Talk:Phish/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Phish. 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 1

←

Archive 3

Internet newsgroup?

Phish.net isn't the name of a newsgroup. rec.music.phish is perhaps the newsgroup. phish.net is a domain name, perhaps one used for a website so that sentence is incorrect, it should read either "Phish were one of the first bands to have an Internet website - Phish.net - launched in 1991." or perhaps "Phish were one of the first bands to have an Internet newsgroup - rec.music.phish - created in 1991." if that is indeed the newsgroup created of them in 1991. If this sentence is about a domain name, leading to a site, then it is customary to include http://www.phish.net, and domain names do not have capital letters. -- Random WP reader 10:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I will research it and make the appropriate changes. Cheers! --Moeron 13:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Steph11

By the way, who made Moreron "President of Wikipedia" and "Lord of the Phish article"? Chill out and let others contribute, Hitler. You wrote NONE of this original article

I am trying to better this article in the best way possible by removing comments that the Wikipedia terms as POV. It has been asked numerous times on this page that the article be cleared of such comments. Entries to the article such as The album featured simpler songs with emotionally introspective lyrics, an evolution that became part of the group's overall sound. This shift to a more traditional song structure was met with criticism from some fans. ... this isn't fact, it is heresay. If there are actual articles on the web or in their official books, then they should be cited. Otherwise, these are overgeneralizations made by the creator of the sentence. I am trying to make this article viable for being a contender to an featured article here on the Wikipedia. I will continue to remove any comments that violate the POV policy and have advocated for assitance in cleaning the article by moderators and administrators here on Wikipedia. Thank you for all of the support for making this a clearer, truer, more concise entry. This includes (but not limited too) BabuBhatt, MusicMaker, TommyBoy76, and Bluenotem3. Kudos! --Moeron 01:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

- Comments such as "By the Way" are uncalled for .... Moeron and others are working toward making the article a concise article that can explain the appeal of Phish to every reader. I enjoy and would like to see the early history of the band retained and sourced. Certain statements indeed are gushing and should be revised. Take a 'stay civil' and 'be calm' attitude. BabuBhatt 01:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This is just getting silly. There is no need for Steph11 or anyone else to throw around epithets and slander. It's VERY easy for phans to come to this article and edit in thoughts and ideas that are neither verifiable nor notable. It, in fact, almost invites it -- especially since it is sort of a Phishead side activity to try to out-do the next phan when it comes to band trivia. And as people who love those four shaggy-haired guys, we want everyone to see what it is that we see. Since they've stopped touring, it's kinda hard to get that point across without saying "Come with me on Saturday." However. This is simply not the place for honors and opinions. This article is comprehensive and thorough and has the potential to become a Featured Article -- a GREAT way to more effectively spread the word of Phish. It's not going to reach that point, however, without several diligent editors keeping a watch over what goes in and what comes out.

So, we have a choice: we can either allow this article to degenerate into one of the million fanpages out there in cyberspace, or we can work together to get the POV out of it, get it properly cited, and get it recognized by the powers that be at Wikipedia. It's not easy. Moeron is doing his part, and he's doing a great job.

I hate to get all hippy-ish (as I sit here in my Bierkenstocks), but this is a cumulative effort to create an ENCYCLOPEDIA article, not a simple compendium of knowledge. We need to work together, trust that the other editors are trying to do the same thing and not take offense if something gets reworded or removed entirely. No one is using this as a personal badge of honor or is placing this on a resume.

At this point, we really need to start citing this article. It has all the information it needs (and then some....), we just need to know where else we can go to find it.

-- MusicMaker5376 03:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it has been about a week since I put up {{Fact}} tags. How long should we wait before we remove these sentences that have no citations. Two weeks? --Moeron 04:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I say go ahead and start removing them now. People can always add the fact again with the correct tag.--Gephart 05:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh. Leave them for awhile. I'd rather have the {{Fact}} tag for awhile than the sentence be removed hastily. -- MusicMaker5376 06:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Celebrity Fans

Okay, this section either needs to go or it needs to start becoming heavily cited. I will start some research, but if people can't start coming up with some sources, this section will have to be trimmed a lot.--Moeron 22:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for starting off on this BabuBhatt!--Moeron 01:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Response: The best citation most of these people can provide is with their own eyes. I know for a fact that many of those people have been sighted at Phish shows.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.158.69 (talk • contribs)

Page's Yamaha

I was on Google looking up random shit and for no reason I looked up information on a Yamaha C7 "baby grand" (7'6") piano... In the context of all of the articles shown, they said that it is a Concert Grand. Either I am missing up something or I could change it. :-) TommyBoy76 02:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

Um. The article doesn't mention Page's usage of that particular model, as far as I could find. Oh, but it does mention it on Page's, um, page. Either way, "baby" is subjective. A grand piano can be three feet long or twelve feet long; "grand" just differentiates it from an upright. In marketing (as in life), you try to make things sound bigger than they really are, so Yamaha is more apt to market the 7.5' piano as a "Concert Grand" than as a baby grand. It's a grand, you can use it in concerts, so it's not really a lie. However, most people are apt to call it a "baby" because it ain't a 12 footer. -- MusicMaker5376 03:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

From Piano: There are several sizes of grand piano. Manufacturers and models vary, but a rough generalisation distinguishes the "concert grand", (between about 2.2 m to 3 m long) from the "boudoir grand" (about 1.7 m to 2.2 m) and the smaller "baby grand" (which may be shorter than it is wide).

So, whatever. -- MusicMaker5376 03:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, so I'm not insane. I actually didn't know all that stuff from Piano, (which, I guess, explains my question.) By the way, I posted the question on Phish's page because I wasn't sure if people had Page on their watchlist or not. Anyway...just wondering. Cheers. TommyBoy76 12:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

Show your love for Phish

Show your love for phish by putting this user box on your user page!--Gephart 06:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This user listens to Phish

I made our very own Phish userbox template from Gephart's specs ... now all you have to put on your talk page is {{user Phish}} --Moeron 05:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Other separate sections

I have moved the discography to its own page and now I was thinking of moving the Their music section. It would pretty much appear like this on the main Phish article:

Their music
Phish's musical ethos is a playful mix of skilled improvisation, psychedelic rock, folk, bluegrass, funk, jazz, a cappella/barbershop quartet, reggae, heavy rock, and intricate compositions. Some of their original compositions (such as "Theme from the Bottom") tend towards a psychedelic rock and bluegrass fusion, with more rock, jazz and funk elements than the Grateful Dead and other earlier so-called jam bands. Their more ambitious, epic compositions (such as "Reba" and "Guyute") are often said to resemble classical music in a rock setting, much like the music of one of their heroes, Frank Zappa.

And then everything from Influence down to Fan activites (excluding Discography) could go in that section. Thoughts?--Moeron 17:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I vote Not to move i think this is an important part of explaining who phish is. I think it should stay on the main page, lets not get carried away with moving everything.--Gephart 20:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I somehow missed this discussion. I would be in favor of moving everything up to and including the Tom Marshall section. We can effectively summarize all of that on this page, and have another page delve more in depth to their music. I would rather see a small network of detailed articles than the large, sprawling article that we currently have. -- MusicMaker5376 18:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

A Capella and Bluegrass

Under Their Music, I noticed a cappella/barbershop quartet is slashed. One is not necasarrily the same as the other. Bobby McFerrin is an a cappella artist but not barbershop. Should they still be related by slash? TommyBoy76 22:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

I get what you are saying and feel the same way. If you want, I approve of removing the slash. --Moeron 23:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would advocate the removal of a cappella entirely. While there are several noticable moments of barbershop in their music, a cappella in its modern sense didn't evolve until about a decade or so after Phish had solidified its sound (if you can say that they ever solidified it). And I mean a cappella in the Bobby McFerrin/Moxy Früvous/Boys 2 Men kind of sound. A capella in its general sense can include just about anything without instruments, and, strictly speaking, only the first of those three examples are, in fact, a cappella. Whoever wrote this statement was either using the two genres as synonyms or using "a cappella" to modify "barbershop". While, vocally, Phish is heavy on harmony and, in some instances, polyphony and counterpoint, calling it "a cappella" would be a bastardization of the term.

I talk too much. -- MusicMaker5376 00:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Slash removed. MusicMaker says NIX the a capellea altogether and I have no opinion on it, no one else has said anything, so I left in there so people can do whatever they want with it. TommyBoy76 01:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

I know that I have the band doing a cappella versions of several songs, most commonly Amazing Grace. I also have two seperate a cappella versions of the band doing Lynyrd Skynyrd's Free Bird. The problem we are running into is that some people want to me make sure that every type of music Phish has touched gets represented without excluding, or even including, the wrong ones. I guess what I am trying to say is I am neutral on this topic of the a cappella removal, haha --Moeron 02:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep, i say we keep the a cappella section. You guys are trying to get to technical. If phish doesnt play that genre exclusively, you guys dont want to include it. Pretty soon, if you keep this reasoning for wanting to delete the a cappella section, phish will just simply be a band that played music, because we will not be able to define their many different styles individually. The idea of this article is to inform people of the many different styles of music phish dabbed into to. Why are we wasting time even discussing this, the point is moot.--Gephart 02:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent points, Moeron, however their ORIGINAL music has no real basis in a cappella sound. Maybe we could note that, during concerts, they were known to perform a cappella on occasion, but to say that they were influenced by a cappella would be misleading. And, Gephart, this isn't a page to list everything that Phish has "dabbed into", it's meant to convey an encyclopedic statement of the band as a whole. A full analysis of Phish's musical styles would take volumes. I'm not being overly technical when I say that Phish wasn't influenced by a cappella music, I'm saying that the modern view of a cappella music is not in keeping with Phish's overall sound. If you were trying to explain Phish's sound to a friend, I'd be willing to venture that "a cappella" wouldn't be in your description. ESPECIALLY since so much CRAP is associated with a cappella: Backstreet Boys, 'N Sync and their rediculous derivatives. Let's not involve Phish with that kind of music. -- MusicMaker5376 03:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this is why I wanted to try and move some of this material to its own page, since the main article is bloated with information, in a good way. As the Article size page suggests, any section that delves deeply into a particular aspect of a certain article should be highly considered for its own section in order to keep the article size down. This discussion of the a cappella aspect of the band highlights this reasoning. --Moeron 04:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

End of Hiatus section

Please dicuss the addition of this section here.

If it is re-added, it should be part of the History section, not it's own.
Wording such as "We see" and "A band some fans have dubbed" go against NPOV because you can not use heresay. Unless the bands official name themselves these band names, they should not be used.
We need the radio station as well as either a transcript or a news article in order to use quotes. Statements such as "Trey said that it is not 100% out of the question that Phish will play again" and "This would make the "breakup" simply a "second hiatus." are not sourced. They would should only be added as quotes (ie. Trey said "I would like to see the band back together in the future").

Until we can resolve here how the wording of this section should be, it should be omitted and/or ammended in the actual article. I think the article DOES need mention of this new revelation, but we need to treat it right so it doesn't appear as we Phish fans are going "Trey said something along the lines of the band WILL be back". Cheers! --Moeron 01:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont think it should be removed until a consensus is reached.--Gephart 04:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

So we need to form a consensus as to whether or not to include unsourced rumor? The consensus was reached long before you or I started editing here, and is, in fact, codified in Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Verifiability is all the consensus we need. If someone can point me toward the "Atlanta radio station" that conducted the interview in question, I will happily obtain a transcript. If someone quoted "an Atlanta radio station" in the fact that German has been declared the new state language of Ohio, I'm pretty sure we'd want to see some proof. We wouldn't leave it up to consensus. -- MusicMaker5376 04:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you looking for a we're trey may have mentioned the possibility of Phish getting back togteher? If so, i remember reading the article last year, about the time Shine came out, but i dont remember exactly what he said, so i cant verify the statements with any validity. Anyways, let me know if thats what your looking for and i will see what i call pull up.--Gephart 06:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Is Phish back? NO. Until then, remember this is an encyclopedia. KEEP IT OUT unless it happens —This unsigned comment was added by Onlyslighted (talk • contribs) .

Even though the band is not officially back, having a cited source of a band member (especially one who was a main propogator of the end/hiatus of the band) saying he eventually wants to get back together would make a good end/sequel/whatever to the article.--Moeron 07:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, ill see what i can find, but im not guaranteeing anything.--Gephart 07:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

End of Hiatus section Part 2

In theory, I agree, Moeron, but Trey seems to say one thing in one interview, then contradict what he had just said in the next. Maybe hold off on adding a section regarding their return until we can accurately quote the ambiguity of the matter. Trey saying, "I'd like to see us play together again" is a far cry from "The Boys are back in town" and we need to treat it as such. -- MusicMaker5376 20:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Agreed, it is a delicate situation. --Moeron 23:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I (Prodigul) dont know how to add to the talk page correctly, but it was I who added the info about Trey. This came from Phish.net, citing an Atlanta radio interview. Multiple sources can confirm this, though you would have to contact phish.net to find out which specific radio station. I think it should stay though, since it is merely STATING what Trey himself said, not saying they are actually getting back together. In same interview he confirmed that he will be touring with Mike Gordon, and the Benevento-Russo duo, which will be good solace until Phish does come back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prodigul (talk • contribs) .

--Prodigul If noone disagrees with this, I'm going to put it back up, because I believe it is relevant information. It is not speculation given fact that entry merely states what Trey said. It is up to people to decide whether it is credible.

I vote to keep out until we find out a bit more information (ie which radio station, is there a transcript?, is it attainable?). --Moeron 13:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep Out. Phish.net isn't a reputable news source; it's really not much more than a blog. And, furthermore, it's not even news. Just because Trey says he'd like to see them play together again doesn't mean that they're going to. Dubya said "Mission Accomplished" almost three years ago.... BFD. — Music Maker 17:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

--Prodigul And I bet you Bush's announcement was added to wikipedia, despite it being essentially untrue. Phish.net isnt making up news, its merely reporting verbatum what Trey said. This is the most direct statement regarding phish's status and ought to be reported. Someone actually added it, not me this time, and I say it stays.

I vote for keep out ... we don't have a verifiable source. --63.42.116.96 22:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I say keep and attribute the source. BabuBhatt 22:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Bush's statement was also broadcast internationally. Billions of people saw it, and have seen it ad infinitum since. The veracity of the statement is not being called into question, the only question on Wikipedia is whether or not he said it. Our reticence to include it has nothing to do with whether or not Phish is getting back together, its whether or not he actually said it. In this case, a stronger source than a site dedicated, essentially, to keeping hope alive is necessary. All I'd like to see is four call letters included with the quote. If you can find this information -- a primary source -- anywhere, then I'm all for the inclusion of the quote. So long as it's balanced with a statement that says there is no information regarding any plans for a reunion. Heh. You know. NPOV. — Music Maker 22:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that Phish.net is essentialy dedicated to keeping hope alive; It's dedicated to all things Phishnews. Can't the statement be attributed to "according to Phish.net, a Phish fan news site" or something that explains its level of credibility? BabuBhatt 22:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, I dunno. We use Phish.net elsewhere as a source, but it's in the history sections. I guess it's like testimony in a trial, it's either all in or all out. But the thing I don't want to see is Wikipedia to begin mirroring Phish.net and spreading all sorts of band-related innuendo. I think we might need to have independent verification regarding something that could be (and is) taken to mean more than it actually is. I dunno. See what consensus says. I'm changing my vote to Ask Someone Else. — Music Maker 23:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

First off, I think this is a very good dicussion, as it makes us evalute what can or cannot be used here. I feel we are able to use phish.net as a source, but when we focus on just this issue of them reporting this news, we run into a difficult position. I make reference to two pages on Wikipedia about poviding sources.

The first is under Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Unattributed materia and what strikes me there is the following: "Wikipedians often report as facts things they remember hearing about or reading somewhere, but they don't remember where, and they have no corroborating evidence. It's important to seek reliable sources to verify these types of reports, and if they cannot be verified, any editor may delete or challenge them." This again comes down to what at least I have been asking for; the radio station call letters. In my eyes, Phish.net themselves should have been able to provide that for us.
The second is under Wikipedia:No original research and the following statement: "Articles may not contain any ... new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." Essentially, from this rule we can, if Phish.net provides the call letters, then form the entry here to say Trey said he "hopes to get Phish back together in a few years" and not something to the effects of this confirms that this "breakup" is really a second hiatus. since Trey didn't say that in the interview, but was speculation on the part of Phish.net.
Finally, the coup de grace (sp?) to me why we can't use Phish.net in this case is because they don't provide the call letter/original source is the following Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Some definitions: We may not use primary sources (the radio show) whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher (Phish.net or other source) (bolding by Wikipedia; parentheses added my me for this discussion)--Moeron 02:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

And I agree with you wholeheartedly. But, the problem remains that NONE of Phish.net is attributed or cited. Every so often there's a "Mike said" or a "Trey said", but on the whole it's left for the reader to figure out. Some of it is available in The Helping Phriendly Book and in Pharmers Almanac, etc., but Phish.net doesn't say where they got what. I think we either need to treat the entire site as a reputable source or reject it entirely. If we take their rendering of Oh Kee Pah ceremonies as gospel, we have to trust that they're going to accurately represent what Trey said, whether or not they mention the source. Furthermore, I think it's too valuable a source to reject entirely.

When reading the entire paragraph of the sentence you bolded above, it leaves the impression that it means not to use primary sources whose origins are dubious or very close to original research. In this case, we're not. We're using a secondary source, like we're supposed to.

HOWEVER. I still debate the usefulness of its inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Let's assume for a moment that Trey actually said what he is reported to have said. This doesn't change the current snapshot of the band, beyond what one member might hope about something that could concievably happen or not happen. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I'm back to leave it out, but for different reasons, Moeron.

I think, when we finally get to the point of a peer review, this question of the usability of Phish.net will need to be addressed. It can't be a viable source "only sometimes". That, really, defies logic.

— Music Maker 05:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, let me see if I can explain my reasoning clearer. When I or someone else uses Phish.net, especially the FAQ part, to cite the article, Phish.net is considered the primary source. Essentially, the Pharmer's Almanac, which is a compilation of this information, is also a primary source (and possibly more solid than Phish.net since it has been published). They are the ones making the observation/account/ect. In this case, with the reporting of what Trey said on a radio show, Phish.net becomes the secondary source reporting on a primary source (the radio show). An another example of Phish.net being a secondary source can be seen at [1] at the top and bottom of the page. At the top, we see a quote by Trey from Billboard magazine with appropriate information (the date) of when it and where it was said. Another of news reported right on Phish.net is following from 2/3/06: "Newsweek cites loving "the rock band Phish as evidence of good behavior, to open an article about "the trouble with boys." They give a link as well to the actual article. So, I believe was CAN use Trey's quote left on Phish.net IF we know who/what exactly the primary source is. I do agree, we should get someone here to review this dicussion/article, though :) --Moeron 14:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I'm going to do a little more reading about Phish.net. I've never really scrutinized the site; I've just used it like everyone else for infomation, etc.

One thought that does spring to mind is that if someone at Phish.net actually heard the interview with Trey as it was being aired, then it would be a primary source, not a secondary source. I'm probably going to break down and actually contact someone there (if I can actually find any contact info) to see if they can help us out.

But, right now, I have to go to work.

— Music Maker 19:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I cited a Rolling Stone Article. This along with the phish.net announcement is enough to confirm that TREY SAID THIS. All my addition is stating is that Trey (and Mike) have not ruled out a reuinion. It doesnt say reunion may 15, 2007: it says verbatum what Trey said, and that is merely that it isnt out of the question. Prodigul.

Good job, Babu. Thinking outside of the box. OF COURSE Trey has said things along these lines somewhere we can cite. We were all kind of failing to see the big picture. Nice job!
BUT. Let's figure out what Phish.net actually means to us, here. As far as I can tell, no one doubts the veracity of the FAQ or the Archives, but the News is what's being called into question. I'm e-mailing the webmaster at Phish.net (since that's the only contact information I can find) to find out where the news comes from, who supplies it, etc. Once I get a response (which, I assume, may take awhile as the site is staffed mainly by volunteers), I will share what I have with everyone and we can get a consesus (and maybe some more knowledgable eyes) as to whether or not we should include its information in the article.
— Music Maker 05:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Good initiative. BabuBhatt 08:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate that I cited a RollingStone article when I re-added it, so even if you dont want to believe phish.net as a good source then a RollingStone interview is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

This is true, however I would assume the revert was not as much because of your lack of citation, but because of the POV feel of the addition. We DO NOT use the word "phan". It's not a word. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article -- at least not in general usage. It might not be a bad idea, though, for its own article, but expect it to be hyjacked by "phans" of Phantom of the Opera.... — Music Maker 14:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I am fine now with the current Future Plans section. It is also nice to know and have wikilinks to their bands. I will most likely start a new section here about Phish.net's "usability" (and maybe archive some of the page, it is getting hefty, haha) --Moeron 14:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Archive, please! I wish I knew how to do it. I'm going to start a new section on Phish.net; I've already received a response. — Music Maker 18:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Where did my stuff go!?!?!

I spent HOURS typing up the equipment the band use in addition to some things about Paul Languedoc, particularly I included lots of information about Trey's guitar. I come back today, and all this stuff is GONE!!!! That was very credible/useful information for anyone wanting to know how the band got some of their sounds.... where did it go?

Not to worry, all of your hard work is still visible (and easily cut-and-pasted) in the history (by which I mean here The info was deleted by User:Moeron who suggested this in an edit summary: "(again, please see Phish and their music as being a possible appropriate place for this information; information on each members instruments can be found at their individual pages)". BabuBhatt 03:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)