Ok, Mr Waxbanks (I don't know what else to call you) - we've got it down to a "dull roar" now.

Oh, Mr Bertoletdown - glad you liked that old business world sign-off sardonicism. Another, slightly more antagonistic variation, usually reserved for an even more hostile communique, is "Best PERSONAL Regards..."

1) Sorry I mistakenly attributed the CJ comment to you. But that being the case, you therefore had no reply at all to my main point about the comparative quality of their songwriting, which in the case of two song-based bands, trumps everything else IMO.

2) Look, I'm a musician - a guitarist specifically. I don't make my living from music (I'm currently producing a feature film that you will be hearing about in the coming months) but I started playing in '64 when the Beatles arrived and have been performing on and off since '66. That doesn't necessarily make me more of an authority than you, but could you please try and back this "technical / chops" stuff with some examples (of your own, preferably)? Lesh took up the bass in '65 and two years later played beautifully (technically and artistically) on the first Dead album - check out his graceful and melodic counterpoint on Cold RAS, for example. A year later, on Anthem OTS, one of the most progressive and altogether awesome rock albums ever, he played virtuoso-level bass from beginning to end - check out, for example, the incredible Alligator Jam. Do you dispute the quality of this playing on any basis, technical or otherwise? If so, please explain! Then, in early '69, four years after he took up the bass, Live Dead was recorded which includes some of the finest, most unique, precise, swinging, powerful and melodically sophisticated bass playing of all time. Listen to the prelude sequence of DS, which Lesh essentially leads, or the 4/4 jam overlapping into the 11/4 jam on The Eleven. No technique? What do you MEAN by that? As you obviously now know, I could go on and on and I've already cited the breathtaking King Solomon's example from BFA to which you offered no response. Why? Go ahead - ask Mike if Lesh doesn't have chops, or even didn't after only two years on the instrument. Seriously. Excellent and humble musician that he is, he'll set you strait, post haste.

3) As for Weir, again, I previously cited primo examples of what I and many great guitarists consider to be the most elegant all-around technique in electric guitar history. No response. You think his technique is anything but brilliant on the examples I cited? How then? You CAN'T be a brilliant musician (or "innovator" without having the technique to execute. How would anyone know you're innovative if you don't have the technique to articulate the innovation? It doesn't make a lick of sense, but if you could explain where those "technical shortcomings" are in evidence on the examples I cited, maybe I'd have some understanding of what you're talking about. What do you mean by "innovative" anyway? I know what I mean by it with regard to Weir but I wouldn't expect anyone to just take my word for it - I would, as I have done with you, back it up with the plethora of available examples. And, you shouldn't have to be influenced by the possibility that the man studied Tyner one way or another. You're just as likely to hear Chuck Berry in Weir's playing as Tyner or for that matter Debussey, another name Weir likes to drop. Many musicians name-drop like that, whether they are capable of emulating the source or not. Why would you be excited to hear that Weir learned from Tyner if you don't think he's got the technique to execute? Everybody I met at Berklee said they were Coltrane disciples, but that didn't mean I very often heard him in their playing...

4) Godchaux: I believe what I said was "by inference" - that is, you said, with regard to the alleged lack of "chops" that included "the various keyboard players" (which you would have to admit includes Godchaux, right?) except for the "guest" player Hornsby who was the only one who could "match Garcia step for step" (why would anyone try to do that to begin with?). Since I believe Godchaux was the best of them, I used him as the example. Capice? You're so unaware of the quality of the man's playing that you didn't even realize that you trashed him. And, what do you mean by "chromatic understanding" with regard to Hornsby? Do you know what chromatic means? Are you sure you didn't mean "harmonic" understanding?

Look Mr Waxbanks - you seem like a decent writer, a serious music fan and, I'm sure, a great guy, but you're not an educated or experienced musician and, despite your relative agility with language, you don't demonstrate the ability to back up any of your opinions on what some of us out there consider to be pretty serious musical matters. For example, why do you think its heresy to say Weir is in some ways a more interesting guitarist than Garcia? Not only is that true, but the reverse is also true. So what? Garcia himself explained this very eloquently, but its always been obvious to me and the many serious musicians who love and study their music. But, the question is, do you even know what that means or have the slightest idea how to explain it, or do you simply rely on a composite of opinions from friends you think know what they're talking about to support your emotional need to view and promote Phish in the manner that you do?

I'm not patronizing you when I say that I think Phish is a great band, worthy of their success and the loyal following that in many important ways is reminiscent of the Grateful Dead's. However, if you seriously want to build a case such as the one you attempted to make in your piece, know that there are serious musicians who will take you to task for assertively stating what come off as self-serving opinions without the ability to back them up.

Peace, Rob