RunawayJim.org

… but most of us don’t want another post-hiatus Phish with only a handful of decent shows in a 3 year period.  So to help the band sustain their reunion, Dan Greenhaus over at Jambands.com has come up with a small list of ideas that could help the band sustain their reunion.  Rather than list each one, I’m going to quote the best ideas here.

2) Retire or reduce the appearance of many “old” songs - The great irony of this suggestion is that the old songs are what made Phish, but the reality is that at the time, the old songs is part of the reason the band felt stale. YEM, for all Trey’s longing, has been played at 39% of Phish shows for a total of 472 times. That’s not surprising but it’s also a reason to remove it a bit from the rotation, even an entire tour. Doing so would free up plenty of room for the aforementioned new album, as well as underplayed songs including those from Undermind which never got a chance to grow in the live setting, if they were even played at all.

This idea, in my opinion is the best.  I have been to only 9 shows, randomly picked, between 1997 and 2004.  During those 9 shows, I head a couple of songs played multiple times, most specifically “Tweezer” and “Tweezer Reprise” at 5 times each.  While YEM might be their most overplayed, I actually never heard it.  The one song off Undermind I wish they played was the title track, “Undermind.”  Trey did play it with one of his solo bands, but never as Phish.  They should play the new songs a lot, but also play the lesser played older songs.  Make YEM the next “Destiny Unbound” or “Fluffhead.”

4) Shorter Tours - Nobody wants to put anyone’s health in jeopardy and if three lengthy tours a year does that, then cut it out. Done and done. There’s no reason the group cannot jump out on the road for less than a month, play a bunch of shows, and then go home for a few months before heading back out again. The days of 100 shows a year are long, long gone and the band should plan accordingly. There is no reason to believe they can’t work back up to longer tours. Hell, bands with members way, way older go on longer tours and play more dates than Phish. But at the outset, take your time and feel things out. Get comfortable, and if it’s working, hit the road for three or six months.

5) Multi-night runs - I can only imagine what a toll it takes on ones psyche to be constantly on the move. Musician after musician has cited the constant touring and associated lifestyle as being the main culprit for depression, drug use or whatever. … Ignoring the obvious environment benefits of this strategy, it would go a long way to reducing the strain on both band and crew.

These next two should be put together in my opinion.  Shorter tours concentrating on a certain section of the country to avoid long travel and the wear and tear of travel and multi-night runs at certain locations on each of those tours.  To go along with this, they should be playing venues they never played or thought of playing before.  How many times have they skipped Providence because they went to Hartford, Worcester, or Boston instead (though I would do Boston and Providence, but I’d skip Hartford and Worcester to play Providence)?  They could do a short fall tour in the Northeast with 12 dates, a spring tour out west for another 12 dates, and maybe a longer summer tour.  They should skip their own festivals because those are quite draining, but perhaps play two or three of the other multi-band festivals without headlining them to keep sets shorter.  That will allow them the ability to join other bands on stage.  One of the things they do best is collaborate.

6) Play a few acoustic shows - People have been knocking Phish for years for their “poor” lyrics and songs but the truth is that at any show you go to, the crowd is singing every word. No one is accusing Tom Marshall of being Bob Dylan, but everyone knows every word to “Sample in a Jar.” … If nothing else, it would be interesting and exciting and even if it doesn’t work, it’s something new.

I like this idea, but I think rather than an acoustic show, do an acoustic set at each show.  I don’t think an entire show all acoustic would work for them, but a single set would be easily feasible.  It brings something new to the table.

7) Play one set and have an opening act - Perhaps a controversial idea, at least to those who want the most Phish they can get on any single night, playing one set is still something to consider, at least for a little while. To begin with, the list of bands that would want to open for Phish would obviously be quite long and having a hungry band perform right before you, out to prove to all the Phish fans that they are the real deal, would have to light a fire under Phish. With respect to playing one set, now you send Phish out there with 90 minutes to play, straight through, and you could get a very intense set of music that would cut down on the fat (”Albuquerque” anyone?) and focus in on the songs you really want to hear.

I’m on the fence with this one.  On one hand, it would be good for the band and allow them to concentrate only on certain songs and not have to worry about filling two sets.  On the other hand, I like two sets of music.  It makes each show a musical journey.  The biggest benefit of this idea is what it will do for the opening bands.  Phish has always been all about bringing music to the forefront and helping out smaller bands.  This will do just that.  While I would be willing to bet that the majority of each shows attendees skip the opener to drink/smoke/whatever in the lots, a good number will check it out and possibly discover a new band to follow.  The Phish set also doesn’t have to be limited to 90 minutes.  It could be a two hour set (I’ve seen this done), or at least work up to a two hour set.  This will also allow for some collaboration between Phish and their opener.  Dave Matthews has always had an opening act for as long as I’ve known.  Some were good, others were bad, but it works for them (don’t flame me for bringing Dave into an article about Phish).

Anyway, the article is worth a read.  They’re all ideas the band should consider.  They actually have done some of them, such as shorter tours and recording an album of new songs before going on tour (see Round Room or Undermind, recorded before the return from hiatus and before the final tour, respectively).

I do have one idea to add… ignore the side projects until Phish has been refined enough to sustain itself again.

Regardless of what happens, I do not want a Phish reunion to be a let down.  It’s not worth coming back if they’re not going to make a real effort.

Update: George posted a great link in the comments.  Page put a letter up on Phish.com.  It’s definitely worth a read.  The end of it has the best suggestion for the fans… don’t read too much into rumors.