# Music by Genre > Bluegrass, Newgrass, Country, Gospel Variants >  All the sudden, everybody's PHISH!

## LastMohican

Just got back from ROMP.

As it was last year; fantastically run and the organizers deserve congratulations.

Question: why is there now this overbearing trend by which bands that are rightly known for their virtuosity have decided to be more of a "jam band" other than just play songs!

I've wanted to see Greensky Bluegrass for a couple years and was really looking forward to it. Don't get me wrong, these cats are all great musicians. But, basically their ENTIRE set was nothing but these drawn out "jam"pieces, a la Phish. GSBG has a bunch of great "songs" that I, and the others that attended with me, truly love (Old Barns, Tuesday Letter, Bottle Dry, etc.)...they didn't do a single one of them; not one!

Punch Brothers-same song, second verse: the entire 1st half of their set were these utterly non-melodic, dissonant technical exercises. Don't get me wrong-when they did do the couple of traditional BG pieces, there were INSANE. But, I was disappointed.

The better balance was actually The Deadly Gentlemen. They did a good job a creating a balance between showing casing their unvarnished musicianship while still playing songs.

To be fair, I've never been the guy that could sit around and listen to Davis or Coltrane "push the boundaries" for hours on end.

I enjoy short showcases that are intended to highlight the unbelievable skill these guys have but, first and foremost, I come to hear songs! Am I wrong?

----------


## Brett Byers

I'm in the opposite camp.  I would prefer to hear bands explore new musical territory than play a three minute song the same way every time.  The musicians you listed are all world-class musicians, and they are at their best when they are creating, not just regurgitating. For me, live performances have always been about pushing the boundaries and taking risks in the hope of creating something extraordinary.  The albums are for showcasing songs.  Just my $.02.  Everyone has different expectations when going to see a concert.

----------


## Marty Henrickson

Balance is nice.

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

Most likely because they can get away with it. I agree with Brett to an extent,but most non-players want to see/hear a band play set songs,_like they used to do_ !.Personally,i love to watch a band like The Infamous Stringdusters (whom i've only ever seen on YouTube) 'Jam',but sometimes it does go a bit OTT even for me & i want 'normal service' resumed ASAP.
Quote - "_...first and foremost, I come to hear songs! Am I wrong ?_" - NOPE !. Too much of that sort of stuff is sheer self indulgence by the band (IMHO). A couple of 'extended' tunes might be ok,but a full set - not for me,
                                                                                                                                      Ivan

----------


## Jeff Budz

Im surprised at your comments on Punch Brothers, when I saw them a few months ago they mostly played songs off the new album,not stretching out much at all.  Also, very few solos, certainly none that went on and on....  Perhaps they are trying some new stuff.

----------


## lukmanohnz

I suspect that when musicians reach a level of mastery and transcendence over existing musical boundaries, they need to stretch beyond them in order to keep from stagnating or getting bored.  I think that was an underlying motivator in the creation of bebop, and we are witnessing it now with the music of The Punch Brothers and other innovators using traditional instruments and bluegrass music as their springboard.  As audience members and (speaking for myself) dabblers for whom the classic bluegrass canon is an ongoing challenge, we may find ourselves disoriented or less emotionally engaged by the innovators' excursions into uncharted territory. It's still fascinating to watch and hear the technical mastery and artistry of truly great musicians searching out new, higher plateaus from which to survey the landscape.

----------


## Steve-o

I suspect another reason for the jam band scene is the fact that it's an outdoor festival where people can get up and dance and wander around, so musicians cater to that atmosphere.  An indoor concert hall is a totally different venue.

----------


## Pete Martin

Jazz players play thousands of chords in front of 3 people and rock and roll players play 3 chords in front of thousands of people.

We all like different things and we vote with our wallets.  Go see who you like.  If you don't like them don't buy recordings and don't go see them.

----------


## lukmanohnz

> Jazz players play thousands of chords in front of 3 people and rock and roll players play 3 chords in front of thousands of people.


Truly profound.  I might need to quote this obsessively for the next few weeks...

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

Maybe if the Jazz players cut down on the quantity & thought more of the quality,they'd make as much money as the rock 'n rollers.
As somebody once said of 'Be Bop' - _''the eternal search for the right note !!''_. For the last 3 days,in the large park over the road from me,the rock band 'The Stone Roses' have been playing to audiences of between 75 & 100,000 people each day - i guess they know where their next Rolls Royces are coming from,3 chords or not,
                                                                                                  Ivan

----------


## LastMohican

I appreciate the input. And, as I said, I truly want some of the jam content.

But, I also look forward to that moment of emotional connection where a song you love is performed live. 

I think balance is the key; at least for me.

The Punch Brothers were truly off the hook. In terms of just raw musicianship they simply goes places others can't. At least that's been my experience through 2 live performances.

----------


## Joe Mendel

I think balance and quality of music is the key. We all like different things, and it would get boring very quickly if we didn't. I understand musicians wanting to stretch out, it's fun, even though I'll never achieve the musical chops those guys have. I think some pros forget that the audience is paying them, and play stuff because they can, rather than because it's good, or because it's what the audience wants to hear.

----------


## Marty Henrickson

After about 25 years of listening to the Grateful Dead, one of my favorite parts of any their lengthy psychedelic jams, is the moment when Jerry and the boys would re-enter earth's atmosphere and I can once again recognize the song that they were playing.

----------


## LastMohican

> After about 25 years of listening to the Grateful Dead, one of my favorite parts of any their lengthy psychedelic jams, is the moment when Jerry and the boys would re-enter earth's atmosphere and I can once again recognize the song that they were playing.


Touchdown!  :Laughing:

----------


## Ted Eschliman

I think. Therefore I jam.

----------


## Dale Ludewig

There ya go.

----------


## JeffD

I like a good mix of old expected tunes and new tunes when I see a favorite band at a concert.  

I am not a big fan of jam bands or watching anyone jam. Give me a well crafted and practiced tune over a spontaneous composition any time.

----------


## Markus

> Give me a well crafted and practiced tune over a spontaneous composition any time.


If you ask me, Coltrane playing My Favorite Things is both a well crafted/practiced tune and spontaneous composition. 

There is jamming vs. aimless-jamming. To your average person's ear, Coltrane sounds like aimless spontaneousness - but to a jazz ear, there's all sorts of patterns being played there that coalesce into a whole. There is emotional content, feeling in the music.

Often (to my ear) acoustic jam-band music tends to turn into finger gymnastics, note and picking patterns, with little deep melodic or emotive content to the music. While the Grateful Dead could fall into long aimless-jamming portions, they did use that form on the tunes that `worked' for beautiful melodic explorations and for some powerful emotive ballads. Too often when I hear someone on acoustic go for a longer `jam' type solo it lacks any such content.

I saw the Stringdusters a few months ago, and saw Phish this last weekend. While the Stringdusters put on a very accomplished show ... it was Phish who had me wanting to yell for joy like a good old time tune does [during 46 days], who played the 1:45 every-note-scripted tune that was nailed to the note, and who used the jams to explore melodic variations, work tension/release, play chord melody - and use it to craft a powerful melody or make the audience dance/smile/laugh/cry/feel. 

Let's be straight, the number of jambands that perform at such a high standard, with that complexity/depth, is a handful [even setting the bar at festival-size and up]. Giving some sort of `payoff' that connects to the audience with a couple minute solo is not something easy to do [just ask a jazz player].

Yet, at it's highest level, I believe improvised music can be well crafted and practiced. 

If you ask me, there's quite a bit spontaneous composition when I hear a great old-time fiddler in a group. A whole heap of craft and practice, but if those guys aren't spontaneously varying their bow patterns or aren't composing minor melodic variations then I don't know what it is I'm hearing I guess.

----------

skrwl

----------


## Jeffff

This is a case of the market determining the "product". A promoter can see who heads to the restrooms and who stays during any act. If enough people like something, it gets booked. If not it doesn't.

I see a lot of jazz where I live. I like it. Me and roughly 200 other people.

----------


## JeffD

> There is jamming vs. aimless-jamming. 
> 
> While the Grateful Dead could fall into long aimless-jamming portions, they did use that form on the tunes that `worked' for beautiful melodic explorations and for some powerful emotive ballads. Too often when I hear someone on acoustic go for a longer `jam' type solo it lacks any such content.


I guess I haven't heard enough non-aimless jamming. I have had quite enough of the aimless kind, where I look around at a sea of sublime smiles and closed eyes, and think perhaps I would understand what is happening better if I weren't so sober.




> If you ask me, there's quite a bit spontaneous composition when I hear a great old-time fiddler in a group. A whole heap of craft and practice, but if those guys aren't spontaneously varying their bow patterns or aren't composing minor melodic variations then I don't know what it is I'm hearing I guess.


I quite agree. To my ear, that kind of variation is distinguisted from the jamming I dislike in that it is in service of the tune itself. Finding ways of better expressing what the tune is about, or extending or highlighting the drama of the tune. So much of the kind of jamming I don't care for is (or seems to be) self indulgent noodling in search of a reason, or moments of punctuated virtuosity (stop listening to the tune and listen to me).

It might be a taste thing as well, or perhaps I just haven't heard enough of the non-aimless jamming to which you refer. I guess that is why I am not much of a jazz fan.

----------


## Jeffff

In my mind, non aimless jamming has resolution. A musical idea is stated and then expanded upon with varying degrees of success and then resolved to most everyones satisfaction.

Aimless jamming always reminds me of Free Jazz in the style of Ornette Coleman which, right or wrong, I have never cared for.

----------


## dcoventry

> I think. Therefore I jam.


I'm pink, therefore I'm SPAM.

Cognito ergo sum.

----------


## dcoventry

> In my mind, non aimless jamming has resolution. A musical idea is stated and then expanded upon with varying degrees of success and then resolved to most everyones satisfaction.
> 
> Aimless jamming always reminds me of Free Jazz in the style of Ornette Coleman which, right or wrong, I have never cared for.


One of my funniest memories is this:

Fred Frith was playing a gig at Kimball's in Emoryville with a piano dude. they are soundchecking and Frith starts up a "song" with chains, a glass etc. The piano guy is plonking along with dense chord clusters et al. Frith STOPS AND YELLS, "If you are going to play the song, play the song!!!"

Who could tell?

It was a transcendent show, FWIW.

----------


## greg_tsam

> ...perhaps I would understand what is happening better if I weren't so sober.


I think you just identified your problem.

----------


## LastMohican

> I guess I haven't heard enough non-aimless jamming. I have had quite enough of the aimless kind, where I look around at a sea of sublime smiles and closed eyes, and think perhaps I would understand what is happening better if I weren't so sober.
> 
> 
> 
> I quite agree. To my ear, that kind of variation is distinguisted from the jamming I dislike in that it is in service of the tune itself. Finding ways of better expressing what the tune is about, or extending or highlighting the drama of the tune. So much of the kind of jamming I don't care for is (or seems to be) self indulgent noodling in search of a reason, or moments of punctuated virtuosity (stop listening to the tune and listen to me).
> 
> It might be a taste thing as well, or perhaps I just haven't heard enough of the non-aimless jamming to which you refer. I guess that is why I am not much of a jazz fan.


Hit! I am, in no way, referring to any musical improvisation that occurs in support of a specific piece of music. What happened at this show, particularly with Greensky Bluegrass, was as is described in an earlier post: they did four or five pieces where a theme was established and then kind of rotated through the instrumentation and let each cat in the band play with the established theme. As I've said, there was a lot that was good about it. But I would have enjoyed the set much more if this type of experience was book-ended by them just playing a few of their songs. That's just my take. I know others would like it more just the way the did it.

"...and think perhaps I would understand what is happening better if I weren't so sober."





> I think you just identified your problem.


And mine as well! :Smile:

----------


## journeybear

> Balance is nice.


Exactly. One of the best aspects of live concerts is the unexpected, the spontaneous creation of music that never existed before that moment and whose path cannot be predicted. Even carefully scripted forms like classical and big band benefit from spontaneity (and nuances that can't be reproduced satisfactoriiy by recording and reproduction). The two worst shows I've seen were a club gig by The Cranberries (each song was sung the same way, backed by strum strum strum from 3-4 rhythm guitars), and a stadium gig by The Cars opening for The Beach Boys. They were just hitting the big time, and though they were very polished, every song sounded exactly like it did on the album. It was a big "why bother?" for me.

What I like about good jamming is the exploration of possibilities, and what makes it good is the level of imagination, or perhaps how well that imagination is realized. I understand this can be very subjective. Personally, I prefer jams that remain a bit grounded, at least to a point where the source material is still recognizable, or at least relevant, even while the music is taking you places. That is, you should be able to tell what song is being played, and each one should be distinctive - each song has its own characteristics, and shouldn't be just an opportunity to cycle through each band member's collection of riffs each time. Another show on the above list is a club gig by War from the late 90s. Over an hour into the show I realized they had done only four songs. You really don't need to give every guy a chance to stretch out on each song.

For me, a good performance incorporates both approaches in good measure, and I try to incorporate this into my own playing. I like it when a jam, or even just a solo, is worked so that it returns to the song and resolves to the melody. I keep this in mind at shows, and try to reel it in within some sort of set time frame. Sometimes the singer lets me run a little wild, especially if the spirit is upon me; sometimes I bring it back a bit sooner, if that's how I feel it. I also derive a lot of satisfaction from how well I play the little riffs in the middle of a song, or create ambient textures that fill out songs and give them distinct characters. These may be much shorter than extended solos but can offer as much opportunity for creative expression. In my other band, in which I am playing all original blues and rock, I have to keep some sense of how far to stretch out and when to turn the instrumental section back towards home. However it goes, just as in gymnastics, it's important to stick the landing.

Like Casey Kasem used to say, keep your feet on the ground, but keep reaching for the stars.  :Mandosmiley: 




> After about 25 years of listening to the Grateful Dead, one of my favorite parts of any their lengthy psychedelic jams, is the moment when Jerry and the boys would re-enter earth's atmosphere and I can once again recognize the song that they were playing.


You know, back in the swing era, there was a lot of improvisation, often so far-fetched that it's hard to tell what song is being played if you drop the needle in the middle of the track. My favorite example is a version of "Tea For Two" by a Benny Goodman small combo off a Charlie Christian compilation, in which they play the first two bars, then off they go, never to return. You can hear the chord structure now and then, but the melody is left in the dust and they don't resolve to it at the end. I think a rendition like that will only work if the audience is sophisticated enough to be able to recognize the composition without the band having to play down to them. I doubt that either the material or audiences are at this level of sophistication currently. I get the impression, from the scores of movies and clips I have seen from the 1930s and 1940s, that audiences then were very much clued in to the music that was being played, and knew the material well enough to recognize chord progressions in general and songs in particular. I don't think that is the case so much these days. And it may well be that, in response, bands don't feel a need to touch on that. But I did usually feel that Dead jams led to the next song with some sort of purpose, and that you could tell what song was coming up. Perhaps it helped that I knew most of their songs (which I wouldn't at a Phish or other jam band's show), but then again, there are plenty of songs I heard first at Dead shows and still somehow understood that a song was coming up. You know, they really were pretty good, and smart, and talented, even if they were a bunch of old hippies.  :Wink: 




> I suspect another reason for the jam band scene is the fact that it's an outdoor festival where people can get up and dance and wander around, so musicians cater to that atmosphere.  An indoor concert hall is a totally different venue.


Well, OK, but don't these bands play indoor venues, too?  :Confused:

----------


## JeffD

> Exactly. One of the best aspects of live concerts is the unexpected, the spontaneous creation of music that never existed before that moment and whose path cannot be predicted. :



That is a matter of taste I think. It seems to be true for many. 

I want to hear the bands latest creations, their songs, tunes, stories etc. Plus some of the old favorites that got them famous. My life is already pretty unpredictable, I go to music for solace from that.

Well not entirely. I like a good break, and you are right about the nuances and interpretations of old familiar tunes, they can bring out something in the tune that I hadn't heard, and make me love it all the more. (I guess I have the predjudice that all the possibilities are in the tune itself.)  I guess I am more narrowly focused on the "aimless ego jam", which is like some blowhard who gets a microphone and won't give it up, but has absolutely nothing to say.

I was at an open mike night a few weeks back. A fellow on an electric guitar and looper. He played some incipid four chord pattern, looped it, and then jammed on top of it. His very extended improv (nobody else was on the open mike sign up list), didn't have a dramatic arc, it didn't have a direction, it just showed off the players ability to play slowly, and suddenly play fast and play loud and play suddenly meaninglessly softly and use his looper. The difference between his music and a marble rolling around in a cereal bowl was that the marble eventually stops. 

After an eternity of this, he moved on to his reggae version of fameous Neil Young songs.

I tried, I actually tried. 


The best jamming I have heard recently was a Sierra Hull concert, where her band, and Darol Angor and Tony Trischka and Michael Daves sitting in - and they jammed on "Rollin in my Sweet Baby's Arms". It was 15 minutes of pure heaven. Virtuosity in service of a great old war horse of a tune that is great because it can support virtuosity.

----------


## Steve-o

> Well, OK, but don't these bands play indoor venues, too?


Well of course they do Steve.  The point was that the (multi-day, multi-band) outdoor format lends itself more to a jam atmosphere than an indoor setting.  Perhaps Woodstock was the prototype for this scene.  The vibe and audience indoors is different (e.g., less contraband).  To borrow from the OP's experience, I've seen Green Sky Bluegrass a couple of times indoors.  They played their songs straight up with the usual bluegrass breaks without wandering into extended jams.

----------


## journeybear

I hear you, Jeff, and I feel for you. That open mike experience must have been excrutiating, and also riveting as a train wreck - horrible to behold, but unable to turn away from. Sometimes one encounters occurrences which should drive the awy, but one can't leave, as an overwhelming curiosity to see how things turn out takes hold.

But  didn't mean that experiencing unfettered improvisation was the most compelling reason to go to a concert. You see, I left a little wiggle room in my polemic - "... one of the best aspects ..." - which allows for, well, many things really, including not only glorious Dead shows but also, sadly, that horror show. The differences between the two are many, including talent, experience, sensitivity, sensibility, sense, probably sinsemilla,  :Wink:  - well, you know ... But besides that, "the unexpected, the spontaneous creation of music that never existed before" doesn't mean only improvisation but also pertains to precise performance of tightly rehearsed music. A great performance doesn't necessarily need to be weighted toward improvisation, as long as it isn't so rehearsed or static somehow that it is something like that show by The Cars. Sometimes a fine rendition of a well-known tune can be just as exhilarating and satisfying as the most adventurous exploration that improvisation can achieve. And again, in my experience, once I have hit upon the perfect solo for a certain song, the challenge becomes playing the best rendition of that solo - and nailing it can provide the same sort of satisfaction as really hitting a great stride while jamming. Two sides of the same coin.

----------


## journeybear

> The point was that the (multi-day, multi-band) outdoor format lends itself more to a jam atmosphere than an indoor setting.


OK, I see what you meant. Sounds more like a Rainbow Gathering than a concert that way, with a sense of community beyond just the music. I haven't gone to many of these shows - not interested musically or culturally - and the closest I've come was a Gathering Of The Vibes show some 15 years ago, in a city park in Bridgeport CT, with no overnight camping, but a slew of bands and a pervasive cloud of smoke.  :Whistling:

----------


## Markus

> In my mind, non aimless jamming has resolution. A musical idea is stated and then expanded upon with varying degrees of success and then resolved to most everyones satisfaction.
> 
> Aimless jamming always reminds me of Free Jazz in the style of Ornette Coleman which, right or wrong, I have never cared for.


We're in agreement on this. I just don't find any structure there or anything to hold onto. 




> But I would have enjoyed the set much more if this type of experience was book-ended by them just playing a few of their songs.


I agree with you. Improvisatory explorations are great for some songs, but not every song needs more than a minute of solo.

----------


## Markus

> I was at an open mike night a few weeks back. A fellow on an electric guitar and looper. He played some incipid four chord pattern, looped it, and then jammed on top of it. His very extended improv (nobody else was on the open mike sign up list), didn't have a dramatic arc, it didn't have a direction, it just showed off the players ability to play slowly, and suddenly play fast and play loud and play suddenly meaninglessly softly and use his looper. The difference between his music and a marble rolling around in a cereal bowl was that the marble eventually stops.


I think I've heard the same guy, and he didn't do it for me either.

Hint: All it might take for a song is four chords and the truth, but that doesn't mean if you string any four chords together and don't lie you have a song.

----------


## JeffD

> but that doesn't mean if you string any four chords together and don't lie you have a song.


 :Laughing:

----------


## imleath

I just have to ask... how many of you have listened to Phish?  I mean really listened to Phish.  I think it's quite unfair to lump them in with jam bands as a whole.  I've been seeing them for nearly 10 years(minus a few in which they didn't play), and while I'm no professional musician I can certainly say they are above and beyond anyone else in the jam band community.  They play quite a wide variety of musical styles across the spectrum, and do great covers of whatever they desire.  They do often venture outside the box when it comes to the context of the improvisation vs the context of the song, and it gets a little wild.  They almost always resolve the craziness back into a chorus, appropriate ending jam, or transition into another song.  I get where you're coming from on the aimless jamming and I've experienced my fair share with Phish and other jam bands, but more often than not even not-so-great jam bands resolve into something coherent in the end.  Just my observation in 400 shows spanning the last 15 years.   :Smile:

----------


## greg_tsam

> I just have to ask... how many of you have listened to Phish?  I mean really listened to Phish.  I think it's quite unfair to lump them in with jam bands as a whole.  I've been seeing them for nearly 10 years(minus a few in which they didn't play), and while I'm no professional musician I can certainly say they are above and beyond anyone else in the jam band community.  They play quite a wide variety of musical styles across the spectrum, and do great covers of whatever they desire.  They do often venture outside the box when it comes to the context of the improvisation vs the context of the song, and it gets a little wild.  They almost always resolve the craziness back into a chorus, appropriate ending jam, or transition into another song.  I get where you're coming from on the aimless jamming and I've experienced my fair share with Phish and other jam bands, but more often than not even not-so-great jam bands resolve into something coherent in the end.  Just my observation in 400 shows spanning the last 15 years.


I've really listened to Phish.  Really.  I'm not their number one fan, (I think you might be), but there was a time and they are really good but after a while it got lost in the scene of young girls, drugs, and the like.  Too many hanger ons, too popular and too cool burnt them out and I know a few fans that got burnt on it too.

While they are great musicians and have done wonderful things, in the end they were a jam band.  Not that it's bad.   It just is what it is.  The Grateful Dead were a jam band too.

----------


## imleath

> I've really listened to Phish.  Really.  I'm not their number one fan, (I think you might be), but there was a time and they are really good but after a while it got lost in the scene of young girls, drugs, and the like.  Too many hanger ons, too popular and too cool burnt them out and I know a few fans that got burnt on it too.
> 
> While they are great musicians and have done wonderful things, in the end they were a jam band.  Not that it's bad.   It just is what it is.  The Grateful Dead were a jam band too.


I'm far from their biggest fan.  I'm just a live music addict, and they've always given me the best fix.  Improvising doesn't make you a jam band, and neither does playing unique setlists.  Those are obviously key characteristics of a jam band, but a few acts take it farther.  I enjoy the Grateful Dead, but they are not the greatest musicians in the world by any means.  I know everyone else puts the two in the same class, but they are wildly different as I'm sure you know.

I do agree that the scene out there has really gone down hill.  There used to be a great deal more respect for the music.  People still did the drugs, but they were a bonus.  It seems like a lot of people out there now are just looking for a handful of MDMA and something to do while they're high, but there are still some true live music fans roaming around the lots.

----------


## LastMohican

> I just have to ask... how many of you have listened to Phish?  I mean really listened to Phish.  I think it's quite unfair to lump them in with jam bands as a whole.  I've been seeing them for nearly 10 years(minus a few in which they didn't play), and while I'm no professional musician I can certainly say they are above and beyond anyone else in the jam band community.  They play quite a wide variety of musical styles across the spectrum, and do great covers of whatever they desire.  They do often venture outside the box when it comes to the context of the improvisation vs the context of the song, and it gets a little wild.  They almost always resolve the craziness back into a chorus, appropriate ending jam, or transition into another song.  I get where you're coming from on the aimless jamming and I've experienced my fair share with Phish and other jam bands, but more often than not even not-so-great jam bands resolve into something coherent in the end.  Just my observation in 400 shows spanning the last 15 years.


Hey...guilty as charged: I've never seen them live and the amount of recorded stuff I've heard wouldn't fill a tea cup. I cited them in my OP because, for 20 years, they have been held up as the prototypical "jam band".

----------


## imleath

> Hey...guilty as charged: I've never seen them live and the amount of recorded stuff I've heard wouldn't fill a tea cup. I cited them in my OP because, for 20 years, they have been held up as the prototypical "jam band".


I'm just saying being Phish isn't a bad thing.  They are great musicians with a huge repertoire.  They even did a bluegrass thing with Jeff Mosier once, and if John Fishman could play the mandolin they'd have been great.  The Reverend actually made a camcorder documentary of it, and it's available on youtube.

----------


## JeffD

> I just have to ask... how many of you have listened to Phish?  I mean really listened to Phish.  I think it's quite unfair to lump them in with jam bands as a whole.


Well perhaps. I have been to one concert and played two or three CDs. Its enough for me to know that, for me, what ever I might "get" by listening to Phish more, is not worth the listening its gonna take to "get" it.

But that is purely a taste thing. I read a pretty detailed interview with the band and I am impressed with what they do and what they strive to do. Its just not something I am ever going to appreciate.

Especially from a players perspective. For me, just me, improvisation and taking breaks has never been a big part of playing. Playing old tunes over and over again till I understand them inside out - that is more my joy. And expressing myself? I got nothing. I figure if I bore myself I would bore the audience.

----------


## Markus

> But that is purely a taste thing.


Exactly. Most of music is. You've seen people walk past an OT jam with a `huh I don't get it' look just the same as your Phish experience.

If we all liked the same kinds of music and bands, it would get quite boring and finding happiness as a mid-level musician would be harder to do. Happily, everyone likes something different and we all find stuff to make us smile.




> perhaps I would understand what is happening better if I weren't so sober.


Sorta depends on what the band is doing too. If the band has quite a buzz ... well, you've got to expect a bit less coherence and a bit extra enthusiasm.

I respect how Phish has changed in the last years, having finally addressed some quite serious chemical dependence issues in the band. Having a sober guitarist, with new fire in his belly is what everyone always wished for Garcia of the Grateful Dead - I had mostly walked away from Phish, had `grown up' ... and am happy that they have grown up too. I loved their long ornate composed pieces, which have re-emerged [and are played clean] from their early club days. From mid 90's to mid 2000's they grew into a big band but lost the technical and complex songbook - everything became a jam. A good intoxicated time, but not what they first impressed me with and seem to have regained in the last year or two.

Unlike how Phish shows used to be around here, the place still had tickets available and an easy 1/4 to 1/3 of the crowd was married couples there for a night away from the kids. It was clear to me there was a whole lot more sobriety on, and the music was far better practiced.

imleath does have a point .... Phish covered Zep's No Quarter this weekend, and their "lengthy jam-band treatment" ran a full 17 seconds over the original. [Musically it paid great homage, stuck very close to original] 
When The Circus Comes To Town [Los Lobos cover] ran a huge 4:17. 

The reason why I still go see Phish and left unsatisfied with the Stringdusters and just about every other jam band is that most of them *never* do anything concise. If every song is a reason to have everyone take extended breaks, to have just about every member take a long solo ... that sounds a lot more like band practice to me  :Wink: 

As someone stated earlier, unless each song is distinctly different and the melody/structure of the song is followed it all turns into musical mush.

Being older and soberer, I probably wouldn't be going to see the Phish of 8 years ago - nor the late period Grateful Dead I did.

----------


## Jeff Budz

I was watching a Stringdusters Youtube the other day, and during the song the Dobro and Fiddle players traded breaks.  At first they started out slow, built the solos, traded off, the other player taking the previous player's idea and expanding on it.  But it went on way to long.  By the time they were 1/2 way through the "jam" section, the Dobro player was already playing his best stuff, had nowhere left to go.  Then it just kept going and going, and became tedious, I was nervous that it would never end.  It would have been great if they had limited it to 4 or 8 times around, but they probably played 16 or 32 trades.  

The thing about a solo, especially an extended "jammy" solo, it should start out slow and build and build till it's crazy, then come down for the next soloist.  If it gets to "10" quickly and just stays there, it's never going to be a great solo.

----------


## LastMohican

> I was watching a Stringdusters Youtube the other day, and during the song the Dobro and Fiddle players traded breaks.  At first they started out slow, built the solos, traded off, the other player taking the previous player's idea and expanding on it.  But it went on way to long.  By the time they were 1/2 way through the "jam" section, the Dobro player was already playing his best stuff, had nowhere left to go.  Then it just kept going and going, and became tedious, I was nervous that it would never end.  It would have been great if they had limited it to 4 or 8 times around, but they probably played 16 or 32 trades.  
> 
> The thing about a solo, especially an extended "jammy" solo, it should start out slow and build and build till it's crazy, then come down for the next soloist.  If it gets to "10" quickly and just stays there, it's never going to be a great solo.


I like it...

----------


## JeffD

> Exactly. Most of music is. You've seen people walk past an OT jam with a `huh I don't get it' look just the same as your Phish experience.
> .


Absolutely. I think it also depends on what you are in the music for. I don't mean for money or fame and fortune, I mean some folks are very much into the self expression. Others are very much into the tradition. Others again are into making something new out of something old. Others perhaps are into putting a personal stamp on a tradition. And others are into entertaining - providing an experience the audience likes.

All different goals. Some overlap for sure. Its like something Ebert says about movies - its not the goal of the movie, its how well the movie reaches its goal. In music its important to be able to appreciate how well a band or musician does what they have set out to do, even if its not something you would set out to do. So while its hard for me to understand jamming as a reason to be in the music, its still important to discern when it is done well and when it isn't.

In other words, do what ever you want, but don't be lame.  :Smile:

----------


## Jeffff

"Don't be lame"

I am going to add that to my list of credo's. It has value in every area of life!

----------


## catmandu2

> Maybe if the Jazz players cut down on the quantity & thought more of the quality,they'd make as much money as the rock 'n rollers.


An uneducated or ignorant perspective




> Aimless jamming always reminds me of Free Jazz in the style of Ornette Coleman which, right or wrong, I have never cared for.


Actually, Ornette is well-known as one of the most melodic and "tuneful" composers of the jazz and art music idiom




> I'm far from their biggest fan.  I'm just a live music addict, and they've always given me the best fix.  Improvising doesn't make you a jam band, and neither does playing unique setlists.  Those are obviously key characteristics of a jam band, but a few acts take it farther.  I enjoy the Grateful Dead, but they are not the greatest musicians in the world by any means.  I know everyone else puts the two in the same class, but they are wildly different as I'm sure you know.


Was about to point out that Phish, in addition to being competent "jammers," are also highly capable at song craft.  Their approach--and their musical and stylistic wherewithal--is somewhat unique in that they are so versatile.  But imleath has said it




> The thing about a solo, especially an extended "jammy" solo, it should start out slow and build and build till it's crazy, then come down for the next soloist.  If it gets to "10" quickly and just stays there, it's never going to be a great solo.


I presume you're talking about "trad" music of some kind.  But this formulaic approach to soloing is not found in all music.  But I can understand your preference and expectations


Without having read through all the replies, my response to the OP--why so many "jam band" approaches?...aside from the succesful ($) milieu, I suspect players enjoy the space to get creative

----------


## Bertram Henze

This is not my territory at all, and I just stop by long enough to drop some principles independent of genre and taste:

- performers are supposed to play for the audience, not in spite of them. There may be as much improvisation on the stage as anybody wish as long as the audience is taken along for the ride.

- performance is supposed to contain unpredictable elements, not to be just a record playback. There is a fine line between being able to re-create the exact emotion of the recording and not being able to play any different note.

Whatever fits these points is valid. Now back to my own territory - ITM, where chords are supposed to wrap around melodies, not the other way round...

----------


## JeffD

> Whatever fits these points is valid. Now back to my own territory - ITM, where chords are supposed to wrap around melodies, not the other way round...



Yes.

----------


## JeffD

> Without having read through all the replies, my response to the OP--why so many "jam band" approaches?...aside from the succesful ($) milieu, I suspect players enjoy the space to get creative



Bingo. And I think that taken to extremes, they lose sight of the prime directive, to entertain the audience. They are having fun, but they are getting paid to ensure the audience is having fun.

While the two are not mutually exclusive, in the extreme a jam can get so self indulgent I feel like I wondered into someone elses house during a family discussion.

----------


## catmandu2

Ah, where the rubber hits the road!..some of us like that

If it's interesting to the players, l'll tend to be interested, myself, as a listener.  Jazz is like that--it generally DOES ask "more" from the listener

----------


## JeffD

> Jazz is like that--it generally DOES ask "more" from the listener



Well its pretty to think so  :Smile:

----------


## JeffD

> Ah, where the rubber hits the road!..some of us like that
> 
> If it's interesting to the players, l'll tend to be interested, myself, as a listener.


Sure there is overlap. Especially to the musicians in the audience.

----------


## catmandu2

> Sure there is overlap. Especially to the musicians in the audience.


Well yes but I'm not really thinking of it as "overlap"; as players or musicians we may tend to be engaged in a given musical performance--listening--in a more, shall we say, elaborate, or involved manner--"playing" along, if you will.  As jazz musicians, maybe more..  It's a gestalt

----------


## mandopete

> Now back to my own territory - ITM, where chords are supposed to wrap around melodies, not the other way round...


Information Technology Music?

----------


## Bertram Henze

> Information Technology Music?


 :Laughing:  funny you should say that - information technology is my day job.

----------


## journeybear

So it's actually NOT funny, because it's true ...  :Whistling:  Hey! Looky there! You mentioned "job" and all of those jam band fans just scattered. How about that?  :Laughing: 

Ahhh ... peace and quiet, at last. Probably won't last ... :Whistling:

----------


## LastMohican

> Well yes but I'm not really thinking of it as "overlap"; as players or musicians we may tend to be engaged in a given musical performance--listening--in a more, shall we say, elaborate, or involved manner--"playing" along, if you will.  As jazz musicians, maybe more..  It's a gestalt


Sorry, not buying it...but that's OK!

----------


## catmandu2

> Sorry, not buying it...but that's OK!


Not a "gestaltist" then?   :Wink:

----------


## Jeffff

I am sorry Cat. While I know he is indeed highly regarded and I love Charlie Haden, there isn't enough structure for me to hang onto.

----------


## catmandu2

Well it's not everyone's cup of tea

I totally relate with charlie's story--migrating out to LA and throwing himself into that scene...talk about someone with a concept able to impose form

----------


## Bertram Henze

> So it's actually NOT funny, because it's true ...  Hey! Looky there! You mentioned "job" and all of those jam band fans just scattered. How about that? 
> 
> Ahhh ... peace and quiet, at last. Probably won't last ...


...and didn't, though you gave me the illusion of power to calm the waves for half a day.

Thinking what information technology music might actually be, I found this.

Thinking about the cat man's _gestalt_ thingie, I think there is some truth to that; however, does it mean the real piece of music as such is exactly what the musicians *don't* play and has to be imagined by the audience?



And the easiest way to build a large repertoire is to play nothing at all?

----------


## catmandu2

> Thinking about the cat man's _gestalt_ thingie, I think there is some truth to that; however, does it mean the real piece of music as such is exactly what the musicians *don't* play and has to be imagined ]


Well Bertram, now you've done it.

What is real, what is imagined?  In order to answer those questions "definitively" (if you will), we will have to understand the nature of phenomena, and the nature of mind

But, a shorter, working answer: I would say the total effect, or experience of music is indeed the product of both inner and outer environment--how can it not be so?; after all, what you hear and what I hear are different, right?

----------


## Dale Ludewig

Well, it could be.  It probably is.  Same with color.  But we all tend to agree that what you see as green, I see as green.  But I don't think we'll ever be able to actually see what the other person is seeing, or hearing.  What is "out there" and what each of us perceive.  Or what a dog or cat or cow perceives of the same "out there".

----------


## catmandu2

But more specifically, and pertaining to the matter at hand--what we are _doing_ with music:

What _is_ green?  Or, what is our _experience_ of green?

Of course, it is all a "subjective" experience.  Then we have the problem with language: words are often inadequate to express what we experience (it's why some prefer more easily "definable" or more readily "relatable" phenomena, etc).  So, you say green, and I might agree--yes, it is green.  Then, this or that is consonant or dissonant...and here it becomes even more elusive for we cannot see what we are hearing, etc; is it formless?  Arrhythmic?  Unmelodic?  How _shall_ we describe it?

Of course when we begin to relate and communicate about more and more "unknown" phenomena--and internal experience-- the challenge becomes ever greater

----------


## Dale Ludewig

Exactly.

----------


## JeffD

> Well, it could be...  But I don't think we'll ever be able to actually see what the other person is seeing, or hearing...  What is "out there" and what each of us perceive.


Well now. 

Useless to go too far in that direction. Without a common experience, a common language could not exist. 

Lest we sit arond, bobbing our heads, grooving on private experience and sharing only how special we feel having an experience that can't be shared.

Just be quiet. Just listen.






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNFBCx-rYT4

----------


## journeybear

> ... does it mean the real piece of music as such is exactly what the musicians *don't* play and has to be imagined by the audience? ... And the easiest way to build a large repertoire is to play nothing at all?


Thai reminds me of this - a lampoon of the alternative scene/approach/whatever which by extrapolation can pertain to anyone with a cooler-than-thou or more-artistic-or-profound-or-conceptual-than-thou attitude:




In case you dont want to spend four minutes listening, here are the lyrics, pertinent snippets in bold:

Talkin' Seattle Grunge Rock Blues

Hey, hey, my, my, rock 'n' roll will never die,
Just hang your hair down in your eyes
You'll make a million dollars.

Well, I was in this band goin' nowhere fast
We sent out demos, but everybody passed
So one day, we finally took the plunge
Moved out to Seattle to play some grunge.
Washington State that is.
Space Needle ...Eddie Vedder ...mud 'n' honey!

Now to fit in fast, we wear flannel shirts,
We turn our amps up until it hurts,
We got bad attitudes, and what's more
When we play we stare straight down at the floor, wow-ee
Pretty scary.
How pensive ...how totally alternative.

Now to fit in on the Seattle scene
We gotta do somethin' they ain't never seen.
So, thinkin' up a gimmick one day
*We decided to be the only band that wouldn't play -- a note.*
Under any circumstances.
*Silence ...music's original alternative.*
Roots grunge...

Well we spread the word through the underground,
that we were the hottest new thing in town.
The record guy came out to see us one day,
and just like always, we didn't play; it knocked him out.
He said he loved our work, but *he wasn't sure if he could sell a record with nothin' on it.*
I said tell 'em we're from Seattle.
He advanced us two-and-a-half million dollars.

Hey, hey, my, my, rock 'n' roll will never die,
Hang your hair down in your eyes
You'll make a million dollars.

Well, they made us do a video, but that wasn't tough,
'Cause we just filmed ourselves smashin' stuff.
It was kinda weird, 'cause there was no music,
But MTV said they'd love to use it.
The kids went wild,  the kids went nuts,
Rolling Stone gave us a five-star review; said we played with guts.
We were scorin' chicks, takin' drugs,
then we got asked to play MTV Unplugged; you shoulda seen it.
*We went right out there and refused to do acoustical versions of the electrical songs that we had refused to record in the first place.*
Then we smashed our sh*t.

Well, we blew 'em away at the Grammy show,
by refusin' to play and refusin' to go.
And then just when we thought fame would last forever,
*Along come this band that wasn't even together.*
Now, that's alternative ...hell, that's alternative to alternative.
I feel stupid ...and contagious.

Well our band got dropped, and that ain't funny,
'cause we're all hooked on drugs, but we're outta money
So the other day I called up the band,
I said, "Boys, I've taken all I can,
"Shave off your goatees, pack the van...
"We're goin' back to Athens"

The guitarist in my band pulls this out now and then, which is how I knew it existed. I was about rolling on the floor the first time I heard it. and that line about a band that wasn't even together still gets me, almost every time. I mean, how do you go one step further than a band that doesn't even play music? He found a way!  :Laughing:

----------


## catmandu2

> Useless to go too far in that direction. Without a common experience, a common language could not exist.


Do we have a common language?  (_What_ is _green_?)

There is some "agreement"--convention makes it easier to coexist.  I find it most interesting to study the variations, the unknown, for I am more certain of the preponderance of variation than I am of uniformity

Which must lead us again to: what is known?

----------


## Dale Ludewig

I think we think we have a common language.  But back to the original question, or at least that area of thought, the jam part of a "song" is inherently freeform to some extent.  And there is the problem, isn't it?  It's the movement.  It's beyond "what is green" or what you personally see in your head when you look at a color that we agree is "green".  It's the movement of the music.  Yes, that's C.  We can measure that.  But once you move to D and G and how you move and what that motion means to the listener is very personal, colored (sorry) by many personal experiences listening to a similar movement, chord progression, whatever.

I remember some years ago seeing Bela Fleck and the group doing The Bluegrass Sessions tour in Chicago.  I walked out with my fellow musician friends, all of us completely blown away.  Ran into another friend, a player of more traditional bluegrass, and he thought the show was horrible.  Not enough structure to the songs and so forth.

We heard the same thing.  We heard different things.  I think I'll go let my head bobble about.

----------


## catmandu2

Well we are moving _toward_ more commonality of language all the time--with expanding vocabulary and information (and "consciousness" for lack of a better term)--our facility with systems of symbolism evolve.  It requires speculation and refinement; the more capable our imagination the broader our empathy

And of course humans strive for commonality.  However, we are often too quick to ignore our differences--the subtle vibrations and variations of patterns in our rush to conformity--that make life the more beautiful

----------


## imleath

> So it's actually NOT funny, because it's true ...  Hey! Looky there! You mentioned "job" and all of those jam band fans just scattered. How about that? 
> 
> Ahhh ... peace and quiet, at last. Probably won't last ...


I like how you jump on a played stereotype that's not even remotely true.  I think you should get to know the people on the scene before you start insulting us.  There's no need for that.  This is a friendly discussion about music and musical preferences not a place to take cheap shots at a group of people you clearly know nothing about.

catmandu2, I concur with most everything you've said.

----------


## journeybear

Who's taking a cheap shot at someone one clearly knows nothing about? Or for that matter, tossing around insults? For what it's worth, I've been to scores of shows that were largely improvisational, going back decades - and not just Grateful Dead, though they were the lion's share, and still the best in this area, as far as I'm concerned - as well as been in a few bands in which improvisation was a major element. And in all this time and experience I have gotten to meet a lot of fans of this kind of music and the attendant lifestyle, who embraced both to varying degrees, so I'm not exactly unaware of the culture. But I hardly ever met anyone who couldn't take a little ribbing, or took themselves or their culture or what they were doing so seriously they couldn't see the humor in it or felt a need to get self-defensive. If we can't laugh at ourselves, how can we hope to deal with the absurdity of life? Lighten up!

----------


## Dan Johnson

Jam does not equal Phish. BTW I'll be going to see them tomorrow night at SPAC! Awesome band with more than a little bluegrass in their background. 

So, here. Might as well have at least one bit of mandolin-related content in an otherwise ungenerous attack on an entire genre and several artists in particular.





If you don't like what an artist is doing, don't go see them again. Otherwise, take it as a part of their process. I love when artists try to open up a bit - when they fail, I feel bad for them, but I try not to hold it against them.

----------


## JeffD

[QUOTE]


> Do we have a common language?  (_What_ is _green_?)


Of course we do. We spend a lot of hours on this website using it. Green is something we can all point to. It doesn't matter what our internal experience of green is, when we talk we all refer to the same objective property of green out there in reality. (Wittgenstein: what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about (internal experiences that cannot be shared even in theory) we must pass over in silence. Or words to that effect.)




> Which must lead us again to: what is known?


Many people are quick to point out that what we don't know is so much bigger than what we know. But is this a trick? We don't know how much we don't know, so we imagine it is huge. We really don't know.

Studying the variations, measuring them and categorizing and classifying is what humans do, tucking more and more of the chaos of the universe into our understanding of the world. There is not much to be said for just wallowing in the variations, ignoring attempts to find a pattern, pretending its all random, refusing to know, just "grooving". 

This is especially the case when we find out that the perpetrators of the randomness, the jammers, are using specific techniques and algorithms and learned ways of responding and re-responding. There is the showmanship of the "groove" which is the swan on top of the water, and there is the years of work and study and practice and knowledge and trained intuition brought to bear, which is the swans legs under the water paddling a mile a minute, but hidden to our eyes. We just see a graceful groove.

----------


## Bertram Henze

> What is real, what is imagined?


I'd say if I had no instrument with me, just my voice, ask somebody else "do you know this tune?" and whistle it to him (you can do it with Sailor's Hornpipe or with Beethoven's 5th), this identifyable minimum feature needed to recognize a piece of music is the core I mean by "real", everything else is ornament. 
Now, if you have a full band they can afford to just play the ornaments and thus make the missing piece audible.

----------


## catmandu2

[QUOTE=JeffD;1068424]


> Of course we do. We spend a lot of hours on this website using it. Green is something we can all point to. It doesn't matter what our internal experience of green is, when we talk we all refer to the same objective property of green out there in reality. (Wittgenstein: what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about (internal experiences that cannot be shared even in theory) we must pass over in silence. Or words to that effect.)
> 
> 
> 
> Many people are quick to point out that what we don't know is so much bigger than what we know. But is this a trick? We don't know how much we don't know, so we imagine it is huge. We really don't know.
> 
> Studying the variations, measuring them and categorizing and classifying is what humans do, tucking more and more of the chaos of the universe into our understanding of the world. There is not much to be said for just wallowing in the variations, ignoring attempts to find a pattern, pretending its all random, refusing to know, just "grooving".


It sounds to me that you (and Wittgenstein) are making my point

----------


## catmandu2

> I'd say if I had no instrument with me, just my voice, ask somebody else "do you know this tune?" and whistle it to him (you can do it with Sailor's Hornpipe or with Beethoven's 5th), this identifyable minimum feature needed to recognize a piece of music is the core I mean by "real", everything else is ornament. 
> Now, if you have a full band they can afford to just play the ornaments and thus make the missing piece audible.


Ha Bertram!

----------


## catmandu2

[QUOTE=JeffD;1068424]


> Of course we do. We spend a lot of hours on this website using it. Green is something we can all point to. It doesn't matter what our internal experience of green is, when we talk we all refer to the same objective property of green out there in reality. (Wittgenstein: what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about (internal experiences that cannot be shared even in theory) we must pass over in silence. Or words to that effect.)
> 
> 
> 
> Many people are quick to point out that what we don't know is so much bigger than what we know. But is this a trick? We don't know how much we don't know, so we imagine it is huge. We really don't know.
> 
> Studying the variations, measuring them and categorizing and classifying is what humans do, tucking more and more of the chaos of the universe into our understanding of the world. There is not much to be said for just wallowing in the variations, ignoring attempts to find a pattern, pretending its all random, refusing to know, just "grooving".


Taking for example we here on the cafe:

Symbolism works relatively better concerning representation of physical object; we have some commonality when we say "that is a mandolin"

But when we begin to speak about "what is this music that this mandolin plays?" -- when we must use yet another metaphor to describe something itself more overtly metaphoric -- it quickly becomes very difficult to agree, to understand each other, often leading to dissension and even hostility

All our systems of representation are metaphoric, are they not? What is beneath this?

_What_ do we _know_?

----------


## Dale Ludewig

I really like the metaphor of the swan's legs under the water.  Another metaphor of the licks, the muscle memory, of what I guess all musicians develop as they learn.  If you listen to almost any player long enough I think you'll begin to recognize his/her vocabulary and phrases.  Their style.  It's how we know that "that's Sam Bush" (or someone who has memorized his stuff).  And so on.
Metaphors, analogies- I'm always looking for one for everything.  In an attempt to keep this on topic, what then is the jam, the Phish thing, or any such thing?  Perhaps it's jumping into the moshpit (sp?)- letting go of expected transitions, hoping the musicians please our inner hopes, that they can pull it off and bring it all back to some resolution with whatever talents they have?  It's all very personal to each listener, each player.
What do we know?  Not much, when we get right down to it.  What do we like?  What do we believe?  What do we agree about?  All good questions.

----------


## catmandu2

Well this is obviously not the best place for this, so I'll be brief

What is beauty?  Could it be a metaphor of transcendent quality?  How do we speak of beauty--does it not require many words to describe an experience?  What language do we use?  Is discursive language adequate to represent the transcendent experience?  Is experience not important?  What else do we have?  

Music is often a better tool for conveying the nondiscursive, inarticulate, realm of the unknown yet seemingly apprehendable.  Are our systems of representation adequate to convey our experience?  _It_ is green.  But what is _green_?...

Sonic exploration is one means of researching the realm beyond the immediate senses--the _aesthetic_; there are many roads to discovery...but it requires a question be asked

So, so many "answers"...

----------


## Bertram Henze

> So, so many "answers"...


Finding the questions is the tricky part  :Wink:

----------


## imleath

> Lighten up!


I just hate that stupid stereotype so much.





> Jam does not equal Phish. BTW I'll be going to see them tomorrow night at SPAC! Awesome band with more than a little bluegrass in their background. 
> 
> So, here. Might as well have at least one bit of mandolin-related content in an otherwise ungenerous attack on an entire genre and several artists in particular.


If I recall correctly the video you posted is actually from SPAC, but it might be another part of the documentary that's at SPAC.  I could also be completely wrong.  Have fun out there, though!

----------


## catmandu2

> Finding the questions is the tricky part


Indeed it is--and no simple task (to formulate a good question).  This is the realm of Art.

"Answers" too often are mere ideologies

----------


## JeffD

What we know is the part we can expess clearly. The rest is an (often successful) attempt to chip away the unknown and make it something we can talk about clearly.

What I dislike is wallowing in the differences, being happy with the ambiguity.



They say to play what you feel. I'd rather play the tune. And (to be honest) I don't really want to know how you feel - I want to hear you play the tune.

----------


## Bertram Henze

> I don't really want to know how you feel - I want to hear you play the tune.


I want you to hear you feeling the tune.

----------

journeybear

----------


## Brett Byers

At the risk of splitting hairs here, a significant portion of Phish's repertoire is highly arranged material and only sounds improvisational to those who aren't familiar with their style.  A perfect example of this is Divided Sky.  I always crack up when I hear someone say "oh man, they just killed that jam in Divided Sky".  No jam there. That music is written out note for note. Trey is just a mad genius who can arrange music in such a way that it'll tear your head off and make you think that they're just making it up as they go along.  Of course, Phish are masters of improvisation, but in recent years they haven't been "jumping off the cliff" musically like they used to.  They take less risks, and many feel the music has suffered as a result.  But one thing that has remained constant in Phish, and every other band in the history of the world, is they are always evolving.  Any band or musician that remains stagnant is no musician at all.  If exploring new territory keeps the performers interested in what they are doing then the fans will reap the rewards.  There's nothing worse, musically, than an extremely talented musician who is uninspired.  Phish went through a period like that.  The Grateful Dead went through extended periods like that, and the music definitely suffered.  When the musicians are interested, the music is interesting, regardless of genre.

----------


## David Lewis

I love a great improvisation. I admire those artists who can play the same notes over and over again... Look at Sam bush. He has the same ending phrase for 'sailing shoes' yet he goes there a different way each time. I love that.

----------


## journeybear

> I want you to hear you feeling the tune.


Perhaps you are being partly facetious here, but I think this is really where playing music this way comes alive. Traditional-minded folks may be more inclined to play certain riffs or passages with an exactitude which pleases them and the listeners - something like what dlew919 finds so pleasing in his example - and that is just fine, and fitting for that type of music. Indeed, finding ways to make even the smallest riff the same yet different somehow shows the player is present, in the moment, feeling it, if perhaps on a smaller scale. I'm more inclined toward players using broader strokes, but I still want to feel that presence, to sense that the player is really playing from the heart, is really striving to play the best he can, and isn't just going through the motions or running through his repertoire of riffs. I have noticed people really respond to music played this way. Somehow it touches them on a deeper level, on a somewhat subconscious and/or preverbal level, and they feel compelled to express this, even if they have a hard time doing so. At times like these I know I have done well, beyond what I may think I have done. Something like this is at the core of the motivation for playing this way - achieving an interaction and rapport for which the music is more than just the music but a vehicle, a delivery system, if you will. I'm not sure if I'm expressing myself adequately. Hold on a minute, let me get my mandolin ...  :Mandosmiley:

----------

Marty Henrickson

----------


## skrwl

I'm a week late to this thread, but have got to give a big thumbs-up to this post.

[edit: oops, this was supposed to be a reply to a specific post on page 1. me bad at computer]

----------

journeybear

----------


## Bertram Henze

> ...but I still want to feel that presence, to sense that the player is really playing from the heart, is really striving to play the best he can, and isn't just going through the motions or running through his repertoire of riffs.


Not being facetious, that is exactly what I meant.

----------

journeybear

----------


## journeybear

> Not being facetious, that is exactly what I meant.


Good! I thought so. But there was  context, and sometimes it seems wordplay can get the upper hand of us. But yes, I quite agree, as was pretty clear, and really, you said it better with much fewer words.  :Wink: 




> I'm a week late to this thread, but have got to give a big thumbs-up to this post.
> 
> [edit: oops, this was supposed to be a reply to a specific post on page 1. me bad at computer]


Sorry, too late. I'm taking it!  :Wink:

----------


## catmandu2

> What we know is the part we can expess clearly. The rest is an (often successful) attempt to chip away the unknown and make it something we can talk about clearly.
> 
> What I dislike is wallowing in the differences, being happy with the ambiguity.
> 
> 
> 
> They say to play what you feel. I'd rather play the tune. And (to be honest) I don't really want to know how you feel - I want to hear you play the tune.


What can we express _clearly_?

What do we "know" of the phenomenal world, and of ourselves?  Is it particle?, or wave? You say tomato, I say tom_ah_to...is _this_ "bluegrass" music, or is it _that_ too?  Of course the answers are as different as our perceptions of why we exist at all (I presume we have different views on this).  We reflect our perceptions and express our experience through projections in the phenomenal world.  By exploring the space between you and me, we may find some commonality.  Submission and subjugation--is not "commonality"

Of course there's no need to "wallow" at all.  An alternative approach is to revel and revere the varieties of experience and mysteries of life.  An alternative view may suggest that--we may be "wallowing" by merely seeking conformity, uniformity, regularity, the old "reliable" ways, the well-trodden path, "security"

We understand why we take comfort in the familiar--to reassure us, to help settle our anxiety of an ambiguous existence.  Some folks can't stand the ambiguity and must find an "answer" to it all--we fight wars over it.  For others, asking questions of the deeper mysteries of life is what it's all about--to dream, invent, imagine, experience.  Some enjoy being on the "road-less traveled" 

I enjoy a tune as much as anyone--currently I spend most of my time playing harp tunes, and I've spent years studying Bach.  But there's no limit to music--and there's room for it all.  But we must extend ourselves in order to understand, to render ourselves open to experience, to become sensitive to our environment, ourselves...

The topic at hand--why we may enjoy "free form" music--is an opportunity for us to use music for these purposes.  What is possible?   One response to the challenges of an ambiguous existence is fear (wallowing).  Another response is Art

----------


## catmandu2

On second thought, let me put it another way--lest I'm perceived overly critical

Exploring the space between ourselves is necessary, in a way: using music for example, we can explore the varieties, the variations, all that we can imagine--to "flesh-out" what you like and what I like, articulating the differences, as it were.  This way, I know that I am me and you are you.  I do not want you to experience what I experience--I want you to experience what you experience.  But I want you to be able to tell me about it (but hopefully in more elegant ways than warfare--I'm open to subtle vibrations and don't need the courseness of war to tell the difference); rather than wallowing, I want you to strive for awareness.  This is why expression of uniqueness, of experience (art) is of value to me--often more interesting to me than someone playing a tune the same way as everyone else for the 1000th time... abstraction versus "realism"; it gives me more opportunity to define who I am and who you are (but we can both exist)...awareness of myself in the universe

I see that Betram has touched on this too

----------


## Marty Henrickson

This thread itself has become one of those meandering, formless jam sessions.  Every now in then, it threatens to actually resolve back into some resemblance or continuation of the original discussion, then veers back off into the philosophical stratosphere.

----------

journeybear

----------


## catmandu2

Well FWIW Marty, I enjoy both aspects simultaneously and don't mean to be steering it "out"--I do feel it relevant in a direct way...why I feel inclined to be brining this on a BG forum  :Wink:   (sorry)

Let's fill up space from the realm of possibility with thoughts of beauty and music--you take your slices and I'll take mine, and we'll know ourselves from each other by the way we are shaped

And in answer to the OP--hopefully, everybody is NOT phish, and as much as we strive and learn from each other, let us not try to be one another (for we can't).  But I would say, let's have it all.  Let's strive to _know_ both the thing that is green, and Green itself (and play and sing standards...for we love our tunes)

----------


## Bertram Henze

> I want you to experience what you experience.  But I want you to be able to tell me about it


They say music is a language - it is useful to be told new things we don't already know, but it's also useful to be told in a dialect we can understand, at least until we cautiously start to push its boundaries.

----------


## catmandu2

> They say music is a language - it is useful to be told new things we don't already know, but it's also useful to be told in a dialect we can understand, at least until we cautiously start to push its boundaries.


Ah, the humanity of it all!   :Wink:   Well we do have to learn to talk before we converse.  The dialectic is the valuable thing

----------


## mingusb1

To the Original Post...pages and pages ago:

You are NOT wrong...for wanting to hear songs!

Z

----------


## LastMohican

> To the Original Post...pages and pages ago:
> 
> You are NOT wrong...for wanting to hear songs!
> 
> Z


Finally...affirmation. And, with me being the incredibly shallow person that I am, this is really all I was fishing for in the first place!

You cats remember that with my next post and it'll save us all a lot of time & energy!  :Wink:

----------


## catmandu2

> Question: why is there now this overbearing trend by which bands that are rightly known for their virtuosity have decided to be more of a "jam band" other than just play songs!
>  ...
> 
> I enjoy short showcases that are intended to highlight the unbelievable skill these guys have but, first and foremost, I come to hear songs! Am I wrong?


Or, you could simply phrase your "questions" differently--maybe state it as a request instead, like, "Tell me I am *not* wrong...affirmations only, please." 

I think it would be difficult to argue that you are _wrong_ to like what you like -- i.e., hearing songs at concerts.  Nor, do I think that by discussing other views--what others hear in the music--it is disaffirming to your preference in any way.  (And I enjoy the time and energy expended on the cafe exploring "possible" answers to "questions" posed--which for my money are interesting for the discussions they can inspire)

But, I get it.  My apologies to you and others who use the forum for other reasons.  And I get that bluegrass is probably more for folks who want to hear songs, and not "outside" improvising-based playing.  I like bluegrass too

I also apologize for having not read through the entire OP and ensuing thread before responding to a provocative post, as well as subsequent posts that critiqued Phish inaccurately, imo





> Maybe if the Jazz players cut down on the quantity & thought more of the quality,they'd make as much money as the rock 'n rollers.

----------


## Mike Bunting

> Maybe if the Jazz players cut down on the quantity & thought more of the quality,they'd make as much money as the rock 'n rollers.
> As somebody once said of 'Be Bop' - _''the eternal search for the right note !!''_. For the last 3 days,in the large park over the road from me,the rock band 'The Stone Roses' have been playing to audiences of between 75 & 100,000 people each day - i guess they know where their next Rolls Royces are coming from,3 chords or not,
>                                                                                                   Ivan


I don't believe that the quality of music is determined by how much money its players make. I think that it is a ludicrous notion.

----------


## JonZ

> Balance is nice.


Not when there's too much of it.

----------


## Marty Henrickson

> Not when there's too much of it.


...or too little!  :Wink:

----------


## mandroid

Hmm,  only so much room on a CD, but live you can play until the next group
 starts hauling it's  amps & stuff on stage.. ? :Laughing:

----------


## JonZ

For me, it is not a matter of "to jam or not to jam", but how.

Is there still a "story" being told? The longer a jam goes on, the more difficult it is to create something that has an interesting, cohesive structure.

Is there interplay between the musicians, or just backing and solo?

Please note the use of "For me" at the start of this post, and have a good day.

----------


## imleath

> Hmm,  only so much room on a CD, but live you can play until the next group
>  starts hauling it's  amps & stuff on stage.. ?


*random irrelevant passage in forum jam session*

There's another option.  Be like Phish and play with no other acts.  Play until curfew every night.

----------


## JeffD

> Is there still a "story" being told? The longer a jam goes on, the more difficult it is to create something that has an interesting, cohesive structure.
> .


I think you are correct. It gets a bit like reading James Joyce, the sentence gets so long and you lose your place so many times, but you solier on because everyone seems to believe there is something meaningful going on.

----------

Marty Henrickson

----------


## Marty Henrickson

I just saw that amazon mp3 has the entire Phish catalog for $2.99 each, so I'm thinking about picking up one or two.  Can any of you Phishheads make a recommendation?  I think I already have "Farmhouse" somewhere in my stacks....

I would especially enjoy any acoustic content, but I'd like to hear their best stuff.  Thanks.

----------


## Mandomax

I recommend going to sugarmegs.org and going to the band page, selecting "ph" and listening to any show from the mid-90s.  Trey was spitting straight fire throughout, and capable of blowing minds on a song-by-song basis.  6/22/94 and 12/6/97 are smoking shows.  As far as albums go, check out the first few- Junta, Rift, and Picture of Nectar.  Strong songs and strong playing.  but I think Phish falls into the licorice category- not everybody likes licorice, but the ones who do, REALLY like licorice.
best,
Max

----------

