Disease supreme anybody? I remember there being some vitriolic debate as to the intentions of the band on that one. It's labelled as a jam now on the setlist page and it strikes me as a good compromise between outright intent of a tease and a complete denial of no recognition.

I really love this kind of debate because it underscores the aesthetic process between the original impetus of the art and the context in which it is received by a community. I guess the idea for me is that once the music is heard it ceases to be an indivisible artifact but becomes a fluid source for responses from the audience. This is especially true for live music, to the point that even having an audience changes the music while it is being created. We phish fans are so used to this concept by now, but take a step back and think about that! Art is being created before our very eyes and ears and our response is a participation with it so much so that it actually changes, fuels, instigates that fluid art to new forms at the very moment of creation. That is still mind-boggling to me from a philosophic point of view.

Further though, after it is over and once it has been archived, that participation continues and is evidenced by the threads on the posts in this blog. Art has the capacity to change each individual at the subjective level to the point where it exists as a process between the source and the individuals receiving it. This capacity for change is to me the difference between creating things and creating art. The desk that I sit at was created by someone yet it has no intrinsic artistic value; I use it as equipment. However, a phish show moves us. Even if its not the best show and even if only has moments, it still moves us.

The best art seems to be that which is holds watershed resonance within a culture. It is that which changes what the perceived parameters are for what art itself can be, and how it can be. I would argue that the phish community is undoubtedly a culture onto its own. Those shows that change how the culture perceives the band are moments that transcend the pre-limitations we unconsciously place on the forms that that music can take. This is part of the experiential truth of art, a sea change where chaos is embraced and entirely new forms of communication enter the flow of the collected phish consciousness. Phish jams themselves are a microcosm of this, and the best ones echo the human process: striving against chaos to create form, embracing chaos to create the new, and the resurgence of the vitality of life to celebrate the process itself.

The Roadrunner tease and the Disease controversy are snapshots of the ongoing process of the ethotic transmutation of phish art. They acknowledge the very factual state of the historicity of art as that which has prior signposts and antecedents of musical form and reference. Simply, phish did not bubble out of a vacuum; their communication has reference to prior artistic communication. This resonates with the band creating art, or any art being created for that matter, that must respond to past forms. Long lasting artists must strive to break into the new, and must also bear the considerable weight of past works. The weight of freedom then is a double edged sword: to seek the new out of the ashes and glue of the old, and to carry that weight beyond chaos and into new forms.

The teases and jams seem to take on more significance within this doubled greater context. Teases of other artists works (usually not Fishman covers!) are an acknowledgement of this prior context, and to me seem to represent an acceptance of the bear fact that much of what can be done has already been done. It is a reflection of the world at large within the world phish has created, and an immediate signpost recognizing this fact. Yet, phish will not be denied. They play. Playfully, and I suggest we all go read the lyrics to playin in the band again. The debate on whether or not a tease is actually a tease, to me, references a myriad of hermeneutic interchanges between past and present, present and future, and source and receptors. While striving against the known echoes of the past, they can either give in and play on the themes of the artistic-cultural macrocosm or they can refuse the embrace and shift against the inviting and known themes of the past. To highlight the idea of context once again, this striving against (Roadrunner or any song) is in itself a response to the song that could be teased. So it is still the source for the music played whether they play it or not. The jam, then, is received by the community which creates the art's full manifestation and here we go arguing about the supreme jam or the roadrunner tease.

Intentionality is a debate for another day.

Good, maybe we can start adding "Where It's At" by Beck teases to a grip of jams.

I remember thinking they were going to -> Where It's At in the Went DWD..But maybe that's just because every time I hear that jam I can tell they're just waiting to end it and get to the Gin, so imagining segues is totally reasonable.

Oh beloved Roadrunner tease, how fleeting was your time on this planet. You tried to show us the way to enlightenment but we mere mortals spurned your knowledge and instead chose darkness and the path to ajamakinto. I drink in your honor, spurned tease. Know that come this weekend, I will be listening for any hint of any other song all throughout Piper.

Now let's drive on 128 after dark and try to figure out what's so great about that...

...with the radio on!

eric wyman is crazy. btw, i know him as turbo, now he knows who this is. go roadrunner. btw, before ac/dcbag in charlotte, they teased machine gun, listen to it.

There is no "Fire on the Mountain" tease in the 12/31/95 "Drowned". The old "Roadrunner".

Doesn't sound the same to me, I'm hearing a different time signature and key. It does remind me of Pine Knob in 2011 when I was absolutely certain I heard Love Supreme during DwD. Similar argument on this website about whether that was a tease or just a similar chord progression that is likely to fit into a jam sooner or later. I was bound a determined that they were playing Love Supreme just for me (being that I am a huge Coltrane fan)! I think the same thing might be happening here. I couldn't care less about the song Roadrunner, so when I listen to this I hear all of the differences and not many similarities. Anyway, this sure is a lot more fun to argue about than the national debt!

IMO a "tease" should be reserved for something where it is fairly clear that the band intentionally played a piece of another song, or maybe unintentionally stumbled upon it, but then recognized it and continued with it. A tease could exist even if they don't nail it note for note, because they're up there without a net and don't really have the liberty to run through it a few times or pull up sheet music.

Mind-reading for intent is clearly a high burden of proof, so this is an exclusive group, reserved for really obvious instances.

I feel there is room for a second category. Where intent is less conclusive or maybe non-existent. But the band is playing a riff or progression that sounds a lot like something else. I think having a category like this would be useful to many dotnet users and other fans who might not care to get hung up in a binary discussion of "Is this a tease or not?" (in a lot of cases we can't really know without asking the band after the show), but might want to recall a show or recording when they played the riff that sounded like "Single Ladies" or "Roadrunner", for example.

Whether or not it was intended as a tease, a lot of people can and will agree there is a similarity. To me, that is useful information. (Insomuch as any of this nerdery is "useful." )

National debt: instead of cutting Medicare... KIDDING. That would be some hard core trolling.

@Jackaroe said:

Anyway, this sure is a lot more fun to argue about than the national debt!

Me, I'm not much of an arguer. I don't really like to argue for fun. I'd much prefer to save my arguing for substantive issues that can improve general public welfare. Such as the national debt, or health care, or the defense budget. And to a lesser extent when I've gotta plant my flag somewhere here in the office in the interest of efficiency or improved workflow. I'll argue for that.

As far as my recreational pursuits, such as music, I'd prefer to be able to discuss a potential tease and recognize a similarity between two pieces of music (maybe even index these for reference via a database add-on, who knows?) without having to engage in a multi-year masterbatory argument pointed at a binary outcome over something that in all likliehood will never be known to anyone other than (maybe) the 4 people that created the art.

Also, great top post, @AlbanyYEM. Stepping away from this specific topic, the fact that we basically get to watch and listen to phish create art in real time, without a net, is pretty much my favorite thing about this whole everlasting spoof.

Roadrunner is not an obscure song, Phish has played it before. Nobody who knows that song could play something that similar to it without realizing what they were doing. That riff is iconic. Key and tempo should not matter when considering a tease. The whole idea is that they are referencing one song in the context of another song, so of course they are going to stay in the tempo and key of the song they are actually performing.
Also key and tempo are not copyrighted components of a song (they aren't integral to what constitutes a certain song). I could play Chalkdust in any key at any tempo and it would still be Chalkdust.
On the subject of teases, that Mumford & Son's tease is so clearly intentional. You can hear Mike stumble on to something similar and then find the right notes. Mike teases all the time without getting credit for it.

I still think there is a "Couldn't Stand the Weather" tease by SRV in the Worcester '12 Boogie On. Get on that.

Cheers!

Nice work, Turbo!

Trey seems to be chanting "radioooooooo onnnnnnn" in between the obvious roadrunner riffs. I'll have to re-listen again but it was the indication that it was a proper tease (to me).

The debate continues!

Not to launch way off topic here...but anyone who was at Pittsburgh this year or listened closely to it: I think there are some comparisons to Worcester night 1 that are pretty obvious.

With that in mind, I'm pretty sure Mike is pushing for Boogie On at one point during the Mike's Grove with the bass line he is playing and then I think Trey's nod to that is a blatant tease of his now famous Boogie Jam from Worcester during the Pittsburgh Weekapaug. In other words, Trey saying "yeah Mike, I heard you, this is going to have to do." Am I the only one that hears this?? I think the Boogie push from Mike is during Light, though it may be Simple, I can't remember for absolute certain off of the top of my head.

To me both instances (Mike pushing for it and Trey acknowledging it) are so obvious that I hear them every time I listen to the show.

I think this is stupid, because it makes EVERYBODY think about Roadrunner. And therefore, is a Roadrunner TEASE. If it were actually Roadrunner, it would be a Roadrunner QUOTE or JAM. When you tease something, it makes you think of the thing thats being teased; it doesn't have to be the exact thing. Otherwise, its a quote. Like when Trey plays the Streets of Cairo shit. Thats not a tease. HE'S PLAYING THAT MELODY.

And also, there are a few different versions of Roadrunner.

the 12/16/99 Tweezer is still the best though.

You know your a Phishhead, when you spend the majority of your day arguing about something the band did not even know they played.

Too far Wyman, too far.

All I know is that I like to drive past the Stop & Shop with my radio on.

There's still over 9,000 unreported Dave's Energy Guide teases.

So whatever.

@Gumbo72203 said:

I think this is stupid, because it makes EVERYBODY think about Roadrunner. And therefore, is a Roadrunner TEASE.

While I don't think STUPID needs to enter the conversation, but this was indeed my point. It made a HUGE amount of people think about Roadrunner and debate it for a year. This is 100% a tease without question. The question that is most important though, is does it warrant being included in the setlist notes as a tease. I do think in many years, people might might hear something in there, jump on Phish.net to check it out, and sadly have nothing there. I think it is a shame that we are now devoid of this information. C'est la vie - there are bigger battles to be fought. Fire on the Mountain!

"I think this is stupid, because it makes EVERYBODY think about Roadrunner."

lol. it sounds nothing like roadrunner.

@jerrytimber said:

There is no "Fire on the Mountain" tease in the 12/31/95 "Drowned". The old "Roadrunner".

You're deaf and should be ashamed of yourself.

Saw the Roadrunner at G Woods 2000 and my opine is no RR tease at Dicks last year.

That would be a strech.I would love to hear another Modern Lovers covers song though.

See you kids on lot Friday! DICKS!!!!!!

How many of you have seen a real live Roadrunner?
Maybe if they ever play the SW we will get a RR!

@molefromtheministry said:

On the subject of teases, that Mumford & Son's tease is so clearly intentional. You can hear Mike stumble on to something similar and then find the right notes.

I really don't want this to come across as a smarmy "gotcha" but we actually have it from the horse's mouth that it was not intentional, and could not have been intentional. I would prefer not to delve further into how we know that, but we do know it.

Oh, also, where are these other alleged Roadrunner teases that people are alluding to???

i'm just happy "Shine" got a footnote in the 7.15.99 MELT (jam)

@bertoletdown said:

Oh, also, where are these other alleged Roadrunner teases that people are alluding to???

They're imaginary just like the one that got removed.



(Sorry Parker)

@bertoletdown said:

@molefromtheministry said:

On the subject of teases, that Mumford & Son's tease is so clearly intentional. You can hear Mike stumble on to something similar and then find the right notes.

I really don't want this to come across as a smarmy "gotcha" but we actually have it from the horse's mouth that it was not intentional, and could not have been intentional. I would prefer not to delve further into how we know that, but we do know it.

Hey if you got me, you got me. No worries. But it really does sound exactly like that melody. Also its pretty much impossible for me not to ask how you got that information.

@molefromtheministry said:

Hey if you got me, you got me. No worries. But it really does sound exactly like that melody.

...and to me, thats part of where this gets so thorny. Does intent matter if the music played sounds pretty much exactly like an existing song, even if by coincidence?

Is there an operative definition of "tease" that either includes or excludes intent or coincidence?

Monkeys, monkeys, monkeys.

Thanks. This was written like a true musicologist.

@Icculus said:

@jerrytimber said:

There is no "Fire on the Mountain" tease in the 12/31/95 "Drowned". The old "Roadrunner".

You're deaf and should be ashamed of yourself.

I really hope this is sarcasm. Just because Trey played a melody with the same chord progression as FoTM (B-A) does not make it a tease. I have sat there and played Fire over that part on guitar, rhythm is nothing alike just the chords.

The Machine Gun tease before CTL should be listed, its as clear as day. Trey kicks on the Uni-vibe to increase the authenticity. its at :24 in this vid Machine Gun

FWIW the FOTM tease would never pass muster under our current Rigorous Methodology. It is included for historical context, because once upon a time people felt it useful to argue about whether or not it existed.

"I believe that the band has simply played something in the moment that is resoundingly similar to another piece of music, by accident. "

by accident? after 29 years of playing? there are no accidents. there is only the the 5th diension. all possible connections of space and time are constantly intersecting. if the band played something withiutnknowing it,there is a difference between "accident", and interstellar travel

"I believe that the band has simply played something in the moment that is resoundingly similar to another piece of music, by accident. "

by accident? after 29 years of playing? there are no accidents. there is only the the 5th diension. all possible connections of space and time are constantly intersecting. if the band played something withiutnknowing it,there is a difference between "accident", and interstellar travel

I always hear Guy Forget teases that aren't there, but I hear them

Fare thee well, 'Roadrunner Tease'. I never heard you myself but I believed in you regardless.

::flies to Logan::

:::rents bright orange 1972 Camaro, removes T tops:::

::::purchases 40oz Schlitz::::

:::::ceremoniously pours 40 from window whist doing 70mph on 128 through Waltham, Lexington, Burlington, Woburn...:::::

But in all seriousness...

@AlbanyYEM - All I'm going to do here is blow smoke up your ass. Partly because I'm a noob and suck at the Phish but mostly because you're absolutely correct on so many points. Just a few things from your post that resonate with me most strongly:

"Simply, phish did not bubble out of a vacuum; their communication has reference to prior artistic communication."

Phish's influences play a large role in the music they have and continue to produce. They've said as much. But I think that the respect the band has for their musical predecessors is rather unprecedented in music today. One of the reasons I love them is because I think that they can relate to their hardcore fanbase on this level. They're "fanboys" themselves. They understand the obsessive level of interest and the sheer joy that understanding an artists' work on that level brings. And, most importantly, they seem to want to provide their fans with that. The teases might just be another way of asking us "how well are you listening", but I tend to think of them also saying "check out this cool riff!", allowing us greater insight into their influences.

"The best art seems to be that which is holds watershed resonance within a culture."

Absolutely. So often, I think we tend to take the esthetic high-ground and place art in a place beyond the reaches of context. Impossible. And frankly, this idea died well-prior to the rise of Classical Greek philosophy. Indeed, Aristole famously said "The aim of art is not to represent the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance." That "inward significance" is necessarily altered by the context - both external and internal to the artist - in which art is created. As such, "good" art - the salience and value having been determined by the audience - encompasses aspects of the entirety of the environment in which it's generated. And the best art - as you said - records for posterity the "watershed" nature of the moment it came into existence.

"Intentionality is a debate for another day."

True. But in my noob/fangirl mind, I always like to think that Phish is challenging us as listeners and that incorporating teases is just one in a zillion ways that they go about doing this. Whether they are fully aware of this or whether it has simply become an unconscious way in which they bring their audience into the creation of their music doesn't much matter. However, the "what exactly constitutes a tease" debate is a perfect example of engaging the spectator in the process. The riffs they've loved since childhood or have recently become stuck in their heads may just make themselves known even without the conscious attention of the player. Either way, Phish's incorporation of musical quotes, teases, queases, and jams that are eerily reminiscent of another common melody is incredibly effective, IMO, at engaging their audience in active listening/participation. And they are all too eager to learn from our interpretations as they are to give us something to ponder in the first place.

I'm not sure if I'm interpreting any of that correctly, @AlbanyYEM, but I just wanted to say how much I appreciated your post. It was nice to see someone put into words far more eloquently than I could some of the things I've been thinking about recently.

Thank you! And thank you Phish.net!

Ivy

@MomaDan said:

@Icculus said:

@jerrytimber said:

There is no "Fire on the Mountain" tease in the 12/31/95 "Drowned". The old "Roadrunner".

You're deaf and should be ashamed of yourself.

I really hope this is sarcasm. Just because Trey played a melody with the same chord progression as FoTM (B-A) does not make it a tease. I have sat there and played Fire over that part on guitar, rhythm is nothing alike just the chords. The Machine Gun tease before CTL should be listed, its as clear as day. Trey kicks on the Uni-vibe to increase the authenticity. its at :24 in this vid Machine Gun

At 12:00 into Drowned, there is a MOMENT that resembles FotM, but it's gone as quickly as it arrives. And Drowned (as well as the song it segues into, The Lizards) is actually in the key of C, not B, so the progression is C-Bb, not B-A, and that argument is out, too. Sorry, true believers.

If you are referring to some other part of the song (besides the 12 minute mark), please reply and I'll reconsider, but until then, I'm not buying.

My first live song was 9-11-00 RoadRunner Opener at Great woods.

I definitely do think roadrunnder was teased.

RAAAAAADIO ONNNNNN

It was love at first "I'm in love with Massachusetts" hahaha

@Just_Ivy said:

But in all seriousness...

@AlbanyYEM - All I'm going to do here is blow smoke up your ass. Partly because I'm a noob and suck at the Phish but mostly because you're absolutely correct on so many points. Just a few things from your post that resonate with me most strongly:

"Simply, phish did not bubble out of a vacuum; their communication has reference to prior artistic communication."

Phish's influences play a large role in the music they have and continue to produce. They've said as much. But I think that the respect the band has for their musical predecessors is rather unprecedented in music today. One of the reasons I love them is because I think that they can relate to their hardcore fanbase on this level. They're "fanboys" themselves. They understand the obsessive level of interest and the sheer joy that understanding an artists' work on that level brings. And, most importantly, they seem to want to provide their fans with that. The teases might just be another way of asking us "how well are you listening", but I tend to think of them also saying "check out this cool riff!", allowing us greater insight into their influences.

"The best art seems to be that which is holds watershed resonance within a culture."

Absolutely. So often, I think we tend to take the esthetic high-ground and place art in a place beyond the reaches of context. Impossible. And frankly, this idea died well-prior to the rise of Classical Greek philosophy. Indeed, Aristole famously said "The aim of art is not to represent the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance." That "inward significance" is necessarily altered by the context - both external and internal to the artist - in which art is created. As such, "good" art - the salience and value having been determined by the audience - encompasses aspects of the entirety of the environment in which it's generated. And the best art - as you said - records for posterity the "watershed" nature of the moment it came into existence.

"Intentionality is a debate for another day."

True. But in my noob/fangirl mind, I always like to think that Phish is challenging us as listeners and that incorporating teases is just one in a zillion ways that they go about doing this. Whether they are fully aware of this or whether it has simply become an unconscious way in which they bring their audience into the creation of their music doesn't much matter. However, the "what exactly constitutes a tease" debate is a perfect example of engaging the spectator in the process. The riffs they've loved since childhood or have recently become stuck in their heads may just make themselves known even without the conscious attention of the player. Either way, Phish's incorporation of musical quotes, teases, queases, and jams that are eerily reminiscent of another common melody is incredibly effective, IMO, at engaging their audience in active listening/participation. And they are all too eager to learn from our interpretations as they are to give us something to ponder in the first place.

I'm not sure if I'm interpreting any of that correctly, @AlbanyYEM, but I just wanted to say how much I appreciated your post. It was nice to see someone put into words far more eloquently than I could some of the things I've been thinking about recently.

Thank you! And thank you Phish.net!

Ivy

Well thanks for the response yourself. I'm never sure if anyone bothers to read these things when I get long-winded.

As you mention Aristotle, I figure I'll just give you some of my own philosophic source-influences here (no philosophy in a vacuum either): Heidegger, Lyotard, and Gadamer. Extremely challenging thinkers but I think more relevant to the post-modern landscape (context) we all live in, including Phish.

That quote from Aristotle makes things a little sticky: the "inward" can refer to either the state created in consciousness when identifying and responding to the source-art or some essentialist quality of the art itself. However, I think your reading is correct as it would be a more Platonic quality for the actual art to hold in itself ontologically the ideal of whatever the viewer finds within it.

I think for Aristotle, art represents a special case of being as something that is purely created with intentionality regarding material and form. This inward quality is thus a response to the combination of these two causes representing a "pure" case of the different Aristotlean causes. The final cause as intention is of course where things get interesting and we see that the art moves beyond that original intent to represent apperceivabe resonance within the culture. Also, a good place to go for the culture/historicity of art is Hegel.

As to your first point, definitely! Phish is without question uniquely reflexive in that regard. Much better fleshed out than I put it. For the second, I'd say that a hermeneutic reading of Aristotle is an excellent interpretation for modern times but is not exactly what he had in mind. Thirdly, yes absolutely. Part of my love for the band is that they are so challenging and seem to somehow be playing directly for me: instigation as impetus for the creation of new art and thought.

Anyway, since you took the time to think about what I said and added some more concrete points I thought I'd be an ass if I didn't respond. Thanks again for the kind and thoughtful words. Also, most of my friends are sick to death of the word "hermeneutic" when applied to phish so its a nice outlet for me...

What were they singing during CC Piper/alleged RR tease???

***What happened to the Mind Left Body tease from Sunday night??? It was up the night of the show and then it disappeared. I thought I heard it at least, even if it was four notes, but I was already hoping they'd do it that morning. Would make sense at a show in SF.

Also, what M&S tease?

Machine gun teases added. Woot!

The best part of this thread is how Dirksen got baited into defending FOTM before all of .net.

On that much we can all agree.

@bertoletdown said:

The best part of this thread is how Dirksen got baited into defending FOTM before all of .net.

On that much we can all agree.

Haha!

"The other problem is that once someone plants the seed in your head, the brain is conditioned to expect it and often times leads you to hearing something that may not be there.
But in the end, the activity is pretty fun and many people enjoy it. That's not going to change. This is one of those special little wrinkles that make Phish so fabulous. We spent a year (collectively) arguing one tiny little point, so insignificant that 99% of people never knew it existed, smarter individuals might say this is a symptom of insanity."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**** i think the above is all very true. plus, (from what ive heard/read) we all hear very differently for many different reasons and our ears actually adjust pretty darn well to sounds/music the longer we listen to it.....so if u have a "crappy" AUD of a good show, bear with it and after listening for a while, it likely wont sound so crappy anymore!

the second point i take from this is that phish is great because if i hear it and you dont, we are BOTH right!

The tease is so clearly "Roadrunner" to remove it is folly.