Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media

Phish Offers Archive Concert in MP3 91

Posted by Hemos from the maybe-mojo-nixon-will-perform-as-well dept.
moron0 writes "Phish has partnered with emusic.com to offer a Halloween show from the archives because they won't be performing one this year. The show will be webcast on Halloween, and then available for purchase in MP3 after the webcast. " It's actually a re-broadcast from 1990's Halloween show, or as eMusic calls it: "...the early years of Phish's legendary Halloween tradition, prior to the development of the band's 'musical costume' concept. " Whatever. Something to listen to.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Phish Offers Archive Concert in MP3 More

Phish Offers Archive Concert in MP3

Comments Filter:
  • Nice to see that I'm not the only one out there who sees parallels between the jam band scene and the open source movement. As far as how the mp3 release and the new box set Hampton Comes Alive CD: The Band's policy is that trading of audience tapes of those shows is still allowed, but trading of tapes of the official releases is illegal.
    Whether you like their music or not, you've got to hand it to Phish for being one of the most fan-friendly bands out there, and being one of the few jam bands to not sell out, or get their hands tied behind their backs by their record label (like what happened to the Spin Docters earlier this decade).
  • No offense, but I'll take drug-using over christian any day. Christians push the deadliest substance on earth!
  • "What would it be like if a band only allowed a bad quality version of their song played on the radio so people would be less temped to record it, and forced to go buy a CD if they want high quality..."

    Yeah, boy, Phish hates it when you record their shit, right? I mean, even though they've been allowing it since 1983, that must be their motive.

    Christ, by reading everyone's comments, I'm digusting. I basically seeing a lot of people who seem to know little about what they are talking about, yet seem qualified to make sweeping accusations about it.

    Of course, this is Slashdot, so I guess pompousness shouldn't surprise me anymore.

    Christ, get off your high horses, people. This "dirty hippie" band your dismissing is something to behold live (I used to follow them back in 1995, and without the aid of mommie and daddie's credit cards). Even though that time is over and my musical interests have expanded, I still hold a warm place in my heart for them. Why? Because, among many other things, they take things at face value. They don't say "this music genre sucks" or "that music genre sucks, they listen to them, often incoperating it (very well) into their music it. It makes for some incredibly interesting music. And those "dirty hippie" types are (in my experience, and the experience of many I know) a family who would easily lend you a hand, dollar or two, or whatever you needed if you only asked. It's a beautiful scene, one most of you seem to know nothing about. Please don't piss on it if you know nothing about it.
  • "I only wonder how this (and the upcoming boxed set) will affect the rules of trading these shows as bootlegs."

    Here [phish.com] is their official policy on audience taping of officially released material.
  • Phish does allow taping at the shows. There's a taper section, lots of mics in the air :)

    Having been to a few Phish shows, and having received some of their "phannish" mailings, my understanding is that the taper seats are behind the sound crew, and that tapers (with the required taper tickets) can patch directly into the sound board at any Phish show for which taper tickets are issued. So there would be no need for "mics in the air". I know I've never noticed mics in the air at any of the shows I've attended.

    BTW taper tickets don't cost more than regular tickets, but they are in limited supply, and sometimes the view of the stage from the taper section is, shall we say, less than ideal.
  • Another site I found a while ago is Phishcast Internet Radio [umn.edu], "Broadcasting Live Phish Shows 24/7" in streaming MP3 (128, 64, or 24 kbits/sec).
  • Ya know its a real shame when incompetent morons like yourself make comments like that..its people like your self that continue to perpetuate the stupid class distinction system that we live in.. So a "dirty Hippy" band puts some of thier music live on MP3 for their fans and all you can believe is that the fans dunt really care.. maybe if you'd take the time to explore you'd find that phish phans have an amazing presence on the internet from www.jambase.com to www.gadiel.com/phish to www.phish.net and others. But then again the bands you listen to I bet would not dare put out their music from a live concert for you to listen to or let you tape at the concerts so the community that likes the music can hear more of the band's live music... your just probably to busy recompiling another kernel to even look at the signifigance of this.. damn shame...
  • The band's manager, after awakening from a 4 day bender of drugs, alcohol, and men/women was quoted as saying, "I let what broadcast where?"

    The band not terribly concerned, replied to their manager with, "Man, pass the pipe or hit it."

  • According to the Phish trading policy, all online archives of shows that are available for resale must be removed from the archives. So, while you can still trade for a "hardcopy" (i.e CD, tape) of the show, you will not be able to get an MP3 legally except from emusic.

    That being said, $14.99 is not a bad price for a great show.

  • There are still so many bigots out there. Phish, in my opinion, has always seemed to bring together an environment that is nothing but nuturing and helpful. I've met so many people at different Phish shows that would be more than willing to help you out in a time of need. For the person who refers to them as "dirty hippies", you need to get a life my firend.

    Just look at what the community had to say after they played in Oswego during their last "weekendfest", and compare it to the commercial bozos who went to "Woodstock 99".

    Never a riot at a Phish show.
  • Just on a side note, I find that most people who don't believe in intellectual property rights don't really contribute much in the way of intellectual property to the world.
    This is probably true for the same reason that rich white people are more likely to be Republicans.

    Copyright law, patent law, and trademark protections do indeed have valid reasons for existing, but like any other legal constructs, they can be abused and misapplied by the unscrupulous few to the detriment of the many. Compare an open-source religion like Buddhism with a closed-source one like Scientology. Look at software patents. And aren't you glad that penicillin and the polio vaccines were developed by researchers working for public health and universities instead of by pharmaceutical companies with intellectual property rights to enforce worldwide?

    Refusing to give a record company $15 so they can give the artist $0.70 doesn't make me feel $15 worth of guilty. In fact, I'd prefer a bootleg Credence Clearwater Revival album to one bought from the label.

    I've bought--rather than stolen--every single piece of music I've acquired since I left school, because I believe that since I can, I have an obligation to the artist. This is called patronage; I do it because I should and I can. I will not toe some record company line that says I must deprive music from those who can't.

    And at the same time, I really like being paid to write. I really look forward to quitting my day job and being creative for a living. But I don't like the idea of being one of those assholes who sues every well-meaning grandmother who sends photocopied child-rearing advice to their children.

    Okay. I'm going to take a deep breath now and get back to work.

    --

  • I think Phish started to block soundboard patches in the early 90s because people were pulling cables out without asking permission.
    Phish does release shows that were from the soundboard, but the source looks something like SBD>cass1>dat, so it does have an analog generation in there.
    Plus, some of the AUD recordings I've heard sound very similar to a SBD recording, and sometimes even better, depending on how the mix was for the venue that night.

    Peace!
  • People have brought up the fact that Phish allow their shows to be freely distributed, except when officially released. This is gray area - evidently this show is no longer allowed to be distributed over the etree, but it is allowed to be trading over snail mail. However, this release will be higher quality than your tapes, guys - it's a direct soundboard.
  • Here's the thing. For those of you that don't know...

    Phish does allow taping at the shows. There's a taper section, lots of mics in the air :) But, a digital audience recording can only be so good.

    These shows they are releasing (Their upcoming 6 disc live set "Hampton Comes Alive" and this) are better quality than any tape/DAT/CD-R in circulation because Paul, the sound guy, recorded it himself with really expensive AUD mics mixed down with the SBD patch.

    This *is* bad however, because this show must now go out of circulation in the trading scene. Phish's policy says that shows released in part or whole on an official release must be taken off lists as tradeable.

    This wouldn't be so bad except that the show is being released on MP3. MP3 is lossy compression and all the purists out there will hate to have to mix down a tape/CD from MP3 when they could have a much cleaner source.

    I'll still buy it though :)
  • I too am a non-parentally dependent, non-drug using Phish phan. It frustrates me to see Slashdot repeatedly pelted with ignorant generalizations from self-styled "smart people". This community chafes at unfair generalizations (partly grounded in reality) directed at it. Let's try to present a more positive image; it will do nothing but help the efforts of everyone involved. Kurt Vonnegut once said "profanity just gives people a reason not to listen to you". The same could be said about the way the open source community is perceived. If we are dismissed as immature, fringe lunatics, we will have less of an audience and consequently, less influence.
  • Etree rocks. Of course, most of the folks on etree are anal - don't expect to jump on any etree sites and pull down MP3s (sorry, modem uers). It's geared (as HHaygood stated) towards the high-speed folks. Phish is by far the biggest band on Etree. Recently, the Pepsi Project attempted to have the 10/9 and 10/10 shows available for download within 24 hours after they were played, and except for a couple of small hangups, they were pretty close to being successful.

    Curse off MP3 forever and see the light.

    BTW, a typical show is usually closer to 1000 MB, since the music doesn't fill up the entire 3 discs. Of course, there's always room for filler.

    And sorry, no time for B&Ps right now, but I am accepting login requests. More info can be found on etree.org [etree.org].
  • Ya had to get that "christian" thing in there, eh? Guess I can't be a nice clean Phish fan since I'm Jewish.

  • I didn't say that it was in any way like Open Source. Phish's taping policy puts distribution in the fans' hands.
  • I think that the "rationalization" is at least in part valid. Theft has two components to it: the thief causing herself to have something that belongs to someone else, and the thief depriving the owner of something they rightfully own.

    In the case of data theft (in this case, the taking of music created by someone else), although the first component clearly exists (thereby making it something a lawyer can call theft), the second may or may not. Ater [mailto] does raise an interesting point: if you are not depriving the original owner of anything, have you stolen from them? Lawyers representing the interests of IP publishers say yes, of course, and for the most part case law supports them. However, if you are depriving the IP's creator of nothing other than a payment, and if given the choice between paying for the IP and completely doing without the IP, you'd do without it, I think things get a bit more nebulous from an ethical perspective, though not a legal one.

    And don't go saying things like "if it weren't for the money, nobody would create art." I'm sure Linus Torvalds etc. would disagree.

    --

  • Phish has not allowed any soundboard patches for quite a few years because tapers were unplugging necessary equipment in order to get a good patch.
    There's more info out there if you're interested. Start with phish.net [phish.net].
  • Ahem. Richard Stallman, anyone? (If you claim to have produced more IP than RMS, I'm going to throw up. I don't think ANYONE has done that!)

    Not even the Constitution supports your view of "stealing" IP as "theft". That interpretation is fairly new, and complete BS anyway. I would recommend reading some of the FSF's webpages (http://www.gnu.org). You may find them enlightening.

    As for myself, I buy direct from the band when I can, and I buy CDs I really like, and I go to concerts. But I don't feel bad if I download a song or an album that I would have otherwise never bought, or ripping one of my roommate's CDs.

    In my opinion, the way artists should make money IS like Phish and the GD -- concerts. Labels rip them off anyway, so why not just give the music away -- at least digitally? Many people (including myself) would choose to buy the album just to have the pretty CD and liner. For example, Static-X has a great relationship with their fans, and right after they made their first "big" album, they put it up on their web page, in it's entirity. I wouldn't know about them otherwise. But guess what? That page isn't there anymore. Big suprise.
  • I'm sick of reading posts that imply that Phish is one of the only bands out there that allow recording of the shows. Most of the punk bands I listen to DO allow taping of the shows...just not soundboard connections. Lets put this to rest now. I won't comment on what I think of Phish's music because I'm sure you couldn't care less. You've got what you like, and I've got what I like.
  • "Making an unauthorized copy of intellectual property is theft.. . . .You are the real scum."

    I'd rather be scum than self righteous.
    Have you ever pressed the record button on your VCR?

    Perhaps you don't understand the oppression and rape of the artist by capitalism. Perhaps you have never created anything yourself and will never understand.
  • They allow tapes of shows to be made and distributed freely, why not distribute mp3's of their shows freely? Does the media on which the music is stored affect the legality? Selling tapes is illegal... and selling mp3's isn't? I am sure their is a legal reason behind this, but I would love to see a jam band offer mp3's of their shows for free.

  • Funny that everything on that website is copyrighted.

  • Actually it's $15 which strikes me as odd because you can go out and pick up a live Phish album for not much more than this. And you can listen to it more than once. And it is good quality. And you can listen in your car. Like someone else mentioned i'd be surprised if the band had much of a say in it. Phish allows people to trade live MP3's as long as they don't compete with official releases - why would they webcast something for $15 that you could download for free, and better quality?
  • It's nice to see stories for once relating to *legal* MP3s.

    It's hard to keep one's morality when everyone around them has 100 CD collections on MP3 without spending a cent. Ugh.

    P.S. What's the point of securing a 'first post' if you, a) mispell 'post' and b) are an anonymous coward?
  • correct me if i am wrong but arnt they just trying to resell old stuff with a clever spin that they couldnt sell otherwise?
  • oops. i messed that up. sorry.

    meant to link to shoutcast, but oh well....
  • Such bigotry.

    Oh well, it happens. Just keep in mind, there are some nice clean christian non-drug-using conservatives that listen to Phish.

    Seriously. There's at least one.

    Jeremy
  • Oh wait, that is a flavor of Ben & Jerry's ice cream. ;-)

    Seriously, I am impressed that Phish is stepping forward and taking advantage of the mp3 scene. Though I don't agree with their selling mp3s of the webcast proceeding the show (I already have that concert both on tape and mp3-- both A+ quality), mp3 webcasting should have been a staple long ago.

    Does Real use Icecast/Shoutcast/* ? Or is it proprietary? I'd love to see Icecast step to the forefront. =)

    -dan
    NP : Ice Age - Spare Chicken Parts
  • Ouch. Not everyone who listens to Phish is dirty. Honestly, the average Guns n' Roses fan seems a whole lot dirtier (and apparently open minded) to me.....
  • This astounds me... Phish allows people to bring recording devices to shows, and freely distribute the recordings at their will. To buy this in mp3, wouldn't make much sense, when I could run over to the flea market and pick up the tape for $2. I doubt this is a move on the band's part at all... are they still signed by Elektra? Read their audio recording policy. [phish.com]

  • I'm glad (Score:3)

    by bjtuna ( 70129 ) <brian@@@intercarve...net> on Tuesday October 26, 1999 @12:03AM (#1587698) Homepage
    I'm happy that Phish is doing this. Phish is one of the most overworked bands in show-business. By webcasting this show, they get a much-needed break AND do a great public-relations bit.

    Also, I'd like to address some of the less mature readers of this site. Calling people names such as "tree-hugger" and "dirty hippie," doesn't do any good, and only shows your ignorance. Not all geeks sit there listening to punk rock; I even know a few who used to be Grateful Dead groupies. I know one who hacks to Beethoven and one who works best while playing rap. (I personally prefer Pink Floyd, Strangefolk, and Guster.).

    I would also like to address those who say that this is just an attempt to capitalize on music they "couldn't otherwise sell." Remember that Phish already has several live albums on the market...this is no different. And Phish, in addition, maintains a policy that allows concert-goers to audiotape shows and to circulate those bootlegs. In a way, Phish is one of the most open-source bands around! Their music is for sale so they can eat, but in the end it's free for everyone.

    Thank you, Slashdot, for throwing our little piece of sub-culture a bone! :)
  • It would be nicer if their "webcast" was done with something like instead of using Real media. [www.shoutc...mshoutcast]

    What would it be like if a band only allowed a bad quality version of their song played on the radio so people would be less temped to record it, and forced to go buy a CD if they want high quality...

    oh well...i don't like them anyways, but i'd respect them if they weren't so much doing this only as promotion and for the money...
  • This group really isn't known as a "do it for the money" group. They're constantly on tour, having a good time.

    off hand, here's a joke...

    What did one Phish head say to the other when they ran out of drugs?


    this music sucks.
  • until 1996 or 97 phish allowed soundboard patches at shows(you could plug your deck right into the board - no mics)..

    so i would bet that i could find a DAT soundboard of this show that will sound 100% better than the .mp3's they distribute.

    as a taper and a trader, i like the fact phish is going digital, but i wish they would approach it better.

  • The Internet has tremendous potential for expanding the world of recorded music. For many of us it already has--I've been exposed to an enourmous variety of interesting music that I'd never have heard listening to the radio or visiting the local music store. But I just can't see this sort of hyped-up second-tier release being any sort of trend.

    Just about every musician or band has far more material that they'll ever be able to release on CD (or vinyl, for those with that particular fetish). I'm sure that some of their fans would be quite interested in hearing it, but only the most devoted will be willing to pay a significant amount for it. The average quality of for-the-web music available is already bad--even though there is quite a bit that is as good or better as more traditionally released stuff, there is an order of magnitude more that is dog-howling material. Who wants to sift through all that dreck to find the good stuff?

    OK, now think of having to pay for the "privilege" of searching for the good stuff. Why, that's even worse than the usual situation at the music store, where you have to buy a CD with twelve tracks of which you only like three.

    I just can't see anyone making money on this sort of thing.

    -Ed

  • Musical Costume (Score:3)

    by bsletten ( 20271 ) on Tuesday October 26, 1999 @06:03AM (#1587707)
    Hemos' dismissive comment notwithstanding, I wanted to explain what is meant by the "Musical Costume". Phish has done this for many of the last several Halloweens. It involves them "becoming" another band for the second set of their show by playing an entire album. Over time they have become The Beatles ("The White Album"), The Who ("Quadrophenia"), The Talking Heads ("Remain in Light"), Pink Floyd ("Dark Side of the Moon"), and the Velvet Underground ("Loaded"). Some of these presentations are note-for-note replicas (a non-trivial effort) and some are more interpretive. *ALL* of them are very cool, fun musical exercises. It is always a secret until the show.

    Incidentally, I also wanted to point out that one of the things that make Phish interesting musically is the playfulness with which they approach their art. It is not a far stretch to think of it as hacking the music. They construct musical metaphors (not that they originated the concept -- consider Ravel/Mussgorsky's "Pictures at an Exhibition") and explore the theme musically. Some of the metaphors have included being in a maze, freezing, melting, and bouncing. Quite obviously these are not complex themes, but it is fascinating how they choose to interpret them. This of course says nothing about their technical mastery, professionalism, and jaw-dropping light shows. A chacun sont gout(to each his own), but there is a hell of a lot more to these guys than the usually dismissive "hippie, Dead-like jam band" allusions.

  • Re:I'm glad (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This myth of Phish producing "Open Source Music" has to end.

    What would happen if a competeing group decided to perform and record a whole bunch of Phish tunes on an album? Would they be able to? Would the Dead Kennedys be able to produce a sharply modified Phish satire album?

    Not that anybody would want to listen to yet another band similar to Phish, but the whole myth of "open source" and Phish is, umm, a myth.
  • I'm a little confused on this one.... Last time Phish came to my town, we spent several hours on the phon ewith ticket master attempting to get tickets to any one of the three shows, however they all sold out before we could get through. Why the number of devoted phish phan that there are, phish doesn't need any promoting. When was the last time you went to a concert for a single band that had over 70,000 people show up?

  • is that this actual recording should not be redistributed (as it's a soundboard, they've not allowed board recordings since 94 or so), but I'm sure you can still shoot around audience recordings of this show to your hearts desire. Do we have evidence otherwise?

    cheers,
    -o
  • I thought you were right,(except it starts with a c I know this, there is no k or j in classical latin) at least thats how my history teacher wrote it, however my latin teacher corrected me one day when I emailed him (I use the same sig both here and on email), if you are right then thanks--- we need bablefish for latin, any volunteers
  • Hey I was at a Phish concert OK? And all it was were hippies! So it's true goddamnit!
  • If you want to start denouncing mp3 collectors, such as myself (I have about 55 mp3 cds, which is a decent amount) I think you need to see the other side of the picture.

    Fact - Music piracy stats (just like software piracy stats) are unreliable at best, and blatently made-up at worst. This is basically because record companies have no real way to determine how much is lost from piracy. Not every person that downloads a "pirated" album would have bought a legit copy of the album had there not been the mp3s. In other words, if I download 5 random albums, I'm not "stealing" $75 of merchandise because to be honest, without mp3 availability I would have gone without the albums rather than spend money on them. Thus, the companies wouldnt have made that $75 either way. However, record companies do tend to assume the contrary so they can bloat their "piracy losses" and make it a big deal.

    Fact: Music piracy does not threaten the livlihood of artists. Artists make a very little percentage of the money generated by the sale of an album (maybe a dollar or two per $15 album). Rather, the only people who are threatened in any way by music piracy are the record companies. And they are the bloated, money driven corporate scum despised by many in the music industry. If anyone hurts the artist, it is the greedy record company who signs the artist under the pretense of aiding his career, then copyrights all the artists' work, whores him out to the media, distorts the actual craft of the music for the sake of record sales, and pockets the majority of record sale money in order to have a hefty profit. In an optomistic sense, pirates are kinda helping the artists by not only exposing the band, but also killing off the evil giants known as record companies. Oh and let us not forgot that the majority of a musician's income comes from concerts, gigs, tours, endorsments, advertising, etc. Record sales generate a small percentage of a musician's income.

    Fact: Many many bands support taping and trading of their music. As shown by this Phish event, and this lil page - http://www.enteract.com/~wagner/btat/index.html - a large amount of bands are for distribution of their music. Yes I understand that doesn't include studio albums, but it does totally mean that the majority of bootleg live music which is traded heavily through the internet is perfectly legal and fine.

    Fact: Emusic and the like are just as bad as the record companies. Just because they deal in "legal mp3's" doesnt make them the poster child for a good honest business. Emusic charges just as much as, if not more for lower quality digital music (poorly ripped and encoded imho) than standard cds. Even though they have support from several major bands, I'm certain that Emusic pockets the same excessively high percentage of the money from music sales as record companies do. Emusic doesnt care about artists, they're just some clueless suits trying to cash in off of the digital music movement. They're just as full of crap and gimmicks as all the other bloated record companies. And then there's sites like mp3.com, who claims to be in staunch support of the artist, yet recently decided to offically support their own payola scheme and charge artists for more exposure. Personally, the whole legal mp3 aspect doesn't make any of the sites any better. They're just as greedy as the others, and I hope they fail.

    I doubt you intended to incite this type of a response, but as a devoted mp3 collector and trader, I find it unfair for you to suggest that I am some morally decrepit jerk because of my habit. Me and the like just want to have some fun and some good music to listen to without paying out the ass for it (Btw when you consider the costs of a good computer, cd burner, cd-r media, broadband connection, and cd storage I am spending a LOT more than a cent) If you really want to complain about evils, go take a look at the record companies. Granted, music "pirates" shouldnt be hailed as heroes, but when it comes down to it we are the far lesser of two evils.
  • A bunch of trustafarians living off ommy and daddies Visa...

    ignorant mudslinging fools

    umm...can you be more contradictory, please?

    Jeremy

  • 'Jam Bands' and Freely Accessible Music (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward

    These artists give away their music; the only requirement is that it stays free.

    Sound familiar?

    The self-governing online 'jam band [jambands.com]' communities have maintained this trust,
    just as the snail-mail tapers [gdlists.org] before them:

    • the Etree [etree.org] - high quality (no lossy compression) Internet distribution via volunteer FTP sites
    • SugarMegs Audio [sugarmegs.org] - modem-friendly; everything from RealAudio to mp3 and Shorten

    The profit motive here is more likely emusic.com's.
  • Really a cool and inovative idea - ... for some dirty hippies with lousy music. I really hope people that listen to this music have a fun time, though I think a dirty tree hugger sitting in an unheated VW bus won't really appreciate it. I think they will be more interested in where they will score their next hit of fake LSD.

    This is funny, if not a little venomous. Aside from the "lousy music" part, (Phish rocks, IMHO) it's kinda accurate. Phish is not exactly an "all things for all people" group.

    As for the "dirty hippy" aspect, I guess you get that with almost anything, but the general attitude at a Phish show attracts seekers a bit more than most other events. Maybe it's because kids in search of a little kindness and compassion know they won't be overrun with bigotted jerks. Not that I'm fingerpointing or anything. ;)

  • ...and have a high-speed (DSL, Cable, T1, Ethernet) connection, you MUST visit Etree [etree.org].

    Etree is a collection of volunteers who distribute entire Phish (and gDead, and SCI, and MMW, etc.) shows, compressed with the non-lossy SHN format. A typical show (3 CD's) is around 1350 MB or so.

    They collect only the highest-quality digital source tapes (for Phish, anyway), master them, and split the tracks (no more one-track sets!).

    It's free, and it's the highest possible quality, and you're free to do whatever you like with your burns (give them away, trade them) as long as you DON'T SELL THEM. Check it out!

  • I used to be a big time Phish fan until I saw them at Alpine Valley in Wisconsin, just before they released 'Billy Breathes'. When I came back home, I wasn't a fan of either Wisconsin or Phish. The whole thing stunk -- the roads jammed with cars, paying $10 for parking in a mass lot (as if there was an option), cops in Miller T-shirts busting kids for drinking (decent beer, not Miller), and a 15 minute death march (with horse apples on the trail). Finally, after getting in, the show had to be one of the worst on record.

    The people of Burlington, WI and surrounding areas were extremely rude to my friends and myself in the two days surrounding that concert. It took about five minutes to calm a store clerk down because he asked for ID when I was buying cigarettes, and each time I attempted to reach for my wallet for cash and identification, he'd flip out and insist that I show POA. This took a couple minutes longer than a regular transaction. After breakfast at a local restaurant, my friends and I walked out and had a local say: 'Hrmph, must be a show at Alpine Today'. The group camp (which supposedly held 50 people at the time we reserved it) apparently it could only hold 20 the night after the concert. We were told that if that number was exceeded, people would get sent away. When my group got there, we bumped the number up to 19, but there was no way of telling whether the other people we invited got sent back or not...

    I don't want to relive that nightmare again, and live Phish would do that for me. No more stinky Phish for this guy -- I go to the Winnipeg Folk Festival [wpgfolkfest.mb.ca] now, where the music is better, the people are cooler, and the natives are much, much nicer...

  • Gee, I'm sorry. Seeing Phish in Austis is easy: *drive there, no parking fee *go in, sit on huge hill. *dance the whole night long, -or- sit back and enjoy *go home and sleep, humming phishy tunes.
  • OK without missing the Shift Key this time:)
    It's really nice to hear about this, although I don't really believe that Phish would willingly "sell" a concert on the Web, but then again, They don't "give" away a whole lot of tickets to their shows on a regular basis either.
    Hell I remember seeing these guys in VT in the late 80's and having to pay a cover-charge at the local watering-hole, so I can kind of see what they are doing.
    I'm also pretty sure that according to their recording policy they (NOT saying that their record company wont) be prosecuting any piracy or re-distribution of the show.
    Mayhaps they are just trying to see how much of a "market" potential they have on whether or not to start webcasting some of their Live shows.
    # mount /dev/highhorse
    As far as name-calling and phish-bashing goes, it's justplain silly... You shouldn't judge a group (music or otherwise) on the basis of their following. If that were the case I would have thought that the Dead were catering to the Rich Little Spoiled Trust Fund Babies who wanted to be hippies yet were tooling out to Vegas and Oakland in their Daddy's BMW.
    Phish can appeal to a lot of people for a lot of reasons, being a musician I like their perversion of classical music theory and rhythms and their free-form "Hey that sounds cool, lets do it" mentality... Their love of their audience goes a long way with the adoption of the 'Dead's recording policy.
    I have noticed however with the passing of Jerry Garcia that a lot of deadheads switched gears and started following Phish. a few reasons, Ideologically(sp?) they share a free-form music genre, they put on great shows, and there was allready a following that toured with them. So it was real easy to point the vehicle in another direction and follow a different band.
    # umount /dev/highhorse

    This seems like this whole mentality has creeped up on /. in the past couple weeks where people want to start fingerpointing and holy wars.... Remember folks, WE are nerds/geeks/etc... just because some of us were ridiculed doesn't mean we have to reciprocate.. To slam another person/belief/OS/whatever to make your own/self look better REALLY doesn't work. Let's keep the communication open, opinions are good, but facts are better
    ok enough ranting....
  • I've noticed that lately there have been a lot more bands actually posting mp3s, or links to them. Some pretty cool ones from off the top of my head (warning, punk band links ahead)...


    Less than Jake [lessthanjake.com] has links to a page off the site

    and

    Unwritten Law [unwrittenlaw.com] has some nice, 128 bit mp3s right on their site. Unfortunately, they seem to be going towards Real Audio and MS Netshow for their newer ones
  • The Dead Kennedies or anyone else could do a satire of Phish if they wanted, and I know I have personally seen a couple decent Phish cover bands. Why would you even ask if they would be able to release Phish tunes? Of course they could! Phish encourages it! (as long as they give credit where credit is due). Phish, after all, regularly performs the music of other bands; I personally have an excellent bootleg of Phish performing Dark Side of the Moon. I feel rather certain that when Phish is long gone, people will continue to play/use/mangle/improve their music much like they have for the Grateful Dead.


    You ask what would happen if a "competing group" decided to perform and record a bunch of Phish tunes on an album. Well, what the hell is a "competing group?" Phish isn't in competition with anyone, despite what you may want to believe.


    In addition, saying "but the whole myth of 'open source' and Phish is, umm, a myth" demonstrates use of a double-negative and therefore enforces my point instead of yours. But that's why you post as an anonymous coward and I don't.
  • What would happen if a competeing group decided to perform and record a whole bunch of Phish tunes on an album? Would they be able to?

    Yes, a competing group can record any Phish tune they want, after paying the required royalties.

    From Cecil Adam's Straight Dope about Micheal Jackson and the Beatles. [straightdope.com]

    Another thing the publisher can't do (in the U.S. at least) is prevent somebody from recording a cover version of a song the publisher owns. Usually the would-be cover artist and the publisher work out a deal on royalties. However, if negotiations fail, U.S. law allows the cover artist to make and market the recording anyway provided he pays a stipulated (and fairly stiff) royalty to the publisher.

    Would the Dead Kennedys be able to produce a sharply modified Phish satire album?

    If the Dead Kennedy's were still around, I'm sure they could, you just described Weird Al's career.

    Not that anybody would want to listen to yet another band similar to Phish, but the whole myth of "open source" and Phish is, umm, a myth.

    You're not thinking of it in the right way. It's not Open Source as in you get the lyrics and tabs, and can recreate the songs anyway you want to, and call it Phish, it's Open Source as in you can freely trade the live recordings. Maybe GPL music is closer to the true meaning.

    Many bands do not allow audience taping, and attempt to prosecute people trading unauthorized recordings. This may be due to record company pressure, but the idea is "Only we can determine what music of ours you can listen to, if we haven't gone over the music and approved it, you aren't supposed to listen to it."

    Phish (and more originally, though not the first, the Grateful Dead) feel that the fans should be free to tape a live concert, and once they are done playing a concert live, the fans are free to trade these live concerts for other live concerts, as long as no profit is involved. Perhaps a better way to describe this is as "Open Source distribution."

    Yes, "Open Source distribution". If I don't like the quality of a CDR I get from MZ, I'm free to look for a CDR from TB, JT, or AJ, and never deal with MZ again. If I want to accumulate 400 hours of live Dead without paying a cent to the Grateful Dead organization (or 400 hours of Phish to the Phish organization), I'm free to do so.

    I hope this helps,

    George

  • But you are depriving the original owner of something which they own. Their right to receive an amount which they establish for use of their intellectual property. Just because one thinks that amount is excessive or not properly allocated doesn't give anyone the right to steal. In the case of music, if you don't want to pay for the work of others, then make your own. How lazy and spoiled have we become? We must have the great artist's work, it pleases us, but we refuse to pay for it because we are entitled to this pleasure.

    You can dance around the issue all that you like with words, but in the end it's theft. Please tell me how point two is not fulfilled. Are you saying that the artist does not own his art?

    While it is true that art would be created regardless of money, artists themselves would be even hungrier if they were not rewarded for their art. And while I'm quite sure that Linus would agree that art for art's sake would thrive, as if his opinion has any bearing on this, I doubt that he would advocate the use of someone's art without their permission.

    Just on a side note, I find that most people who don't believe in intellectual property rights don't really contribute much in the way of intellectual property to the world.

  • 99% of pirated mp3 music are the radio songs record companies are DYING for people to pay attention to. Coming at you 45 times a day from playlist radio that is almost unbearable. Yet, when you turn your PC into a little radio station to hear some catchy tunes, you're suddenly a criminal. Of course, very few mp3 collectors would bother buying an album they didn't think was chock full of good music. The CDs I own are by musicians I really like and my MP3's are either hard to find songs unavailable for purchase or radio songs.

    Essentially, we've been listening to the radio that pretty much is catered for the record companies all our lives. We kinda develop a radio mentality, an acceptence of singles and playlists. Is it so much of a wonder why people take all these singles and play the crap out of them on their PCs? They're just trying to make a little radio station all their own.

    The record companies really want it both ways, a huge avaialabilty for 'free' radio music and an uncompromising protection of these very same radio songs. The next logical step would be to use MP3's to promote albums, like the radio does now. This would probably cut into record profits and well, I won't hold my breath.

    Its all a moot point, if radio stations weren't promotion machines, created by the record companies, we'd be able to turn them on and enjoy them all day.

    BTW morality has nothing to do with disapproving the actions of others, but has everything to do with approving of your OWN actions. Think about it.

  • While there is certainly no shortage of 14 year-olds inhaling nitrous from balloons at Phish concerts, they do not by any means represent the majority of Phish fans. there are all sorts of people at these concerts: frat boys, deadhead leftovers, and people "living off daddy's gold card" abound, but there are many of us who are there to listen to good, improvisational, avant-garde music. Personally, I think the aforementioned groups miss out on the real event by being caught up in the party scene. I don't know what goes on in their head during the concert (my guess is "not much") but they are certainly not the majority.
  • How do they expect to sell this on-line, especially in MP3.

    Why would anyone but this when you could probably find it on Napster or any other MP3 board.

    I dont think they can expect to sell very many of these in MP3, they should just give them away so and save us the trouble.

  • Your first "fact" is a very interesting rationalization. Sociopathic, but interesting. The artists choose to give the record company the rights that they have. No guns are used. And I'll bet that you were not part of the negotiations either.

    Making an unauthorized copy of intellectual property is theft. And those who do it are theives. No amount of argument or rationalization will change that fact. Call yourself a pirate if it makes you feel that you are doing something romantic. But you are just a thief and you are the real scum.

  • Like the Grateful Dead, Phish has allowed taping at their concerts for a very long time. Thus, you can go out and trade for a nice copy of 10/31/90 if you like. Or, you can by a copy (a professionally mixed soundboard copy) of the same show.
  • > for some dirty hippies with lousy music.
    You have no clue.

    Phish has incredibly complex and powerful music.

    Besides that, they have been pushing "open source" longer than most of the cranky punks around here have been potty trained.
  • You're paying for a higher quality recording. Most Phish tapes (of the present era) are made through audience microphones. Some sound great! Others sound a bit "tinny" The mp3 is most likely a soundboard recording...this results in a much crisper tape/mp3/etc.
  • It's time Phish (and anyone else interested in giving away legal MP3s) encodes them in at least 160kbps, preferably 192kbps. 128kbps is sort of a relic of MP3s, and it harks back to a time three or four years ago when they had just caught on, but no one had the bandwidth that they do today. So to save on d/l time, we all encoded 128kbps. It's time we upped our standard a bit - 128kbps is not sufficient and does not produce CD quality music. It saddens me to see MP3.com, what with its millions (?) of MP3s, yet all of them not high enough quality to really warrant me buying them. This is pretty much the same for every site/artist that has MP3s on it.

Slashdot Top Deals

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. -- Albert Einstein

Close