I really like Phish a lot, as my coworkers will attest since I have shitloads of their live shows filling up my iTunes album list. They're really one of the best live bands going now, definitely one of the best live bands of all time.
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.
> Once you start getting into live music more, everyone's studio albums sound bland
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 was speaking for myself. Since this is Hacker News and people are interested in business, I wanted to talk about what's unique about Phish and what they're providing that nobody else is willing (and quite frankly, able) to. While there are some bands that I prefer in their studio-album form, my overwhelming preference tends toward the excitement of live shows if they're good. I was originally a music student before I switched to writing software, and so perhaps my hours spent in the practice room shaped my appreciation for music more in the direction of the performance. But the real point of my original post is that in the world of pop and rock, almost everyone is leaning on the studio to craft their music and very few are properly good at singing or playing their instruments. And that's the interesting part about Phish, because they're not necessarily very good songwriters (sorry fellow Phish fans, but their lyrics are just not very good ;) ) but they are actually very good musicians and performers. Even if you don't get into their music that much, you kind of have to hand it to them for being basically the only band out there that is willing to sell you a download of their concert almost immediately after it's done.
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.
I don't want to go too far down this rabbit hole, but you're still mixing taste and judgment. It sounds like you are judging live music as Good and studio albums as Bad, not describing your own taste.
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.)
Sorry, that wasn't my original intent. I'm just not a great writer. My intent was to describe more of the perspective of a someone interested in something that mostly doesn't exist elsewhere.
> They were also known for lazy, lackluster live performances, especially as Page and Bonham sunk deeper into substance abuse.
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 love high energy live music. Nights spent dancing next to big bands full of horns and drums and stage energy are among my absolute all-time best experiences. However, I'm not sure if I can agree with you that live music, especially in the "rock" band genre (of guitars and drum kits and a singer) is always better live. In my experience almost every band I've seen live has suffered from poor mixing and the speakers turned up far too much. All the subtlety that made them my favourite bands is blasted away.
>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.
I would beg and steal to have a world where mainstream artists were actually _good at music_ again.
What foundation do you use to say that kids aren't good at music these days?
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.
Spot on, although I think the most recent album, Joy, is fantastic and a pleasure to hear anytime. The Red Hot Chili Peppers have adopted the same download model (sans download codes included with ticket purchases) for the most recent tour and are running http://livechilipeppers.com/. I bought the Bonnaroo set I saw last year and was really informed how good of a live band Phish really is (because of how unmagical the RHCP recording was).
The article made it sound like Phish sells a lot of live albums. Every ticket purchased includes a free download of the show off the soundboard. I am a huge phish fan and have been to an embarrassing number of shows. Phish makes the majority of money from touring touring and more touring. When they do a deal with a venue, they take home way more than the average band.
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.