Permalink for Comment #1313433795 by waxbanks

, comment by waxbanks
waxbanks @safetymeeting said:
I do consider myself a 'serious' GD scholar, and I don't see comprehending the entirety of 92 - 95 as an essential prereq.
Interesting point! I don't think there's much percentage in studying the Dead's 1992-95 music; there's some powerful stuff in there but it's ultimately about giving yourself to the personal/emotional experience without musico-analytical understanding. Like Phish's 2003-04 material, it doesn't really repay study as such. (FWIW, I consider winter/spring 2003 a good/very good tour, summer 2003 an OK/good one with a few brilliant moments, and the anniversary shows the introductory atrocity of Phish's 'final' year.)

The big difference is that Phish went from spacey, disappointed dissolution in 2004 to an amazing new synthesis in (say) 2010. Imagine the Dead getting together in 1999 after Garcia cleaned up and lost 50 pounds, then coming back to play music in their late-70's style. That'd be worth studying, as new Phish is.

Anyhow I'm with ya - being reminded of what Phish was capable of in 2004, away from the drugs and desperation, isn't (to my mind) worth the pain and suffering of working through the actual existing drugs/desperation/unprofessional bullshit of Coventry. If Trey had been anyone but Trey, anyone but and idol and father/uncle/big brother figure for thousands of fans, there'd've been a lot more richly-deserved disgust at the way he turned his back on Phish, and a lot less sympathy for the specific nature of his choices. is a non-commercial project run by Phish fans and for Phish fans under the auspices of the all-volunteer, non-profit Mockingbird Foundation.

This project serves to compile, preserve, and protect encyclopedic information about Phish and their music.

Credits | Terms Of Use | Legal | DMCA

© 1990-2024  The Mockingbird Foundation, Inc. | Hosted by Linode