![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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)
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)
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)
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.
—
Music
Maker
00:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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.... — Music Maker 00:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
—
Music
Maker
20:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
"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
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
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
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)
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
I have been to over 50 shows and personal experience is my source of information. Though the praise on the previous page is true the article fails to discuss some of the more taboo topics regarding the Phish culture and scene. In Phish's heyday there were thousands of fans that spent their lives traveling from show to show. It was like a small army traveling through random rural towns and big cities alike. Many of them would wear digy clothes and not shower for days. Many were under the influence of various drugs day and night on these tours. This was no cheap task. Shows cost between $20 and $50 per night plus a possible markup if the show sold out by the time you got there. Plus the cost of marijuana for the show and any other drugs needed to enjoy the show more and then some more for after the show plus beer and hotel fare. It was easy to spend $80-$100 per day. Many of these people the money to sustain themselves on tour by unassuming parents and some held steady jobs, but most of the time they got supplemental money by selling drugs and sharing the profits among their freinds. This is why most young groups of Phish phans usually gravitate around one friend that sells marijuana and other drugs to their friends and peers. The police appeared to be aware of this. They would usually show up with a small army of their own as if ready to respond to riots. This never happened. Most if not all arrests were for drug distribution or usage and DUI and DWI. All the police would have to do is pull over a random car and say they smell marijuana and search it and they are sure to find something worth arresting the passenger for.
Furthermore the article does not mention the similarities that phish has to cults. Phans idolize Phish and all the members of the band like gods. They often take exctasy and LSD together (candy flipping) and this creates a bond with the people around you. Some other favorites on Phish lot were DMT, Nitruous oxide, Xanax, and mushrooms. Phish is very taltented and uses this to their advantage. They cover other bands and tell 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. The similar taste in music acts as another bond for phans to have and talk about. Though there is no reprimand from members for leaving the scene it becomes increasingly harder every tour once you have all these bonds plus a possible drug and alcohol addiction that you can share with others on the scene.
Stepping stones to notoriety in the Phish subculture: Attending as many concerts as possible, selling drugs, especially marijuana, doing all drugs, growing dreads, and wearing patch-pants. Knowing that there is a distinction between average and excellent marijuana is a skill that most people at these concerts posess. "Beasters" and "headies" are the broad categories, shwag, the lowest grade is somewhat taboo ulthough some do smoke it when they are broke. High Grade Beer (Sammuel Smith is a favorite), knowing that songs "Bouncing Round the Room" and "Sample in a Jar." are for "custies," (custies/newbies are new phans that have not been to many concerts), recruiting new phish heads, having taken LSD, knowing the difference between heads and custies, knowing who to sell to on lot, knowing a good set from a bad set (experts can tell the good sets from the bad but most fans appreciate the sets less and less the more shows they go to because they are getting less high). These are the rites of passage for phans. While Phish no longer exists I believe that these tacticts will serve the same purpose on any of the modern jam band lots. e.g. The Disco Biscuits, Umphries McGee, Moe (some of the copycat bands of Phish). This does not apply to all phish heads but it seems to happen to the ones that keep coming to show after show.
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)
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)
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).
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).
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:
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)
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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.163.45.199 ( talk • contribs) 06:40, 13 Jan 2007 (UTC)
Hey, kids! I know I've been gone awhile; I don't really know if this means I've returned or I just had a need to do an extraordinary amount of citationing....
Anyway, I was reading over this several-months-old discussion, and think that glowstick wars could bear some inclusion in the article. I was thinking we could move the two paragraphs in the middle of the history (starting something like, "By 1990, the band's shows were coming more and more intricate....") down under the paragraph under the "Concerts" heading, then include a paragraph on the phenomenon. There is a citation
here. LMK what you think.
—
Music
Maker
06:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This is really a POV hack job of an article. No one can deny how prevelant drug use was, not only with Phish fans, but with the band itself, yet the word drugs does not appear in this entire article. No mention of drugs in a roughly 11-page article about Phish makes this a joke. I mean come on guys I know you love Phish and all but please don't just take out the facts just because you think it makes your favorite band look bad. Some of the band members have openly admitted to using massive amounts of drugs, not like anyone was fooled into thinking they weren't and drug use amongst people at shows was undeniably part of the lot culture. Dontbiteit 01:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The fact remains that he's right about drugs being a big part of the Phish concert culture for the fans too, and this is not mentioned in the article at all, which does make the article POV. Here's a couple sources, as if you really needed them, that I found in just a few seconds of searching: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] WildlifeAnalysis 09:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this goes to the scope of the article. This article seems to be about a band, and not the band members or the fans. The wiki on college doesn't mention beer. Hell, the one on frats doesn't even mention beer. That doesn't make them POV, because it's outside of the scope of the article. — Slipgrid ( talk) 20:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps Anastasio's arrest is at least relevant in the section about 2004-2008. I think it has a bearing on the reformation of the group, and comments that have since been made about a renewed sense of seriousness about the music (e.g. much more rehearsal time) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.105.93 ( talk) 20:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you to the response above referring to the scope of the wiki article and also the comparison of articles relating to college and beer. Absolutely does a great job at succinctly demonstrating why the critique of not discussing drugs more is not valid.
That said, I would still consider it to be an open topic if there was an example of what an article mentioning the drug culture would look like... otherwise why complain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:7001:33C0:3977:7770:7B05:8BB7 ( talk) 04:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); External link in |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
glide
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).http://www.zug.com/pranks/riaa/index8.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.136.149 ( talk) 09:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion as to how to treat Giant Country Horns in the template. Any interested editors should feel free to comment there. — Music Maker 5376 19:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The band is parodied in an episode of South Park entitled " Die Hippie, Die", in which they are portrayed as the band "Fish" and the entire band bears a striking resemblance to the band Phish, and the lead singer looks very much like Trey Anastasio, including his trademark glasses and being the lead singer of a large jam band. Don't know if this is worth noting as a reference in pop culture. Zchris87v 08:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
If anyone is still watching this article, I want to point out that the article for
TMWSIY is up for deletion. The discussion is
here. —
Music
Maker
5376
22:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
27 February 2008, The result was keep; the book is clearly a reliable source.
Jklonow1 (
talk)
07:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, there is a new template proposal here. Having just revamped the template, I don't really have any opinion on it, and am wondering what others might think. — Music Maker 5376 14:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I have created a new page Phish festivals currently under construction for merging all the stubby festival articles into. Tenacious D Fan ( talk) 14:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Interesting edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.90.40 ( talk) 17:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning that Ben and Jerry's dedicated their ice cream flavour 'Phish Food' to the band? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.75.40 ( talk) 15:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
In the second sentence of the history section, the article makes reference first to a "schwanz flop", then a "grav: terms I'm not familiar with, but from the context, meaning gigs. They didn't turn up in a quick web search, but I didn't want to cut them in case they were some kind of Deadhead slang: could anyone shed some light either way? Fine article, by the way. Troutio ( talk) 00:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
There are bountiful references that place Phish in the realm of being inspired by the Grateful Dead. However, the first meaningful reference in this article to the Grateful Dead prior to today's (the "cover band" inclusion in the 1983–1992 section) was not until the section "1993–1995" and in that section it states,
Following the death of Grateful Dead frontman Jerry Garcia in the summer of 1995 and the appearance of "Down With Disease" on Beavis and Butthead, the band experienced a surge in the growth of their fan base and an increased awareness in popular culture.
To a reader who is not a Phishhead there is no historical logic to this. Why does Jerry Garcia's death cause a surge in fans? A casual reader learning about the topic might just as well think Marilyn Manson (random) also could have had a surge in fans as well.
The influence of the Grateful Dead and the direct relationship to the fanbase is played down in this article. In all respect to both bands and encyclopedic writing the first mention of the Grateful Dead as having any significant relationship to Phish should not be Jerry Garcia's death. The Grateful Dead really aught to be in the lede, though the "cover band" mention in the 1983–1992 section now helps. A similar problem once existed in the Jam band article ( old revision) when it failed to mention the Grateful Dead in the lede except as having equal merit with "Cream, The Jimi Hendrix Experience, Pink Floyd, Frank Zappa, and The Allman Brothers Band." Even Budnick's 2003 book Jamband saves discussing the Grateful Dead in glorifying terms for the last chapter. To rephrase, this article's lede and first sections (prior to today's edits) appear to over-present Phish as an original band, entirely independent from the Grateful Dead. Even the "Comparison" section prior to today's described the relationship to the Grateful Dead as more of an interesting phenomenon rather than an actual inspired influence. Restated, I think Grateful Dead deserves to be in the lede. - Steve3849 talk 23:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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)
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)
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)
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.
—
Music
Maker
00:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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.... — Music Maker 00:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
—
Music
Maker
20:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
"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
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
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
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)
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
I have been to over 50 shows and personal experience is my source of information. Though the praise on the previous page is true the article fails to discuss some of the more taboo topics regarding the Phish culture and scene. In Phish's heyday there were thousands of fans that spent their lives traveling from show to show. It was like a small army traveling through random rural towns and big cities alike. Many of them would wear digy clothes and not shower for days. Many were under the influence of various drugs day and night on these tours. This was no cheap task. Shows cost between $20 and $50 per night plus a possible markup if the show sold out by the time you got there. Plus the cost of marijuana for the show and any other drugs needed to enjoy the show more and then some more for after the show plus beer and hotel fare. It was easy to spend $80-$100 per day. Many of these people the money to sustain themselves on tour by unassuming parents and some held steady jobs, but most of the time they got supplemental money by selling drugs and sharing the profits among their freinds. This is why most young groups of Phish phans usually gravitate around one friend that sells marijuana and other drugs to their friends and peers. The police appeared to be aware of this. They would usually show up with a small army of their own as if ready to respond to riots. This never happened. Most if not all arrests were for drug distribution or usage and DUI and DWI. All the police would have to do is pull over a random car and say they smell marijuana and search it and they are sure to find something worth arresting the passenger for.
Furthermore the article does not mention the similarities that phish has to cults. Phans idolize Phish and all the members of the band like gods. They often take exctasy and LSD together (candy flipping) and this creates a bond with the people around you. Some other favorites on Phish lot were DMT, Nitruous oxide, Xanax, and mushrooms. Phish is very taltented and uses this to their advantage. They cover other bands and tell 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. The similar taste in music acts as another bond for phans to have and talk about. Though there is no reprimand from members for leaving the scene it becomes increasingly harder every tour once you have all these bonds plus a possible drug and alcohol addiction that you can share with others on the scene.
Stepping stones to notoriety in the Phish subculture: Attending as many concerts as possible, selling drugs, especially marijuana, doing all drugs, growing dreads, and wearing patch-pants. Knowing that there is a distinction between average and excellent marijuana is a skill that most people at these concerts posess. "Beasters" and "headies" are the broad categories, shwag, the lowest grade is somewhat taboo ulthough some do smoke it when they are broke. High Grade Beer (Sammuel Smith is a favorite), knowing that songs "Bouncing Round the Room" and "Sample in a Jar." are for "custies," (custies/newbies are new phans that have not been to many concerts), recruiting new phish heads, having taken LSD, knowing the difference between heads and custies, knowing who to sell to on lot, knowing a good set from a bad set (experts can tell the good sets from the bad but most fans appreciate the sets less and less the more shows they go to because they are getting less high). These are the rites of passage for phans. While Phish no longer exists I believe that these tacticts will serve the same purpose on any of the modern jam band lots. e.g. The Disco Biscuits, Umphries McGee, Moe (some of the copycat bands of Phish). This does not apply to all phish heads but it seems to happen to the ones that keep coming to show after show.
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)
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)
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).
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).
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:
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)
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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.163.45.199 ( talk • contribs) 06:40, 13 Jan 2007 (UTC)
Hey, kids! I know I've been gone awhile; I don't really know if this means I've returned or I just had a need to do an extraordinary amount of citationing....
Anyway, I was reading over this several-months-old discussion, and think that glowstick wars could bear some inclusion in the article. I was thinking we could move the two paragraphs in the middle of the history (starting something like, "By 1990, the band's shows were coming more and more intricate....") down under the paragraph under the "Concerts" heading, then include a paragraph on the phenomenon. There is a citation
here. LMK what you think.
—
Music
Maker
06:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This is really a POV hack job of an article. No one can deny how prevelant drug use was, not only with Phish fans, but with the band itself, yet the word drugs does not appear in this entire article. No mention of drugs in a roughly 11-page article about Phish makes this a joke. I mean come on guys I know you love Phish and all but please don't just take out the facts just because you think it makes your favorite band look bad. Some of the band members have openly admitted to using massive amounts of drugs, not like anyone was fooled into thinking they weren't and drug use amongst people at shows was undeniably part of the lot culture. Dontbiteit 01:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The fact remains that he's right about drugs being a big part of the Phish concert culture for the fans too, and this is not mentioned in the article at all, which does make the article POV. Here's a couple sources, as if you really needed them, that I found in just a few seconds of searching: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] WildlifeAnalysis 09:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this goes to the scope of the article. This article seems to be about a band, and not the band members or the fans. The wiki on college doesn't mention beer. Hell, the one on frats doesn't even mention beer. That doesn't make them POV, because it's outside of the scope of the article. — Slipgrid ( talk) 20:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps Anastasio's arrest is at least relevant in the section about 2004-2008. I think it has a bearing on the reformation of the group, and comments that have since been made about a renewed sense of seriousness about the music (e.g. much more rehearsal time) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.105.93 ( talk) 20:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you to the response above referring to the scope of the wiki article and also the comparison of articles relating to college and beer. Absolutely does a great job at succinctly demonstrating why the critique of not discussing drugs more is not valid.
That said, I would still consider it to be an open topic if there was an example of what an article mentioning the drug culture would look like... otherwise why complain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:7001:33C0:3977:7770:7B05:8BB7 ( talk) 04:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); External link in |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
glide
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).http://www.zug.com/pranks/riaa/index8.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.136.149 ( talk) 09:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion as to how to treat Giant Country Horns in the template. Any interested editors should feel free to comment there. — Music Maker 5376 19:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The band is parodied in an episode of South Park entitled " Die Hippie, Die", in which they are portrayed as the band "Fish" and the entire band bears a striking resemblance to the band Phish, and the lead singer looks very much like Trey Anastasio, including his trademark glasses and being the lead singer of a large jam band. Don't know if this is worth noting as a reference in pop culture. Zchris87v 08:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
If anyone is still watching this article, I want to point out that the article for
TMWSIY is up for deletion. The discussion is
here. —
Music
Maker
5376
22:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
27 February 2008, The result was keep; the book is clearly a reliable source.
Jklonow1 (
talk)
07:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, there is a new template proposal here. Having just revamped the template, I don't really have any opinion on it, and am wondering what others might think. — Music Maker 5376 14:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I have created a new page Phish festivals currently under construction for merging all the stubby festival articles into. Tenacious D Fan ( talk) 14:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Interesting edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.90.40 ( talk) 17:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning that Ben and Jerry's dedicated their ice cream flavour 'Phish Food' to the band? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.75.40 ( talk) 15:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
In the second sentence of the history section, the article makes reference first to a "schwanz flop", then a "grav: terms I'm not familiar with, but from the context, meaning gigs. They didn't turn up in a quick web search, but I didn't want to cut them in case they were some kind of Deadhead slang: could anyone shed some light either way? Fine article, by the way. Troutio ( talk) 00:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
There are bountiful references that place Phish in the realm of being inspired by the Grateful Dead. However, the first meaningful reference in this article to the Grateful Dead prior to today's (the "cover band" inclusion in the 1983–1992 section) was not until the section "1993–1995" and in that section it states,
Following the death of Grateful Dead frontman Jerry Garcia in the summer of 1995 and the appearance of "Down With Disease" on Beavis and Butthead, the band experienced a surge in the growth of their fan base and an increased awareness in popular culture.
To a reader who is not a Phishhead there is no historical logic to this. Why does Jerry Garcia's death cause a surge in fans? A casual reader learning about the topic might just as well think Marilyn Manson (random) also could have had a surge in fans as well.
The influence of the Grateful Dead and the direct relationship to the fanbase is played down in this article. In all respect to both bands and encyclopedic writing the first mention of the Grateful Dead as having any significant relationship to Phish should not be Jerry Garcia's death. The Grateful Dead really aught to be in the lede, though the "cover band" mention in the 1983–1992 section now helps. A similar problem once existed in the Jam band article ( old revision) when it failed to mention the Grateful Dead in the lede except as having equal merit with "Cream, The Jimi Hendrix Experience, Pink Floyd, Frank Zappa, and The Allman Brothers Band." Even Budnick's 2003 book Jamband saves discussing the Grateful Dead in glorifying terms for the last chapter. To rephrase, this article's lede and first sections (prior to today's edits) appear to over-present Phish as an original band, entirely independent from the Grateful Dead. Even the "Comparison" section prior to today's described the relationship to the Grateful Dead as more of an interesting phenomenon rather than an actual inspired influence. Restated, I think Grateful Dead deserves to be in the lede. - Steve3849 talk 23:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)