Random Show: 11/19/96 Municipal Auditorium — Kansas City, MO

I’m pleased to get this show; I’ve been contemplating this time slot in Phish’s history for some time (luckily for me, it even came with a two set video: Set 1 — Set 2.) I’ve been gliding through 97, a year that for me, has very little flaws, and high energy, while also finishing a couple months back — most of 96 (up until 10/31.) The reason I did this was: I wanted to jump right into 97 right after 10/31 to see if this theme of more grooves/less psychedelic tension was pervasive. Europe 97 paved the way for this formation, while summer elaborated, fall dominated. There is this pocket of shows that tends to get neglected: Fall 96 — and I’m speaking only on this notion since I’ve been online talking to fans, I feel fall 96 gets neglected because 96 summer was awkward, and fall beginning was just anticipation for Halloween. No one really delves into Fall 96 shows, save for the fans that can find gems (11/18 Simple — the night before — a must.) Most of the credible sources that speak of Fall 96 say this was a “precursor” @mrminer says:

Fall of ’96 was a fascinating time in the Phish world. What began as a listless tour down the East Coast was totally transformed and invigorated by Halloween, took on a revitalized sense of adventure in the weeks thereafter. The band’s renewed inspiration shone through in their many groove-laced jams that dotted their westward road, but it also came through loud and clear in the final stretch of old-school, psych rock jams of their career. Though their Phish’s music would assume several stylistic shifts over the rest of their career, never again would we hear the improvisational remnants of their iconic peak of 1993-1995. Their sound changed forever.

I found this fascinating, because there’s really no argument against it. A pre-96 Halloween Bowie does sound quite different than the Bowie from this show. What I want to write about is: what is captured at this show that goaded them to play like they did in 97? I felt that Europe was the catalyst behind their transformation, but as I listen to this show, there are elements of these jams that stick out as an influence of 97 groove jamming. The grooves are there, yes, but what really sticks out is the emotive elements pushed through the jam, a more saccharine, more intuitional approach to their jam structures.

@waxbanks talks about this emotive quality in his book A Tiny Space to Move and Breathe — Notes from the Fall, 1997. He says:

One element of this story that’s always appealed to me, resonating with my various neuroses and preoccupations, is the way the members of Phish in 1997 reached new levels of emotional expressiveness by reducing their music’s complexity.

I agree with both of these claims, I mean, they’ve been listening to Phish longer than I have. They’ve excoriated the masses with their expertise, even though their styles are antipodean. Where I want to enter the fray is from a philosophical level: How does Phish know that their fall 96 style is a “precursor” or how does phish conjure the “emotive” side?

I want to look at an article discussing the idea of studying the past as an archeological foundation. You can read the article, but what I contrived from it in terms of relating to my theme is — what to derive from the past. In the article, an archeologist holds up two coins (well it was a powerpoint with two coins on it — I know. Powerpoint. Powerpoint. Powerpoint (referencing Michael Scott.): one from the 20th century, one from the second. In his presentation he said:

“When you look at these coins, you can only see them in the present. Of course, we say that one of them is from the twentieth century, and one of them is from the second century—but, at a fundamental level, those are just stories we’re telling. That’s all the past is: a story. It doesn’t really exist; it’s over. That’s why talking differently about the past can change it. It’s a problem that all archaeologists face.”

The article continues, fomenting change on both sides of the argument. When I read that article, it made me ponder on Phish analysis. Do what we say about Phish accurately depict what they were doing at the time? If we went back in time to this show, and I feel that this show defines that emotive transference, we could say yes, it is a precursor. What about the attendees? The ones who are hearing it for the first time? Do they look back and say the same thing? In compartmentalizing Phish history, it is a narrative we tell that elates us in its post- 96 Halloween constructions. The established criterion that interposes Halloween with Europe 97 is just that, a precursor to our Phish archeologists. Does it mean were all right?

Take the Bowie: This particular version begins its jam like your typical 96 Bowie, faster-paced, and willing to take more psych turns. They develop the jam with spotless harmony. Then Trey hits a major chord at 11:00 that attempts to elevate the band’s harmony. It’s a beautiful moment in the song, it’s like Trey is meandering though a field of flowers, dwelling in daydreams, while the band continues to play. An emotive experience to say the least. It then goes back to Bowieland Going into Gin, it is one of the more forgotten Gins only because Gin made its impeccable comeback in 97 at Went. However, inchoate gradations are heard here. In the end, it doesn’t matter if that is what Phish was doing, we hear it today, and we feel that is where this show is placed, in its history.

“The past doesn’t exist in the same way those coins exist. We can study the coins; we can’t study ‘the past,’ not directly.” — Joshua Rotham

Looking at Phish theory, we all hypothesize where shows fall, and listening to this show, the second set rocked, it fell away from 96 residue that hindered on 95 psych, and began this new emotive era, something that would be developed further when they went to Europe. I will say one thing: Phish 96 and Phish 97 are two different bands.

Municipal Auditorium 11/19/1996