decisions on song pages

[tet]

good idea

[jephrey]

My opinion has always been that there are 2 different songs.  Axilla, and Axilla (Part II).  They may have similar music, but they are different songs (even the phish website tells you that).  I don't think they should be listed as one.

Sanity (fast/slow)?  I don't think phish differentiates, so why should we?  We won't make 2 entries for Water in the Sky, and I don't think we should for Sanity.

Curtain With / Curtain.  Again, the main part of the song is the same, but doesn't even Phish consider them 2 different tunes?. 

Then there's BEK and Moma...  This is a great comparison to axilla, because the only big difference is lyrics.  But I don't think they sould be on the same page.  I'm trying to stay consistent and do the same for Axilla.

Fog/Taste.  We know which is which right?  The ones with the fishman part is Fog, and the ones without are Taste. 

My push for consistency is simple.  We name songs as Phish does.  Phish has Axilla, and Axilla (Part II), and I think we should also.  Phish has one Sanity, and I think we should too.  Phish has the Curtain, and the Curtain With, and I think we should too.

I think that's the easiest way to achieve true consistency.  If we do what Phish does, then there's no room for error and we don't have to think or argue, it's already spelled out for us.

Of course, if this panel votes against me, I'll back the majority, but for now, I'm really pushing for the "same as Phish" route.

J

[tet]

well, strangely, like i noted for Axilla, on the same summer tour (2003), they list both "Axilla" and "Axilla I" - note, not "II".  So, wtf?  i'm pretty damn sure they played the same song... 

[Marmar]

Sanity...they called it "new and improved" when they played it fast.....I know I've heard it as such on tape.....

there's a lot of songs like this though......it will create a LOT of double entries.....

BEK/Moma
Fog/Taste
Curtain/With
Axilla/I,II
Fluffhead/All the other parts
Glide/GlideII

I mean going the other direction (not using sub pages) would result in having to list things like "Roll Like a Cantalope" (it was played 4 times according to the Companion)

Using subs they will still have a seperate entry, just linked from within the related song.......

[jephrey]

I believe Axilla and Axilla I have been used interchangeably just because there's a II out there.

I don't consider (in my mind)

BEK/Moma
Fog/Taste

that much of an issue.

Fluffhead and parts...  If the parts were ever played individually, then they should be listed as individual songs in their song pages.  Real easy to do.  Roll Like a cantaloupe was never called that by phish, they just claim alternate lyrics I'm sure.  Like, I turned the blade back on the bitch...  If Phish plays Clod alone, I wouldn't put it under Fluffhead, I'd make an entry for Clod, but played as part of Fluffhead, the entry would not exist, there would just be one for Fluff on that date.  The only entry of fluffhead that would mention clod, sould be the first time it was played within.  Just like Landlady in PYITE...  there's gonna be an entry for landlady.  In number of times played, it won't include times it was part of PYITE (although for instance like this, you could just do a simple count of all PYITEs played after a certain date and mention it as a fun-fact).

My point is, If Phish documents that it it a song unto itself, then it should have its own song page.  There won't be double entry because no song will be under 2 names at any given time, the only tough part is to determine which name to put the song under, and that's not a huge task.  If there's no document from Phish, or on the Phish website that there are 2 different versions of a song, then it should be 1 page (as in the Sanity issue)  even if on tape Trey says, this is the new and improved Sanity, that doesn't mean the name of the song changed.

I guess I don't understand how it'll be that much more work. 

And Glide II is totally different than Glide and should have it's own entry with 1 date under it.

I'm sticking with my opinion for now, hopefully we can get a few other viewpoints in here.  Does anyone else monitor the wiki group?

J

[jedifunk]

i think i agree with jeph here...

[Marmar]

How are songs played in full durring soundchecks, but no shows being handled?.....

[jephrey]

We can make that decision.  Typically, these songs are covers right?  We don't have a method to do covers yet...  Do we do them the same as song pages?  What about songs that have been teased but never played?

As far as songs in soundchecks, why not even if the whole song isn't played?  There's a notes section on the song page that you could put (played partially 4x during the soundcheck).  I suppose it depends on what data we're trying to capture.  Maybe it does make sense to not list those times on the song page, simply because they weren't played for an audience, but then maybe it does, so you can look through the list and link to a show to see the rest of it.  It will be listed on the show page.

Personally, I'm indifferent, but feel that whether a song was only a soundcheck song, or it got played in a show setting, we should treat them the same.  Ans I suppose that means that I'd like to see all recorded instances of the song on the song page.  But, as far as stats go, I would think the best thing to do when we show #of times played, (for an audience) should be implied and sdchks shouldn't count in that total.  My thoughts are that you'd be looking at a year in review and it'd say song xxx was played most this year, but if you were at the shows, you may not have noticed it because maybe they were soundchecking Dirt like fiends...

So as I was writing, I went from indifferent to a very specific preference.  As always, I hope to get some other opinions.

J

[tet]

soundchecked songs should only be mentioned on the setlist details pages, IMO.  no reason to clutter up the song pages with that.  however, all covers, even partial ones, should get song pages.  as should some of the bands that they've covered a lot, such as the Talking Heads, the Rolling Stones, Beatles, Led Zep, Pink Floyd, The Who...

[jephrey]

I concur.