Phish are lyrical geniuses (semi-long)
BenDRoss
I often find myself in musical debates, defending the beautiful music of my
favorite band. Lately I have come to a few realizations. First of all, Phish
is not for everybody. A while back, there was a debate on RMP about the value
of punk music. It seems that many Phish fans hate punk music because it is
very simple music consisting primarily of power chords. What I realized is
that neither type of music is necessarily better than the other. The source of
the disagreements between punk fans and Phish fans is that each group is into
music for a completely different reason. Punk music is not about the actual
music per se. It is about the lyrics, and the music serves as a way to bring
out these ideas in their lyrics. Phish, on the other hand, is about complex
intertwined melodies, and jams in which the goal is to become one with the
music. I can't really describe what "being one with the music" actually is,
but I am pretty sure that 80 percent of the people on this newsgroup know
exactly what I am talking about. While most of you know what I am talking
about, the vast majority of the population simply doesn't get it when it comes
to Phish. Instead they simply judge them at face value, and the first thing at
face value is lyrics.
Normally, the bulk of the criticism Phish receives from non-fans is that
their lyrics stink. While I will agree that Tweezer, David Bowie, and YEM
don't exactly have the best lyrics in the world, there are many tunes, that
after close examination are nothing short that lyrical masterpieces. I think
that critics of Phish pick on their lyrics mainly because they don't include
any sappy-emotional crap in their songs. However, sappyness is definitely not
a prerequisite for a song with deep meaning...consider all those Robert Hunter
tunes. They are all very deep and meaningful, but don't even border on sappy.
What makes Phish stand out in my mind is that their lyrics often have hidden
meanings, that you actually have to sit down and ponder in order to figure out.
Consider Tube. In the eyes of a critic, it is miscellaneous jibberish
that has no apparent meaning. But unbenounced to many Tube has a hidden
meaning that isn't so obvious to some people. It briliantly re-creates the
imagery of a person flipping through the channels of their television.
Another great example is Simple which also appears to be jibberish. In
actuality Simple is a metaphor for each band member. Cymbals, Skyscrapers,
Saxophones, and Beebop each symbolize one of the band members. I am not
positive who is what, and have had long discussions about it with people, but
the metaphor is definitely apparent. I look at the line "Cym-bop, Beeb-aphone,
Skyballs, and Saxcrapers" as symbolic of how each band member becomes
intertwined with the others. If I'm not mistaken this is a brilliant use of
literary metaphor in music. You don't see much of that in popular music today.
I am also repeatedly baffled by the amazing stories in Phish songs. The
most obvious to me is Reba. What appears to be a bunch of words slurred
together is actually a crazy science-fiction type story of a girl who builds a
space ship in her bathtub. In additiion to the content of the lyrics themself,
the rhythm that the lyrics are set to, make it all the more effective. Bathtub
Gin falls in the same territory. These lyrics may be goofy, but the story and
imagery they create are brilliant, and unsurpassed in popular music. These
tunes are sort of like the Don Quixotes of music. They are all ridiculous,
zany, goofy, stories, but incredibly creative at the same time. Another
example of a great story in Phish music is Esther, although it is not goofy
like Bathtub or Reba.
And now for the most obvious example: Gamehendge. What other band
writes their own musical about a fairy-taled utopian land. Although, it wasn't
really finished, the Gamehendge saga IMHO could stack up there with some of the
"better" musicals around today.
The reason that Phish is so often shunned by the media and mainstream
critics is because they are taking their lyrics at face value, instead of
actually interpreting the meanings behind them. In mainstream musci, the
meanings behind songs are extremely apparent the vast majority of the time.
Whether it's the girl you love, the drug you use, or the gang you are in, most
musicians put obvious meanings in their lyrics. Phish on the other hand,
contains hidden meanings, that have to be analyzed and interpreted to actually
be appreciated. To put this all in perspective, consider the book Animal Farm
by George Orwell. I first read it when I was in the fourth grade, and only saw
the obvious meaning: People are cruel to animals, and the animals revolted
because of it. When I read it again in high school, I realized the true
meaning behind the book, which was a satire on Communism, and the Bolshevik
Revolution. Critics are evaluating Phish on the same level that I evaluated
Orwell in the fourth grade, and not seeing the big picture. Unlike many bands,
Phish masks hidden meanings behind seemingly pointless lyrics. Inscribing a
hidden meaning in a song takes much more talent than telling the world how much
you love some girl, or how your gang is better than the other, or how we should
save the rainforests. This is why authors like Orwell or Vonnegut are so
revered.
I'd love to hear your comments.
------/Ben\-------
--------/Ross\---------
"Vegetarians who eat animal crackers are hypocrites!!!"
-my friend Josh
"Big ten-kegger at the frat.....Or watching Jerry shake his fat"
-Ernest G. Anastasio III
eric masters
whole song, but how individual lines are like a Japanese haiku. I have had
untold moments at shows where certain lines creep into my head and reveal
their importance to me. Obvious ones like "whatever you do, take care of
your shoes" abound everywhere. And don't discount even Bowie or YEM. I
find the music and lyrics often blend together and become inseparable in
some musical metaphorical "blob." Especially in Bowie and YEM. There are
few lyrics, but the actual music can speak to you, extending the real
lyrics. And sometimes, when even I am not in the right mood, Phish lyrics
can bounce right off my skull, and I just see their so-called bland face
value. I happen to love the words to many of the new songs from Ghost, esp
Roggae, Meat, Brian and Robert, and MOMA dance. MOMA Dance is a great
example of how the words meld right into the musical notes, almost making
the notes speak literal words. My $.02---Eric
Capnslap
Piper-this beautiful, induced, chant...There were times when I did too much
acid and I remember when I would start to freak out a little I would chant to
myself the same words, sometimes sentences, sometimes poems, over and over much
like Piper. It was very soothing and took my mind into this manic trance where
my whole body and mind swirled around in this massive vortex. I can't describe
it any more...I'm already failing.
"If life is a crap shoot, then what the hell is my small intestine?"
Check out my DAT list at
http://www.tapetrading.com/lists/c/a/capn...@aol.com.html
lose yourway to respond
TrollKing
BenDRoss wrote...
>The source of
>the disagreements between punk fans and Phish fans is that each group is
into
>music for a completely different reason. Punk music is not about the
actual
>music per se. It is about the lyrics, and the music serves as a way to
bring
>out these ideas in their lyrics.
i have to disagree with you here. being both a phish fan and a punk fan,
i'm really into all music (punk included) for the music, not the lyrics. as
a matter of fact, i pretty much need to hear a song several times before i
even begin to notice what the lyrics are. for the most part, i think of the
voice as another instrument, and i really only hear the lyrics for the
*sounds* they make, not for their meaning. some people i know think this is
pretty bizarre, but it's true.
i was reading in a book about human development that this type of listening
is part of a type of learning known as 'auditory learning', as opposed to
'visual learning', where the person hears the lyrics for their content.
since i haven't really spoken with anyone else who hears lyrics this way, i
can only assume most people are 'visual learners'.
the reason i like punk *is* for the music, but i realize it's simplistic.
it's just that sometimes i *like* simplistic. i'm not required to always
like or listen to 'complex intertwined melodies, and jams', so i don't.
hell, my life can get pretty damn complex and intertwined by itself, so i
don't always want my music that way. it just depends on my mood, i guess.
also, just 'cuz i'm curious, are there any other folks out there who listen
to lyrics the way i'm talking about here?
just my $0.11
TK
Sandbead
hearing instead of just the music. In school I was an English major and had one
professor who was very interested in music and meaning. It was with leading
that I began to seriously listen to the words of the songs that mean so much to
me. My discovery is that Phish are lyrical geniuses as well expert musicans.
Phish are strong lyricaly strong in two main ways. First they have an
uncanny ability to mold the words to the music. In Bathtub Gin the music behind
the words makes me feel a little drunk; it has a sort of unbalanced sway to it
that also gives the feeling of being on a swaying ship. Don't forget that we
are all in this together. In Foam the music falls away just as they say
"falling into a deep well" the music gets thicker just as the fog does. In
Slave the lyrics mimic the changing of stop lights. I could go on forever.....
The second area that I am most intereseted in is the way that Phish
handle the creation of meaning. Semantics is really quite heady stuff so I will
make no attempt here to explain the theories. But YEM is the best example. Boy
man god shit - what do these words mean? The enigamtic chorus stresses the
extent to which we want things to make sense, want there to be meaning....in a
world where there are no definitives.
This is already long so I will stop but very openly invite anyone to
continue this disscussion with me at greater length and in full detail.
chanting words from a song.......
sand...@aol.com
Ken Morton
>
being both a phish fan and a punk fan,
> i'm really into all music (punk included) for the music, not the lyrics. as
> a matter of fact, i pretty much need to hear a song several times before i
> even begin to notice what the lyrics are. for the most part, i think of the
> voice as another instrument, and i really only hear the lyrics for the
> *sounds* they make, not for their meaning. some people i know think this is
> pretty bizarre, but it's true.
I definitely agree with you here. I think we're not alone.
It's occurs to me that if, for example, you're trying to turn someone on
to Phish and you pick, say, YEM, and the person is used to typical radio
friendly music, that a) they're going to have a tough time with a
complex 10 minute tune with almost no lyrics, and b) the only thing
they're going to leave their listening experience with is WATSIYEM?
> also, just 'cuz i'm curious, are there any other folks out there who listen
> to lyrics the way i'm talking about here?
I've never listened to music because of the lyrics. Often, I'll
eventually find myself paying attention to the lyrics, if there are any,
and sometimes I find that I like them very much (Dylan, Hunter,
Marshall). I like that when I get music running through my head it's
usually instrumental -- I've had bits of Stash stuck in my brain for
four years now -- since it allows me to go about my mental life with a
sound track, rather than having my mental life be the constant
repetition of lyrics that make it impossible to think. :-)
After enduring years of "Phish's lyrics suck" comments (a friend's sole
response to the question of whether or not he liked Phish was to say
"let's go out to dinner and see a movie" with a smirk), I've changed
from tacit agreement while pointing out that it's the music that's good
and that the lyrics are irrelevant or merely complement the music, to
arguing that many of the lyrics are, in fact, really good (Roggae is my
current favorite, but I think Stash and Bathtub Gin, among others, stand
the test of time).
As others have stated, lyrics and poetry don't have to "make sense" in
order to be good. It depends quite a bit on what the lyricist/poet is
trying to accomplish. In the case of lyrics, it's often more important
that the lyrics sound good with the music than any other consideration.
In the non-musical world, I find myself comparing Edward Gorey's often
obscure or nonsensical poetry to Marshall's lyrics. That may be a
stretch, but if "nonsense" poetry (Edward Gorey, Edward Lear, Lewis
Carroll (does Jabberwocky make sense? is it good poetry?)) is
legitimate, which it is, then "nonsense" lyrics are too, and they're
even better when set to appropriate music. It's about the rhythm and the
sounds.
I'm also reminded of my cousin, Lily Morton, who writes a kind of poetry
that pretty much defies any kind of traditional interpretation (her
lyrical review of the New Year run was posted in rmp in January and she
was accused of being a drugged psycho or something to that effect). But
the point of her poetry is that it be read out loud and when it is read
out loud it takes on an entirely different character -- it becomes a
sonic experience more than a poetic experience. She creates poetic
soundscapes that may have no further or deeper meaning. Whether her
poetry is good or not is an open question, but I appreciate what she's
trying to do.
Finally, when I hear criticisms of Phish's lyrics, I wonder what their
lyrics are being compared to. A few years ago, I was in an office
situation where my cubicle neighbor had some top-40 station on all the
time and Whitney Houston's "I Will Always Love You" was being played
every five minutes or so (I...I....I...will always love
you...ooo...ooo...ooo). I suppose millions of sappy listeners found
something hopeful and romantic in that insipid treacle, but I wonder if
reviewers ever criticized Whitney for the trite vacuity of this "song"
while praising her beautiful voice. I wonder if any of these reviewers
have been critical of Phish's lyrics.
I think it's true that Phish has bad lyrics (and not all of their songs
are great either), but I'll take their original quirky nonsense to most
anything else I've heard lately. Strangely, I find myself listening to
more and more jazz.
Cheers,
Kmo
Andrew Zanghi
telling me that most people are visual learners and that why we should take
notes (when you take notes your looking at what you write...). I figured i was
visual too, untill a couple weeks ago, while i was listenign in History class
and realized i learn the info more if i just sit there and listen and do not
worry about takign notes. After reading your post it seems even more clear to
me. I hardly ever anylize lyrics too much. Im not saying that the lyrics don't
mean anything, one of my friends is always coming into school trying to explaing
to me the meaning of some song, i think they add to a song diffrently for
diffrent people though.
I also think it changes a little for diffrent songs. Two songs that some into
mind righ away are Suzy Greenburg and Its Ice. In Its ice the music is amazing,
but take away the lyrics and how they're song and its a totally diffrent song.
This can alos cxhange for diffrent people, but im confusing myself now, so ill
shutup.
Peace and kindness
Andrew
TrollKing wrote:
> BenDRoss wrote...
> >The source of
> >the disagreements between punk fans and Phish fans is that each group is
> into
> >music for a completely different reason. Punk music is not about the
> actual
> >music per se. It is about the lyrics, and the music serves as a way to
> bring
> >out these ideas in their lyrics.
>
> i have to disagree with you here. being both a phish fan and a punk fan,
> i'm really into all music (punk included) for the music, not the lyrics. as
> a matter of fact, i pretty much need to hear a song several times before i
> even begin to notice what the lyrics are. for the most part, i think of the
> voice as another instrument, and i really only hear the lyrics for the
> *sounds* they make, not for their meaning. some people i know think this is
> pretty bizarre, but it's true.
>
> i was reading in a book about human development that this type of listening
> is part of a type of learning known as 'auditory learning', as opposed to
> 'visual learning', where the person hears the lyrics for their content.
> since i haven't really spoken with anyone else who hears lyrics this way, i
> can only assume most people are 'visual learners'.
>
> the reason i like punk *is* for the music, but i realize it's simplistic.
> it's just that sometimes i *like* simplistic. i'm not required to always
> like or listen to 'complex intertwined melodies, and jams', so i don't.
> hell, my life can get pretty damn complex and intertwined by itself, so i
> don't always want my music that way. it just depends on my mood, i guess.
>
> also, just 'cuz i'm curious, are there any other folks out there who listen
> to lyrics the way i'm talking about here?
>
> just my $0.11
>
> TK
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AOL ScreenName = ZangFee
Tapelis = http://www.gadiel.com/tapelists/ZangFee.html
"Dance like no one's watching, love like you'll never be hurt, sing like
no one's listening, live like it's heaven on earth." - Guy Clark
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
M Scott Smith
Saxophone- Trey
Be-bop- Page
Skyscraper- Cactus
duh ;)
PivoVU
from my own personal experience, many phish fans are also beatles and dylan
fans. Now, reba or fee are not even on the same planet as lets say 'for no
on', 'rocky raccoon' or' like a rolling stone' or 'tageled up in blue'.
those are lyical masterpeices, not : 'You've got to run like an antelope out of
control!!'
i love phish, but lets not make them something they're not. excelent musicians
and song writers, not poets.
but i do understand that their lyrics are a huge part of what makes phish,
phish. and thats a huge part of why i love them: the playfullness, that they
put into their songs, no one else does that as well as them. thats why i make
it a point to appreciate them for that. but lyrical genuises, no.
BudhaPhish
dolly parton wrote "i will always love you"
but there is nothing poor about the lyrics to bowie
they-re simple
nothing wrong with that
i suppose they are just a little to "conceptual" and avant-garde for most
but really
words are words and they by themselves paint pictures
the pictures they create are the meaning the contain
oh yes
and the greatest lyricist and poets
never come out and say what they mean
contrary to so much of the rubbadubdub nonsense that one hears on the radio
words convey ideas and emotions
their meaning is dependant on the creator
and the observer
sorry for the incoherentness
"glimpse at watermelon"
the joke the laugh the killing gas
the rain that makes the winters pass
the walk the strut the prance of death
invades the home the place of rest
come slowly now heed with care
grapefruit on ground machine guns flare
the viper stings the toll bell rings
the mourners cry the victor sings
the heavens spin the winds blow
the sages dream the prophets know
the waves tumble from out the sea
the heavenly resting place we hold no key
clear transparent effervescent
roses received die with no scent
the pain the sorrow they cause unrest
all new seasons to the destruction of the best
the sweet the laughter the nectar to gods
freedom impaled upon golden rods
illuminated feces decaying pisces
viewing naked barren one sees
the prominent men their distorted tribes their proud wives
twas all recalled upon the Ides
its over now the rain has gone
all that remains a foreign lyric to unsung song
-b.hayes (buddha-fish)
HanSolo730
not to sound snobbish, sorry if I do, but maybe you just don't understand...at
least consider that
HanSolo730
no way you sound incoherent, if you're incoherent then I must be crazy...
...well....
Paul Thompson
Man, I haven't posted in a while, and I'm assuming I'm going to go
pretty in depth of this one. We'll see. Here goes.....
Phish, as a band, are not the lyrical masters some of us might make them
out to be. However, very few people can write a song as powerful as Bob
Dylan, Jarvis Cocker, Elliott Smith or even Rev. Gary Davis (to name a few
of my favorite songwriters) can. There has to be a middle ground, and, in
some cases, Phish are certainly up there with some of the finest in that
particular group.
Certainly, there are songs with nonsensical and seemingly pointless
lyrics. Personally (although I'm apprehensive about putting this down
considering it's one of the many monikers we as Phish fans have for
ourselves), I think the lyrics to Glide are a good example of that
principle- certainly they don't mean anything, or very much at any rate, and
while we'd miss them if they were gone, that particular tune is about the
MUSIC; Trey's elaborate composed guitar line in particular.
And yes, there are songs with meaningful but not terribly impressive
lyrics. A song like Split Open and Melt, which is sort of interesting in a
stream-of-consciousness-by-way-of-hairy-Vermnontians sense, is still not one
I feel particularly affected by. Last time you popped in 8/20/93 II, were
you thinking about plunging below the water line, or waiting for the crazy,
schizophrenic jam at the end? Fikus is another example- I, unlike many of
you, am absolutely in love with that song, but the lyrics aren't it as much
as the total SOUND.
But there are songs that have particularly affecting lyrics, some of
which are among the finest I've heard. Velvet Sea is an absolutely gorgeous
song, and the lyrics work incredibly well with the music. Dirt, too, has
some very very nice lyrical interplay, and even older songs like Guelah
Papyrus are, in a very different sense, quite striking lyrically.
My favorite song for the longest time was the Violent Femmes' Good
Feeling. Anyone who has ever heard the first Femmes album knows that, after
the incredible music that comes before, that song is the icing on the cake.
I had always cherised that song, and, not having heard the album in a while,
popped it in a few weeks ago just to listen. Everything was just as I
remember it, but when I got to the tenth track, I turned off the lights so I
could concentrate on the lyrics, and was dumbfounded- they were so very
simple, and what I had considered to be one master turn of phrase after the
other ended up being a few pretty good lines but nothing terribly
spectacular. The song still had the same effect, but when I took the whole
picture into consideration, it became that much clearer to me that the whole
was far greater than the sum of it's parts.
Perhaps that's how we should listen to Phish lyrics; letting a line
catch us when we feel like we should be caught, and letting the music (the
true purpose for all of this) be the thing that takes us away. Because,
frankly, isn't that what reeled us in in the first place?
P.S. - there are quite a few unintentional fishing metaphors in the last
paragraph, which I hope won't be chalked up to "har har, phun phans phreak"
nonsense. Oh well.
P.P.S.- the lyrical masterpiece of the White Album is Julia, not Rocky
Racoon, and don't let anyone tell you different..... ;)
--
Paul
bea...@prairienet.org
--
"Two headed boy, she is all you will need
She will feed you tomatoes and radio wires
Then retire to sheets safe and clean....."
-Neutral Milk Hotel, "Two Headed Boy Pt. Two"
Grant Tennille
to "Reba" were born out of the idea of "trying to write a song about meat."
phunkymatt
Ok, I agree that "Tangled up in Blue" has excelent poetic lyrics and it paints a vivid picture of a story. But Like Ben said.. Esther also tells (with poetic words I might add) a story that makes you feel there. If you are telling me the words to "Esther" are not poetic, you best check your definition of the word.