Dood, How Was It?

How to evaluate a Phish Show (or any concert, for that matter)

Let me be clear: this is an impossible task. We’re talking about art here, not a standardized math test. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is your experience with it. But because people will inevitably ask, and because Phans inevitably need to do some armchair quarterbacking and spirited debating, I offer some thoughts as to how we can start making meaningful measurements, comparing apples to apples.

Much of this comes out of a similar dilemma in social science. How do you measure something like a personality trait? That’s where I’m drawing from here, popular trait theories in personality psychology. The idea is that there are several independently functioning axes, and that an individual falls somewhere on a continuum for each axis. The unique combination of scores on each axis results in someone’s personality. It’s not true that one axis is better than the next, nor is it true that low scores necessarily are bad. It’s all about taste.

So, here are the five axes I’d propose we can use to evaluate a Phish show. Remember that the score of one axis has nothing to do with the score of others, and it will vary between individuals as to which axis is more highly valued. I think there’d be little argument, though, that if a show is high on more than three of these axes, we’re dealing with a really good show.

I am not as interested in dealing with a quantitative scale here, I think it matters less whether we’re looking at each of these axes on 1–4 or 1–100 scales. If folks who run Phish websites want to work this into a more standardized rubric, then by all means. I only hope that on a scale of 2 to 3, Mike gives it a 3.

In no particular order:

Technicality

Here’s where we look at how well the band executed. Were there flubs? Did they end songs together? Were transitions tight? And did they challenge themselves with difficult songs? Phish 2.0 would generally rank low in this cateogry, Coventry very low, as would some of the spastic jamming in 1993. The flawless rendition of Reba or Fluffhead would rank very high. Time Turns Elastic would rank very high as well.

Improvisation

Here’s where we examine how well the band does in the moment of creation. Are they experimenting? Do they depart from song structure and make something completely new? Do the Type I solos and jams take unexpected twists and turns, or are they unusually inspired? I think that the improvisation doesn’t necessarily have to be to your liking, only that they are putting themselves out there. Good examples of shows that score high on Improv are 6/14/2000, Big Cypress, or the Tweezers of Fall 1994.

Novelty

This is the axis for those of us who keep track of our stats. Is the band playing rarities or debuts? Are there bust-outs, special guests, or new covers? Halloween shows always rank high for this, as would 5/16/95, the encore of 7/24/99, or Destiny Unbound’s comeback on 2/28/03. The 1992 tours that had very similar setlists every night would rank low.

Wackiness

This is for stuff that may happen around the music. Is the band having fun and being silly? Is there a lot of stage banter? Evidence of wackiness: Henrietta songs, secret language signals, making up alternate lyrics to songs, copious amonts of teases, lots of interaction with the crowd, pranks, Big Ball Jam. Examples of wacky shows include 2/20/93, 7/11/2000, Harpua…the right way! most New Years shows, and lots and lots of the stuff from the 80's. the 2.0 era ranks pretty low on wackiness.

Personal

Shows don’t happen in a vacuum, and we all individually have entry points to the experience. So when we are reunited with old friends or are celebrating something at a show, or if we call the opener AND the encore, that ranks very high. If we’re rallying hard in the middle of the week and get caught in traffic and pay more than we wanted to park, then the show will rank low on this axis. Of course, there’s no way to standardize this, and it often has nothing to do with the music, but it’s an important factor in the overall experience.