Talk:Phish/Archive 3

message: Those debating the usage of drugs by Trey, or by Phish in general, may be interested in the  AP-New York Times interview republished at News-Laeder with Trey published on November 17th.
Of particular note:
AP: How has sobriety affected you as a musician?
Trey: You gotta understand that we never did drugs, for years. We smoked pot occasionally, but pretty much it wasn't around. And I'm talking about the first time that I ever even saw drugs was ... in the late 90s, and we started in 1983. And they still hadn't hit the Phish scene. I didn't even know that people were still doing this stuff. And then it did get very crazy ... It completely infiltrated the scene. Everybody I knew -- it was pretty much what people were doing the last four years. Since Coventry I haven't even seen drugs. That was it, done, over. It was that easy. At the same time, it was hard. We tried to take the hiatus -- didn't do anything. And how has sobriety affected me? Sobriety is a f------ relief is what it is. It affects you positively in every possible way that you can imagine, 'cause it's YOU. This is coming from the relentless communicator, somebody else might have a different opinion about this, but I saw it and now I'm here to tell you that hey, any feeling you're trying to achieve using hard drugs you're gonna achieve through sobriety. Everybody I know that got off that s---, they all say the same thing. Me being one of them, and that's that this is what I wanted to feel like anyway. It's not you anymore, it's like putting a filter, or a thick piece of foam in front of the person, so it just doesn't work. It's no good. No damn good. And also very sad. Very sad. We had 3,000 people on the guest list at Coventry, that's how big the backstage was. At least three, it might have been five. We had oceans of hangers-on, and it was completely out of control, meanwhile the music was getting worse and worse as far as I'm concerned. The funny things about Coventry itself was that it was just like, All right, you want to see why this is ending? This is it, sort of.
Further, the full interview gives insight into the reasons behind the break up of the band and Trey's views on the atmosphere of Coventry.  Another recent interview from the Albany Times Union may also helpful. 68.1.189.82 06:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is very much a debatable "fact" (and probably shouldn't be in the article) 68.1.189.82 01:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phish and Drugs 

message: Trey finally admits the truth behind the phish drugs scene in this article 
"I thought it went without saying how deep into our scene hard drugs had gone," said Anastasio. (Despite his new frankness on the subject, he still resists getting into the specifics of who was doing what, and how much.)
Read the whole article for more.  --Gephart 22:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is very much a debatable "fact" (and probably shouldn't be in the article) 68.1.189.82 01:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Truth About Phish and Drugs Finally Comes Out

message: I'm going to unprotect it. If the warring gets bad, let us know on the request for protection page. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting the article

message: Theres obviously a dispute over how many original songs Phish wrote, so lets start a list:
(PLEASE DON'T FORGET TO UPDATE THE TOTAL COUNT!)
Offical Released CD's:
*Billy Breathes = 13
*Farmhouse = 12
*Junta = 14
*Rift = 15
*Lawn Boi = 9
*Hoist = 11
*Story of a Ghost = 14
*Round Room = 12
*Picture Of Nectar = 16
*Undermind = 14
Total from CD's = 130
#Weekapagh Groove
#Mikes Song
#Hydrogen
Running Grand Total = 133
The Phish Companion, 2nd edition, details 672 setlist elements, including 226 originals and 383 covers (609 songs) plus 63 other items that may be included in setlists but are not songs per se, such as the Wormtown Jam (7/2/99). Airumel 22:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Phish Songs

message: in what way does Fishman play a vac like a woodwind? it has no reed or valves. it doenst produce sound by carrying a reverberation through the tube. it's the REVERSE of a woodwind, covering the end of the hose more or less in order to let the vac (on reverse) blow air across his face, near the mic. if there has to be an analogy, i suppose he plays the vac like a french horn - but backwards. Airumel 10:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there referring to the way its played, like holding a clairnet, not the actual physics behind musical instruments.  Also, they might be inferring that a vacuum creats a wind tunnel that oscillates at 550 Hz, and that is the same frequency that a lot, but not all, sound waves reverberate through their respective instruments.--Gephart 20:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Like a woodwind instrument?? 

message: The data and information in the Phish Companion is wrong in many aspects. Made up jams and silly interludes should not be counted as Phish compositions. If you look at the setlists, it is easy to come up with the fact that Phish has 234 original songs. Accuracy has been a huge criticism of both the Companion and the Pharmer's Almanac, and neither is in any way a definitive source on Phish history. Plus the paragraph at the beginning doesn't need some huge detailed debate about how many songs they wrote....just state the number, and continue talking about the band's history. 
If anyone wants to debate the 234 number, take a look at the Phish songs link, and bring up your issues here.
There already is a list
Just wiki "List of Phish songs"
:Actually, i think the beginning paragraph should include the debate, seeing as there are so many different viewpoints on what is a phish song (hence debate).  I mean, we can't even decide here.  When i asked Paul how many songs phish played, he gave me a different number than trey, so i think the part about the debate is definitally warranted.  THankszoreos!--Gephart 19:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 68.210.202.252 is a vandalizing troll, and nothing he/she states above is accrate. The Phish Companion is one of the most fact-checked and comprehensive documents about any band every produced, particularly on matters such as lists of songs. None of the "jams and silly interldes" are counted as Phish compositions in the Phish Companion. We should indeed look at the setlists for the count, and the most complete and accurate compilation of setlists (TPC) provided clear data, and 234 is NOT the answer. Accuracy has NOT been a criticism I've heard of TPC2 (the 2nd edition). The setlists were compiled with comparisons to everything in the Phish vault, and setlists were compared to tapes by as many as ten independent observers. It also received input from virtally every official and otherwise useful source imaginable, including band members, and is de facto the definitive reference to date. (The Almanac, by comparison, is years older and suffers from outdated and incomplete info throughout.) Airumel 20:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phish Compainion is WRONG 

message: I must agree that "Bruno" "Dickie Scotland" and "Wormtown Jam" are not songs or compositions. They are jams. The "list of Phish songs" looks pretty good, even including songs that never made it onto albums or on stage, like "Weekly Time" from the Billy Breathes sessions. I also highly doubt that Paul and Trey have memorized a number of Phish originals.
The Companion is accurate, but the setlists are fairly messy and could be condensed a little, which leads to random jams being called songs. There were spelling, grammar, and factual errors all over the place in both volumes, so calling it definitive and complete is a little off base, though I admit it's the closest we have in print form.
::Just because something's listed in the setlist (including some jams) doesnt mean it gets called a song elsewhere in the book - or in the setlists, song counts, etc. I'd rather the setlists in TPC have those elements and see busy to you, than not have those elements and seem incomplete to others; busy is better than incomplete. :) Also, spelling grammatical and other errata more than welcomed - send them to mockingbird@mbird.org or any of the other addresses. Work on TPC3 has begun. :) Airumel 23:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: TPC2 involved sets of strict guidelines about what was included in the actual setlists and was relegated to show notes below. Nothing included in the setlists was there randomly or arbitrarily, but purposefully, intentionally, and strategically. Personally, I like the balance and decisions. Relegating every nonsong to the notes really cripples some setlists as conveyors (and records) of info. YMMV. Airumel 17:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jams are not compositions 

message: Can someone explain what that section is and why it is included? 68.1.189.82 01:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biggest Phan? 

message: It should be noted that the break between 2000 and 2002 was NOT the result of a breakup. This period was a hiatus. Trey announces the break during the Vegas show on 9/30/2000. He specifically calls it a HIATUS with the thought being that as Phish has had a great past 16 (or so) years and a break will help revitalize them for an additional 16 years. It is implied at the time that Phish will play again. Thus, the New Year's Eve 2002 MSG show was NOT a "reunion" concert. And furthermore, it was technically not their first time playing together since the breakup. Phish did perform during one of Trey's shows in 2002, With ONLY the 4 members of Phish onstage. They also performed for (I believe) Letterman (in two shows if you count the pre-show practice done for the audience)
:They also performed together (during the "hiatus") at Jason Colton's wedding.Airumel 09:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "breakup" is something that has been misconstrued from the start and should be deemed a "hiatus". IMO :) Airumel 09:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Hiatus 

message: It's good to look in a see a bunch of vigorous editing on this article.  I've more or less lost interest in working on it, with one exception.  I think the celebrity fans section has no place here.  I'm not going to simply delete it, because that has been tried, so I want to reopen the discussion with a few points.
*First, please read the previous discussion . It seems to me like consensus was for deletion.
*Stylistically, it's a bit embarassing, as if Phish needs to somehow be legitimized.  It seems like it's saying "Look, it's not just a bunch of silly hippies who like Phish."  Should we, in the context of an encyclopedia, really be trying to convince people with that view that they are wrong?  I think not.
*A list of celebrity fans says nothing unique about Phish.  Every well-known band has celebrity fans.  It's just extraneous information that has about as much relevance to the band and their music as what kind of toothpaste they each prefer.
*Most importantly, it's not encyclopedic.  We are supposed to be reporting what is already published elsewhere.  For this section to stand, we're going to have to cite sources for each of the listed names.  I don't want to do that, and I doubt anyone does.  As it is, it's simply hearsay and should be removed.
If you have opinions about this section, please discuss.  Put delete or keep in your post, in bold, and after a while, we can tally votes and see where we stand. Psora 20:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Phish Food is named after the band. See this article at phish.net: http://www.phish.net/faq/phood.html ... Ben and Jerry's has a number of charity ice creams named for bands (such as One Sweet Whirled for Dave Matthews and Cherry Garcia for Jerry Garcia).68.1.189.82Josh Catone
Delete.  Or, alteratively, we should include everyone who likes Phish, including this dude I knew in high school and my girlfriend, unfortunately.  And we should do it for every other band.  I can't wait to see what the Beatles page ends up looking like.  Also, how about a list of celebrities who don't like Phish?--Ochlocrat 07:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Delete. per nom. Doesn't define or identify Phish. The info itself isn't notable. It's silly. Dubious. Distracting. Inappropriate. Pithy. Pitiful. Pathetic. Other "p" words. Airumel 09:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed it and came to the talk to explain why, only to find this discussion ongoing.  It's pretty clearly inappropriate.  As noted above, every famous band has celebrity fans.  If Phish is somehow notable in this regard, someone needs to cite a source explaining why, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Tuf-Kat 06:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebrity fans, revisited 

message: (The headline of the previous section is a bit combative.)  I'd agree that the celeb fans should be kept, especially given that Phish has "made it" without much exposure on the radio or MTV.  Phish IS such a regional/location-based (colleges, boarding schools, hippies, etc.) thing that it's neat to see "famous" people express their respect and admiration for a band that is far out of the mainstream.  Just my two cents.  Mjl0509 18:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Reflections on Celeb Fans 

message: This is a GREAT article, and deserves "good article" status and a featured article day as well. WHat do we need to do?
*Seconded! Airumel 19:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's get this thing nominated