Permalink for Comment #1375803735 by Dog_Faced_Boy

, comment by Dog_Faced_Boy
Dog_Faced_Boy We've completed our review prompted by a number of great comments here and in the Forum thread which suggested some great versions which may have been passed over in error. As it turns out, the fault was not in our Round 1 screening, but in the amount of data that we recorded from this round. The members of the team did not overlook any great versions so much as we failed, through insufficient notes and tracking, to make sure that all of these versions moved on to Round 2 where more members would get a chance to hear them.

So in totality, we have added 6 more versions, offset by the removal of 4 which we felt were not as strong as these new additions. These new versions include 3 from 1998, 2 from 1999, and 1 from 2014.

I realized the other day, after listening to my 100th+ version over the past few weeks, why this process is such a challenge: there simply is no magical or obvious formula for what constitutes a great version of Ghost. Whether it's straightforward or very Type II, different knowledgeable Phish fans will often have divergent views on the same version. And there is no obvious reason for these differing opinions. On our team of four, I counted numerous instances where we split 2 vs 2 on the same version. But the 2 vs 2 thing was not predictable in any way - some times, Marty and I went head to head against Andrew and Pete. Other times, Andrew and I felt one way and Pete and Marty the other. And there were several instances where Pete and I were drawn to a version which Marty and Andrew found uninspiring, or worse.

The diversity of opinions generated by the same version of a popular song like Ghost is what makes compiling a chart like this a challenge. Some will say we left great versions off this chart, and they have a very valid argument. To some fans, that missing version really is a great version. Maybe the four of didn't hear it that way, but that's just the opinion of four, and there are plenty of other Ghost fans out there with excellent and well-informed opinions. So in the end, all we could do was come up with the best chart that the four of us could agree to (and that in and of itself was a significant challenge at times!!).

I'd like to thank the people who posted comments to this blog and to the Forum thread with helpful suggestions for versions we initially missed, folks like @sstevee00, @MiguelSanchez, @n00b100, and @LawnMemo, as well as lots of others. I also like to suggest to any serious Ghost fans that you check out @LawnMemo's Daily Ghost blog, which provides detailed, entertaining and thoughtful information on every single performance of Ghost (or almost every version, I think he's still finishing up 2014). The information he provides is far more detailed than our jam charts allow for, so check it out if you haven't seen it before.

Lastly a sincere thank you to my colleagues @Doctor_Smarty, @uctweezer and @Westbrook. A week ago, we thought this project was a "wrap." Thanks to the fans out there, we realized that we needed to go back and listen to some more versions. And listen we did. These three guys are relentless and independent minded, yet cooperative, team oriented, and care only that if our first crack at a new chart for Ghost had some holes in it, that we do our collective best to fix the chart, and make it even better. Thanks guys!


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