank your brother for me. (Yeah. That was sarcasm.)
It doesn't matter what every phan thinks about the reason Trey left UVM. It doesn't matter what I think about why Trey left UVM. He was suspended. He left. This is the extent of the information at hand. Again, there is NOT ONE VERIFIABLE LINK between Trey's suspension and his decision to leave the school. And, as you have not yet offered any corroborating evidence, I consider this conversation closed.
No one. NO ONE. Is in any way saying that what you do is bad. Or wrong. I think you're doing a good job with what you do. HOWEVER. You act like a three-year-old. I know that, at Villanova University, we acted like adults. I could really care less what you've contibuted in the past; I'm much more concerned with your current attitude, which can be classified as childish and moronic, and is antithetical toward creating anything positve out of this venture.
Furthermore, you need to understand that, for every edit you "contribute", there will be four people behind you making it into something intelligible, cited, and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If you'd rather not see that happen, write your own papers on Phish. Set up a fansite.
And, considering that you're "log[ging] in from a university", doing a quick math, you couldn't have been more than sixteen when the hiatus rolled around. Let's be very careful about who is called a "newbie".
And just as a side question, how many users sign in as "Onlyslighted"? I assume that all of your friends have your password and enter in an agreement then erase what they've written for the sole purpose of making you look foolish.
Seriously, dude. We're not idiots.
—  MusicMaker 06:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

SIZZLEEEEE. As much as I like reading this little bicker-fest, let's not get distracted. Nothing will get done if people sneak in insults in their arguement and harshly, for lack of a better word, try and come to terms. Let's use Wikiquette, people, and peace will knock at this article's/discussion's door, eh? And we allllll love peace don't we? TommyBoy76 12:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

My bad. I apologize profusely for insinuating that Onlyslighted acted like a three-year-old. (Well, I said it; I didn't insinuate it.) That was a personal attack and wholly out of line.
However, Onlyslighted needs to understand that anything he adds to Wikipedia is going to be edited mercilessly by others. Attempting to subvert that fact or complaining about it is not how you create on a Wiki. After I scrubbed the article Babu came through and made about 15 edits. Did I complain? Did I attempt to stop him? (On one occasion I changed back one edit because he created a run-on. That's all.) No. I'm aware of my shortcomings and may have sacrificed clarity for brevity.
The belief that one contributes to Wikipedia to leave their effect on posterity is dangerous, and it is my belief that Onlyslighted is operating under this misguided notion. By all means, keep contributing. However, you might want to take a look around and notice that Wikipedians are most often referred to as "editors", and for good reason. The bulk of the work done here is in rewriting, rewording, and deleting. You know, "editing".
I'll say it again: I think you're doing good work, Onlyslighted. You could be an asset to Wikipedia, but you don't seem to want to help us in any way. You want to do things your way.
As for me, I'm really done concerning myself about this. Moving on.
—  MusicMaker 18:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

SerialPod in info tabe

Just created a SerialPod page. Could we add it in the table under "Member's side projects"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padgett22 (talk • contribs)

Because of the tendency of the template to get rather large (it's already larger than it should be), I thought we should probably limit the side projects to just the ones that were instituted between 83-04: when they were, in fact, "side" projects and not new projects altogether. (Which means I should probably remove 70 Volt Parade.) Anyone else have any thoughts on this? I don't want to ignore these new projects -- I think they need a template of some sort -- I just don't want that thing to take on a life of its own. (The template becomes sentient, begins terrorizing small towns, kidnaps a small girl -- oddly enough, named "Esther". The villagers band together to take on the template, donning torches and spears. Bedlam. All because of SerialPod. Trey addresses a mourning nation, tracked by itself on all bootlegs as "Trey Speaks"....) —  MusicMaker 21:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
It might be in the best interest just to nix the "Side Projects" section from the template. My reasoning is that only things that relate back to Phish the band should be dealt with ... a sort-of "one degree of seperation". The side projects would, therefore, be considered "two degrees of seperation" from the band. Side projects or other projects (such as Mike's movies) should be just dealt with through links on their respective, individual band member pages. --MOE.RON talk | done | doing 22:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Using that reasoning, we should also get rid of Sharin' in the Groove and yet keep The Phish Companion. As they are both issued by Mockingbird, I don't know if that makes any sense. I'm not against removing the side projects section per se, maybe just as a blanket rule to keep them off of there.... —  MusicMaker 22:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
If Sharin' in the Groove stays, we would need to also put the "Bluegrass tributes" to Phish as well in the template, so as not to show favoritism. Anyway, my vote is to leave the side projects and extrenuous stuff (ie. Mike's movies) off the template. --MOE.RON talk | done | doing 22:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Do we have articles for the tributes? (Though I think we have three separate articles on The White Tape. I'm going to look into it a little harder and probably set up some redirects.) I don't think it would be favoritism to keep Sharin' up there as, coming from Mockingbird, it enjoys a slightly "more official" status than the others (whose titles are escaping me). Anyway, I'm going to get rid of the side projects section later tonight. —  MusicMaker 23:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)