i'd never been to this blog before, but its really well put-together. thanks for the tip.

Many of the problems cited in the essay come from the fact that people equate having an opinion with being able to function as an actual critic, which means much more than simply gauging a reaction in the moment and then tweeting it. Works of art like a music performance happen in the moment, yes, but Phish's approach is layered and complex and begs deeper scrutiny than a mere instantaneous reaction from someone who isn't even objective in the first place, not under the influence, let's say, of psychotropic substances or narcotics like alcohol. It isn't enough to say 'that sucked' without factoring in all sorts of other contexts. Objectivity is only possible at a certain remove, and I don't mean being spun.

As Harlan Ellison said, you are not 'entitled' to any old opinion you wish to conjure, what you are entitled to, if anything, is the formation of an informed opinion. Otherwise, what you 'think' about a given art object or experience is meaningless because it's merely an emotional rather than intellectual reaction, and thus invalid and mostly-useless as actual criticism.

So because people criticize shows we have a problem in Phish land? People who criticize Phish, are people who have more often than not been around the band the longest. They understand Phish has never and will never listen to them. Phish has always marched to the beat of their own drummer. Letting those people be themselves is also a freedom that extends further than Phish. The article sounds hypocritical with them trying to get people to act a certain way.

We have a constant need to rank and file everything Phish has done. Now is this conducive to the free let them be philosophy that the article preaches? People have come to a decision on what good Phish sounds like and they search for more of it. When it doesn't meet their expectations, they voice their concerns. Phish is in the public eye for a reason, they are being watched. Part of the glory of being in a rock band and being multimillionaires is taking a little criticism. They don't need someone to speak on their behalf, again hypocritical on the authors behalf, and I am sure they lose no sleep at night.

Lastly, if the Garden Party was in fact a message from the band about how they approach their day-to-day challenges of being in a rock band, it seems to have come at the wrong time. Especially after the year 2012 where most fans got a lot of what they wanted and the level of criticism about Phish was substantially lower than at an time since they came back from the breakup.

There was almost no negativity about Phish in 2012.

@TSword said:

And if you don't think that the band pays attention to this criticism, see Crowd Control, Faulty Plan, Albuquerque.

@spaced just made this thread his bitch. Well said, brother.

@TSword said:

And apparently the essence of this conversation has been misinterpreted again. The thread degenerates into a series of attacks, words are put into others' mouths, and no one comes out any wiser. Again, I become dissillusioned by the cyber experience and return to a more natural reality.

I do agree with your final paragraph though, spaced. I just hate to spend my time behind a screen. Let's discuss at a show sometime.

Cheers.

If what I said came across as a personal attack, perhaps you're right about things being misinterpreted. My beef isn't with you personally, I'm just telling you how your rhetorical strategy comes across to me and why I think it's counterproductive. This type of discussion has been hashed out countless times on this and other forums over the past 4 years, and I've rarely seen anything useful come of it. I'm just trying to articulate why I think that is; hopefully I haven't misinterpreted you in doing so, and if so, I'd be happy to discuss it with you, whether here or at a show sometime.

@spencur6 said:

I have only one thing to say to this! Anybody got a source for summer terr dates?

I've got a source. An imaginary one, that I just made up. I think I'll make a thread about it.

Critiquing/criticizing art is nearly as old of practice as the creation of art. Those who make really good art are going to be the most criticized by the broadest group of individuals. Always are the most bold statements going to stick out in a sea of statements about a certain piece of art, where typically the negative is easiest to convey.

I can make a very bold negative statement with just a couple of words. Offering praise requires a much more eloquent series of words to make the same level of impact. Because of this, because of the amazingly vast book of information that is thrown at us and the small portion we are able to take in, generalizations are going to be made based on what bold statements we happen to come across. You always have to consider the source, be it negative or praising, but in this cyber society, that's a near impossibility.

So, @TSword, you posted an article that was sure to cause a reaction. I don't feel the discussion here has gotten out of hand or malicious by any means.

The biggest issue I have with the article is this statement.

This connectivity to its own fan base though means that Phish is in touch with the critique as well as the praise, and overt pointless negativity takes its toll on them much more than empty praise puffs them up. It’s just their nature and part of what makes them such great musicians.

Unfounded praise can be much more destructive to an artist than unintelligent or un-sited negativity. All you really have to do is look at the majority of the music industry as it is today. An unknown puts out a piece and its relentlessly praised by a huge audience, when in fact that piece is just another recycled ripoff of someone else. There is very little innovation or anything unique about any one of them. They are simply mass produced in the vision of corporate studies and force fed to the masses as "art". It's lapped-up for a while until it becomes tired, at which point another incarnation of the same thing is brought it.

Phish is, and always has been completely the opposite of that. I'm pretty sure they know that they have to take the bad with the good. What it really does is show that the fan base cares deeply about their craft, and taking this into consideration forces the evolution of the band, inspires a better product. There are going to be peaks and valleys, hits and misses. In '92-'93 they hit a peak in that evolution, if they kept relying on that same style for the following years, they would just be another name on the long list of "VH1 Where are they Now" episodes to air in 2015. Instead, a year like '95 happened, all the while seeing criticism that ranged across the board.

In my opinion, the Phish fan-base is as healthy as its ever been. There is great balance in the force. I do wish TTE would come back, but I'm not holding my breath.

@TSword said:

I was only suggesting that the discussion was on the verge of getting out of hand as this format (online discourse) makes the interpretion of ideas more difficult, compared to oral conversation, as subtleties of language and tone are lost. However that is an entirely different discussion or subject for someone's post grad dissertation.

True that.

@TSword said:

And apparently the essence of this conversation has been misinterpreted again. The thread degenerates into a series of attacks, words are put into others' mouths, and no one comes out any wiser. Again, I become dissillusioned by the cyber experience and return to a more natural reality.

I do agree with your final paragraph though, spaced. I just hate to spend my time behind a screen. Let's discuss at a show sometime.

Cheers.

So lemme get this straight... you are unwilling to discuss an article on breeding positivity that YOU posted on an online DISCUSSION FORUM because it caused a negative reaction in the fans whose mind you think it should be changing in the first place??

I can taste the irony.

bottom line, IMO,
love it or leave it