@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...