Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 76 to 79 of 79

Thread: And This is why I love jazz: What Phish Sounds like to people who don't like Phish

  1. #76
    Member Phlakaton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    713
    For me it can come down to a perspective of "sound" with bands like Phish. If they played on grotty analog keyboards with heavy tones (ala Dave Stewart - Egg - National Health) - The guitar didnt have that clean tone that everyone and their mother has in a country band (how about something Zappa used in '73 with some balls on it). To me its just a collage of sounds that end up being boring in itself no matter how cool the arrangement or improvisational outcome. Just a thought.

  2. #77
    I think I'm following you in that you'd enjoy the music if perhaps the sound palate was wider/odder? Have you tried Umphrey's?

  3. #78
    Member Phlakaton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    713
    Quote Originally Posted by tallliman View Post
    I think I'm following you in that you'd enjoy the music if perhaps the sound palate was wider/odder? Have you tried Umphrey's?
    Ya. You could say that. I have this unavoidable ear palette and if it isn't fulfilled with those things I like - I tend to overlook stuff. A hang-up that has bugged me for years. It's like if I took the most contemporary sounding early 90s jazz (say a Dave Weckl album - which I still like because the arrangements are good) and exchanged all the instruments for something from a Soft Machine or National Health line-up - I'd be loving the music tons more. I think Umphrey's is pretty solid - a bit metal - but I like them a lot more than Phish just because of the more exotic sound.

  4. #79
    I think that's something that does affect me from time to time too. I took a long while to enjoy Frost* because I didn't like the "modern" production and wanted more analogue synths but I'm over that now.

    I definitely prefer Umphrey's but have recently "got" Phish from listening to some of their 1993 shows. They were a lot more rock with more static setlists (less to choose from) in that era and it helped me understand what they were doing. Having come from Umphrey's, I found the jamming to be a lot more linear but less structured in a song sense (no bounceback jams etc). However, listening to the earlier sets made me appreciate what they were aiming for. Providing a great show was definitely high on their list with many fast segues rather than drawn out improv. I also think the prevalence of the more complex songs helped!

    EDIT: Hope this makes some sense!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •