The Business of Phish
blog.priceonomics.com
blog.priceonomics.com
As the article says, their studio albums aren't that interesting. Especially after you've had a taste of their live shows. It's not just them, though. Once you start getting into live music more, everyone's studio albums sound bland. Go listen to Led Zeppelin's "How The West Was Won" (3 CD set made from a live show in LA around 1971 or so).. after that the Led Zeppelin studio albums just aren't as good as they used to be. Same goes for almost every band that I've heard live, or that I've heard live recordings of.
I think that's what Phish really has going for themselves, business-wise. Most bands you hear on the radio aren't really that good at their instruments, but with recording technology you really don't need to be that good. That's why you've got some artists who basically exist because they've got the right look. But Phish can go out there and perform 60 live shows in a year and feel confident enough in the performance that within a few hours the show will be available for download from livephish.com, and they can do this because they're actually really good musicians. They're able to fill this desire for good quality, energetic, live performances instead of bland studio recordings in a way that no other band has ever been able (or even tried) to do before.
Speak for yourself. Some of us like the possibilities the recording studio yields as an instrument. And by "some of us" I mean "most of the music listening public".
Led Zeppelin, in particular, is well-known for their pioneering studio work. Most of Zeppelin's most famous songs are studio tricks. Stairway to Heaven--too many instruments to do with four people live. When the Levee breaks--tapes slowed down and run backwards. Achilles' Last Stand--a dozen or so overtracked guitars. Kashmir--the famous "hallway echo" on the drums with a phaser on top, multiple mellotrons, multi-tracked everything, &c. What's especially good about their studio albums is that they sound natural and alive, but this was another studio trick by splicing together the freshest takes, inventing new natural-sounding mic setups, etc.
They were also known for lazy, lackluster live performances, especially as Page and Bonham sunk deeper into substance abuse. So that's a very strange example. I don't really like the implied attitude that live music is best, and we are required to like it over "bland" studio music, and it's strange that you picked the most un-bland studio band since The Beatles.
I'm aware that Led Zeppelin wasn't a famously great live band. Even Jimmy Page has written about how difficult it is to find any decent recordings of live shows of theirs. But "How the West Was Won", even though it has had a lot of studio enhancement work to it, is just so much more exciting than their studio recordings. It has a more improvisational feel to it in many places, and you get a sense of ensemble and of reaction between the band members and between them and the audience.
I didn't mean to say that all live music is, by definition, better and I certainly didn't say you're required to like live music. I'm sorry you're choosing to interpret my original comment as some kind of personal attack on your music listening habits, but I hope you'll get over it.
If you're not telling people they should listen to live music and then studio albums will sound bland, then don't say things like, "Once you getting in to live music more, studio albums sound bland". Then you turn your nose at albums that both critics and the masses absolutely love, and would say are the opposite of bland. (And of course you have to add how you're a trained musician, throw in some passive-aggressive insults at the end, &c. This sort of stuff is not done in the service of discussion or appreciation of music.)
Really? I was under the impression that Led Zeppelin had some of the most legendary concerts of all time. I'm not denying that Page was a wizard in the studio...but have you listened to any of the bootlegs? Here's one from 1970, recorded by some guy in the audience with a tape recorder, and it's pretty damn heavy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4quuwZmUitI
I would beg and steal to have a world where mainstream artists were actually _good at music_ again.
There's a difference between saying "Kids these days aren't "__ good at music __" and saying "Kids these days aren't playing "__ good music __".
The first is the OP's complaint and it feels new. The second is the complaint of generations.
Katy Perry is a classically trained pianist who used to play in churches etc.; Justin Bieber taught himself the violin and piano when he was a preteen. I'm just thinking of two very popular artists that everyone likes to hate on these days; but there are hundreds of examples like that.
If a veteran LISP hacker said on HN "kids these days aren't good at computer science because all they do is write dumb web applications and iPhone apps", we'd all agree that it's a vapid hollow argument.
That said, it did convey the very important lesson: don't go into debt. When talking about bands going on a meteoric rise, being pushed by their record labels, you're talking about bands going into debt to the record label. As long as you're not in debt, you don't have people banging on your door asking for money. And that's when you can do whatever you want to do, make things as good as you want to make them, and create something truly special.
It sounds like that is what happened to Phish when they first broke up, instead they fell into a kind of perceived debt to their production staff. They weren't very interested in playing, but they couldn't do whatever it was they actually wanted to do, because they had people to pay.
And based on my own experiences with debt, I can see how that feeling can lead to substance abuse. My own life has become so incredibly much happier now that I know I don't have that debt hanging over me. And it comes back whenever I have someone knocking on my door, saying I owe them money (i.e. taxes).
So stay out of debt, kids. Whatever you do, stay out of debt. College isn't worth it. Believe me, people were starting to question whether or not college was worth the debt when I started 10 years ago, and the situation has certainly not improved over time.
"College isn't worth it. Believe me, people were starting to question whether or not college was worth the debt when I started 10 years ago, and the situation has certainly not improved over time."
You know, I wish someone would have told me this when I was 18 (21 now). You DO NOT need a college education. Sure, it helps, no doubt. But IMO it only really helps if it is one of the top schools (MIT, Stanford, Harvard etc) and if you look at tuition costs often times those schools aren't that much more expensive then some B/C level school.
I think the problem started with the parents of my generation. My parents (along with their peers) were taught college was the universal way to succeed which transferred over into what adults preached to kids my age. I think being in college (back in the day) made you stand out. But with every kid being taught that same thing, how can you stand out if everyone is doing the same thing? Doesn't it defeat the purpose? Sure, the argument is it makes you a well rounded student, no doubt it does that. But spending 80k+ on learning about the annual rainfall in Brazil doesn't do you much good for your job prospects.
I think my generation should make their own education. I personally dropped out of school to learn software, got accepted into Dev Bootcamp and will be continuing my education there. Don't ever let school stand in the way of your education.
Here is a great article on the subject. This kid was a Thiel Fellow and has spent the 100k he was rewarded (as part of the fellowship) to write and focus on education. It's a great read and his book looks pretty good.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2013/03/05/dale-step...
It's never been too clear to me what that Thiel fellow ever really accomplished. On the surface, it seems that he got his fellowship, dropped out, and has since made a tidy business out of talking about his experience. Maybe I'm being too harsh on the guy, but he strikes me as a self-help guru for the education sphere.
> I think my generation should make their own education. I personally dropped out of school to learn software, got accepted into Dev Bootcamp and will be continuing my education there. Don't ever let school stand in the way of your education.
Somewhat ironically, my interest in pursuing a full CS/EE education increased dramatically after attending DBC. Either way, congrats & good luck. I have nothing but praise for the staff there. I'm sure it will be a positive experience.
I’ve also always been fond of Winston Churchill’s version: “I’m going to give a long speech today. I haven’t had time to prepare a short one.”
(Pascal's Wager)
I got the complete opposite message from this article. The Phish guys basically spent their college years creating the platform for their future success - would that have ever happened if they'd gone into the workforce instead? Or if they'd had the pressure of "I'm a full time musician" rather than "I'm at college, it's cool if I just want to jam for 8 hours a day because I love it".
Just because people drop out of college or don't use their degree, doesn't mean it's not worth it.
All of your points on debt though are excellent. Be aware that there is such a thing as good debt, but it's not a common experience whereas your lessons are well worth sharing.
I'm not saying "don't spend time not working to train for what you want to do". Don't conflate education with learning. I'm saying "don't spend money on colleges". My old university, a public school, advertises "$8 to $10k a semester for in-state students living on campus full-time". Having been through their system I know whatever they advertise is a crock of shit, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt here for a minute. Holy shit, $20k a year for just crappy place to live and shitty food to eat--if that is how you are treating it because you won't end up using your degree--is insanely expensive.
So after 3 years of this, you've spent upwards of $60k on no degree. I don't think the degree itself would have been worth $80k to finish it (actually, more like $100k, because most of the people I now didn't finish their computer science degrees there in 4 years, me included). I'd have much rather ended those 5 years with project experience--and business experience!--under my belt and a little money because I'd been selling my own projects.
We talk about runways with startups and how working lean extends your runway because the money is a fixed entity. Going to college is just not working lean. You're spending upwards of $55/day, just to live and practice your craft. There are LOTS of ways to live on a lot less than $55/day.
But anyway, Phish went to college in a different generation.
It's worth saying that not everyone gets the same out of it. I know enough people who sat stoned on their couch for 3 or 4 years to know that every individual extracts a different amount of value from college. Additionally, I live in the UK, where fees were (until last year anyway) $5000 a year. Some of the fees people face at US colleges are outrageous. The experience is simply not worth $50,000/year.
Why should even the ideal version of this "Life Experience" cost anything to anyone? Why does it have to take place at a college?
And so you're telling me that now you have a job, your personal development has ceased? that you don't develop yourself, try to meet people, take up hobbies, or discover what you enjoy?
This is the problem! When you're in massive amounts of debt, you're constantly working. You become a slave to a wage and you are less than a whole person.
Why would you ever work a 9 to 5 for someone else unless you had no choice?
Fact is, colleges are very good at bringing interesting people together, before they go off to live alone in the suburbs.
My dad and my uncles (all born in the 1950s and 1960s) were serious Deadheads. They've gone to over 100 Grateful Dead shows a piece. None of them really have any fondness for Phish, but I have no idea why.
I know my anecdote can be countered by several of the opposite side, but as a laymen to jam music, I can definitely hear a very fundamental difference between Grateful Dead music and Phish music.
They all had a heavy lean to the Blues/Country side of things, so they're all big fans of Steve Earle and the like.
They all got together to go see Mark Knopfler and Bob Dylan recently, and they all went to Van Morrison a while back.
EDIT: I think it's important to note that my dad was so distraught by Jerry's passing that he took a day or two off of work and sat around listening to old shows on cassette tapes.
I think later that same year I saw a really nice Phish show in Boone and the crowd felt larger. A few years later people seemed incredulous at the thought of Phish shows with four-digit-sized audiences . . .
What was super interesting to me at the time was how intensely the audience was "bonded" to Phish shows. We were already joking a bit about how they had a group of "lifestyle" followers. In the current lingo, I would have said they had gone viral already. Fun times.
'94 Murat (2000 seats sold out)
'95 1 night at Deer Creek (20k and not sold out)
Jerry's death
'96 3 sold out nights at Deer Creek
Winston had an interesting music scene back in those days (80s/90s, can't speak to since then). Phish, Widespread Panic (in the chapel at Wake Forest!), Dave Matthews, Leo Kottke, Alex DeGrassi (there was a guitar society that was active in promoting acoustic artists). Many of the MTV up and coming metal/hair bands seemed to pop into Baity's (a long closed Winston spot) for shows on their way to becoming bigger venue acts (all pre-grunge). Sometime in the late 80s and early 90s a number of blues guitarists would roll through the Triad area as well.
In hindsight, it's kind of interesting to consider just how many quality musicians came around central NC. I worked in a guitar shop for a summer and there were actually a surprising number of highly skilled amateurs playing. But for some reason, this translated into few active bands.
http://www.npr.org/2012/11/10/164858831/love-to-hate-nickelb...
its sad to see this type of music dwindle away when it was so rampant during the 60's. its magical feeling the energy from a band that can talk to each other through their music. its the same magic that happens between basketball players when they are in the zone and can pass the ball without looking to their team members.
magical.
What's interesting though is that I love a good solid 20 minute epic trance tune. It's basically the same thing, so I'm not really sure why I prefer electronic "jam" music over more traditional jam bands.
It's not that you needed to be on it to enjoy their (great) music, or that the band was always on it... Rather it's that it's always consistently available in their circle and this allows countless people to get turned on to a whole new part of life through their relationship with going to a show. This helps makes many people's first Phish show one of their peak life experiences.
This article brings up an interesting thought: back in the '60s and '70s when most rock bands extended improvisations into their concerts (Led Zep, Hendrix, Floyd, etc.), did none of them think of recording and distributing each live show as a standalone piece like Phish? Or were they perhaps already 'mainstream enough'?
For most people, back in those days, getting a sufficiently high-quality recording of a live show was prohibitively expensive.
Like Phish, Zappa was very much a cottage industry, unmolested by mainstream music industry stuff after the very early days.
The Allman's Fillmore album (iirc) was their first #1 album, released within weeks of Dwayne's death. That album more or less cemented their financial viability to this day.
Recording live shows was not the trivial matter back in the analog era that it is today. You basically needed a trucks worth of absurdly expensive and delicate equipment to be set up and torn down every night, whereas most bands that multitrack their shows today plug one cable into their digital soundboard and that's all there is to it. Also, Phish's isn't releasing multitracks on livephish, those are most likely 4 track blends of the stereo soundboard feed mixed with a pair of crowd mics.
With this attitude of theirs they also came on the scene at a good time. In the mid 90s, grunge rock was dying or dead, and the serious bands such as Nirvana gave way to materialistic hip hop, commercial rock, and (remember?) swing. Phish, at least for me, filled the void of grunge rock and opened me up to a whole new world of music. I could get really into Phish because I knew they approached their music with such care. It's hard to invest time in appreciating something and studying it when you have doubt that there's actually no substance or skill underneath, at least when it's not the most approachable material. Phish really never disappointed in that regard.
Further, it's hard to overstate the genius of two people in Phish: Trey and their lyricist Tom. Trey is not only incredibly skilled, he has an enormous amount of energy and enthusiasm powered directly by the crowd. If you watch him play, he's so tuned in to everything around him, you can feel that he's not really focused on the guitar (the physical aspect or the theory). It's not a challenge for him to manipulate it which lets him focus on playing with the rest of the band and the crowd which he does so well. The best analogy I see is what a touch typist experiences with the keyboard. You really don't think about typing. Now imagine being able to type messages live to people and every character you type is truly thrilling and enjoyable to your audience, and oh you can write in rhymed iambic pentameter without trying.
And Tom's lyrics I think are simply fantastic. Round Room I think really shows his true excellence. He can craft together 3 or 4 meaning and themes at once without making it seem like a big stretch. And he has such a soothing tone it sounds like a children's book sometimes, but the meaning is really almost beyond the realm of being able to consciously analyze it, yet not reaching the level of absurd.
Deleted comment