It probably won't be the most obvious opinion here, but I'm fairly sure the answer is Trey Anastasio, if for no other reason than Phish was the biggest band on earth for at least the latter half...
It probably won't be the most obvious opinion here, but I'm fairly sure the answer is Trey Anastasio, if for no other reason than Phish was the biggest band on earth for at least the latter half of the decade (though Trey was arguably a stronger player in the earlier part of the decade). Let me unpack what I mean by that, because you could rightly say, "Arghdos, what about Nirvana or the Chili Peppers or ...? Surely, they were a 'bigger' band", and you may be right in the sense album sales, radio-airplay or any other such nonsense metric.
But then you have to consider the fact that over the last 30 years, Phish has played over 1600 shows, their festivals have temporarily become the (or, one of the) largest cities in the states of Maine and Vermont, on three separate occasions, put on some of the highest grossing shows of the decade, and threw the largest New Years Celebration on earth on Dec. 31st, 1999. In wiki's list of the highest concert grossing tours of the 90's, the leader in "shows played" is shockingly Garth Brooks, at somewhere around 400, in a decade. Phish topped that in 4 years (with 478 shows), from 1990-1993. Further on that list, you see a mere two bands born anywhere near the 90's, in the same decade that Phish went from infinite obscurity to the aforementioned largest New Years show on Earth.
Now, I know what you're thinking at this point -- essentially, I'm trying to make the argument that Elvis once did, 50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can't be Wrong. That's a fair point, but Phish is a polarizing band; it's largely useless for me to try to convince someone ardently opposed or unfamiliar with their style of music of it's genius. What do you say to someone who expects a song to be 3-4 minutes (or like, 10 minutes tops) about 30 minutes of deep psychedelic space majesty reveling in it's complete non-sense lyrics; particularly when you simultaneously have incredibly mixed feelings on it, considering the amount of opiates that were consumed for production? If someone finds themselves interested, I'd be happy to direct you to the glorious green pastures, but I spend so much of my time listening to other wild and wonderful things that this level of evangelizing is about all I can muster these days.
A man considerably more genius than Trey once said:
We're like licorice. Not everybody likes licorice, but the people who like licorice really like licorice
Which sums it up quite nicely. In a world where anyone can make and distribute an album for (relatively) next to nothing, at least as compared to say the 60's and 70's, what else is there to truly set a band apart than their live performances?
In that realm, there simply is no equal. There are undoubtedly numerous musicians who can put on shows as good as Phish (e.g., go see Pharoah Sanders some time to have your world upended), but there is no-one who has done it as big, as grand, for as long, or as wildly and creatively unconstrained as Trey and Phish, unless you go back to the Dead themselves.
That's the thing, just because a band is huge doesn't mean they are the best musicians. Chili Peppers were a good band, but the guitarist was no where as talented as Trey. If we were talking bass...
That's the thing, just because a band is huge doesn't mean they are the best musicians. Chili Peppers were a good band, but the guitarist was no where as talented as Trey. If we were talking bass players, sure Flea would be up there.
Oh, I definitely agree with this, it's just that it's infinitely harder to explain why Trey is so good at what he does. Even most other people I know who are super into jam-bands don't understand...
That's the thing, just because a band is huge doesn't mean they are the best musicians
Oh, I definitely agree with this, it's just that it's infinitely harder to explain why Trey is so good at what he does. Even most other people I know who are super into jam-bands don't understand why I love Phish, but think things like Umphreys and moe. are barely passable (or, my utter existential disgust of Panic) -- I try to be quiet on this front, because I want to respect other people's preferences, though I don't always succeed.
I mean, I could link-drop Machine-Gun Trey clips all day, and maybe that would better explain my argument, but I find that lacking. Essentially, it is that Trey (and the rest of the band, who all deserve credit) guided themselves into new musical frontiers in a uniquely live setting that no other band I've ever seen can ever consistently touch. They didn't create it (mostly, Jerry did), they aren't the sole owners, they don't always reach the magic place, but even to this day they are completely peerless in this field. They go left, when every other band goes right. Trey plays with the Dead for Fare Thee Well and the entire fanbase expects a Dead bust-out... it happens a year and a half later on a random Tuesday in Nashville to the complete and utter amazement of those in attendance (Bobby covered Trey!). I mean, fuck, they literally did a 13 night stand at MSG based on a joke they made 11 years earlier.
They have made a career out of the ludicrous, the frankly insane, and there is nothing (today) that holds a candle to their sun.
That's the thing. Every time I tried listening to Phish, I kept thinking of the times my father took me to see the Grateful Dead, King Crimson, Yes, or ELP as a kid in the late 80s and early...
unless you go back to the Dead themselves
That's the thing. Every time I tried listening to Phish, I kept thinking of the times my father took me to see the Grateful Dead, King Crimson, Yes, or ELP as a kid in the late 80s and early 1990s, and it just isn't the same.
Whenever I put on a Phish album, I find myself thinking, "Why aren't I listening to Yes' Tales from Topographic Oceans instead? Or Hawkwind's Space Ritual? Or In the Court of the Crimson King?"
I know what you mean, but it's the wrong comparison to make. Phish is the one jamband that saw what the Dead did and decided to go completely their own way, and that's what separates them from the...
I know what you mean, but it's the wrong comparison to make. Phish is the one jamband that saw what the Dead did and decided to go completely their own way, and that's what separates them from the rest.
There's an interview out there somewhere (I can't seem to find it at the moment) with Trey talking about how he was just a kid growing up in NJ, how he wrote about what he knew: silly, ridiculous things that may or may not be your bag. He certainly isn't Robert Hunter, and they owe the Dead more than life itself, but to say that they're trying to achieve the same end goal when they turn the stage at MSG into a giant pirate ship and act out a song from '97 is silly.
Whenever I put on a Phish album
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's your issue right there :P
I gotta run for the moment, but I'd be happy to go into more detail later
I think I know where you're going to go with this. You're going to suggest that listening to Phish albums instead of seeing them live is like reading Shakespeare's plays instead of seeing them...
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's your issue right there :P I gotta run for the moment, but I'd be happy to go into more detail later
I think I know where you're going to go with this. You're going to suggest that listening to Phish albums instead of seeing them live is like reading Shakespeare's plays instead of seeing them performed on stage: a poor substitute at best.
You're probably right. However, my experience is that most bands are better in the studio than they are live.
Most touring heavy metal bands seem to have sound engineers who crank up the guitars and drums too high, at the expense of the bass and vocals. I found this especially problematic when seeing Nightwish perform in 2008 with Paradise Lost as their supporting act; poor Annette Olzon was singing her little heart out, but you could barely hear her. Even Rob Halford had that problem when I saw Judas Priest this year on the Firepower tour.
Fortunately, the Protomen are a lot better about getting the mix right when performing live. If you've never seen them in concert, you're missing out.
Essentially, yes. And I totally respect this opinion; if you specialize in the vast majority of music this is probably correct. The few consistent exceptions I can name off-hand are typically...
I think I know where you're going to go with this. You're going to suggest that listening to Phish albums instead of seeing them live is like reading Shakespeare's plays instead of seeing them performed on stage: a poor substitute at best.
Essentially, yes.
You're probably right. However, my experience is that most bands are better in the studio than they are live.
And I totally respect this opinion; if you specialize in the vast majority of music this is probably correct. The few consistent exceptions I can name off-hand are typically either small intimate shows (jazz, funk, bluegrass) or well... Phish / Dead.
Most touring heavy metal bands seem to have sound engineers who crank up the guitars and drums too high, at the expense of the bass and vocals. I found this especially problematic when seeing Nightwish perform in 2008 with Paradise Lost as their supporting act; poor Annette Olzon was singing her little heart out, but you could barely hear her. Even Rob Halford had that problem when I saw Judas Priest this year on the Firepower tour.
Fortunately, the Protomen are a lot better about getting the mix right when performing live. If you've never seen them in concert, you're missing out.
This is always a particularly vexing problem to me. For instance, I've seen at least 5-10 bluegrass shows at festivals where the engineer clearly doesn't know what the fuck they're doing when it comes to bluegrass; a hint: it's not fucking dubstep, a properly mic'd Stand-up bass is loud and you need to turn it down before you make the entire front of the crowd shit themselves :p.
The interesting thing is that bands that primarily specialize in their live show have this completely inverted; e.g., (since we're in this thread) Phish and the Dead have a line of engineers who were with them for years at a time: Languedoc, Stanley, even Healy in all his infamy. Phish's light-guy has been the 5th member of the band since 1989!
Having seen the film, I think I would have enjoyed seeing Within Temptation during their "Black Symphony" tour in 2008. Therion also got it right when they were touring to support their...
Having seen the film, I think I would have enjoyed seeing Within Temptation during their "Black Symphony" tour in 2008. Therion also got it right when they were touring to support their Lemuria/Sirius ß double album. Edguy's Rocket Ride tour was another good one, with the drummer doing the Imperial March from Star Wars during his solo.
Hey, @acr, what do you mean by "of the 1990s"? Are we talking about guitarists who dropped their first album between 1990 and 1999, or are we also including guitarists who were active during that...
Hey, @acr, what do you mean by "of the 1990s"? Are we talking about guitarists who dropped their first album between 1990 and 1999, or are we also including guitarists who were active during that period?
Who dropped their first album and came up in the 90s. The Division Bell came out in 94 which would put David Gilmour in the running if we did active. Which just isn't fair because we all know he...
Who dropped their first album and came up in the 90s. The Division Bell came out in 94 which would put David Gilmour in the running if we did active. Which just isn't fair because we all know he is the.. I better not finish that.
Not to mention Judas Priest's Painkiller and Queensryche's Empire in 1990, Iron Maiden's Fear of the Dark and Dream Theater's Images and Words in 1992, Black Sabbath's underrated Cross Purposes in...
Not to mention Judas Priest's Painkiller and Queensryche's Empire in 1990, Iron Maiden's Fear of the Dark and Dream Theater's Images and Words in 1992, Black Sabbath's underrated Cross Purposes in 1994, and Symphony X's The Divine Wings of Tragedy in 1997.
And there's my answer for you: Michael Romeo of Symphony X. Imagine if Yngwie Malmsteen was a dude from New Jersey who could actually write decent songs instead of just wanking his guitar.
Not the most interesting answer, but probably Kevin Shields. Most of my favorites in the 90s (and anytime, really) tend to be strong songwriters and not all that notable in their skills with the...
Not the most interesting answer, but probably Kevin Shields. Most of my favorites in the 90s (and anytime, really) tend to be strong songwriters and not all that notable in their skills with the inetrument, but Kevin made his guitar do things I never would have thought possible.
He's probably more interesting of a musician to me on My Bloody Valentine's comeback record in 2013, but Loveless is more than enough for me to give that spot to him.
I'm going to have to put up Dave Matthews for this one. The things he did with an acoustic guitar were innovative, technically complex, and were part of a hugely popular band.
I'm going to have to put up Dave Matthews for this one. The things he did with an acoustic guitar were innovative, technically complex, and were part of a hugely popular band.
Best at what? @arghdos seems to think phish is the best but his entire argument seemed to center around the band as a whole rather than the guitarist. While I enjoy jam bands, popularity, album...
Best at what? @arghdos seems to think phish is the best but his entire argument seemed to center around the band as a whole rather than the guitarist. While I enjoy jam bands, popularity, album sales, etc are not indicative of “best”.
Prince was a great artist/guitarist. Yngwie Malmsteen is in a world of his own. Carlos Santana dominates the Latin rock scene. Buckethead has no equal. Your own interests will drive your decision/ bias.
The question has the word you in it, referring to your opinion. I am asking about your opinion. Also, the majority of the people you mentioned did not come up in the 90s.
The question has the word you in it, referring to your opinion. I am asking about your opinion. Also, the majority of the people you mentioned did not come up in the 90s.
I'd say Stephen Malkmus or Billy Corgan. Malkmus just played like it was nothing. Guitar over his head and all that. Corgan was just incredible on the album Gish and on the song Cherub rock alone.
I'd say Stephen Malkmus or Billy Corgan. Malkmus just played like it was nothing. Guitar over his head and all that. Corgan was just incredible on the album Gish and on the song Cherub rock alone.
I'd say, Steve Lukather. Although he started out in the seventies he is still to this day one of the most accomplished guitarists. My favorite album of Toto is Tambu, which came out in 1994 or 95,...
I'd say, Steve Lukather. Although he started out in the seventies he is still to this day one of the most accomplished guitarists. My favorite album of Toto is Tambu, which came out in 1994 or 95, and it has some amazing guitar work.
It probably won't be the most obvious opinion here, but I'm fairly sure the answer is Trey Anastasio, if for no other reason than Phish was the biggest band on earth for at least the latter half of the decade (though Trey was arguably a stronger player in the earlier part of the decade). Let me unpack what I mean by that, because you could rightly say, "Arghdos, what about Nirvana or the Chili Peppers or ...? Surely, they were a 'bigger' band", and you may be right in the sense album sales, radio-airplay or any other such nonsense metric.
But then you have to consider the fact that over the last 30 years, Phish has played over 1600 shows, their festivals have temporarily become the (or, one of the) largest cities in the states of Maine and Vermont, on three separate occasions, put on some of the highest grossing shows of the decade, and threw the largest New Years Celebration on earth on Dec. 31st, 1999. In wiki's list of the highest concert grossing tours of the 90's, the leader in "shows played" is shockingly Garth Brooks, at somewhere around 400, in a decade. Phish topped that in 4 years (with 478 shows), from 1990-1993. Further on that list, you see a mere two bands born anywhere near the 90's, in the same decade that Phish went from infinite obscurity to the aforementioned largest New Years show on Earth.
Now, I know what you're thinking at this point -- essentially, I'm trying to make the argument that Elvis once did, 50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can't be Wrong. That's a fair point, but Phish is a polarizing band; it's largely useless for me to try to convince someone ardently opposed or unfamiliar with their style of music of it's genius. What do you say to someone who expects a song to be 3-4 minutes (or like, 10 minutes tops) about 30 minutes of deep psychedelic space majesty reveling in it's complete non-sense lyrics; particularly when you simultaneously have incredibly mixed feelings on it, considering the amount of opiates that were consumed for production? If someone finds themselves interested, I'd be happy to direct you to the glorious green pastures, but I spend so much of my time listening to other wild and wonderful things that this level of evangelizing is about all I can muster these days.
A man considerably more genius than Trey once said:
Which sums it up quite nicely. In a world where anyone can make and distribute an album for (relatively) next to nothing, at least as compared to say the 60's and 70's, what else is there to truly set a band apart than their live performances?
In that realm, there simply is no equal. There are undoubtedly numerous musicians who can put on shows as good as Phish (e.g., go see Pharoah Sanders some time to have your world upended), but there is no-one who has done it as big, as grand, for as long, or as wildly and creatively unconstrained as Trey and Phish, unless you go back to the Dead themselves.
That's the thing, just because a band is huge doesn't mean they are the best musicians. Chili Peppers were a good band, but the guitarist was no where as talented as Trey. If we were talking bass players, sure Flea would be up there.
Oh, I definitely agree with this, it's just that it's infinitely harder to explain why Trey is so good at what he does. Even most other people I know who are super into jam-bands don't understand why I love Phish, but think things like Umphreys and moe. are barely passable (or, my utter existential disgust of Panic) -- I try to be quiet on this front, because I want to respect other people's preferences, though I don't always succeed.
I mean, I could link-drop Machine-Gun Trey clips all day, and maybe that would better explain my argument, but I find that lacking. Essentially, it is that Trey (and the rest of the band, who all deserve credit) guided themselves into new musical frontiers in a uniquely live setting that no other band I've ever seen can ever consistently touch. They didn't create it (mostly, Jerry did), they aren't the sole owners, they don't always reach the magic place, but even to this day they are completely peerless in this field. They go left, when every other band goes right. Trey plays with the Dead for Fare Thee Well and the entire fanbase expects a Dead bust-out... it happens a year and a half later on a random Tuesday in Nashville to the complete and utter amazement of those in attendance (Bobby covered Trey!). I mean, fuck, they literally did a 13 night stand at MSG based on a joke they made 11 years earlier.
They have made a career out of the ludicrous, the frankly insane, and there is nothing (today) that holds a candle to their sun.
That's the thing. Every time I tried listening to Phish, I kept thinking of the times my father took me to see the Grateful Dead, King Crimson, Yes, or ELP as a kid in the late 80s and early 1990s, and it just isn't the same.
Whenever I put on a Phish album, I find myself thinking, "Why aren't I listening to Yes' Tales from Topographic Oceans instead? Or Hawkwind's Space Ritual? Or In the Court of the Crimson King?"
In the Court of the Crimson King was a great album.
I know what you mean, but it's the wrong comparison to make. Phish is the one jamband that saw what the Dead did and decided to go completely their own way, and that's what separates them from the rest.
There's an interview out there somewhere (I can't seem to find it at the moment) with Trey talking about how he was just a kid growing up in NJ, how he wrote about what he knew: silly, ridiculous things that may or may not be your bag. He certainly isn't Robert Hunter, and they owe the Dead more than life itself, but to say that they're trying to achieve the same end goal when they turn the stage at MSG into a giant pirate ship and act out a song from '97 is silly.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's your issue right there :P
I gotta run for the moment, but I'd be happy to go into more detail later
I think I know where you're going to go with this. You're going to suggest that listening to Phish albums instead of seeing them live is like reading Shakespeare's plays instead of seeing them performed on stage: a poor substitute at best.
You're probably right. However, my experience is that most bands are better in the studio than they are live.
Most touring heavy metal bands seem to have sound engineers who crank up the guitars and drums too high, at the expense of the bass and vocals. I found this especially problematic when seeing Nightwish perform in 2008 with Paradise Lost as their supporting act; poor Annette Olzon was singing her little heart out, but you could barely hear her. Even Rob Halford had that problem when I saw Judas Priest this year on the Firepower tour.
Fortunately, the Protomen are a lot better about getting the mix right when performing live. If you've never seen them in concert, you're missing out.
Essentially, yes.
And I totally respect this opinion; if you specialize in the vast majority of music this is probably correct. The few consistent exceptions I can name off-hand are typically either small intimate shows (jazz, funk, bluegrass) or well... Phish / Dead.
This is always a particularly vexing problem to me. For instance, I've seen at least 5-10 bluegrass shows at festivals where the engineer clearly doesn't know what the fuck they're doing when it comes to bluegrass; a hint: it's not fucking dubstep, a properly mic'd Stand-up bass is loud and you need to turn it down before you make the entire front of the crowd shit themselves :p.
The interesting thing is that bands that primarily specialize in their live show have this completely inverted; e.g., (since we're in this thread) Phish and the Dead have a line of engineers who were with them for years at a time: Languedoc, Stanley, even Healy in all his infamy. Phish's light-guy has been the 5th member of the band since 1989!
Having seen the film, I think I would have enjoyed seeing Within Temptation during their "Black Symphony" tour in 2008. Therion also got it right when they were touring to support their Lemuria/Sirius ß double album. Edguy's Rocket Ride tour was another good one, with the drummer doing the Imperial March from Star Wars during his solo.
In creative endeavors, best does not exist. Favorite, sure. But not best.
Oh the best does. Kidding. Who do you really like from that era?
Hey, @acr, what do you mean by "of the 1990s"? Are we talking about guitarists who dropped their first album between 1990 and 1999, or are we also including guitarists who were active during that period?
Who dropped their first album and came up in the 90s. The Division Bell came out in 94 which would put David Gilmour in the running if we did active. Which just isn't fair because we all know he is the.. I better not finish that.
Not to mention Judas Priest's Painkiller and Queensryche's Empire in 1990, Iron Maiden's Fear of the Dark and Dream Theater's Images and Words in 1992, Black Sabbath's underrated Cross Purposes in 1994, and Symphony X's The Divine Wings of Tragedy in 1997.
And there's my answer for you: Michael Romeo of Symphony X. Imagine if Yngwie Malmsteen was a dude from New Jersey who could actually write decent songs instead of just wanking his guitar.
I keep forgetting about Cynic. I'd feel bad about that, but it means I keep getting to rediscover them. :)
Not the most interesting answer, but probably Kevin Shields. Most of my favorites in the 90s (and anytime, really) tend to be strong songwriters and not all that notable in their skills with the inetrument, but Kevin made his guitar do things I never would have thought possible.
He's probably more interesting of a musician to me on My Bloody Valentine's comeback record in 2013, but Loveless is more than enough for me to give that spot to him.
I'm going to have to put up Dave Matthews for this one. The things he did with an acoustic guitar were innovative, technically complex, and were part of a hugely popular band.
@cfabbro posted a tiny desk concert he did in ~music that was really good.
Best at what? @arghdos seems to think phish is the best but his entire argument seemed to center around the band as a whole rather than the guitarist. While I enjoy jam bands, popularity, album sales, etc are not indicative of “best”.
Prince was a great artist/guitarist. Yngwie Malmsteen is in a world of his own. Carlos Santana dominates the Latin rock scene. Buckethead has no equal. Your own interests will drive your decision/ bias.
The question has the word you in it, referring to your opinion. I am asking about your opinion. Also, the majority of the people you mentioned did not come up in the 90s.
I'd say Stephen Malkmus or Billy Corgan. Malkmus just played like it was nothing. Guitar over his head and all that. Corgan was just incredible on the album Gish and on the song Cherub rock alone.
I'd say, Steve Lukather. Although he started out in the seventies he is still to this day one of the most accomplished guitarists. My favorite album of Toto is Tambu, which came out in 1994 or 95, and it has some amazing guitar work.