Sunday 09/10/2023 by Icculus

ON THE (UN)BEARABLE LIGHTNESS, AND DARKNESS, OF RATING PHISH SHOWS

[The views expressed in this article do not necessarily comport with the views of any of the many volunteers who help run this site and manage its content. The author of this post is also not in control of his faculties, and you the reader agree to hold Phish.Net harmless from any and all liability for this blog’s contents. If this article appears TOO LONG and you DON’T want to READ it: Trust show ratings at your peril, as there is no truth in them. The only truth is in you.]

IT is well-known that users can and do rate Phish shows on this site by awarding them one, two, three, four or five stars. A logged-in user simply views a setlist’s "permalink page"—for example, this beauty right here—and, behold! Beneath the setlist in the section headed “SHOW RATING,” you the user are invited to provide “Your rating:” of the show by clicking on one-to-five blank stars that fill-in the moment your mouse hovers over them. If you’ve already rated the show, one or more of the stars will be filled-in and not blank when you first view the section. And after you’ve rated a show, you can change the rating with ease, if you wish, by hovering a mouse over the stars and rating the show anew. The “Show Ratings” section also states the number of times the show has been rated by unique users and its “Overall” average rating out to three decimal places, with one point calculated per star. One of the greatest musical performances in the history of music by any group of musicians in recorded history, for example, is currently rated an average of 4.761 by 1400 users.

What is less well-known or even understood is how much Phish the Typical Fan Who Rates Shows on this site has actually heard, or seen. How many users of this site who rate shows only rate shows they’ve attended? How many users who rate shows on this site have heard every or nearly every circulating note of Phish—all shows in Phish history, the recordings of which stream on Relisten.net or Phish.in or LivePhish—and thus wield a judicious sense of what characteristics constitute an above, below, or “Average Typically Great” Phish show? A few hundred perhaps?

It is thus forgivable that some (perhaps you yourself) find this site’s “Show Ratings” to be at least hilariously if not outrageously unreliable, often so grossly inflated that it’s prudent to distrust and disregard them with the most extreme prejudice.

Used With Permission
Used With Permission

The ratings of shows are no doubt also biased due to mischief by countless, ignorant users who never actually listened to the show that they rated; for example, 10/26/85 Goddard College has ten votes and a 4.5 rating, even though no show was performed on that date. (And yes, I agree with you: if I could, I would terminate the accounts of not only the ten users who rated that show, but also any users in the database associated with those ten users’ IP addresses or Phish.net accounts in any way, shape or form.)

Why take show ratings seriously at all, when the act of rating a show is inherently subjective? Attendance bias is real, “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure,” and a person may get IT with respect to Phish’s music, or be transfigured by gloriously transcendent and spine-tingling BLISS, upon hearing even an ordinary version of a Phish song for reasons unique to their life and perception. For an example of this, one need look no further than the magically miraculous significance of the show-closing-but-otherwise-standard “Antelope” last Saturday at Dicks to @Scissortail, as he beautifully explains in his recap of the show for this blog. Or to my experience in finally getting IT with Phish’s music—almost four years after I first saw Phish—during a perfunctory “2001” at Wolf Trap. Or to your experience upon hearing ____ at a show after you’d chased it for years and years. You’d forgotten how much the song meant to you and, upon seeing it for the first time, you were awed and SURPRISED BY JOY! Perhaps you got your first “Bouncin’” or “Sparkle” or “Army of One” or “My Soul”!!!!!!

But as we all know (if we possess critical thinking skills exceeding that of pond scum), as subjective as our perception necessarily is, we can still be mindful of our biases—negative and positive—and exercise restraint when awarding stars to and “rating” a show which is, after all, a work of art. And undoubtedly the “top rated” shows are rated highly by fans for compelling reasons, including that they contain remarkable, well-above “average-great” versions of songs.

And rating shows is often fun, isn’t it? Like dancing about architecture, rating improvisational musical performances can be and usually is very amusing—even readicculus! Reducing a transcendent musical performance that infuses and uplifts your soul, that fills your consciousness with multi-colored, brilliant phantasmagoria, and that MOVES YOU TO TEARS to, simply, “five stars” ? lolz

© 2023 PHISH (Jesse Faatz)
© 2023 PHISH (Jesse Faatz)

I have rated the show at which I finally Got IT with Phish’s music, 7/17/93 Wolf Trap, only one (1) star. Why? Because after having listened to and analyzed Phish’s music for 34 years, I think it deserves only one star.

Here’s how I rate shows using this website’s (silly and capricious) five-star rating system.

Five Stars: An exceptional Phish show for the era in which it occurs, whose musical highlights are likely to be appreciated and lauded by fans forever. These shows don’t simply involve jamchartworthy, if not legendary, “must hear” versions of Phish's most popular improvisational songs, they are praised by fans for “flow” and song selection and, yes—by fans who were in attendance—for the lights, the scene and (gasp) the “vibe” as well. They are “complete shows,” too, in that not only are many if not all of the set openers and closers and encore strong, but there’s also no weak “quarter” (think of the first set as having a first and second quarter, and the second set having a third and fourth quarter).

Many if not most of the “top rated” shows on this site that have ratings of 4.5+ are absolutely worthy of five stars as I hear them, though many are overrated or underrated to be sure as well. For example, I’d give 8/10/97 Deer Creek five stars simply because it has a spectacular “SOAM” and a magnificent, hear-at-all-costs “Hood” in the first set, and the sickest “Cities” in Phish history and a triumphant “Bowie” in the second set, and it’s also a very spellbinding show overall, even for 1997, arguably Phish’s greatest year musically speaking—despite having a twisted theramin-ized “rotation jam” (!) in it and a “Cavern” encore lol. Even Trey’s banter at the end of “Hood” and the first set is “must hear”!

8/10/97 is not simply “complete,” it is completely bananas—a masterpiece of a PHISH show. At this time it has been rated by 277 users and only has a 4.531 rating on this jamband website. Anyone who rated this show (or Cypress for that matter) less than five stars is an ignorant and deaf chode who sucks at Phish so profoundly that they should be forced to listen to 8/15/09 MPP’s mid-second set “Alaska, Let Me Lie” nightmare on repeat until they projectile vomit, then have their ears slowly hacked off with a rusty oyster fork as 10/25/16 Grand Prairie’s mid-second-set “The Line, Tide Turns” is blasted at them at a volume that ruptures their ear drums, and then be boiled alive in a giant cauldron of oil accompanied by 12/31/16 MSG’s late third set “555, Ocelot,” before being drawn and quartered and burned at the stake, with their ashes scattered at sea at least three nautical miles from land in regulatory compliance with the Clean Water Act!

© 2023 PHISH (Jesse Faatz)
© 2023 PHISH (Jesse Faatz)

I think the Saturday 9/2/23 Dicks show—which inspired me to write this post, along with the other recent Dicks shows described below (and along with the oxycodone I’ve been advised to consume every four-to-six hours for purposes of pain management, as I had surgery to repair a ruptured tendon in my right ankle and I’m in a cast and mostly on my back for at least three fucking weeks)—is arguably worthy of five stars, since it’s going to be among the best shows of the year, and it features the longest known encore in Phish history. But I say “arguably” because even though it has a strong “AC/DC Bag” and fantastic fourth quarter (“46 Days” > “Howling” > “Piper”), it isn’t an exceptional show start-to-finish, in that the first set was “average great” after the unquestionably jamchartworthy show-opening “Fluffhead.” So, I’ve given 9/2/23 Dicks

Four Stars: A show that is or will likely be among the finest of the year (or at least the tour!), given its improvisational musical highlights. For me, such a show must have at least a few stunning musical performances—in context. So for example I’d give 6/7/09 Camden four stars even though it contains only two strong, well-above-average versions of songs in it, the “Sand” and “Tweezer,” because it also has a pleasant old-school first set setlist AND a four-song encore AND it occurred during a very inconsistent summah terr in a (comparatively) ok-fine-satisfactory year for Phish. And, in a welcome coincidence, 6/7/09, which has been rated as of now by 228 users, is rated 4.167 stars on this site—a justifiable, reasonable rating for one of the better shows of 2009.

Three Stars: A typically great Phish show, or “average-great” show if you will. The show features consistently strong playing by all four band members, and at least a few noteworthy improvisational performances that make at least some songs played at the show worth relistening to. Think Friday Dicks 9/1/23, which has above-average jamchartworthy versions of “Wolfman’s,” “Sand” and (show-closing!) “SOAM,” but none are monumental, magnificent, “must-hear” performances in the history of these songs. (Fwiw, I’m a sucker for “Halfway to the Moon” and think that, given Trey and Page’s interplay in this stellar version, it should make its adorable jam chart—but I must convince the jamchart team of this or it won’t happen.) This show is, unsurprisingly, grossly overrated as of now with a 4.344 rating. Disgusting. You people should be ashamed of yourselves.

Anyway I bet if you were at the Friday Dicks show you can justify giving it four stars if you thought “the vibe” and lights were great, not just the music. But a typical Phish show has a great vibe and Chris is nearly always a wizard-genius behind the lightboard. And a typical “average-great” Phish show also has enjoyable (and popular) song selection and at least a good if not gorgeously smooth “flow” song-to-song in each set, too. And any vet will tell you that the vibe or “energy in the room” of a Phish show (or other musical concert for that matter!) is often electric (whether you feel it or not due to your own shit), and when the vibe is more than average-great, as it was for example on 12/31/02 and 3/6/09 and yes even 7/28/21, or less than average-great or even ominous as on 8/14/04, it’s palpable to nearly all in attendance. It’s thus asinine to factor the vibe into rating a typical show, as it’s not an objectively musical characteristic of the performance that is verifiable on the recording, inarguably differentiating the show from others on a typical tour.

But if the vibe is truly transcendent and omnipresent, unequivocally influencing everyone’s perception of everything—positively or negatively? In such an Event, factoring the vibe into rating a show you attended has a rational basis, and is defensible to those sufficiently wretched and bereft of hope to care about “Show Ratings.” Giving Cypress five stars is a no-brainer of course, but what about shows with a spectacularly good vibe but meek music like 3/6/09 Hampton (which has a sweet setlist but arguably only one musical highlight in its “Fluffhead" opener, given everyone's expectations), or a show with a murky, morbid vibe and music that at times is “must hear” marvelous and at other times all-embracingly atrocious, like Coventry? What does it even matter?

© 2023 PHISH (Jesse Faatz)
© 2023 PHISH (Jesse Faatz)

Two Stars: A wee bit below an “average great” show, in that while there are some musical highlights (e.g., a version of a song worth relistening to, or a bust-out or two), and songs were generally performed professionally, the show for whatever reason(s) just wasn’t as “typically great” as Phish tends to deliver night after night.

For example, Thursday Dicks 8/31 is a two-star show imo. I can only imagine how difficult it was for Trey to take the stage given James Casey’s death only a few days before. It makes me physically ill (more than I already am now) just thinking about it, and I didn’t even know the lovely soul all say James Casey was, is! (Colon cancer almost killed my dad twenty years ago and I’ve been getting colonoscopies regularly ever since.) 8/31 opened well with a strong “Carini” (likely to be jamcharted), but otherwise the show was typically average-great, average-wonderful, average-enjoyable, average-“solid” Phish, at its best. The “Ruby Waves” is cool to be sure, and “Tweezer” is mesmerizing at times, and exceeds 22 minutes(!), but in the context of the last decade—which has borne witness to many awe-inspiring, lengthy versions—the improv in the 8/31 “Tweezer” is a mixed-bag.

As is par for the course for “Tweezer” nowadays, Fish, Mike and Page expertly accompany Trey’s lead soloing, and his soloing-phrasing is fluid most of the time (because of course it is, it’s TREY, after all!), but imo you can hear Trey’s mind wonder at times, you can hear him try to find a theme, and as beguiling as the band’s collective improv gets it doesn’t ever really click or gel imo; there’s certainly nothing that approaches full-band transcendent “hose.” It’s like “average-albeit-GREAT Tweezer jamming,” which is why I’m not recommending it be jamcharted as an above-average version of the song (in this era!). Compare it with the 8/5/23 “Guy Forget Tweezer” and I’d be surprised if you didn’t find that version’s improv to be much more enchanting, more vigorous, more sublime. And yes yes I realize how subjective and absurd this sounds, especially if this 8/31 Dicks “Tweezer” is your favorite version and the greatest musical experience of your life, and that’s FANTASTIC, very glad to hear it, but imnsfho based on having heard every version that circulates this isn’t a “Tweezer” I’d recommend anyone listen to, unless the only versions they’ve heard were performed in the early 1990’s I guess, as this one would then blow their mind lol. I hope this helps contextualize why I believe 8/31 Dicks deserves no more than two stars despite having a 22 minute “Tweezer” in it!

And 8/31/23 is currently overrated at 3.854 on this website. Users who rated 8/31/23 five stars should be patted on the head in as pitifully condescending a manner as is practicable, and have their privilege to rate shows on this site suspended until after they have submitted a PDF of a handwritten essay of at least five-hundred words to [email protected] entitled, “How I Intend To Stop Sucking At Phish, Or At Least To Stop Overrating Phish Shows.” Users who rated 8/31/23 three or four stars are asked to reconsider, and just pretend for a moment that “Show Ratings” matter even though they don’t matter at all, because I get it, it’s extremely difficult not to give at least three stars and an “average-GREAT” verdict/rating to a show with a fucking twenty-two minute “Tweezer” in it. I mean come on! We sure are spoiled by "20+ Minute Jams" these days, aren't we? Sigh.

How emotionally drained do you think Trey was when he collapsed into bed after the 8/31 show!? Imagine having to do your job in front of tens of thousands of people a mere three days after losing someone you love, particularly a colleague who made you a better musician and person. (!) How would you then feel if you heard the next day that some rando supposed fan on the internet, who can’t even hold a guitar properly much less play it, rated your performance “two stars”?

© 2023 PHISH (Jesse Faatz)
© 2023 PHISH (Jesse Faatz)

One Star: Phish showed up to play, and play they did. But for whatever reason(s)—e.g., heartbreak, weather delay, food poisoning, some shithead on the rail negatively vibing the band and everyone around him—or for no appreciable reason at all, the show had few if any musical highlights and wasn’t one of (or was very unlikely to become one of) the better shows of the tour—or year. It was simply a well-below “average typically great” Phish show within the context of its tour and era.

And there’s nothing wrong with that at all whatsoever.

The show’s flow and song-selection may have all been delightful in your opinion and in mine as well. We love Phish’s music, and Phish routinely performs great shows worth every penny to have attended. They’re professionals. And while the music is not always gonna be “must hear” or “best ever” of course, and sure at times I’ve wished Trey had rehearsed playing certain songs before playing them in front of thousands of fans or—even better—learned to play other band members’ songs at least as well as his own, being present at a show is a blessed event itself for which we are and should always be grateful.

I give thanks all the time for Trey’s sobriety, don’t you? We know never to take Phish for granted, and that the show we’re seeing might be our last.

That said, Sunday 9/3 Dicks? Easy one-star show. It was largely played well to be sure, and typical average-great versions of songs abound. But there weren’t really any musical highlights, except for the jam in “Everything’s Right.” And will this version make its jam chart? Probably not, given how many truly remarkable performances there have been of the song to date.

When I listened to Trey in the 9/3 “Hood” for the first time, I nearly burst into tears at the beginning of the jam segment, as you can hear emotional fragility in his tentative playing—was James’s death weighing heavily on him? Listening to it a second time now, with Trey’s love for James in mind? I’m crying.

© 2023 PHISH (Jesse Faatz)
© 2023 PHISH (Jesse Faatz)
After first seeing Phish in my sophomore year of college on 10/6/89 (a show that does not circulate on tape and never has, which five turd-burglars have rated), and after trading Phish tapes and listening to their music for years, I nevertheless didn’t truly get IT with Phish’s music until just over 30 years ago on 7/17/93 at Wolf Trap, the only time Phish performed at that venue. As explained in a review I wrote decades ago, I got IT during a straightforward version of “2001,” only the second version the band had ever performed, as it had debuted the night before on 7/16/93 at the Mann.

In the context of 1993 (a thrilling year for Phish), Wolf Trap’s only musical highlights were (1) good versions of “Reba” and “Tweezer” (which are worth your time to listen to, especially if you’ve not listened to much from 1.0, but they aren’t jamcharted as they’re not exceptionally strong for 1993; although I’d take this 7/17/93 "Reba" over most versions since 1.0!); (2) a “Leprechaun,” as that instrumental was only performed three times in Phish history—and only in July 1993; and (3) Fish “playing” an hilariously out-of-tune acoustic stringed instrument (I hesitate to call it a “guitar”) during the all-hallowed composition that is “Faht.” If one considers this 7/17/93 show in its context—summer 1993—it’s among the least impressive musically, worthy of one star. But to me? That one star will forever be shining, and I couldn’t care less how the show rates “Overall.” And nor should you. $0.02.

If you liked this blog post, one way you could "like" it is to make a donation to The Mockingbird Foundation, the sponsor of Phish.net. Support music education for children, and you just might change the world.


Comments

, comment by jr31105
jr31105 My key takeaway is that 12/29/18 is the most overrated show of all time
, comment by paulj
paulj Image

No truth in show ratings? Yes, there is error, but the rest of your claim is absolutely 100% completely and utterly wrong.

I've gathered show ratings for all 524 shows, between 2009 and 2022, and used regression analysis to link the musical elements of a show to its ratings. Guess what?

1. As the number of ">" segues increases (indicating pace of a show) the rating goes up
2. As the number of "->" segues increases (indicating flow) the rating goes up
3. As the average length of songs in a show increases (more jamming) the rating goes up
4. As the average song gap increases (a measure of song rarity) the rating goes up
5. As the number of narration songs increases, the rating goes up

You suggest that ratings are random and arbitrary, and this simply isn't so.

Rather, your primary complaint is that people do not use the full range of the scale, which is absolutely true. Fully 50% of the shows in my database are rated between the median value (4.025) and the maximum value (4.648), which is a narrow interval relative to the range of 2.261 to 4.025 for the bottom 50%. But just because people use only 3, 4, or 5 when rating doesn't mean the show ratings have no informational content.

Finally, show ratings are subject to at least two different selection biases and any number of other biases as well, including recency bias. My analysis of recency bias suggests that it's less than 5% of a show rating, and the tendency of people to listen to and rate only those shows that are already highly rated is about 3%.

And anyone who wants to see a paper that supports my claims, just send me a PM.
, comment by BathtubJohn84
BathtubJohn84 @paulj said:
Image

No truth in show ratings? Yes, there is error, but the rest of your claim is absolutely 100% completely and utterly wrong.

I've gathered show ratings for all 524 shows, between 2009 and 2022, and used regression analysis to link the musical elements of a show to its ratings. Guess what?

1. As the number of ">" segues increases (indicating pace of a show) the rating goes up
2. As the number of "->" segues increases (indicating flow) the rating goes up
3. As the average length of songs in a show increases (more jamming) the rating goes up
4. As the average song gap increases (a measure of song rarity) the rating goes up
5. As the number of narration songs increases, the rating goes up

You suggest that ratings are random and arbitrary, and this simply isn't so.

Rather, your primary complaint is that people do not use the full range of the scale, which is absolutely true. Fully 50% of the shows in my database are rated between the median value (4.025) and the maximum value (4.648), which is a narrow interval relative to the range of 2.261 to 4.025 for the bottom 50%. But just because people use only 3, 4, or 5 when rating doesn't mean the show ratings have no informational content.

Finally, show ratings are subject to at least two different selection biases and any number of other biases as well, including recency bias. My analysis of recency bias suggests that it's less than 5% of a show rating, and the tendency of people to listen to and rate only those shows that are already highly rated is about 3%.

And anyone who wants to see a paper that supports my claims, just send me a PM.
Image

, comment by evmocas
evmocas @jr31105 said:
My key takeaway is that 12/29/18 is the most overrated show of all time
That's why I gave it a 4. Lol.
, comment by fluffheadj
fluffheadj Charlie, reading you in your full unfettered element is a deeply nostalgic experience. Thank you for transporting me back to 1995-99 or so, when I (ages 13-17) voraciously consumed every word you wrote on rmp, on the family computer in the basement of my childhood home. I never got too invested in questions of FOTM teases in NYE shows or what have you, but some of your writing in the reviews of the big Tweezers, Grooves and YEMs is ingrained in my brain and soul to this day. I hope you find ways to sneak a bit of your incomparable style into the occasional legal brief. :-)
, comment by theincrediblepurp
theincrediblepurp Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you seem to be saying that a mediocre but well played show where maybe they phone it in or maybe its just a jukebox phish show like the final night of Dicks this year (which i thoroughly enjoyed), that this type of show deserves 1 star. Well, then how do you rank a truly horrible show where the playing is actually bad? do you do negative stars? and it seems like you also think 1 star isn't necessarily bad. which is confusing. but, that's not how star based rating systems work. the way literally everyone else interprets them is that 1 star means "bad". it's the lowest rating on a 1 to 5 scale. so i guess you are totally entitled to rate shows you seem to like as 1 star. you seem to think there can only be so many great shows and once that arbitrary number is reached in your mind, other shows just aren't allowed to be as good. but the thing is, they ARE great. The worst shows of 1993 are still great! Phish didn't really play any bad shows then. They were at the top of their game and just on fire. I caught one of the other Leprechauns that summer at Darien Lake. So magical. anyway, i just downloaded this wolf trap show. Gonna give it a spin in the truck tomorrow. I bet i'm gonna like it ;)

Ok, i just listened to the weekapaug>faht. i mean it really doesn't get much more special. They even played the sound effects from the album. And a perfectly played Rift to follow. I'm sorry, but ONE star? That's just...untrue. I really don't understand. This show is better than that! They are making '93 magic here! i hope i don't ever get so jaded that i rate a show such as this 1 star. But i don't think i would. Phish is my favorite thing. in a world totally going to hell. My favoritest thing! i guess go ahead and pat me on the head and ban me from rating shows, jaded vet.
sincerely,
Brian Blatt
a truly UN-jaded vet.

ps, im listening to the GTBT and Page is beltin it out. the crowd is goin nuts on the tape. one star... and walks back after listening to the Tweezer. One star? really?

pps. a given year doesnt HAVE to have 1 star ranked shows. especially if there werent any bad shows played.

ppps Every single It's Ice from 1993 was spectacular and spooky with fishman on the woodblocks. at geneseo in the spring, they filled the gymnasium with smoke. couldn't see 5 feet in front of you. And then Kuroda turned on the white strobes. A memory permanently burned in. :)

ppps. i'm probably talkin out my butt here and i dont really know anything. it's the internet. thanks for making the nerdy content we all love.
, comment by Mshow96
Mshow96 This is a two star blog post all day
, comment by TreyFace22
TreyFace22 It appears the great and knowledgeable Icculus has fallen from grace.

I really don't understand how your proposed rating system would make sense. Shows don't happen in a vacuum (though sometimes they include a vacuum). The band has existed for 40 years and there have been high and (relatively) low watermark points within those years. The vast majority of fans would agree that 2009-2016 was a weaker period than 2017-2023, and one could even argue that 2021-2023 is at a higher caliber altogether. So, when you listen to a show from 2023 that has a 4 rating, that rating should exist in relation to a 3-star show from 2010. Though the rating system is obviously flawed and imperfect, more often than not those ratings provide a solid reflection of what's to be expected. A 4-star show from 2023 is simply going to be more compelling than a 3-star show from 2010. And even if the 2023 show is one of the lesser shows when compared to the other shows during that tour, it still doesn't make sense in the broader context to rate it lower. For example, even though 12/5/97 is one of the lower-rated shows of the '97 fall tour, no one in their right mind is going to give that show 1 star.
, comment by mud_lovebuddy
mud_lovebuddy Dumb fuck take.

Congrats.

Everyone is more stupid because of you.
, comment by FunkyCFunkyDo
FunkyCFunkyDo @THEINCREDIBLEPURP - I think, and I stress this is my own interpretation of @Icculus's post, that a one-star show is something you/me/most fans will most likely never, ever revisit in the future. Sometimes, it is a truly bad show with no highlights anywhere, sometimes it is an otherwise pedestrian and "fine" show with, again, no highlights anywhere. Does it mean those in attendance did not have a good time? Or that we should lambast Phish for such a performance? Or that you suck? Or that Phish sucks? No. It does not mean that.

It means, again in my own interpretation, that when weighed against the totality of era-consistent Phish shows, a one-star show is entirely expected/okay/fine and it will, likely (perhaps advisedly), not be revisited by any number of (a majority of) fans, if only so that they/we can listen to shows that showcase much better examples of their musical prowess.

I, for one, have zero intention of listening to 7.22.16 or 9.3.23 and a handful of other duds I caught live. Did I have fun? Sure, hard to not have fun at a Phish show. Unsure if I actually ranked them or not, but I could not care less if someone chose to rank those shows a one... or a negative 17. Conversely, if someone doesn't think 8.22.15 is a five star show, fuck 'em; I happen to think it is a 39 star show and no arbitrary/loosely-understood/even-more-loosely applied ranking system will change my mind.

I believe the author is reassuring us that that it is okay to be a little more scrupulous with our show ratings (if we even put credence into them in the first place), and, if we do value show ratings, it is advisable to 1. Not take a low rating personally 2. Give high ratings away with caution and 3. Who gives a fuck in the long run - you like what you like, and there is a whole forum, internet, social media, etc dedicated to expressing what we like and do not like in the Phish world.
, comment by icculusFTW
icculusFTW Agreed with all of this -- EXCEPT, Fall 2013 remains one of the finest tours of all time, don't forget!

@TreyFace22 said:
It appears the great and knowledgeable Icculus has fallen from grace.

I really don't understand how your proposed rating system would make sense. Shows don't happen in a vacuum (though sometimes they include a vacuum). The band has existed for 40 years and there have been high and (relatively) low watermark points within those years. The vast majority of fans would agree that 2009-2016 was a weaker period than 2017-2023, and one could even argue that 2021-2023 is at a higher caliber altogether. So, when you listen to a show from 2023 that has a 4 rating, that rating should exist in relation to a 3-star show from 2010. Though the rating system is obviously flawed and imperfect, more often than not those ratings provide a solid reflection of what's to be expected. A 4-star show from 2023 is simply going to be more compelling than a 3-star show from 2010. And even if the 2023 show is one of the lesser shows when compared to the other shows during that tour, it still doesn't make sense in the broader context to rate it lower. For example, even though 12/5/97 is one of the lower-rated shows of the '97 fall tour, no one in their right mind is going to give that show 1 star.
, comment by youenjoymyghost
youenjoymyghost When I rate shows I look at what it currently is sitting at and where I think it should be to offset the jaded masses.
, comment by theincrediblepurp
theincrediblepurp @FunkyCFunkyDo i hear ya about shows that you wouldnt revisit. i guess my problem would be calling those shows a one star show. I would think a 2 star show would be what you are talking about. One star is literally the lowest score. so should be reserved for truly bad shit, thinkin Coventry Glide level of bad. And mostly my gripe was about calling any show from 1993 a one star show. You could throw a dart blindly at 1993 and whatever show you land on and put on will not be an unejoyable listen. I rocked out the wolf trap show today that Charlie called a one star show. it flippin rocks! anyway, what do i know. i like this band! i like arguing about this band! and it's all semantics with the stars and shit. i know what you are saying and i know what Charlie is saying about the shows. it's just fun to bicker about lol..
, comment by mattybweston
mattybweston Dogpile on Icculus!

Un-jaded but brutally honest vet who was also at Wolf Trap '93 (a hometown show at the time). I'm no good at the maths, but how can a passable show described in our own internal vernacular as "average-great" get 1 out of 5 stars? By my calculations (clouded by decades away from schooling and a genetic predisposition toward number avoidance) that would be 20%. Well below average and miles below average-great. I have used, and I suspect most non-trolling users have used our flawed-yet-beloved rating system as follows: - 3 stars for average great, 4 stars for average great with several extended moments of transcendence, and 5 stars for two sets of magic. I'll cop to rarely using 1 or 2 star ratings - it would need to be a dire train wreck of Broadway Trey vocals and missed transitions and constant ripcording and composed flubs and "songs I don't like (whatever that means)" and possibly a venue evacuation or two. But to me, after not one but two eras of extended quality shows from a band that I have organized my life around and seemed dead in the water nearly 20 years ago(!), every single show from here to the end is a gift. And a non-dumpster fire gift is worth 3 stars to me.

PS - Hey Mike's side behind the speaker rig on the floor at Dicks last weekend - 5 Stars to you all forever.
, comment by yEEt_1331
yEEt_1331 I tend to look at the overall ratings and paint a better picture from there. Anything at or above a 4.0 is usually a pretty damn good show. 4.2 - 4.4’s are shows that are truly special, and at 4.5+ you’re listening to the absolute best of the best. 3.7 - 3.9 is what I’d call average-great, 3.5 and below is usually reserved for shows with uninspired play and/or questionable song selection in multiple instances. Which is fine, most of the time the shows are not bad by any means. This tour there have been multiple shows that I personally think should have crossed that 4.5 mark, front runners being 7/14, 7/15 and 7/23.
, comment by phishphan1984
phishphan1984 A "typically great show" is 3, and "a show that is or will likely be among the finest of the year" is 4? How freakin' stupid is that? This dude has lost all credibility

I have been in assessment for years. A 5-point Likert scale is common practice. 1 is poor, 2 is fair, 3 is average/good, 4 is very good, and 5 is excellent.

But doesn't that belie the point? A rating is, by its very nature, subjective. Some people are "sharks," others "doves" when it comes to assessment. It all is supposed to even out over larger samples. What we don't need, however, is some holier than thou fan to tell us how to vote. Because that is pretty moronic.
, comment by HRFluffnStuff
HRFluffnStuff I personally love that show ratings and reviews are a quagmire of opinions. Using our own subjective thoughts to mold death-worthy hills has an enduring quality that pulls us all together. Some people do occasionally take it too far/too seriously, but in general I find the lighthearted bickering entertaining and also useful to point out certain shows/moments to revisit. At the end of the day, we’re all in this together…
, comment by ekstewie1441
ekstewie1441 I have a different show rating system that I prefer to yours - sorry but more accurately, not sorry. I've never seen/heard/been made aware of a (non rain affected, normal) Phish show in 3.0 or 4.0 that deserved 1 star and only a few 2 star shows under my system.

Wisdom of the crowd is generally pretty good at identifying most popular shows within a tour. Cross tours/years/eras becomes tricky but basically anything 4.4+ is a stupendous show regardless.
, comment by SlimCharles
SlimCharles All I know is that all my favorites should be everyone else's favorites and that I'm right and you're wrong.
, comment by SlimCharles
SlimCharles "But what if they're wrong and you're right?"
What then indeed.
, comment by aburtch
aburtch Sitting here chuckling because the 8/10/97 show is the famous "15 minutes! We'll be back in EXACTLY 15 minutes!" show...
, comment by CarriePhisher
CarriePhisher Never understood the rating of shows. There's a lot between "good" and "bad". I tend to approach shows as chapters in a book and to be viewed collectively. Never understood "attendance bias" either. If one does feel the desire to rate or review, I'd hope they were at least is attendance. There's no context otherwise.
, comment by aisincl
aisincl I think there was some book a few years ago called “The Wisdom of Crowds”.

And when I observe the show ratings, I tend to find they do a solid job of sharing the all-time best shows to dive into, as well as the stronger shows from each and every of these 40 years.

So while we can debate the details here, I would argue they do a solid job of helping newer Phans and noobs with a guide of where to start when trying to understand the shows that deserve our precious time and ears.

I’ve been praying at the Phïsh altar these last ten years, and love the ratings for helping me appreciate all the special moments and evenings when Phïsh brought their A-game. And I probably tend to not split hairs once we get down the bell curve and average shows.
, comment by jlouderb
jlouderb Props to Icculus for wading into the ratings quagmire and trying to set a baseline for everyone. I ran test labs at popular computer magazines and tv channels in the 90s and 2000s and know how hard it is.

And with a wisdom of the crowds approach it's even harder. Everyone who rates has to have a relatively similar rating framework in their head to make it work - and that's based on experience, past ratings systems and expectations. I appreciate the 1-5 model laid out. Alas, it's fundamentally unworkable due to human nature and how rating systems have trained us.

Think of wine. They mostly do a 100-point scale (which is fundamentally stupid to me, as a 3 to 5 point scale is best, or 9 if you do half points), but go with me. A wine scored as 70 is essentially undrinkable, which puts most wines in the 85-95 range. Or in our vernacular, 3.5 to 4.5.

So a better range for this group might be that. Outliers - ie really good and really bad, go above and below the 3.5 to 4.5 range, while most shows live in the middle.

Luckily - except for an outcast handful (see 10/26/85) - we don't have "paid" reviewers artificially inflating ratings.

I was also at all 4 Dicks shows, which gives me context on what Icculus laid out. I think a more rational - given my shared touchpoints above - would be that Thursday was a 3.7 or so, Friday was more of a 4.2 or 4.3 and Saturday a 4.6. Sunday probably comes in at 3.5. Drinkable, but I'm not buying a case.

But it's also worthwhile to think through what people actually do with ratings. I use them to figure out what shows I should watch/listen to/focus on. I can (and try to) listen to every show, but it helps to have context for when there's just too much to listen to and too little time. Others use them for social validation (I was at that show? You were at that show. It was the BEST!).

Give me the top 10 for a year anytime, though, because that can guide my re-listening pleasure.

Or instead, give me an expert curator, like DAAM, or Osiris or someone else, and let them guide me.

it's fun to go to a show you loved, and then see everyone else praising it too. It's also fun to go to a show (like Friday Dicks) where the review is markedly different from your experience. First takes are hard. But also helpful. And I have mad respect for anyone who lays out their first look within hours of being there. That's not easy and much appreciated.

In conclusion, I love what Icculus laid out. But alas it is fundamentally unworkable. History, expectations and training will all conspire to push is into a narrow band with outliers. But that's not necessarily bad.
, comment by mgolia6
mgolia6 So happy a refresh erased my long winded comment now that @jlouderb stepped in. Though this one’s not short, ????!

I will just add that I love the Milan Kundera shout out in the title. 5 Star title IMHO.

When it comes to surveys there has to be a baseline or rating scale that a user must have for reference or the entire rating and subsequent analysis of said ratings becomes a mess. Also, to the point @jlouderb made, five stars is probably not the best scale for this as it’s too simplistic. But the point of the scaling process like this is it’s simplicity. Then there is scale; as in you need a large enough sample size in order to start to accurately account for deviations.

If I had to implement one key change it would be that reviews are acceptable immediately after a show but the ability to input ratings be delayed to let any post show glow or other potential influencing factor wear off.

Ultimately, while it takes much longer, I go off of the reviewers actual words as an indication of a quality show. So, I look to the fan reviews as often as possible. This is like the expanded ratings process and I can start to peak behind the ratings to get a good grasp of how the listener got to their positive or negative review of a show.

Lastly, I think there is also a tendency toward ratings going too high because there are a lot of members of this community that fight against or don’t easily accept constructive criticism when a show is mediocre or subpar. Critics are labeled jaded and toxic positivity takes hold when the whole point of a site like this is to commune and debate the music.

One last thought I just had to improve upon this would be to create a multi star rating (one to five stars for music, vibe, lights, etc). Pick five qualities of a show and create an average from those. I don’t think a few extra steps to review a show would hurt here as simplicity, as @Icculus points out, allows for Randy’s to rate shows that don’t exist.

Appreciate the launching pad for a healthy debate, @icculus, get well soon!!
, comment by Hippogator
Hippogator Imagine being the band and reading this post and these comments. It's so silly and conceited. .Net is basically just PT but with maybe a few less trolls.

I implore anyone that wants to rate a show today to listen to the entirety of 2004 and then come back and decide what actually constitutes a "bad" show. Believe me, you will be very happy the band plays the way they do now. People have forgotten (or are unaware) how it was, what could have been, and what they have.
, comment by wharf_rat55
wharf_rat55 It's funny the things people make space for in their own heads, commenters and article posters alike. It makes for great reading though I'll tell you hwhat! I enjoyed reading this article despite disagreeing with a few points. Some folx just need to chill lol.
, comment by tasatter
tasatter Antelope Greg once told me in ... Phish Tours? on Facebook years ago that I suck at Phish. I so wish I'd kept a screenshot of that to print on a t-shirt.
You must be logged in to post a comment.


Phish.net

Phish.net is a non-commercial project run by Phish fans and for Phish fans under the auspices of the all-volunteer, non-profit Mockingbird Foundation.

This project serves to compile, preserve, and protect encyclopedic information about Phish and their music.

Credits | Terms Of Use | Legal | DMCA

© 1990-2024  The Mockingbird Foundation, Inc. | Hosted by Linode