@zound said:

People always seem to talk about the distinction b/w playing what you hear and playing what you know - with the implication that of course everyone wants to be in that zone where they play what they hear as much as possible. But it's just not possible for mere mortals to do that every second. The more you "know", the more you have to fall back on in the inevitable times when the ole telepathy isn't quite tuned in. Sure we'd all be happier with much less I-IV and I-Ving around but these are necessary staples - a bulletproof way to add a bit of variation to a jam where a "trigger" just isn't happening. But maybe this allows them to relax, have something to play and then have clearer headspace for the next big decision. I never stop thinking about how much pressure the boys have to come up with so many original ideas, on the fly, with nowhere to hide and no time to really process it. That's improvisation and it doesn't always work the way you want it to.

The real job of the band members seems to be to create circumstances that increase the probability of musical chemistry happening - on and off the field. They book a tour, 6 months in advance or whatever, and try to make decisions about how they'll be feeling far in the future. They take certain tunes that have felt a certain way recently and place them at points in a set where a jam is more likely to happen. They restrict the song choices for the first stretch of a tour to increase comfortability and consistency. They stop getting all fucked up for shows. They do what they can and it doesn't always work the way you want it to.

Kind of a spattering of thoughts in your post but I've read it several times now and there's one thing you said that intrigues me enough to post again even though I'm feeling a little embaressed by how many times I've already done so.

Your statement: "The more you know, the more you have to fall back on..." is very true and brings me back to the discussion of the jamming style.

If it's true that Trey is progressing through some fairly complicated chord phrasings this year during the free-form musical passages (and it is), then the question is (for me); "Why?". I say this because back in Bangor I felt that the band had taken two steps back in order to take three steps forward, as it were. I find this interesting because for many people and for many Phish fans, it is enough that they "stretch out" a song. Many, if not most, fans are content if the band simply "jams" and "grooves". The concept of "exploring" and going "type-2" or however you wish to say it, is exciting and fun to talk about, but not everyone who goes to the shows or listens to the band on recordings really even recognize when they are actually doing that. Nor do many of them care. In fact, some are annoyed by it because they don't know what's happening and they think they're just dicking around or something. I'm thinking right now of the people who seem bent upon dissing the Tahoe Tweezer as some sort of unfocused, meandering and overrated exercise.

There is a point I'm trying to make here it just seems to be taking me forever to get to it. My thought is that over the years there have been many, many ideas that the band has already explored ad nauseum (to them at least) and they have sort of run their course.

Naturally, music is always being regurgitated with the same ideas in new packaging. If one were to study carefully Trey's stylings and phrasings over his career one would no doubt find that he probably has less than a dozen ideas that are sort of unique to him as a player and which make his sound and style distinctive. The rest of his playing is variations on a theme. I know this is true because it's true of all original artists. It's true of Clapton, Jimmy Page, Satriani, Vai, et al. Don't raise an objection to it....your favorite guitarists are usually recognizable by their stylings. So......

The concept of jam music to me has a couple different levels to it. There is just pure jamming. You know, stretching things out, playing a theme, finding a groove and staying on it, the type of stuff that those of us who are into this sort of musical genre find appealing. Then there is another level, a level that is usually reserved for the most revered jazz artists, and that is taking an established theme, twisting and manipulating it, changing it's core structure and taking off into new territory while always keeping a toe-hold in the original idea, then, after finding firm soil in a new idea, letting it go (the segue) and embracing the new. This is what we long for and hope for in it's purest essence.

Phish, with it's jazz based, Zappa-inspired song-writing, has always been at their best in the second form of jamming. However, they are most revered by their most veteran fans for their efforts in the first type. Many of the long jam passages so honored and immortalized over the years have their root in what many would call "noodling". Now, I'm generalizing to make a point so don't trot out the long list of exceptions to what I'm saying in the above statement, I know there are major cracks in the assertion.

Another aspect of the whole concept that needs to be considered before I try to bring my overall point home, is the idea that during a jam an idea may arise. As the idea percolates (and @zound this will speak directly to your statement) it may immediately be recognized by the band as an idea that has already previously been brought to full maturity in the form of song that they have written. Thus, a new song begins, just seemingly as the last one was getting "legs". We all bemoan the unfortunate development as a "lost opportunity" of sorts, along the lines of: "While I love song "x", it would've been nice if they had stretched out song "x". Oh well. In fact, the band, with 30 years of exploring ideas under its belt already, may have recognized what we didn't, and that's the fact, perhaps, that the idea we were excited about was already explored in depth, say, 15 years ago, and the idea became song "x." So song "x" comes out of the "ripcorded" jam. We all moan. The band smiles.

I remember Carlos Santana being quoted in the mid-seventies, after an incredible time of exciting improv and exploratory music seemingly came to an end and he seemed to go more mainstream again. He said something along the lines of this: "When you've gone so far out there with ideas, it begins to feel attractive to you to play the chord you are normally supposed to in the spot you are supposed to. You know, to sort of lay back and just 'play'." I remember him saying that.

Could it be, as has been suggested above, that they really only have a couple of original ideas at the time being and once they've explored them to the level that satisfies them, that they really just want to "lay back and play what they're supposed to", as it were? It could be.

It could be that, with the new undefinable jamming style and complex chords and (what we may think is) directionless jamming with no definable end-game in sight, that they are actually trying to make the music interesting to themselves again? That they are trying to reinvent themselves and keep it all fresh? I think it's worth considering. I also think that if it's true that they are doing that, then my respect for their music is going up up up. People in their position, at this stage of their career, don't reinvent. They "lay back and play what they're supposed to." Maybe we are witnessing an attempt by the boys to make Phish relevant and viable for the next 10 years, rather than retiring and focusing on solo projects. Time will tell.