Battle of the Bands -- Round 2, Battle 8

[JamieWilsonDC]

Phish - best live band since Grateful Dead

 

[Memo]

Havn't even heared of Phish (not being from america or waterver), but quite personnaly, for me, anythin is better than radiohead.
(how can you listen to it for more than a few seconds before you are contemplatin suicide - such depressing music!!!)

 

[ps139]

I know! It was a weird thing. And a fleeting moment at that.

Radiohead.

Aww come on dont give in that easy......
Jordan should be a hypnotist!

 

[Arwen Undomiel]

Au contraire, I always had the Radiohead programming. It was your Phishian Mind Meld technique that wore off!

 

[ps139]

Well I must increase my efforts then!

 

[ChrisWins]

What's going on here? How is this even possible?

Radiohead beat Nirvana. Nirvana who's on the radio every hour of the day somewhere. Radiohead is not. That was wrong.

Now here Phish is losing to Radiohead? Excuse me, am i in the right dimension?

Look at Phish's overall body of work, it blows away practically everyone on earth because of their live material. Phish fans number like in the quadrillions. They could completely sell out a 100 Stadium Tour tomorrow... could Radiohead? No. Every stadium sold out and there'd be even more people at each concert looking to buy someone's extra ticket. Phish phans, many, are like a family... you don't get that with bands like Radiohead, at least not to such an immense magnitude. Does all this mean Phish is better musically? Is there an equation to measure? I don't think so. I'm weighing everything together and Phish BY FAR blows Radiohead and soooooo many other bands away!

And here I am defending the heck out Phish and I don't even care for them!

 

[theFijian]

And here I am defending the heck out Phish and I don't even care for them!

Phish seem to be a very american phenomenon as I had never heard of them prior to visiting this forum, nor had any of my music-savvy friends. But from what I've heard of Phish, Radiohead are rightly regarded as being superior

 

[ps139]

Phish seem to be a very american phenomenon as I had never heard of them prior to visiting this forum, nor had any of my music-savvy friends. But from what I've heard of Phish, Radiohead are rightly regarded as being superior

They're actually pretty popular in Europe, but probably more on the continent. They've done European tours a few times.

Chris Winston is right. Phish can sell out any venue in a day. There is a reason why Madison Square Garden booked them for New Years Eve 8 years in a row. With one exception actually, when they went for NYE 1999 and had the biggest New Years Event in the entire world, their concert with 100,000+ fans at the Big Cypress Reservation in central Florida. People live and die for Phish. They don't for Radiohead. Honestly, Phish is losing, and I am going to chalk it up to people voting that do not know much Phish. They are just clearly superior it is just a shame that those who know are in the minority.

 

[nadroj1985]

People live and die for Phish. They don't for Radiohead. Honestly, Phish is losing, and I am going to chalk it up to people voting that do not know much Phish. They are just clearly superior it is just a shame that those who know are in the minority.

Honestly, these are all baseless assertions, founded on unsubstantiated preference. I live and die for Radiohead. I know quite a bit about Phish. I don't like Phish as much. Phish is not in any way clearly superior.

 

[Arwen Undomiel]

What's going on here? How is this even possible?

Radiohead beat Nirvana. Nirvana who's on the radio every hour of the day somewhere. Radiohead is not. That was wrong.

Now here Phish is losing to Radiohead? Excuse me, am i in the right dimension?

Look at Phish's overall body of work, it blows away practically everyone on earth because of their live material. Phish fans number like in the quadrillions. They could completely sell out a 100 Stadium Tour tomorrow... could Radiohead? No. Every stadium sold out and there'd be even more people at each concert looking to buy someone's extra ticket. Phish phans, many, are like a family... you don't get that with bands like Radiohead, at least not to such an immense magnitude. Does all this mean Phish is better musically? Is there an equation to measure? I don't think so. I'm weighing everything together and Phish BY FAR blows Radiohead and soooooo many other bands away!

And here I am defending the heck out Phish and I don't even care for them!

As I type this I have "Anyone Can Play Guitar" cranked up to 11. It seems oddly appropriate.

So, Chris (love your user title btw - I agree 110%), what I'm gathering from your post is that Phish should be winning simply because of their ability to sell out large venues? That's not the way things usually work out here in the CF Secular Music forum. We're an odd bunch here. Lovably odd, that is. And we usually vote for who we like, not who's more marketable. And I bet Radiohead could sell out at least some stadia (?) in the UK and the US as well.

Apart from my momentary lapse into madness where I was thinking about this battle, I disagree that Phish is superior. They're a totally different band, and it's just plain weird to put these two up against each other. You know, the old apples v. oranges argument. But the bottom line is that Radiohead rules. Mwah ha ha ha ha ha ha.

 

[ps139]

Honestly, these are all baseless assertions, founded on unsubstantiated preference. I live and die for Radiohead. I know quite a bit about Phish. I don't like Phish as much. Phish is not in any way clearly superior.

Nadroj, I thought all musical statements were of the same inherent value, and that a substantiated preference could not exist?

 

[nadroj1985]

Nadroj, I thought all musical statements were of the same inherent value, and that a substantiated preference could not exist?

Exactly. But your statements sounded like you at least meant for them to be substantiated (i.e. Phish is "clearly" superior), when such statements are in fact impossible, so I was pointing out how unsubstantiated they really are, seeing as how my situation contradicts a lot of what you said.

 

[ps139]

Exactly. But your statements sounded like you at least meant for them to be substantiated (i.e. Phish is "clearly" superior), when such statements are in fact impossible, so I was pointing out how unsubstantiated they really are, seeing as how my situation contradicts a lot of what you said.

Hey Jordan I was just messing with you in my last post, I'm a little frustrated and I chose you as my scapegoat .
I was thinking of writing a long essay on this. Then I realized that words can convince no one of music. Also I didn't have time to write a masterpiece .
So, I'm just going to make bold claims on this thread. Really bold claims, but ones that in my heart I believe. And I am hoping maybe someone will want to check out Phish for that reason.
Really, they taught me what music was. I am so thankful to my friends who turned me on to these guys. And through listening to them I began to really enjoy other styles of music. In my heart they will always be #1. And I do believe in a "mostly unknowable objective scale" of music, and if we could ever see "the best bands" I really think they'd be up towards the top.

 

[theFijian]

So, I'm just going to make bold claims on this thread. Really bold claims, but ones that in my heart I believe. And I am hoping maybe someone will want to check out Phish for that reason.

I checked out some Phish stuff (and DMB too) on the strength of what people here said about them, and they both left me utterly unmoved. Just not my cup of tea I'm afraid.

Really, they taught me what music was. I am so thankful to my friends who turned me on to these guys. And through listening to them I began to really enjoy other styles of music. In my heart they will always be #1. And I do believe in a "mostly unknowable objective scale" of music, and if we could ever see "the best bands" I really think they'd be up towards the top.

That's touching Phish seem to me to be a band that invoke great loyalty in their fans, it reminds me of Axver (blast from the past!) and his U2 obsession! Have Phish tried to do anything like what Radiohead did with Kid A? (honest question)

 

[Neenie]

it reminds me of Axver (blast from the past!) and his U2 obsession!

Axver is more obsessed with U2 more then ever now, everytime I visit the U2 site he is always there lol.

Someone repped me that phish "were" one of the best live bands around. I take it that means they have finished? If that is true then I'm sorry to hear that I'm way behind in the world of music of what’s going on with bands these days, (my apologies). I voted for phish because of the live songs I still have on my computer that I got a long time ago. They certainly have allot of energy in their live performances (from what I have heard of them) and as what others have said. Though I like some radiohead too...

 

[ChrisWins]

I checked out some Phish stuff (and DMB too) on the strength of what people here said about them, and they both left me utterly unmoved. Just not my cup of tea I'm afraid.

At least you tried. Some people won't even give some music a try. I'm guilty of that myself with certain music but if I hear good things about it from enough people I'll give it a try.

I don't think any particular music is everyone's cup of tea.

Let me ask something about Radiohead - if you go and see five concerts in a row by them, will you see essentially the very same set of songs each night? A band's greatness often lies in their live show and their ability to really please a crowd. I'm sure Radiohead pleases but back to my question - same songs night in and night out? Go see five consecutive Phish shows in a row and you might not hear the same song twice. To me that is appealing. And also you might never know what the band might play next. The band has the ability to just jam together music that is awesome to dance to but it's not one particular song, it's inbetween songs. People stop and admire and when they think a new song's about to start they're listening intently for a few particular notes to mark a the start of a new & recognizable song. It really is amazing their musical ability to keep a crowd interested every night. Since there is no set mathmatical way to gauge greatness I believe we can take into account many aspects of a band. This one aspect of Phish that I just typed about is one of the things about them that isn't just great and pleasing - it blows people away!!!!

But some people aren't into "jam bands." To me seeing a band five nights in a row when they play a nearly identical setlist, well, that would almost bore me to tears the last three shows no matter how much I love the music. Phish, like almost nobody else, knew how to mix it up... and if they play together again they're going to blow away millions of more people. Those at the shows who are not on drugs can experience the most intense musical high that most artists simply cannot supply.

That's Phish and overall they blow Radiohead out of the water and even off of Earth.

Peace

 

[nadroj1985]

^Who goes to see five straight shows anyway?

Sure, Phish is a more interesting live band, but that's only one aspect. Radiohead has them beat in the studio; Phish really couldn't dream of putting together something like OK Computer. Does that mean that Phish is inferior? No, not really. It just means they have different strengths.

 

[theFijian]

Why would I go and see a band five nights in a row? I have a life you know! I'm sure Radiohead could mix up their setlist if they felt they had to (but when on tour I think it's fairly reasonable to expect that you'd be playing to a different audience) but what would this prove anyway? Their musicianship perhaps, but their greatness?

And if we're talking about mixing up setlists as a sign of greatness, Fugazi regularly 'jam' and play with no setlist.

 

[musicPhan#41]

i'll say this:


I love radiohead. Ok Computer is one of my favorite albums of all time. I would go so far to say that radiohead is in my top 10 favorite bands.

If we're talking pop appeal, radiohead wins. If we're talking about the quality of musicianship, Phish wins.

Now, i know alot of you think the guys in radiohead are musical geniuses. And maybe they are. But i don't think "musically" they are as great as phish.

Nadroj, you asked about phish having an album equal to OK Computer... I don't think Phish does. Ok Computer is the jewel at the top of radiohead's carreer. At the top of Phish's carreer is a track record of providing amazing live experiences for their fans. Personally, i think the live show is more important in showing a bands "greatness" than studio albums. Ashlee Simpson can make a studio album, but when she's playing live shows, can she really be an artist, in front of people? The studio is full of cutting and pasting, and tune and pitch correction, and "writer's block". The stage has no mercy for that stuff. You can't fake greatness on stage. (i'm not trying to undermind radiohead's studio work, rather i'm just trying to show how HUGELY important the live show is)

Personally, i like phish's studio albums. Some phans don't, but i think they're good. They don't seem as inspired as their live stuff, but i like the fact that phish goes for different things on their different albums. Phish has concept albums, light albums, complicated albums. They have alot of albums... and they're all different.

 

[blackwasp]

I think a band's greatness should be measured mainly on how they influence the music that comes after them. A great live show is a blast to go to, but memories fade, and generations pass...albums theoretically could last as long as our species. Radiohead's material pretty much changed the alternative rock scene; it's hard to find an alternative/indie band these days that doesn't have certain Radioheadesque elements.