Talk:Phish

Please leave new messages at the BOTTOM of this page.

Archives
New – March 2006 October 2005 – November 2005 November 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 May 2006

Jim Carrey

I hesitate to wade into this mess, but the citation for Jim Carrey's status as a celebrity phan is a bit tenuous. It states that he went to a private concert with the crew of "Me Myself and Irene," and that Jim sang two songs with Phish, "Hey You" by Pink Floyd and "Come Together" by the Beatles. I'm not sure how this qualifies as "express[ing] admiration for Phish." I might be tempted to accept it, except that the songs he sang with Phish are not Phish songs. Can anyone confirm that Jimbo likes Phish? Mjl0509 01:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I am 100% in favor of the deletion of that entire section. It creates a citation nightmare, and doesn't do anything for the article that the photo of DeVito at Coventry doesn't do on its own. A picture is worth 1000 words. —  MusicMaker 04:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really give a damn about it either. Sure it's interesting to see that celebs like a band like Phish, but this article doesn't need it. TommyBoy76 16:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

Interesting? Yes. Useful on Wikipedia? Not really; as a list, it doesn't really add anything. If they people (and article sources) were used as critical commentary of the band, I would be fine with it. I will not argue with the section being removed. --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 16:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The section has been removed. Here it is, simply for posterity's sake. —  MusicMaker 17:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There are many celebrities and musicians who have expressed admiration for Phish, including Jim Carrey, Carrot Top, Tony Danza, Danny DeVito, Fran Drescher, Jimmy Fallon, Al Franken, Matt Groening, Phil Jackson, David Letterman, Ralph Macchio, Rick Moranis, Matisyahu, Conan O'Brien , Robert Plant, Mike Portnoy of Dream Theater, Tim Robbins, Fred Savage, Jerry Seinfeld, Gene Simmons, Patton Oswalt, Bruce Springsteen, Julia Stiles, Kurt Vonnegut, Roger Waters, and Steven Wright

Funk

Is anyone going to make a note of the bass sounded very 'funk'ee? In much of the music the bass is almost completely different to the song in that it's funky whereas the rest might be something else (but still coming together). At least in the top description where it has jazz/blues/folk etc. --Perplextrator 04:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh

Say, I know people get the picture when the Country is Burlington, Vermont, USA, even though it's not really a Country. But for clarity's sake, could it be changed from "Country" to something, more like, Origin? TommyBoy76 00:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

rec.music.phish vs Phish.net

Kingboyk brings up a good point, and I've been trying to find an answer and have come up empty-handed. Or maybe it's because I don't understand the early workings of the Internet too well. Or. Because I'm a dumbass. All equally plausible.
Anyway, the article has long stated that Phish was one of the first bands to have a newsgroup, but it identified it as Phish.net. I left it during my scrub (most likely because I forgot to look into it), but Phish.net is definitely NOT a newsgroup. It's a website. Doing a little research on Phish.net, it says that it grew from several primitive e-mail groups in the early 90's, and that Phish.net took form around '91. It goes on to say that rec.music.phish got started in '93, but also seems to say that Phish.net is a reliquary for rec.music.phish.
I'm confused and need a popcicle.
If anyone else wants to look into it, I was reading this page here. It's long.
But, if we can clarify that section of the article, I think it would be a good idea.
—  MusicMaker 00:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Phish's newsgroup may well be an early one. You'll have to research it... I can tell you that rec.music.beatles was around in 1990-1, because I used it... I suspect Phish's group was around then too but you'll appreciate it was a long time ago and I can't really remember :) If they had a website in '91 it would be very early indeed... --kingboyk 08:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully I've fixed this. The rec.music.phish says the newsgroup was one of the first dedicated to a band, and was started in 1992. --kingboyk 22:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Audio samples

I came over to read this article from the Good Article nominations page. So far so good - well written and cited. However, I'm about half way through reading it now and of course as a (currently) non-fan my big question is "how do they sound?". It's not essential for GA but it would help the reader if you provided some audio samples. --kingboyk 08:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Kingboyk, I agree with you, but it does create some problems. First, no "phan" worth his salt would put samples of their studio albums up here: as you can tell by reading the article, Phish thrived onstage, not in the studio, and the studio work is generally considered not representative of their overall sound. Secondly, there is at least one recording — in most cases several recordings — of somewhere near 90% of their live shows. (I'm ballparking — it's probably higher.) Everyone has their own opinion as to what is "the best" of these recordings, and I'm afraid that a couple of things might happen: 1) that the article will end up being the subject of ongoing edit wars and 2) Wikipedia will turn into a compendium of EVERY Phish show. The problem arises, too, considering the sheer volume of recorded music available in selecting a process for choosing those which would be most representative for this page.

If anyone has any ideas of how to implement this, believe me, I am behind it 100%. There are specific moments in the article that should be illustrated by a music file (Trey "teasing" The Simpsons theme comes to mind...), and we could use samples throughout.

And thanks, Kingboy, for taking the time to stop over here.

—  MusicMaker 17:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I just got a huge update of shows ranging from 1987-second hiatus that are free traded soundboards that don't violate the copyright of the Live Phish series or any other Phish official live release. I will look into how to upload and include this possible information. --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 17:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies and I can assure you it was my pleasure to stop over. Seems like a most interesting band, and the article is a pleasant read. However, as I've kind-of got involved now I'll leave the GA assessment to someone else :) I look forward to hearing a few samples when you folks have made a decision. --kingboyk 22:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I figured out which files I would like to use, but now I have to figure out how to convert them to .ogg files (which are the audio files accepted by Wikipedia). I have chosen:

• Brother from March 20, 1992 at the Forum in Bringham, NY
• Sweet Adeline (acapella) from December 31, 1994 at the Boston Garden in Boston, MA
• AC/DC Bag from December 7, 1997 at the Ervin J. Nutter Center in Dayton, OH

-- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 15:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I used dBpower AMP, and it seemed pretty easy. You have to download the ogg codec here, but you can convert anything with just a right-click.

Also, what I'm really concerned with is just tagging files at the end of the article. It serves the purpose, but isn't very creative. Instead, I think we should focus on getting the audio for things mentioned in the article: the Big Ball Jam, for one, I know I have a copy of them doing Dark Side somewhere, and I'd probably cut it down to just that insane female vocal during "Great Gig in the Sky" (I think) that Trey does, things like that. That way, we'll deter people from uploading whatever songs they feel are the best and have some sort of cohesiveness involved for the article. Furthermore, tagging random songs at the end of the article has the feel of a trivia section: pertinent information that couldn't be logically integrated into the rest of the article. I think we can do better than that.

—  MusicMaker 18:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be generally avoided providing the band covering another band. I would prefer to include songs that are representative of the bands songs themselves. If you want to include a BBJ, that is fine by me. The reason I picked the three above was because I feel it accurately portrays the bands musical stylings. It should perhaps be also considered adding a clip of Bouncing, since it was their "biggest commercial hit".

As far as tacking the audio samples on at the end of the article under a "Media" or "Audio" heading, that is the considered general rule of thumb for band/preformers/songwriter articles (from what I have seen from The Temptations to Beethoven). You can always add a wikilink to the media heading in the mention of the BBJ (such as "... band called the ''[[Phish#Audio|Big Ball Jam]]'' in which each ...")— Preceding unsigned comment added by moeron (talk • contribs)

You can include them inline and there are templates for it. Have a look at my recent big project article, The KLF, which does just that. It's an FA too so there's clearly no opposition to doing it that way. --kingboyk 10:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Audio samples from tradeable bootlegs (fan tapes) would be a good idea. But I wonder if it is also worth mentioning that at livephish.com there is a free stream that plays (mostly) live Phish 24/7/365. Sometimes it plays some of the bands side projects, but mostly, it plays Phish. Any curious person would be well-advised to check that out. I'm not sure how that would fit into a Wikipedia article, though, so I'll just throw it out there and leave it up to you. 68.9.253.26 22:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)JoshCatone

Citations

There's a {{ref_num|1999|21}} in the middle of the paragraph on Big Cypress. (Is it the paragraph on Big Cypress? Or is it the paragraph on Big Cypress Seminole Indian Reserve? Or is it the paragraph on Big Cypress Nature Reserve?) Anyway, I'm still trying to get the hang of those things or I'd fix it, but, such is life.... —  MusicMaker 00:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Bouncin'

From Bouncing Around the Room: Bouncing Around the Room was Phish's most popular commercial single. No other Phish song received as much radio air time as Bouncing Around the Room.

The current Phish article acts as though Phish never made any radioplay at all. The band was often heard on 97.3 KBCO in Denver/Boulder about 10 years ago.... Anyway the audio sample discussion made me think that could be worked in somewhere, since many people may only be familiar with Phish (musically at least) from Bouncin Around the Room. BabuBhatt 19:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, see my above remark on adding in a clip of Bouncing. --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 19:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Phish had a video and a singe for "Down With Disease." I know that it was on the radio during that time. ThiefCorbin 13:36 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Barbershop, ska, showtunes, et al

I cut down that lenghthy sentence toward the end regarding their styles AGAIN.
I'm going to show off my brain a little bit and explain why, at least, barbershop doesn't belong in the list. Phish frequently performs barbershop music, but the overall influence or style which they've predominantly used is bluegrass. Barbershop harmonies and bluegrass vocal harmonies have many of the same characteristics — four-part consisting of an upper harmony, the lead, the baritone voice filling in the chord and the bass note — so they sound quite similar. However, barbershop is almost entirely homophonic: meaning that the chord changes with each note of the melody. This is not true with bluegrass, nor is it true with the preponderance of Phish's harmonies. Secondly, barbershop uses what's known as the "barbershop chord" — the dominant-seventh — a lot. Like, A LOT. So much so that it's called the "barbershop chord". Phish uses it, don't get me wrong, but not with the frequency with which it appears in barbershop. Barbershop uses simple harmonies and chord progressions, bluegrass is more complex, and Phish even more so.
As for ska, ska, itself, is a fusion sound — it's a combination of calypso and jazz, for the most part. Modern ska, as we think of it, didn't really get off the ground until well after Phish had started touring, so, while it may have influenced their later years (just barely), it wasn't a major contributor to the overall sound. (I think Trey's later stuff with TAB was slightly more ska-influenced, but even that is a stretch.)
Showtunes? Are we serious with this? First, the word itself conjures images of high-kicking chorus girls. Secondly, musically speaking, the word doesn't really mean anything. "Pinball Wizard" is a showtune. So is "Surrey with the Fringe On Top". So is "Dancing Queen". "Showtunes" encompass too many musical styles on their own for us to expect the reader to actually gain any information by its inclusion.
I just cut and pasted the original sentence, so I'm not really sure what else I cut. If anyone has any questions, feel free to hit me up.
—  MusicMaker 20:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Info Table at end of article

"Live in Brooklyn" needs to be listed as the most recent Live Album. Live albums should be listed in this order: A Live One > Slip Stitch and Pass > Hampton Comes Alive > Live Phish Series > New Year's Eve 1995: Live at MadisoN Sqaure Garden > Live in Brooklyn

Also, Live in Brooklyn (DVD) needs to be added to the video listing in the infobox

Thanks - User:Sectornine

Live Album order chronology: please vote here.

Hello.

A situation regarding traditional live albums are up for voting for all contributors to the Phish page.

- Do you think traditional live albums should be listed in the order of the concert date, or the release date?

I believe that the live albums should be listed in the order of concert date, because it is extremely confusing to have a live album from 1995 listed AFTER a studio album from 2004. For example, the Phish 1995 NYE concert was recorded after A Live One, and before Billy Breathes. It is from that era. If I am browsing the chronology and am new to Phish, I am going to be confused to see an album called "Phish NYE 1995" listed as an album from 2005. Furthermore, I am also going to think that Live in Brooklyn is a live show from 2006, when it is actually a concert from 2004. It seems as if it was listed in concert date order for over a year, but was suddenly changed without consulting the community. Thoughts?

Thanks User: Sectornine

Here is the response I was given at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Problem with some Phish album chronology:

• It should be organized by release date, not by the recorded date. This applies for all albums. -- User:FuriousFreddy

Also, most major album listing sites such as Allmusic.com, Amazon.com, and even Phish.com and Phish.net, have their lists by release date, not mingled based on recording date.

I have also asked on WikiProject Albums talk page about adding a "recorded in 19XX" explanation into the chronology box (such as at Phish: New Year's Eve 1995 - Live at Madison Square Garden). -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 19:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, let's slow down a bit. First, let me thank you for moving the discussion here -- I was trying to keep up between all the talk pages and was losing my mind.

Now, WP:BRD states:

• You do not have to accept "policy" , "consensus", "procedure" as excuses. These sometimes get worn in on consensus based wikis, but you are disagreeing with them. Do not back off immediately....

Personally, I am always wary of doing things one way "'cause that's how things are done." I think we're at an interesting crossroads because I don't think there's been any previous band that has released quite so much live music.

For the sake of consistency, the discography page should be listed in order of release. This is the way the studio albums are listed, and I think we should be consistent in the way we do everything else: all the articles and the Phish template. I don't think it's confusing to have a 1995 show come after Undermind -- bands release live stuff out of canon all the time. The Who released The Wall Live in 2001; I don't think anyone thought it was in some way new music.

HOWEVER, the Album infobox allows multiple chronologies. There's no reason why the infobox can't have the order of release AND the order of the concert -- and that's probably the way we should do it.

—  MusicMaker 20:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

A link to how this would be done can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Template:Extra chronology, if I believe this is what you are pointing out. Then, we would have the release chronology as it is now (by year of release) and then underneath that, this extra chronology box based on year of recording? I would be fine with that compromise if someone else wants to go to the trouble of creating it for each phish page. I have created an example of what this might look like at Undermind/New example. Please look at it and leave comments here. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 20:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of using the alternate chronology just for the live albums -- leaving out the studio albums. I have no objection to putting them in, I was just thinking of using the alternate to create a subset of the whole of the discography -- kind of looking at the live albums as a separate body of work. Either way is fine by me. —  MusicMaker 03:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoever can access that info table at the end of the article

The live albums list is all out of order

It reads:

Live albums: A Live One | Live at Madison Square Garden | Live in Brooklyn | Slip Stitch and Pass | Hampton Comes Alive | Live Phish |

It SHOULD read:

Live albums: A Live One | Slip Stitch and Pass | Hampton Comes Alive | Live Phish Series | New Year's Eve Live at Madison Square Garden | Live in Brooklyn

please correct

I'd originally changed those, but after actually READING this page I can see that this is a contentious order at the moment. Therefore, I'll let this be settled in more democractic fashion rather than acting unilaterially. Of course, I don't think the inclusion of that navabar onto the infobox is harmful. Charles M. Reed 05:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal on categorizing "Taper-friendly bands"

Hi, I've created a proposal for categorizing "taper-friendly bands", aka "bands that allow taping" within Wikipedia, and I wanted to invite people interested in this article to offer comments and feedback, since Phish is one of the most prominent bands in the category. The proposal is at User:Xtifr/BTAT, and I'd be very interested to hear what people have to say about my suggestions. Let me know whatcha think. Thanks, Xtifr 11:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

biased evaluation

this is the first time i have read the phish article and i can't believe what's up there. i like the band but the author's description of them boasted too much praise and not enough objective characterizations. someone who knows more about the band than i do, please do justice to this article and edit/rewrite it

There is no "author"; It was written collaboratively by hundreds of editors. The anonymous critic above has left no suggestions to what is left out or parts that "boast too much praise" which doesn't make any sense. BabuBhatt 17:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

i agree that the entry is biased. this article tells all about the green crew and the sober phans but what about the majority of phans, who go to shows primarily to party and sell drugs and dont care about the environment or the music. this is not bias this is true. i have been to many shows and personal experience is my source of information. The article fails to recognize the thousands of fans that spend their lives traveling like nomads from show to show. Where do u think these people get the money to sustain themselves on tour? Think about it. everyone knows what phish fans are really about. the police sure do. Thats why they all come from miles around whenever phish is playing. Also it doesnt mention the similarities that phish has to cults. Phans idolize Phish and all the members of the band like gods. Phish tells people (implicitly)what music to listen to through the covers they play. Notice the music collection of any devout phish phan. It consists of phish songs and any band phish has covered and nothing else other hippie hop bands that are widely accepted by phans e.g. Blackstar. Any discrepancy from this is stigmatized in the phish culture.

Stepping stones to notoriety in the Phish subculture: Selling drugs especially marijuana and X (except crack and Heroin which are seen as taboo), doing all drugs except crack and Heroin, attending hundreds of concerts, growing dreads, wearing patchpants. These are the rites of passage for phans.

Meanwhile the band gets rich legally and the phans get in trouble with the law. Then, to put the icing on the cake, the band abruptly quits and leaves all their dedicated followers hanging. Phish is a selfish group which breeds ignorant fans and creates an overall negative impact on american society as a whole. It's great that the green crew cleans up trash after shows, but that doesnt make phish as a whole a good thing.

The above anonymous editor attempted to add this unsourced statement on Sept 27: "Phish has all the qualities of a common cult. They recruit new members called "newbies" with the allure of easy access to illicit substances. You gain status by attending many concerts and selling substances." You are welcome to add such information if you can verify it through a source other than your personal experience, as original research isn't allowed in Wikipedia. BabuBhatt 21:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons to the Grateful Dead section

I read over this section today and tagged it with {{sources}}. As it stands, it reads like an essay in WP:POV of some peoples experiences. While we all know most of this is true, I think it would be best to cite some sources for this section and to trim the rest of the WP:OR stuff in lieu of such information. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrestling Photo

Who in the name of Col. Forbin added the wrestling pic, replacing the picture of the band on the talk box??????? Doc Strange 17:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons to the Grateful Dead <-- citations added

How do we remove the citation block for this section. I added some 6 citations to the section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KyNephi (talk • contribs) 19:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

There are still a couple of things that need to be referenced (as I have noted with fact tags), so the block should stand until we find references for these as well. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Main Photo missing?

That photo should not have been deleted. It was RE-UPLOADED to erase the weird wrestlign picture. The original photo is from the Round Room press kit and was fine for over a year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.33.61.18 (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Glowstick Wars

I have recently removed the following section from the page under the summary that the section violates the three content policies of WP:V, WP:POV, and WP:NOR:

A common occurance during extended jams at night or in a dim arena, fans would toss glowsticks into the air. At times the band would get involved by throwing glowsticks that landed on the stage back into the audience, thus creating a "glowstick war". During these glowstick wars the stage lights are often turned off and the thousands of glowsticks flying through the air become the light show while the band continues to play. Glowstick wars were common during songs with extended sections like You Enjoy Myself, 2001, The Divided Sky and Harry Hood.

Do other believe this should be included? If so, what reliable sources do we have to make this enough of a "phenomenon" to be included in the actual article? -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If it is sourced, it may be worth a well-constructed sentence or two. It certainly was not a big enough part of the Phish experience to be a whole misspelled section written by a troll-like author. BabuBhatt 22:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that moe.ron and BabuBhatt feel like they are the "keepers" of the Phish page, however this section deserves it own place. If you would like me to include sources for this "phenomenon" as you call it, I will google the thousand results and include them. It is to note that I was not the original author of this section, and subsequently cleaned up the original content (which did have some inappropriate text) to be relevant. I will call on Bhatt to call out the "whole misspelled section" that he/she comments on. Now that I have the formalities out of the way, any Phish fan that doesn't include glowstick wars as an important (and fun!) part of concerts, didn't attend enough concerts to comment on this topic. Until others besides you two really feel this section is not relevant it will be replaced. Cheers.