Dear Jambands.com,
I would like to respond to the review of the Tibet House Benefit at Carnegie Hall. I attended the show, also mostly to see Trey, but as I watched it, I couldn't help but notice a really odd phenomenon among the performers. All of the white performers, among them Trey, David Byrne and Patti Smith, wore modern, black and white clothing. All of the "ethnic" performers, including Angelique Kidjo, Virginia Rodrigues, and R. Carlos Nakai, were dressed in colorful, "traditional" outfits. When I saw the show, it occurred to me that this served to visually reduce the "ethnic" performers from individual musicians to anonymous representatives of their respective groups. In his review of this show for jambands.com, Greg Sanseverino continues this same reduction. While he includes the names of the white performers: Trey, Phillip Glass, David Byrne, etc., he refers to the ethnic performers merely as "the Navajo" or "the Tibetan". He refers to Angelique Kidjo and Virginia Rodrigues as "a few Afro American singers, one traditional and one operatic", when in fact Kidjo is a native of Benin (which she stated several times during the performance) and Rodrigues is a native of Brazil. In addition, these women's music can definitely not be accurately distinguished as "traditional" vs. "operatic". They both sang songs that fit into each of these genres during the show. The focus of a review of the Tibet House Benefit for jambands.com should justifiably be on Trey's performance at the Benefit. Nevertheless, the review would have been much improved if Sanseverino had dignified each performer he wrote about by referring to them by name and not by ethnic group, and by making observations about their music that were at the very least factually accurate, if not insightful. Peace,
Hallie Montoya Tansey
hmt9@columbia.edu

Agreed. I think we could have done a bit more in that regard. I am passing your comments along to some of our regular contributors. I know we'll strive to do a better job in the future along these lines...

Here's another commentary on the Phish Lockout essays that have run over the past two months...

Hi. First off, let me say that I enjoy your website very much. I find it informative and entertaining. I especially love the multitude of ideas and opinions expressed, be they positive or negative. One column I found extremely enlightening was the column about the Phish lockout. Unlike many others, I found it fair and positive, not overly-critical. I too have been ambivalent about some recent Phish shows and I appreciated that someone had the balls to say this publicly on Jambands.com. Like the song says "Too much cake and ice cream . . . ."

On the other hand, I found Dan Alford's counterpoint to be close-minded, disrespectful, and one-sided. He labeled the original author a spoil-sport and a party pooper. Alford's article insinuates that only positive criticism is valid, and any "negativity" should be left at home. To me, this dogma limits the amount of intelligent conversation and communication we can have regarding our beloved Phish and instead makes us sound like a bunch of blind, complacent hippies, unable to think for ourselves and form our own opinions. While I agree that it is easy to criticize and to be overly hard on the band, it is ignorant to simply accept everything they do or say as gospel. Nowhere in the original article did the author criticize Phish for changing. He felt there was an increased level of tension between the band members and a relative lack of innovation in the music. Albeit, the type of music Phish has been playing recently is in many ways more esoteric than their previous hose or funk jams. However, there is a fine line between minimalism and laziness, (as well as spontaneity and disorganization) and many feel that Phish have, at times, crossed that line.

In defense of Phish, I think that their music now has the potential to be much more significant and meaningful than it ever was before. The increased fan base and age of the musicians have given the music an added weight and gravity that may have previously been missing. Some find this new heaviness enlightening and others miss the party. For myself, I am often torn between the two. To each his own. Overall, it is important to keep the lines of communication open. Negative opinions are just as valid as positive ones, and the fans have a right, even an obligation, to themselves and the band, to express their true feelings about the music. Shutting off a sector of the community because their opinions differ from yours is unhealthy for the scene, the fans, and the music.

Thanks for listening,
Tyler Shusterman ( tshusterman@mail.wesleyan.edu)