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.
Credits | Terms Of Use | Legal | DMCA
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.
Second, I think you're on to something with the lack of go-to mechanisms. To be specific, they certainly don't lack go-to musical devices, but a go-to musical syle to fall back on, as you allude to. I have a hard time buying into some of the fluff that anything from 97 seems to automatically get. I am reluctant to say that it's wrong to do so in most cases, because it was a grand period. Yet many of the jams in that period had long stretches of elongation with no real improvisation. Just a lot of grooving followed by a segway. I always felt they were much more innovative and chancy during the 94-95 period. '97 was kind of a funk-party most of the time, I thought. I think they're playing these days has more in common with '99, only with more maturity.
You spoke earlier this summer about this phenomenon and the idea has been eating away at my already corroded mind since. I can't shake it.
I still think they're in the process of reinventing themselves a bit right before our eyes and it's very exciting. I just hope they finish their damn album soon. They're getting more like the Dead all the time in that area. When they finally release it, it will sport songs that we've been hearing in concert for three years.