Phish.net 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.
The Mockingbird Foundation is a non-profit organization founded by Phish fans in 1996 to generate charitable proceeds from the Phish community.
And since we're entirely volunteer – with no office, salaries, or paid staff – administrative costs are less than 2% of revenues! So far, we've distributed over $2 million to support music education for children – hundreds of grants in all 50 states, with more on the way.
I can't get down with the narrative in this article, but in a way, I'm glad it was published and real thoughts can be exchanged. The free market of speech, if you will. I guess the million dollar question I have with these themes, which I think warrants a very real and serious discussion: Let us take the position that the author's of this article are valid in their conclusion....how can one appropriately disagree with the conclusion in this article in a way that is accepted as a valid counter-argument? Because if we go with (crude summary here) "well Phish shows are too white and if you are white and don't think so, it's because of privilege and fragility, which is how the scene exists in the first place".....you can't have a serious discussion when the logic is so circular that there are no valid responses, or that any contradictory response is proof-positive of the validity of your argument. It doesn't check out.