![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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
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.
This article makes several claims including:
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:
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)
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)
The info about the site of the '99 Festival is not accurate. The Oswego County Airport was, and still is a working airport.
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?
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.
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.\
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.
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
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
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
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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
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.
This article makes several claims including:
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:
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)
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)
The info about the site of the '99 Festival is not accurate. The Oswego County Airport was, and still is a working airport.
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?
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.
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.\
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.
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
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
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