Phish.net is a non-commercial project run by Phish fans and for Phish fans under the auspices of the all-volunteer, non-profit Mockingbird Foundation.
This project serves to compile, preserve, and protect encyclopedic information about Phish and their music.
Credits | Terms Of Use | Legal | DMCA
The Mockingbird Foundation is a non-profit organization founded by Phish fans in 1996 to generate charitable proceeds from the Phish community.
And since we're entirely volunteer – with no office, salaries, or paid staff – administrative costs are less than 2% of revenues! So far, we've distributed over $2 million to support music education for children – hundreds of grants in all 50 states, with more on the way.
It's occurred to me that this distinction (order vs. chaos) might be the thing that makes me prefer Phish slightly over the Dead. In many ways, I respect the Dead more than Phish. I think it's almost undeniable that the Dead were better songwriters, at least as far as traditional songs go (rather than instrumental prog-opuses). Say what you want about Tom Marshall, for example, but he's no Robert Hunter.
Still, when it comes to being really grabbed by a good jam, I've always been able to connect more with Phish, and I think the underlying sense of structure, of (usually) having a destination, probably has a lot to do with that. As you say though, Phish did at times struggle with an emotional barrenness and an overly geeky sensibility in their early improv, and the Dead never really had to overcome that. Perhaps that's why it took Phish so much longer (IMO) to get really good.
Anyway, when I saw "waxbanks" at the top of the post, I figured it would be a thought-provoking one, and I wasn't disappointed.