The following articles are responses and follow-ups to the first article in the list **What Does THE HOSE Mean to YOU?** by Charlie Dirksen. This thread is the best one I have ever read (and participated in) on rec.music.phish. The passion that we all have for Phish is evident from these posts. The articles are in the order I received them from Rosemary's Digest. Thanks for stopping by! -Dan Mielcarz Hit BACK on your browsers to return to my homepage; assuming you came from there, of course. ------------------------------ From: dirkch00 Subject: **What Does THE HOSE Mean to YOU?** Date: 2 May 1996 08:24:03 GMT Several people have written me recently asking about THE HOSE, and what exactly It means. The following does not profess to be Gospel. I would be *THRILLED* to hear what anyone has to say about their encounters with Hose, or their understanding of Its meaning. The Dead were masters of It, though It wasn't, and It isn't, what they would call "Hose." The concept of 'The Hose' originated, as far as I know (for all you care?), with Carlos Santana, and, notably, a conversation between Trey and Carlos on tour in July 1992. Apparently, in a conversation with Trey, Carlos described an aspect of his art of improvising. Carlos would imagine the audience as flowers, and his Music, which, far from coming from within him, was rather Something he was able to share with -- and to communicate to -- his audience. The Music flowed through his guitar (as if a hose) and watered the flowers of the audience. Carlos suggested, apparently -- and I might be incorrect here -- that "his" music was never "his" to begin with. "It" was something he was blessed enough to be able to communicate to others, but which never necessarily originated from within his own being. It was the fruit of the communication of his genius and his being with an Other; with Love, with Life, with Being Itself. The apotheosis of humanity through music, It penetrates the fiber of our existence and gloriously uplifts, strengthens and fulfills us. Many of us, anyway -- although I believe that everyone can experience It. This is *******MY******* understanding of IT. As regards the "Hose" in the sense that I colloquially employ the word, welll.. as a noun, it is simply a JAM that sends the soul skyward in a manner that is mystically astray from the expected and typical course. =^] For example, if, suddenly, in Bathtub Gin (see 8/13/93 -- my first experience of Phish Hose), the jam segues from being a typical Gin-sortof jam into a weekapaugian groove, that's Hose. In Antelope, it wouldn't be an "Antelope" if the jam didn't kick your ass and follow a fast-paced, tear-it-up style. This jamming isn't "Hose," since it would be akin to a normal Antelope; that is, what you'd _reasonably_ expect to hear within the confines of The Song. Hose in Antelope would be something completely unusual for Antelope: where the Antelope takes on a different form completely, and Becomes an Other musical endeavor ENTIRELY (or ALMOST entirely, in some cases, in my opinion.. see 10/24/95 Madison or a few Antelopes from Aug 93..). The 10/31/94 has one of my favorite Antelope jam segments, but it sure as hell isn't "Hose" as I understand It. Another example of Hose would be the Bowie from 12/29/94-2, which every aphishionado should hear (and I *REALLY* mean this.. I honestly have difficulty considering someone with hundreds of hours of Phish 'Experienced' who hasn't heard this jam.. it is simply must-hear, and well, in my opinion, must-like. Even if you think parts of It are weak -- musically or spiritually or both -- the Whole is not, and you simply must believe this, in order to be a credible 'phan' in MY eyes (there's your fascistic discussion-stormtrooping power move, Charles.. ;^)). The 12/29/94-2 Bowie takes on an Aura that was just unheard of for Bowie (outside of that other hose-Bowie from the Orpheum in MN, 11/26/94-2). Some more recent examples would be numerous versions of "Tweezer," such as 11/30/95 and 12/2/95, in which the jam transcended the typical tweezeresque groove and dived into something wholly un-tweezeresque and more antelopian; fiery, quick, and genuinely Intense rock that stirs your soul -- but in a manner wholly unlike a normal version of "Tweezer." Clearly, all of the "experimental" Tweezers fit this hose-mold, like Bangor 11/2/94 from 'A Live One' (aka ALO), and the FLeezer from last summer (the Finger Lakes Tweezer) -- to give merely two examples out of a wealth of possibilities. (THANK YOU Jon, Trey, Page, & Mike!!!!) Even Mike's Song has been hosed in the past year (see 11/11/95 and many others.. Trey's percussion kit has fueled the Hose, in my opinion). As regards the verb form, I am "hosed" whenever I encounter the above sort of JAM, and have the blessing to share in its majesty with the band. If other people want to define "hose" as simply 'a great jam,' that's fine, but I think that is using the term MUCH too loosely, since Phish is usually 'great,' and every show has some 'great jams.' Such a usage is an unconscionable bastardization of the meaning of Hose, in my opinion. I've always believed the 'Hose' to be reserved for those JAMs that Truly Mystify, and are such that transcend what one ordinarily hears and expects in a given tune. If you think that this is a purely subjective call, think again, and re-read the last sentence. Tunes/Songs, in order to be "tunes" or "songs," follow a Plan: a structure that controls and holds the melody and rhythm, the measures and the lyrics. For example, I haven't heard the Jazzfest show yet, but, based on comments, I haven't heard any mention of jams that were Especially Almighty given the songs that were played (even though the show was 'great,' setlist aside). Teasing a tune like 'Caravan' (which I love, and which I dream were brought back and jammed out) in Bowie isn't Hose, unless it is Severely JAMMED out, and isn't merely a light, touched-on theme within a soundly Bowie-esque framework. It must completely deviate from what would reasonably be expected of "David Bowie," the song by Phish. One might suggest that after 11/26 and 12/29/94 that it is reasonable to expect Hose in Bowie, but I submit that based on the Bowies since that time, such Hose will still be "Hose" if we are ever graced with It again, in that It will certainly not be "expected" based on the tpyical structure of "David Bowie," the Song. There hasn't, too my knowledge, been anything I'd call 'Hose' in Bowie in 1995. Just a lot of outrageously clever jams within a Bowie structure. Not to mention jams of other tunes, like 'Take Me to the River.' (see 11/21/95) Any JAM out of a Song, though, **IS** **HOSE**. Where the comfortable confines of a Song are transcended or abandoned, and mysteriously thrilling improvisation seizes the moment, with The Spirit we soar and are towed. If I'm not making any sense, I sincerely apologize, for I have honestly labored to suspend my unduly burdensome use of ambiguous language, and be modestly articulate on so Meaningful a topic. But when you are blessed enough to bear witness to true Hose, and hear It, you will know It (and you should share It with others!!). (see 12/9/95 YEM) I hope that all of you who have read this far will continue to seek, for it is only by seeking that you will find, and hear, It. And though It sure as 420 isn't Sparkle, every Phish song has potential to Hose us off... skipping diamonds in the big time... andrew (aka charlie, aka KingMoron420) ============================== ------------------------------ From: kim@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Kim Hannula) Subject: Re: **What Does THE HOSE Mean to YOU?** Date: 2 May 1996 15:52:24 GMT andrew/charlie/KingMoron/NomduJour described his objective understanding of the Reality known as the Hose ;^): >Several people have written me recently asking about THE >HOSE, and what exactly It means. (paraphrase: Carlos Santana said the music is the water, the audience are flowers, you are the hose) >watered the flowers of the audience. Carlos suggested, >apparently -- and I might be incorrect here -- that "his" [Trey's?] >music was never "his" to begin with. "It" was something >he was blessed enough to be able to communicate to others, >but which never necessarily originated from within his own >being. >As regards the "Hose" in the sense that I colloquially >employ the word, welll.. as a noun, it is simply a JAM >that sends the soul skyward in a manner that is mystically >astray from the expected and typical course. =^] ...The Hose is not an excellent jam where excellent jams always occur, and the Hose is not a Really Cool Tease (weak paraphrase; sorry chandrew...) >Any JAM out of a Song, though, **IS** **HOSE**. Where >the comfortable confines of a Song are transcended or >abandoned, and mysteriously thrilling improvisation seizes >the moment, with The Spirit we soar and are towed. Ok, so if I'm reading this right (and I fall in the catagory of People Who Haven't Heard Enough Phish and therefore missed the point of 90% of the examples), the Hose needs two things: (1) spontaneity, and (2) Transcendence. My take on the Hose overlaps somewhat with andrew's, I think. But I imagine it from a musician's perspective. The Hose is the process of relinquishing Control over the music. The transcending of Ego. Musical zazen. What it feels like to fly. Surrendering to the Air. How is that different from andrew's definition? Well, I have no idea what the Hose should *sound* like. I mean, it might sound like Noise. It might sound like an unplanned tease of another song (the fingers take over, and suddenly something you've played a thousand times before pours out unexpectedly). I suspect that I would agree with Charlie's examples if I heard them | -- YEM from 12/9/95 certainly felt like a spontaneously exploration live. But then again, MY opinions are all subjective ;^) ;^) ;^) On the other hand, predetermined songs -- no matter how unusual or well-played -- are not the Hose as I understand it. I do not think that the White Album set at Halloween involved the Hose, for example (or the Gamehoist show, or the break-out of Timber Ho this summer, or...) Someday I would like to listen to an outrageous jam on tape with people who hear things I don't...since I never time tapes when I listen to them, I often don't know what's being described in others' reviews... Kim ============================== ------------------------------ From: Jonathan Price Subject: Re: **What Does THE HOSE Mean to YOU?** Date: 2 May 1996 21:35:25 GMT hey now to me, the hose involves first and foremost spontaneity. yeah, i know - every minute phish is playing they are being spontaneous. but the hose is dealing with a different sort of spontaneity - a very special spontaneity. i think it involves smooth, picture-perfect, and unlikely transitions (although it is not limited to transitions). absolutely killer and out of this world jams one a particular song can qualify as hose - when the jam goes somewhere that it has absolutely never gone before. like charlie said, the providence bowie and madison antelope are great examples of this. when the hose involves transitions, the key is that they are unpredictable and that it is likely that the same transition will never occur again. this seems to be the case with the greatest hose moments. for example, my brother took my mom to her first show last november, and that night they happened to witness a musical voyage that went something like this: stash-->manteca-->stash-->dogfacedboy-->stash. i don't think mom really knew what was going on, i.e. that the crowd was getting heavily hosed for about 40 minutes :-) but it just goes to show you that you have to be ready for the hose anytime, cause ya never know when it'll happen. the hose is a personal thing, so i'll shut up about it now, right after i give you my list of recomended hose moments: above mentioned stash fest from 11-14-95 above mentioned 12-29-94 bowie and 10-24-95 antelope 10-22-94 tweezer-->wilson 6-26-95 DWD-->free 10-24-95 vocal jam-->sleeping monkey 11-25-94 2001-->mike's-->simple-->harpua-->weekapaug-->mango 5-7-94 entire set II 8-13-93 gin-->ya mar 12-29-95 gin-->real me-->gin 12-31-94 mike's-->buffalo bill 11-16-95 simple-->timber ho! enjoy, jonathan ============================== ------------------------------ From: dnooter@haverford.edu (Dan Nooter) Subject: Re: **What Does THE HOSE Mean to YOU?** Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 15:58:31 -0500 In article <4m9rf3$din@agate.berkeley.edu>, dirkch00 wrote: > As regards the "Hose" in the sense that I colloquially > employ the word, welll.. as a noun, it is simply a JAM > that sends the soul skyward in a manner that is mystically > astray from the expected and typical course. =^] For (etc.) I agree with most of what Charlie (or Andrew or whatever the hell he's calling himself now ;^) wrote. The distinction between a Hose and just an Amazing Jam is a question of who achieves transcendence. Let me elaborate. Often Phish will play something which will simply kick your ass; sometimes they'll take to to a "teary-eyed, transcendant" plane. Imo, Jerry was the master of conjuring this transcendence. He had such perfect control of the ethereal strands of music he'd weave around us. But that precisely the point. Even in this music which is completely overwhelming us, it's not overwhelming Jerry. He's in control of it, and guiding us along. As amazing as the 11/5/93 Shining Star (that I just finished listening to) is, it's not a Hose. In a Hose, the music itself becomes master; the performer himself is transcended. This is why it's called a "hose": because the impetus of the music is no longer simply the artist, but something above and beyond the artist which is flowing through him. The best example I can give is from Harry Hood. Harry is almost always transcendent; we expect it to be. Rarely is there a Harry Hose, however. 11/12/94 Kent State is an exception to this. The jam starts out with some incredibly beautiful quiet noodling from Trey, a la Spokane (only 11 months earlier). The rest of the band starts to come in at about 9:30, and the jam starts to build as usual. It's a great jam, but nothing you would call a Hose yet. At 10:10, the jam starts getting a bit unusual, but it's right back on track by 10:25, and it seems like it's going to progress like a nornal amazing beautiful transcendent Hood, right? Wrong. At 11:30, Fish starts up this amazing drum beat and he just keeps going with it. Pounding along a beat, faster and faster. By 12:20 he speeding it up practically faster than Trey can play. And he continues to just POUND the drums. At 12:45, HE IS JUST FUCKING POUNDING!!!! It's like a frieght train. And tho' the band is still playing Hood, it's like they're no longer in control of it. Like this train, it's now spun completely out of control and there's no way they can stop it. The music is just some incredible drum smashing and soloing--as if Trey and Fish were possessed. Incredible. This is easily my favorite Hood, and the only Hood which I feel comfortable applying the term "Hose" to. The reason I'm not accepting grovels is that alas, my copy cuts at the 14:19 mark. In all the tapes I've evr heard, I've never experienced a crueler cut in my life. It is sheer agony. (Luckily, I'm getting an upgrade ;). Anyway, I encourage you all to seek out this Hood. Wow!!!!!!! Anyway, that's a Hose. Dan =^) ****************************************************************************** * "Nuthin' left to do ** Daniel Nooter ** "Don't you see anything * * but smile, smile ** 50 Hannum Drive #1C ** that you'd like * * smile!!!"--G.D. ** Ardmore, PA 19003 ** to try?"--Phish * ****************************************************************************** :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-)** SMILE! **(-:(-:(-:(-:(-:(-:(-:(-:(-:(-: ******************* ============================== ------------------------------ From: Daniel.W.Mielcarz@dartmouth.edu (Dan Mielcarz) Subject: Re: **What Does THE HOSE Mean to YOU?** Date: 3 May 1996 05:44:40 GMT The man of many names, dirkch00@dons.ac.usfca, wrote: >Several people have written me recently asking about THE >HOSE, and what exactly It means. The following does not >profess to be Gospel. I would be *THRILLED* to hear what >anyone has to say about their encounters with Hose, or >their understanding of Its meaning. The Dead were masters >of It, though It wasn't, and It isn't, what they would >call "Hose." [Good stuff snipped, because the article isn't on my news server] My take on the Hose (which I capitalize because of its great importance in my life): There are probably two different types of Hose, or two different definititons depending on who you are in relation to the music (ie the music maker or the audience). Since I know a hell of a lot more about being Hosed in the audience, I'll try to explain it. I've actually been thinking about this a lot before this thread came up, because of some stuff I've read for a philosophy of religion course (ahh, the joys of humanities requirements for a science major). We just started this book called "Religious Experience" by Wayne Proudfoot. He devotes the beginning of the book to this German and his book "On Religion: Speeches to the Cultured Among its Despisers" from 1800. The guy's name was Schleiermacher and he wrote the book in order to try to enlighten his creative, intelligent, skeptic about God friends(a description that fits many of "us," to make a sweeping, elitist generalization), and prove to them that God (or some being) exists. Okay, enough background. Here's a quote from Schleiermacher's book: "Sense and object mingle and unite, then each returns to its place, and the object rent from sense is a perception, and you rent from yourselves, a feeling. It is this earlier moment I mean, which you always experience yet never experience...It is the holy wedlock of the Universe with the incarnated Reason for a creative, productive embrace. It is immediate, raised above all error and understanding." That, to me, is the way things are when I get "Hosed." Proudfoot goes on to say that Schleiermacher thought that Science, Morality and Reason/Rational Thinking are separate from Religion/Feeling. Or rather that the first three cannot be used to explain religion/feeling. Proudfoot also says that this feeling is "a feeling of absolute or total dependence upon a power that is distinct from the world." This power, I think, is the music that Phish "directs" through the Hose. It is pure emotion; untarnished by rational analysis. Just to restate it, the analogy of the Hose is that the music is already there, but Phish (or whoever) shoots it through a hose and sprays the audience. The Hose doesn't happen very often; like people have said. It's not in every Harry Hood, not in every 30 min. Tweezer, not in any Bouncing ;). Is it really that surprising that true "Hoses" are rare, considering the description above? I don't mean to say that when there is no Hose, it is bad Phish. I mean, the music can make you feel good, even without getting Hosed (for example every Phish song I've heard). BUT, a "true" Hose (IMHO) is when you cannot explain the way you feel with reason (nor with words, really). It is a truly religious event; "senses and object mingle and unite." What I've actually come to realize is that the only spiritual feelings I've ever had in my life have been at Phish shows. This might mean that I need to get out more;^) but I don't think so. What it really means to me is this: if there is a God or Supreme Being or some Force or something beyond our reason, Phish has a direct line to it. For ME, at least. I'm not saying that Phish does this for everyone, or that they KNOW what's out there. Hell, [insert bad band here] might do this for some people (although,if Trent Reznor is reading this, I do think some amount of talent is required). I'm just trying to explain a feeling that I have that I can't do without resorting to some transcendental explanation. So, I guess that's my definition of the Hose. Oh yeah, one more thing: drugs are NOT needed to experience the Hose. They can be fun now and again, but it seems to me that there is something false about a spiritual event occur with the help of THC. THAT, my friends, is another discussion altogether. And Charlie (or whatever your name may be), if you want to hear a Bowie from 95 that I felt Hosed me while I was there, check out Portland, 12/11/95. Even if it doesn't have IT, it's still a damn good jam. Well, if anyone managed to read the whole post, I'd love to your response: good, bad, ugly? E-mail replies only please. Thanks for reading. | -Dan ============================== ------------------------------ From: hagst3+@pitt.edu (Herschel A Gelman) Subject: Re: **What Does THE HOSE Mean to YOU?** Date: 3 May 1996 03:13:12 GMT The Man Known as Charlie (a.k.a. Andrew, a.k.a. Charlie420) said... | Apparently, in a conversation with Trey, Carlos described | an aspect of his art of improvising. Carlos would imagine | the audience as flowers, and his Music, which, far from | coming from within him, was rather Something he was able | to share with -- and to communicate to -- his audience. | The Music flowed through his guitar (as if a hose) and | watered the flowers of the audience. This isn't quite the way I'd heard it. I always thought that the hose idea was how Carlos viewed Phish's jams, and used it to describe their playing (as opposed to using it to describe Carlos' own playing). | As regards the "Hose" in the sense that I colloquially | employ the word, welll.. as a noun, it is simply a JAM | that sends the soul skyward in a manner that is mystically | astray from the expected and typical course. =^] [8/13/93 Gin example, 12/29/94 Bowie example, etc...] Another quote that I think summarizes Charlie's position well: | Where the comfortable confines of a Song are transcended or abandoned, | and mysteriously thrilling improvisation seizes the moment, with The | Spirit we soar and are towed. You're basically saying that the hose is essentially when the song gets much more "out there" than usual for Phish. And the results sound good. :) I would completely disagree with you on that. I think that a "standard" beautiful Hood or Antelope fits the idea of the Hose much better than, say, the Finger Lakes Tweezer. In my mind, the Hose is when Trey is standing there with his head thrown back and his eyes closed, wailing away. Basically, I consider a Hose moment to be when a band member is soloing, and producing some great music. On the other hand, the collective improvisation that leads to such wonderful moments as the Providence Bowie (i.e., what you call Hose) is a different thing entirely, which I wouldn't call The Hose. This type of improvisation involves all the band members listening to each other, and moving the music around to new and interesting levels. IMO, this takes much more conscious effort on Phish's part than what the Hose implies... I can't see using the Hose imagery as a way to explain these jams. Hmm. I think maybe it can be summarized best as saying that the Hose jams are simpler things which get you on a more emotional level, while the moments where the songs take off and become something else entirely are more intellectual (??) and a result of more conscious decisions than the former. Comments? | -- Herschel "And those flamers said that people weren't allowed to disagree with Charlir3uu~92-5?_ NO CARRIER ============================== ------------------------------ From: Nick Johnston Subject: Charlie's hosin' Date: 3 May 1996 02:56:25 GMT AndrewdirkMoronkillmeim@aol.com420 wrote | Apparently, in a conversation with Trey, Carlos described | an aspect of his art of improvising. Carlos would imagine | the audience as flowers, and his Music, which, far from Before I nitpick this particular idea, I shall first restate that the above is CHARLIE'S understanding of IT. And there's not a damn thing wrong with it. What follows is MY understanding. First of all, I always thought that it went a little differently. The story I read about the Hose (in an old Musician magazine interview/article that's just wonderful with some great Hose quotes) was that this whole Hose metephor kinda dawned on Carlos as he was watching the boys rock out during their 45 minute opening slot, and Carlos told Trey, and Trey used it far and wide to sum up in a word what IT is all about. But the feeling I have is that it just CAME to Carlos while watching Phish, and it wasn't something that he had given much thought to before (not the "music comes from another place" idea, just the "you're the hose" metaphor). My favorite part about all of this is that it hit Carlos while watching one of the dinky 45 minute '92 opening sets. If Carlos had been present for any of the later legendary runs (insert fav show here), I think he would have come up with something a bit stronger then the Hose ("The Geyer" is a bit too much, but y'all hopefully caught my meaning so it doesn't really matter :) | As regards the "Hose" in the sense that I colloquially | employ the word, welll.. as a noun, it is simply a JAM | that sends the soul skyward in a manner that is mystically | astray from the expected and typical course. =^] Noun, yes. But to me, the Hose is more than just a JAM. It's most obvious, most clearly realized, most pure form is when Phish is constructing one of THOSE jams before our eyes and ears. The Hose is more than something that *anybody* can tap into, not just Phish (read the liner notes for Bela's "Acoustic Planet" album). The Hose (FOR ME) is the thing that pulls me to outrageous distances, just on the off chance that I'll get to witness it. All those people travelling across the country for the 3-setters in Plattsburgh (or wherever) are doing so just so they MIGHT witness the Hose. The Hose is what will suck people across the ocean for ONE lousy club gig in Amsterdam. Literally, the Hose is just (just? ha!) a JAM, but spiritually, it's what pulls us all to the ends of the earth to be a part of it, to bathe ourselves in whatever comes gushing out. That's why people go ON TOUR. Like it or not, the Hose is the cause of the hated "tour rat" syndrome, because, for the most part, the Hose is dragging along these people too. Are you filled with an amazing excitement when the band announces some dates within a five state radius from your house? Does this seemingly trvial (to others) knowledge make you shake with joy? Don't be ashamed to admit it! Three sets a day for two days in Vermont? A show in Hershey? I went apeshit when I heard! I was smiling for long afterwards! It's THE HOSE! I want to feel it again LIVE and IN THE MOMENT. On tape it's great, but feeling it live is what it's about, because part of the experience is the knowledge (be it conscious or unconscious) that those four guys on stage are creating it as you hear it. 'Cause that's what jamming's about, and that's when whatever comes through the Hose is freshest. | Some more recent examples would be numerous versions of | "Tweezer," such as 11/30/95 and 12/2/95, in which the jam | transcended the typical tweezeresque groove and dived into | something wholly un-tweezeresque and more antelopian; | fiery, quick, and genuinely Intense rock that stirs your | soul -- but in a manner wholly unlike a normal version of | "Tweezer." As odd as it may sound to a few of you, I count those 15-odd minutes during the 12/2/95 Tweezer as some of the best in my (albeit short) LIFE. I was there, I was watching it happen, and I was feeling it with the few thousand others packed in beside me. My soul was far from stirred. My soul is stirred during a typically awe-inspiring Hood or Antelope. My soul was far past being stirred that night...it was boiling over and cascading out of my eyes and pores. | If other people want to define "hose" as simply 'a great | jam,' that's fine, but I think that is using the term MUCH | too loosely, since Phish is usually 'great,' and every | show has some 'great jams.' Amen to that, Mr. Dirksen, amen to that. It really does sap credibility away when folks start tossing around "the Hose" in a show review too often, as elitist as that may sound. Anyone who has been truly moved and cleansed by the Hose knows better then to say something like "yeah, every Possum in the last month has just hosed the shit out of me!" unless it's absolutely positively true (which it hasn't been yet). The Hose is not a term that should be bound for the overusage graveyard (right next to "awesome"). | Any JAM out of a Song, though, **IS** **HOSE**. Where | the comfortable confines of a Song are transcended or | abandoned, and mysteriously thrilling improvisation seizes | the moment, with The Spirit we soar and are towed. The Hose isn't confined to an unexpected jam out of a song. Just because improvised doesn't mean it's golden. example: 11/29/95 in Nashville, set two - Bela steps onstage with his banjo during Taste/Fog and noodles a bit with the band. The song is ending, he and Trey strike up an impromptu "Heart and Soul" jam that goes for maybe a minute. Hearing it sure was cool, but it was no Hose. And, speaking of Bowie, here's my other theory. The Hose, I belive, comes to a listener in a sort of set of stages. Had 12/2/95 been my first show, I don't know if I would have caught that Hose anywhere as near as I actually did. Similarly, what moved me almost to tears at my first show was a Bowie that to me today sounds great, but not at all Hose-like. It was 7/15/94, and the Bowie jam was exquisite, and then from out of the blue, each bandmember locks into a few bars of Jessica (Allmans of course), after some scattered teasing all night. Sounds like no big deal, but I went completely nuts, since at the time Jessica was a song that really touched something inside me. Similar to your own soul-opening experience with Also Sprach Zarathustra, if I may bring it pretty moved. But today I'll bet Zarathustra doesn't bring anywhere near that amount of joy when you hear it. I'd say you were Hosed, becuase something clicked inside you that locked perfectly with the music. You went crazy, and the band played on - THAT is the Hose, and the Hose takes more than one form. It does not always become clear in the middle of a jam in one of the traditional "jam songs" (Tweezer, MikeS, etc., etc.) | And though It sure as 420 isn't Sparkle, every Phish song | has potential to Hose us off... There ya go! ;) Thanks fer another great thread that has once again brought back some of the best memories I have to remember. And sorry if my ramblings were/are incomprehensible or seem mad. Nick -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "If I had a nickel for evey cigarette your mom smoked, I'd be dead." - Donna (Twin Peaks) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================== ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Icculus3@aol.com Subject: Stages of Hose (was Re: **What Does THE HOSE Mean to YOU?**) Date: 3 May 1996 21:48:22 GMT Kim Hannula wrote: |Ok, so if I'm reading this right (and I fall in the catagory of People |Who Haven't Heard Enough Phish and therefore missed the point of 90% |of the examples), the Hose needs two things: (1) spontaneity, and (2) |Transcendence. I'm glad Charlie420 brought up this thread and I'm glad he phrased it the way he did because it make sense this way. Through this thread there has been debate about what Carlos actually said. It is my understanding, that Audience = garden of flowers, Phish = Hose and Water = Phish sending their music to the audience and letting us "blossom". This couldn't have been a worse paraphrase, but I hope it conveys a point. Now here is where I need to add my 2 cents: Why are we putting limitations on what the hose has to fall under? Carlos saw Phish transporting their music through the audience. Thus, the hose analogy. So, all of Phish's music CAN fall under the hose category. It seems to me that the hose is what we want it to be. Phish is "hosing" us with all different styles and emotions and we choose which one best makes us "grow" (reach a heightened state of enjoyment). However, since almost all of us get our dosage of hose from transcendental and spontanious jams, we associate this type of music with the hose, which is ok because it has become commonplace to call a jammin "hose". So, if hose adapted the definition of transcendental music. Then I suggest we go further and break it up into two more categories. We all have experienced these two feeling at one point or another, they are common feelings and reactions our body does when we hear Phish. Myself and someone I was talking with via private e-mail (I forget who) picked the best two words to describe these feelings. Here they are: Stage 1 "Bliss"- the common reaction to Phishs more beautiful songs. Bliss is the feeling where you close your eyes and you are at peace with yourself. You may feel like you are weightless, floating or any other reaction (it depends on the person). However the most important part of Bliss is that you are in an EXTREMELY relaxed and peaceful state. Bliss is usually brought on by slow, peaceful, melodic, quiet noodling and jamming. Songs where many people commmonly reach the state of Bliss: Middle sections of Hood Curtain Tela Slave SITM Much of Yem Famous Mockingbird Divided Sky Reba Ester Theme Stage 2 "Combustion" - Combustion is the state where you are dancing like crazy, the music is building up, you are sweaty and with each note you just build up energy until point where you are about to explode. (Hence, the name combustion.) Combustion comes about with crazy, fiery, fast, machince gun, built up, orgasmic jammin. Songs where many people commmonly reach the state of "Combustion": End of Bowie (build up part) End of Hood (Orgasmic part) Chalkdust Maze Antelope SOAM Fluffhead (Fluffy Fluffy Fluffy Fluffy Fluffy Fluffy Head!) Possum Note many songs go Bliss --> Combustion (Example: Reba, Hood) So I think Hose can be put into the following hierarchy, I hope this might make things clearer rather than confuse things more: Music I Hose I I Bliss Combustion I hope you guys can associate with this, if you can I'd love to hear your thoughts. Jesse ******************************************** "And I come say to myself that oh my god, war is a very bad thing. War is to drink urine, to die and all that uniform that they are giving us to wear is just to decieve us. And anybody who thinks that uniform is a fine thing is a stupid man who does not know what is good or bad or not good at all or very bad at all" | -Nigerian actor and activist-Ken Saro- Wiwa ********************************************* ============================== ------------------------------ From: hagst3+@pitt.edu (Herschel A Gelman) Subject: Re: **What Does THE HOSE Mean to YOU?** Date: 4 May 1996 01:51:37 GMT Charles Andrew Dirksen (dirkch00@ac.usfca.edu) had written: | This is **IT** and **IT** can happen in any song at any time to any one | individual. THE HOSE is NOT **IT**. The Hose is a style of | improvisational majesty that is transcendent and CAN give **IT** to people | but is NOT, repeat NOT, ****IT****. | | My original post was trying to make the point that the Hose is not | something that is so subjective as to render it meaningless. It is | something that everyone who has heard the 12/29/94-2 Bowie, 6/16/95 | Runaway Jim, the various insane experimental Tweezers, etc. can relate to. I think that our differences of opinion on the Hose exist because you are defining Hose the way you use the term. However, I don't think that this definition of Hose really matches the way Carlos used it. If I go with your definition of Hose, then I agree that it's only present in rare cases such as the 12/29 Bowie, 6/16 Jim, Murat Gin, etc. The difference is that I'm going on a different definition of Hose, which I think is closer to the way Carlos originally meant it. In that case, it can be present in almost any Hood, or Divided Sky, or even Julius. I think that pretty much any Hood contains playing from Trey which is a better example of the music flowing through his guitar (a watery gush of melody, or something) than the more complex improvisations are. And, yes, neither are IT, although both Hose definitions allow for the IT to be within the Hose somewhere... ============================== ------------------------------ From: dirkch00@dons.ac.usfca.edu ( Charles Andrew Dirksen) Subject: Re: **What Does THE HOSE Mean to YOU?** Date: 3 May 1996 16:39:15 GMT Jeremy C Graves (jgraves@world.std.com) wrote: : Your point was well stated and I agree with most of what you said. I have : a slight issue with the above assertion, however, that the hose only : arrives when songs run wildly astray of their "normal" patterns, or that : such a deviation necessarily indicates that the hose has arrived (Forgive No no no no... I have led people astray!!!! The hose is NOT, repeat not, **IT**. IT can happen at any time, to any one, in any Phish song at all. The Hose is something intensely less subjective, in my opinion. For example, and this replies to some comments of other regular posters: The Also Sprach of 2001: that sure as shit wasn't Hose, and I sure as hell wasn't hosed during it. I GOT ****IT**** WITH RESPECT TO PHISH when I heard that, but I was NOT, repeat NOT, HOSED. There must be a distinction made in order for it to be a word of any value. Herschel's remarks about the Hose coming during any normal song is precisely the opinion that I think trivializes the term completely. Why bother even mentioning the Hose if it is something so common as to come up in even the most dreary of Sparkles. The Hose is NOT a predictable "sound" -- it can sound like shit, and it has! it is not "predictable" by its spontaneous nature. : prefer a more esoteric definition. "The hose", for me, is not one thing : but a culmination of things which, when added together, bring about a : sense of transcendence through music. It is a very personal and : spiritual experience where all of a sudden you are inside the band's soul : and they are inside yours, where you suddenly feel completely and utterly : connected to every other person lucky enough to witness and appreciate : what is transpiring before them. This is **IT** and **IT** can happen in any song at any time to any one individual. THE HOSE is NOT **IT**. The Hose is a style of improvisational majesty that is transcendent and CAN give **IT** to people but is NOT, repeat NOT, ****IT****. My original post was trying to make the point that the Hose is not something that is so subjective as to render it meaningless. It is something that everyone who has heard the 12/29/94-2 Bowie, 6/16/95 Runaway Jim, the various insane experimental Tweezers, etc. can relate to. And I think this is CRITICAL, because if the Hose is **IT** it is effectively meaningless when reviewing shows. "We were Hosed during the Sparkle.." Yeah, RIGHT! That was not ever happened.. but it could. : For example: Slave 12/30/93-2: Portland, ME : This song was the culmination of one hell of a terrific night of music, This is one of my top 5 fave Phish shows, and the Slave is fantatastic, but it sure as hell isn't Hose in my book. It is a kickass Slave. : Another example: Down w/ Disease 12/12?/95-2: Providence, RI : This was a valiant attempt by the band to stir things up in an otherwise : average show. It was a very long and jammed-out version, completely : departing from the original pattern of the song. However, the collective : emotion/passion of 12/30/93 or 12/29/94 (Bowie) are fairly lacking. It's : a great jam, but it is not a hose. We disagree. I think this is a Hose moment if ever there was one. Just because you and your friends thought it was lame (and I think parts of it certainly are lame), doesn't make it any less a Hose jam. The Hose will never affect all audience members the same way, but the point is that it is a style of majestic spontaneous improv that bewilders and which is unpredictable... This point is critical, because if people confuse the Hose with getting **IT** then the Hose is worthless as a term for the community. Because getting **IT** can happen in even the most plebeian of songs. The Hose, by definition, cannot be just another Sparkle, just another Bouncin, just another Horse Silent.. (a HOSE SILENT.. ;) imagine that). charlie ============================== ------------------------------ From: kim@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Kim Hannula) Subject: Re: **What Does THE HOSE Mean to YOU?** Date: 4 May 1996 00:38:58 GMT Sooooo.... If the band gave up all control of the jam, no ego, nomind, etc, and what came out was Sparkle (or Bouncing, or SITM, or Rift, or ...), played note-for-note as written... would that be the Hose? (By Mr Dirksen's definition, I mean) Kim ============================== ------------------------------ From: "jlink@email.unc.edu" Subject: The Hose Date: 4 May 1996 04:28:15 GMT Taking a break from studying and lurking in the land of the Digests. With all the recent hose discussions, I thought I'd post a few tidbits from a Dupree's Diamond News interview with Trey from last Spring. In the intro, the interviewer references the Carlos Santana quote: "When Phish played with Carlos Santana's band at a gig in 1992, Santana told the affable copper-headed guitarist, 'When you guys were playing, I was picturing the the audience as this sea of flowers, the music was the water, and you guys were the hose.'" Anyway, there's the origin. Later on in the interview, Trey seems to describe how the hose feels to him. The interviewer(Steve Silberman) asked him what the pauses in Divided Sky felt like. Trey got to talking and came to this point: "I had a really incredible experience once when we were playing in Chicago. It was a really special night, and I was envisioning the music flying around the room. You know the concept of being the tube, and the music is flowing through you? I was really open, we were doing Divided Sky and I felt like the music was these sheets that were zinging across the air in front of my face. All I had to do to play was jump on one, and let it do the playing. I got to that section of Divided Sky where we usually do a pause, and I realized that just because I wasn't playing notes with my hands didn't mean I still couldn't be a vehicle for this music that was there. I decided I was going to have the same feeling as when I feel the music going through me and coming out through my guitar, but without making any noticeable sound. I started imagining the music zipping out through the middle of my chest into the audience, and right when I started doing that the place erupted. No joke. It was the wildest thing. We were standing up there for 45 seconds, motionless, with no sound, and I realized I could continue jamming in silence. I did it, and the place went, 'RAHHH." It was the coolest. I was writing in my journal about it for a week." Well, that's most of the quote. He goes on about the same type thing in Foam when the music gets quieter and quieter. It's a really good interview. Thought this would give a little input on what the "Hoser" feels like as opposed to the "Hosee." Two of my personal favorite hosings in-person were the oft-mentioned Providence Bowie and the unmentioned (to this point) Walnut Creek Runaway Jim. Two of the best showeres I've had in my life. Hope this adds to some of the discussion out there. Back to lurking, Jason (Interview quoted without permission) ============================== ------------------------------ From: dirkch00@dons.ac.usfca.edu ( Charles Andrew Dirksen) Subject: Re: **What Does THE HOSE Mean to YOU?** Date: 4 May 1996 00:03:38 GMT Herschel A Gelman (hagst3+@pitt.edu) wrote: : Basically, I consider a Hose moment to be when a band member is soloing, : and producing some great music. Then the Hose is completely a meaningless designation. Every show I have ever heard qualifies, then, and so, we might as well just call the Hose "great." That's not informative... I am thinking about how to describe special Phish jams, so that people who haven't heard the show can know that something special went on. By your definition, Herschel, there is nothing special about the Hose, since it is simply "great music," which I've heard in every Phish show I've heard and seen. charlie ============================== ------------------------------ From: Alek Grabinski Subject: Response to Herschel's HOSE moment Date: 3 May 1996 22:28:55 GMT hagst3+@pitt.edu (Herschel A Gelman) wrote, on the topic raised by KingMoron420: |Basically, I consider a Hose moment to be when a band member is soloing, |and producing some great music. If this is your definition of the Hose, then the other bandmembers are not part of the Hose; they're the hoe, the trowel, the WeedWhacker and the Garden Weasel. |On the other hand, the collective improvisation that leads to such |wonderful moments as the Providence Bowie (i.e., what you call Hose) is a |different thing entirely, which I wouldn't call The Hose. This type of |improvisation involves all the band members listening to each other, and |moving the music around to new and interesting levels. |IMO, this takes much more conscious effort on Phish's part than what the |Hose implies... I can't see using the Hose imagery as a way to explain |these jams. MAJOR disagreement. The Hose occurs when the band members *transcend* _conscious_ listening, and take it to the next level, the visceral level, to the little lizard portion of the brain which connects us to the universal rhythm, where the Music on the Other Side is flowing full force through the fingers and the feet and the hands, with no *consciousness* to filter or strain what's coming through. In the very limited exposure I've had to being a participant in the generation of Hose-like music (limited mainly by the fact that my neural signals must usually take a detour into the "developed" portion of my brain), the most transcendent moments are characterized by a complete loss of temporality, of awareness of time and space and self. Now THAT'S good eatin'! On the audience side of things, I've been blessed with the good fortune to attend (off the top of my head) three legendary shows: 8.20.93 (Red Rocks, in particular the Antelope, which was my first truly religious moment at a Phish show), 12.30.93 (Portland, ME, the whole dang second set), and 12.1.94 (Salem, OR, TweezeFest, with segues to die for). Each of them is special for a separate reason. The RR Antelope was a tension-and-release exercise taken to obscenely effective heights; the CCCC show was beautiful, desireable set of songs played to perfection; and Salem was the delicious tingling brought on by the initial Tweezer lick and the anticipation of something great to come - notably, flawless transitions from one song to another (which I studiously label as '>>' or even '>>>' transitions, as opposed to the commonplace [and, imho, overused] '>' to denote the lack of silence between songs). Another example of what I consider to be classic Hose is 11.30.94 II, which has a continuous stretch of insanity encompassing Antelope, My Sweet One, and Fixin' to Die. In this particular instance the segues are not only unanticipated (in Salem I could tell that a jam was winding down and that a new song was coming up) but the song selection itself was unexpected. Fixin' to Die?! MS1? Going into and out of Antelope two or three times? Good gawd, bring back the Big Black Furry Antelope from Mars! In summary: 1. The Hose is a transcendent experience for the band and for the audience (well, me, anyway). 2. The band's transcendence implies that they have gone beyond conscious listening and call-and-response, and have melded into a single sound-crafting apparatus. 3. The state of mind brought on by Hoseness allows and encourages spontaneous influencing of the Sound, not by sculpting it, but rather by opening the possibilities of "tap" locations. Oh goodness, I've suddenly gone well beyond logic and reason and am beginning to sound like Carlos Castaneda. I know you all know what I mean! DownerMan ============================== ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dirkch00@dons.ac.usfca.edu ( Charles Andrew Dirksen) Subject: Re: **What Does THE HOSE Mean to YOU?** Date: 5 May 1996 01:27:09 GMT Ivan Troy (it002c@uhura.cc.rochester.edu) wrote: : that the "Golden Hose." Now, if I understand this correctly, when we : describe say, the 4.9.94 Weekapaug, we can say, "Wow, we were hosed! That : was great and intense! That gave us "IT." Thus, we can use IT and Hose : interchangably. When we talk about, say, the Prov Bowie or the Dayton **IT** and Hose do often coincide (and usually do for people with even a minimal experience with Phish, since we get off on unusual, inspiring, unpredictable improv)..... If Hose were **IT**, then it becomes a purely subjective term like **IT**, capable of reaching one individual during any phish song at any time. Even in Bouncin. (hi shelly) I like the idea of the Golden Hose, though.. =^] perhaps this Hose/**IT** and Golden Hose distinction does have merit, given my original post's confounding of **IT** and The Hose to a great extent (though not wholly, upon a re-reading of that post). It is obvious, though, that I got the Hose Story all wrong.. or almost all wrong. As I said in the other Hose thread, though, Carlos' definition makes every Phish show Hose, because the Hose **IS** Phish. But the Golden Hose.. now that's something Else.. =^] The more I think about it, Ivan, I think you have an excellent point!! Perhaps (as IVAN suggests) we can form a concensus around using the word "HOSED" (or Hose) to describe when we were personally affected to a significantly spiritual degree as to a specific version.... but then reserve The Golden Hose for some intersubjectively valid JAM that is spontaneous, unpredictable, and improvisationally special. : integrity of his idea. Then when we need to clarify b/c of Prov Bowie's or : Niagara Weekapaugs, then we can use Trey's term "Golden Hose." SO, how does Again, Ivan.. I think you have found it!! I think I could handle this.. ;) Of course, wouldn't matter anyway. "The Hose" has already been bastardized based on my original conception of it. It might as well be when we get **IT** in a Phish jam or song, and leave the Golden Hose expression as something more intersubjectively valid for the purposes of telling others about Those Truly Special Jams That Everyone Should Hear At All Costs. Yeah, I'll flow with this one... =^] A true concensus-builder in our midst! I'll follow your view, Ivan.. charlie ============================== ------------------------------ From: akeeton@cs.ucsd.edu (Allan Keeton) Subject: Re: "Hose" Date: 4 May 96 16:16:50 GMT >rich >If WE are the FLOWERS and PHISH is the HOSE with MUSIC as the WATER, the >WHO is the GARDENER? Uummmm, the Dude of Life? snorkle, snorkle ...Allan I am the LAWN GNOME. ============================== ------------------------------ From: "Gustin W. Prudner" Subject: The Hose Date: 3 May 1996 03:25:18 GMT I remember reading about this a few years back. Santana made the realization about the hose while watching Phish when they were opening up for him. While they were playing he had the vision that the audience are the flowers, Phish are the hose and the music is the water. Phish was merely the medium for which the music flowed through. I wished I could find the original magazine, but until I do here is an interview with Trey that explains the analogy. " The way I look at it is like being a filter. The music exists in the universe, and if you're lucky enough or strong enough to get your ego out of the way, the music comes through you. The audience that we have is open to that. They understand that conversational transfer of energy. The fact that they are being open to it makes it easier for the energy to pass through. "....... ....... " The music is a vibe in the universe that goes through you. Even the pop songwriters - the greatest moment when they woke up, the sun was shining, and the song just poured (water) ;) . " We have to remember that we are the flowers. We are just as important to the flow as Phish is to allowing it to flow. We must keep our stems planted deep in the earth. The water needs somewhere to go and we must except it with open arms. The trick, as Mike has said, is to concentrate on the Now. The next time your at Phish try bringing your attention to your breath. Realize the breath flowing in and out. No matter what state of mind you are in you will experience a taste of the water. gustin Music. Love. Peace. Period. ============================== ------------------------------ From: dirkch00 (by way of hannula@panther.middlebury.edu (Kim Hannula)) Subject: Re: **What Does THE HOSE Mean to YOU?** Date: 5 May 1996 13:44:43 GMT This was Charlie's response to my response that I just posted to the .net. (I hope your ok to repost was a blanket ok, chandrew!) The quoted writing is mine, and the new writing is Charlie's. FWIW, I find Charlie's points interesting, but they aren't mine... -Kim _____________________________________ | >: If the band gave up all control of the jam, no ego, nomind, etc, and | >: what came out was Sparkle (or Bouncing, or SITM, or Rift, or ...), | >: played note-for-note as written... | | I disagree. I think it is possible to play a structured song without | thinking. I think it is easier to go into Not Thinking mode while doing I totally saw your point about that, but again, I don't think it is a fair criticism. Really. I mean, they might not be concentrating on every note because they have played them sooooooo many times, but I emphasize your "control of the jam" remark... sure, no ego, no mind.. that's probably what goes on when they play horsesilent. But no control? I think not. It is unbelievable unconscious control.. there is still control. | monks live a very structured existance while attempting to acheive a state | of mind that, to me, sounds very similar to Trey's description of the Hose. Yes it does!! I studied Buddhism in skule for a year.. not practiced. Studied. I thought the same thing about the Hose when I first read about it waaaaay back when... | relinquishing of control if they didn't spend so much time on group | improvisation exercises. | | May I forward this back to the group? (Or, if you like, you can forward it.) I completely agree that Phish can exercise no ego and no mind and no conscious "control" over the "jam" (cringe) during songs like Bouncin, Cavern, Sample, etc., but again, I don't think we can say that they aren't in control. They are certainly in control, but it is perhaps not deliberate or especially conscious. But this is soooo subjective.. I mean, how could we tell that they reached that state in the midst of a perfectly plebeian Silent? As far as forwarding this to the group, I'd say go right ahead, only I wish you'd write a discourse on the Zen of the Hose to make it more enlightening for all.. ;) I should never have brought this damn thread up.. I'm in the midst of my finals, for Icculus' sake! ;^) charlie ============================== ------------------------------ From: Matthew Kubach Subject: Re: Hosed!!! (fwd) Date: 4 May 1996 20:04:21 GMT | First, I have a hard time beleiving that the hose can be experienced | from a tape. Yes, you might be able to hear "the hose" on a tape after | Charlie points it out for you, but that is far from the same thing that | happens when you hear that music live. WHOA...hold on a second!!! I can't let this one slip by!!! 1) as much as I respect Dirksen, who's to say he's the authoritarian as to when I hear the hose?? 2) when *I'm* at a show...I often find it difficult to "digest" what's happening...little anology for you: when you read a book, or see a movie and it turns out to be something you really enjoy...you watch/read it a second time....and you ALWAYS pick up something new!! Tapes are the same way...*especially* when it's a show you were at! another example... my first show (I had NO idea what the hell the Hose was) 11.12.94... check this out people...at the time I didn't notice the Hose...and didn't really notice it till last Friday...the DwDisease>Have Mercy>DwDisease!!! without hearing the tape, I'd never have recognized this Hoseful moment! little message for Dirksen: If you don't have this show (I've seen you post stuff about not hearing the Foam and Hood before) let me know, and I'll send one out your way. Phish tends to lay stuff in front of you that your mind can't comprehend unless it listens to it 2 or more times...Memphish Tweezer!! the longest song in Phish history! at first I thought it was the worst stuff I've ever heard...but after *furthur* listening, I've just about come to the conclusion that it could be the greatest 45 minutes in music history (pretty bold..I know:) now if I was at that show...I'm sure I would have said the same thing..."Man, that was aweful" ...since I can obtain a copy (due to tapes) I can now see that the Hose was in the fire hose stage. I'd like to get some opinions on this one....I've been to 15 shows (including Nyears '95) but I can't ever remember being "transported" during the show....though MANY tapes have done this to me. I think I have to concentrate too much at the show and I still end up missing 95% of the music...luckily, I can throw in that tape and find that 95% and possibly some Hose with it... any comments on this one?? peace! Matthew ============================== ------------------------------ From: dirkch00 Subject: Re: "Hose" Date: 5 May 1996 01:05:45 GMT Richard S. artfully mused: | 1. spontainious improvision 2. music that transcends. (rough paraphrase | but close). The first premis I can have no questions about, but the | second premis raises problems. Spontaneous improvisation. As to music that transcends, you might wonder what is being transcended: the very "mathematical" structure of the song at issue. | you have rejected it. I completely understand "hose" which is the ONLY | reason I persist in pointing out the flaw in your arguement. That flaw is | the inclusion of a subjective premise "music that transcends" in your | quest for an objective definition. Now I know what "music that | transcends" is and I define it subjectively as "IT". You have COPMLETELY | FAILED in placeing on objective definition here. Since you clearly are one of Those People that suffer from Fear of Objective Reality and Objective Truth, let's use Dan Purcell's "intersubjective" adjective instead, since that is much more appealing. Frankly, though, Richard, the thread already speaks for itself as to the intersubjective validity of my understanding of Hose. That I was entirely wrong about how the word came into being, i.e., the conversation between Carlos and Trey (well, not entirely wrong, but almost), is irrelevant at this juncture. It is clear that if the Hose merely meant the way Phish connects with its audience, then it would be as worthless a term to describe Phish shows TO OTHER HARDCORE PHISH FANS as "great." Phish shows are always great. BFD. Using Carlos' Hose metaphor to describe Phish's music and audience communication to non-aphionados is, I think, gorgeous and very illustrative of the magnificence Phish has bestowed on our being. I believe that if you read the rest of this thread scattered as it is all about rec.phish, you will find that there is an intersubjectively valid appreciation for a type of jam that qualifies as Hose. My efforts tried to show that there was such a meaning, and that it is, imnsfho, WRONG to use the word loosely to describe any "great" phish improv or song. The HOSE is not just another great Reba jam, Bowie jam, Stash jam, Cavern, Sparkle, Gin jam, etc. It is a special spontaneous, unpredictable, improvisational, glorious and all-hallowed apotheosis of Phish-music. It isn't just "great," like (arguably) every Phish song or Phish improv session. As Herschel Gelman wiiiiiisely noted elsewhere, Carlos' interpretation was clearly very broad, and certainly more broad than the way I use the word. But to go by Carlos' definition (Phish=Hose, music=water, aud=flowers), every Phish show is a HOSE show because we are blessed enough to have a band that cares so intimately about how we receive the music, how we react to the music, whether it is *live* or on tape. Phish, after all, IS the Hose by Carlos' definition. Every Phish show bears witness to the Hose, by definition. And that is certainly not how I think we should employ the term in the community of aphishionados, since the term would lose a lot of its glory and meaningfulness, in my eyes. It becomes every Phish show! Hooray for the Hose.. how special. ;^[ | If it is not impossible then do so!! The fact that people agree with | your subjectivity does not make objective. The closest thing to defining | "hose" is to site dates. While these shows are examples of "hose" this | in no way define in an objective manner "hose". Why? The dates and shows are concrete examples. They no more exist solely in your mind as they do mine. They are objectively verifiable phenomena in the lived world of experience. I have met no one who denies the appropriateness of these examples. Richard, I think you were upset by my use of the word "objective," and I forgive you. See Dan Purcell's astoundingly articulate view on this point for more info. | Oh, obviously haven't. Anything else you know about myself. Well, since you asked, I know that you have difficulty spelling words like "arguement." And I can assume that you've had a little bit of Philosophy, although your fascination with subjectivism is tiring. | Why? There comes a point in time in which "how much" becomes | irrelevent. Please do not reduce this to a "I listened to more phish How much Phish you have heard may indeed be relevant to grasping Hose. So long as you have heard at least ONE example of it (from Phish or some other band). How much Phish you have heard as to getting **IT** is, of course, wholly irrelevant. But if you haven't heard Phish at all, describing the Hose as I and many others in this thread have WILL be intelligible to you if you have any semblance of understanding of how exciting improvisation is. If you lack no experience with improvisational music, then, well, ignorance of Phish's music isn't going to help you understand the Hose. I'd say a necessary prerequisite of understanding Hose is having a rationality sufficient to grasp intersubjectively communicable possibilities. And if you lack that, you won't understand shit. (literally) | not the issue. The issue is your definition of "hose" that still remains | subjective, undefined. (Remeber--I understand the "hose" but you | rejected my definition of it as subjective, but you fail to rise to your | own challege--objectivity.) It is not subjective at all, Richard. It is "intersubjective," if it makes you feel any better. ;) | > I'm sorry that you couldn't see the light. I recommend listening to as | > much Phish as possible. Seek and you will find. | | The light huh? Based in objectivity alright. You rejected my spiritual | definition but seem to like it. Oh--and I will listen as much as possible. Your spiritual understanding I did like -- you described **IT**, and IT has nothing to do with how much Phish you have heard, and can happen to a person at any time in any song. The Hose often coincides with **IT**, but they are not one and the same. Intersubjectively. | REREAD the above part!!! How much does this sound like my first | defintion based on the three prongs. Beauty, Magesty, glorious. These | are the subjective words I used to describe the "hose". I've experienced | the "hose" I know "the hose" and I discribe it subjectively. You seem to You have experienced **IT**, Richard. Separating **IT** from the Hose is not a difficult stretch. I do not mean to denigrate **IT** in the least! Just because **IT** is not THE HOSE as the Hose has been intersubjectively validated doesn't mean that one is "better" than the other, and that you or anyone else needs to get all defensive about somehow missing the point of Hose. Just relax, Richard. As a very wiiise man recently said, we are all on the same side. We all love Phish. I'm not out to quash all conceptions of the HOSE that define it as **IT**. I'm just out to see whether, based on an intersubjective concensus, such a conception confounds the whole purpose of having two wonderful, separate, and individual terms. | finish what you started. If by this point you do not see the flaw in | your arguement; you don't know the difference between objective and | subjective. I know them well enough to know that you are subjectively spelling the objectively verifiable word "argument" incorrectly. KingMoron420 ============================== ------------------------------ From: Neil Schirmer Subject: Re: **What Does THE HOSE Mean to YOU?** Date: 3 May 1996 04:20:16 GMT Charlie and Rich bring up some EXCELLENT points on what I believe is the best damn thread I've seen in a while. Rather than attempting to define what it means to me in musical terms, I see at as something that is best defined in terms of emotion and spirituality, as Rich noted (I believe). As Charlie states, I also agree that the Grateful Dead were masters of achieving something that is what one might generalize as The Hose, on a regular basis. I see what they did as something in the same ballpark as what Santana described, and what Phish attain from time to time themselves. For me, The Hose is something that might be analogous to riding a wave. This wave is a communal attempt to live and experience the moment, a musical moment in which something is being spontaneously created by the musicians, who create this musical moment due to environmental and emotional factors. The Hose is attained when the wave is "caught" and ridden by those in attendance, including the musicians, and is perpetuated by a sort of feedback cycle in which the crowd feeds off of the band who feeds off of the crowd who feeds off of the...(you get the idea). This wave, and the feeling associated with it are always euphoric for me, and never require any sort of altered state of consciousness, merely a willingness to let go, let a wave develop, and live in the moment. (All of this has to be similar to some kind of Eastern thought or religion.) Once the Hose is turned on, it can last for 5 seconds, or 5 minutes, and can (IMNSHO) be conveyed on tape, but never experienced that way. I agree that it must be something in which one must participate to truly experience. I will admit that shows in which I have experienced the hose are sometimes able to be nearly relived (at times) upon listening to them ex post facto, but they _were_ experienced and participated in first. Besides the fact that I find Phish to be incredible musicians who totally float my boat, I admit that a large reason that I love them is because I'm a Hose junkie; I love the feeling that we're attempting to describe here, and it's probably why many of us do everything in our power to see them as much as possible, short of losing our jobs;) I should also add that I believe the Hose can occur in any sort of song, at any time, and doesn't necessarily have to occur in a "jam" as some describe. Charlie was, as I understand it, attempting to articulate what I DO agree with in that, generally speaking, The Hose usually (maybe not ALWAYS) must occur in a moment in which the music is deviating from the regular, normal, usual music that one defines a given song as (i.e. David Bowie). I guess this goes along with the whole concept of the Hose eminating from spontaneous improvisation (redundantly redundant). With my head tingling at the thought..........mmmmmmmmmm....hosiery Neil always open for superkind-hot-veggie trades (especially MMW) ============================== ------------------------------ From: jgraves@world.std.com (Jeremy C Graves) Subject: Re: **What Does THE HOSE Mean to YOU?** Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 16:00:11 GMT dirkch00 (dirkch00@dons.ac.usfca.EDU) wrote: : tear-it-up style. This jamming isn't "Hose," since it : would be akin to a normal Antelope; that is, what you'd : _reasonably_ expect to hear within the confines of The : Song. Hose in Antelope would be something completely : unusual for Antelope: where the Antelope takes on a : different form completely, and Becomes an Other musical : endeavor ENTIRELY (or ALMOST entirely, in some cases, in : my opinion.. see 10/24/95 Madison or a few Antelopes from : Aug 93..). The 10/31/94 has one of my favorite Antelope : jam segments, but it sure as hell isn't "Hose" as I : understand It. Charlie - Your point was well stated and I agree with most of what you said. I have a slight issue with the above assertion, however, that the hose only arrives when songs run wildly astray of their "normal" patterns, or that such a deviation necessarily indicates that the hose has arrived (Forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth with which you disagree). Rather, I prefer a more esoteric definition. "The hose", for me, is not one thing but a culmination of things which, when added together, bring about a sense of transcendence through music. It is a very personal and spiritual experience where all of a sudden you are inside the band's soul and they are inside yours, where you suddenly feel completely and utterly connected to every other person lucky enough to witness and appreciate what is transpiring before them. I do think your definition is a good starting point for 90% of hose situations, but it would seem to exclude a few situations which I feel are particularly hose-worthy, while including others I would leave outside the realm of "THE HOSE". For example: Slave 12/30/93-2: Portland, ME This song was the culmination of one hell of a terrific night of music, but wasn't in and of itself particularly unusual. For those of us lucky to have been there, it was simply the most perfect and beautiful ending to a rare and special second set. I don't think anybody would argue the hose was in effect at this show, but this particular song doesn't fit your definition as I understand it. What always kills me about this version is hearing Reis Barron et al yelling for Slave at the beginning of each set and then again after Purple Rain finishes up. Trey just sort of looked at those screaming madmen, smiled, and picked out the first few notes of "Slave". Anyone who owns a copy of the sbd of this show can hear the screams of joy that then errupt from the front rows. Whenever I hear this, I am transported back to that amazing night. Another example: Down w/ Disease 12/12?/95-2: Providence, RI This was a valiant attempt by the band to stir things up in an otherwise average show. It was a very long and jammed-out version, completely departing from the original pattern of the song. However, the collective emotion/passion of 12/30/93 or 12/29/94 (Bowie) are fairly lacking. It's a great jam, but it is not a hose. So those are the nits I pick. Hopefully I've managed to explain the slight differences in our views as I see them. For me, the hose represents not only the band locking in together for incredible jams or even being able to transmit that energy to the crowd. It needs both of these things but it also involves the band feeding off the energy of the crowd to a point where everyone present is contributing their energy to an experience that is much larger than any single individual or group. Maybe we should use a new term - THE CIRCUIT!!!! (maybesomaybenot) Intelligent disagreement is welcomed and encouraged. be well, jerm | -- __________________________________________________________________________ \ Jeremy C. Graves [jgraves@world.std.com] Cambridge, Massachusetts / \=======================================================================/ \ \\\\\\|////// \*** To find happiness, be as if a child. Play and */ ============================== ------------------------------ From: it002c@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Ivan Troy) Subject: Re: **What Does THE HOSE Mean to YOU?** Date: Sat, 4 May 96 20:17:49 GMT Ok, I think we need to agree on some kind of censensus. If I am correct, the whole concept of the "hose" was coined by Santana after he watched a set of Phish. The band was the hose, the music was the water, and the audience was the flowers being watered. I've also seen references in a Trey interview where he's talked about the hose as Santana described it. Now, what I take from this description is that both Trey and Carlos are using the Hose to decribe "IT", as Charlie and many others have put it. Trey went on to makea distinction, though. He talked about the Murat Gin and how the song lost all normal structure, that the music was playing the band, and he called that the "Golden Hose." Now, if I understand this correctly, when we describe say, the 4.9.94 Weekapaug, we can say, "Wow, we were hosed! That was great and intense! That gave us "IT." Thus, we can use IT and Hose interchangably. When we talk about, say, the Prov Bowie or the Dayton Tweezer or the Orlando Stash, then we can say, "Wow, the band pulled out the Golden Hose tonight! These versions were way abnormal, out there, atypical, have been using It and the Hose as equals. Charlie wants to reserve the use of Hose for what I am calling Golden Hose moments, and just use It for what I call just plain Hose. I think if we go back to Santana's original statement then we can use It and Hose interchangably, and keep the integrity of his idea. Then when we need to clarify b/c of Prov Bowie's or Niagara Weekapaugs, then we can use Trey's term "Golden Hose." SO, how does this idea grab everyone?? (Charlie?) ivan ============================== ------------------------------ From: dirkch00@dons.ac.usfca.edu ( Charles Andrew Dirksen) Subject: Re: **What Does THE HOSE Mean to YOU?** Date: 3 May 1996 16:53:45 GMT Dan Mielcarz (Daniel.W.Mielcarz@dartmouth.edu) wrote: : the object rent from sense is a perception, and you rent from : yourselves, a feeling. It is this earlier moment I mean, which you : always experience yet never experience...It is the holy wedlock of the : Universe with the incarnated Reason for a creative, productive embrace. : It is immediate, raised above all error and understanding." : That, to me, is the way things are when I get "Hosed." Proudfoot goes THis sounds again like ***IT*** to me.. and well, one can get **IT** numerous times. I originally got it on 7/17/93 during the Also Sprach, for reasons I've mentioned before that are deeply personal, but I also got **IT** most recently during the JAM out of Drowned at NYE; when I first heard the 12/9/95 Albany YEM (and most times thereafter); when I first heard Lifeboy; whenever I listen to the 8/13/93 Gin; etc. So the Hose and **IT** can coincide, but one it intensely personal and the other -- the Hose -- is something more easily communicable to other subjective perceivers because the music has taken such a wonderful and spontaneous and unpredictable and glorious (but sometimes noisy and shitty and spacey and boring etc.) course. : is pure emotion; untarnished by rational analysis. That's **IT**. : have said. It's not in every Harry Hood, not in every 30 min. Tweezer, : not in any Bouncing ;). Is it really that surprising that true "Hoses" : are rare, considering the description above? I don't mean to say that : when there is no Hose, it is bad Phish. I mean, the music can make you : feel good, even without getting Hosed (for example every Phish song : I've heard). BUT, a "true" Hose (IMHO) is when you cannot explain the : way you feel with reason (nor with words, really). It is a truly : religious event; "senses and object mingle and unite." No, because if TRUE Hose were that way, it would be a meaningless word for the community, who for the most part haven't heard it. What you describe sounds like **IT** to me, and not the Hose. The Hose is perfectly articulable to others if it is defined as a spontaneous, unpredictable JAM | -- it might sound like shit to some, like noise to some, but it is still Hose. It can bore some to tears, as some were during the 12/29/94-2 Bowie and numerous experimental Tweezers. The Hose can have a spiritual, transcendent **IT**-like effect on people | -- that's given. But the two concepts need to be separated, in my opinion, when reviewing shows to others. To use them interchangeably would mean that people could, after a perfectly standard show, like 12/30/95 for example, walk around going "We were Hosed, d00d, and it was phaaaaat," and that would completely trivialize the meaning of the word. There was no hose during 12/30/95, although I am certain that some people got **IT** during that show. The Harry was great, but there was nothing that I would call Hose. Just a great fucking Harry Hood! ;) : another discussion altogether. And Charlie (or whatever your name may : be), if you want to hear a Bowie from 95 that I felt Hosed me while I : was there, check out Portland, 12/11/95. Even if it doesn't have IT, : it's still a damn good jam. Well, if anyone managed to read the whole I have heard that Bowie, and it is a great, exciting version, and certainly not standard for 1995. But it was not a Hose Bowie, along the lines of 12/29/94-2 and 11/26/94. You may have got **IT** during that Bowie, and that's BEAUTIFUL!!, but it wasn't what is properly called Hose in my experience.. you see, if you had posted that "We were Hosed" during that Bowie, from my perspective, you would be implying that something insane happened musically during that Bowie, and well, nothing did -- it was a kickass Bowie jam that did go some places but they were places that weren't entirely unfamiliar to Bowie. Do you see what I am getting at? If that Bowie is Hose, then, well, the vast majority of shows have Hose. And by my definition, it is only a minority that do. And it should be that special an event.. the Hose is trivialized if it is at every single Phish show. charlie ============================== ------------------------------ From: dirkch00 Subject: Re: "Hose" Date: 2 May 1996 21:10:22 GMT Richard Schadle wrote: | The role of the "muscian" (I use "muscian" as a word meaning a muscian in | the truest sense--not every who plays is a muscian) is to transcend music | in its mathmatical form and manifest it with energy. (See Matrix, I agree completely. | muscian becomes the energy transforming the pure mathmatical music but | this transformation needs a place to germinate and grow. Again, agree completely. | other--part of which is music. Now the muscian is not playing his'her | own creation but manifesting the energy that flows from either side of | the equation. (it called an equation because there is equality between | the sides) Agreed. | When an audience member is so moved or touched (I'm not talking freak'in | out or screaming or whatever) I mean actually touched actually hears the | music and speaks with the music that memeber has been "hosed" by the | energy and music flowing from the muscian. A hose is a conection between | the energy sourec and its reciever by which the energy flows. | Recognition of the music is all that required. To accomplish this you | need only "surrender to the flow" . Agreed. You still haven't disagreed with what I wrote about the Hose, though. I apparently did NOT communicate it as well as I would have liked. | With this three layer understanding of music, I must reject your | definition of a "hose" being an unusal change of song into another. Your | definition of a "hose" discribes only one aspect of the music. That | aspect being the mathmatical part--where you could write down each note | as played and say look at how this songs transforms itself into this | song."Now thats A hose!" I reject this on two grounds. I suppose I was not clear enough, because your premises here about my opinion are just not true. Hose isn't merely "an unusual change of a song into another." Far from it, it can be an event within a song that defies the song's logic, that creates an new musical entity.. but it is most often a JAM that segues out of the confines or borders of "The Song" and becomes an improvisational wonderland. A typical Runaway->Foam sure as hell doesn't qualify as "Hose" in my opinion, and I can think of no versions of Foam in which I would say the Hose occurred. The only Hose I know of in Runaway is the Walnut Creek version from last summer. 6/16/95 I believe is the date. An "experimental" Jim. The truth of the matter, though, is that music, qua music, by your "mathematical" understanding of it, can ONLY BE "mathematical," and can never transcend it, in that since music can always be captured on a page, with measures and notes and the like, it will always been in some sense "mathematical" (I think you really mean symbolically cognizable, though). | First, I don't believe music changes. music IS; it is a state of being. I don't think I understand you. Music doesn't change to the extent that it is "music" nevertheless, regardless of how terrible it might subjectively sound, or how basely it might be symbolically reduced. So yes, "music" to be called "music" doesn't change to this limited extent. Of course it changes, though, in the sense of rhythm, melody, etc. | In our world on tagibility we think it takes on differnent forms but | the music only flows. When you pour water from a straight glass into a | curved glass (by way of a crazy straw) the water does not "change" it is | still the water. and as it passes thru the hose, crazy straw, it is | still only music. Yes yes.. see above. I do understand you. Music, in order to be "music", to some extent does not change. But again, I think this point is irrelevant to the discussion of Hose. This is what is known in philosophical circles as "a given." | Second, your definition lacks the third requirement I have layed out, ie | a safe place--an audience. You define a "hose" soley on the merits of | the musical score and ignore the aspect of inertplay between people and | music. I feel an audience is necessary to fullfill the conetion to | manifest music and be apart if it. to reach a state of being. It is in | this state of being that one is "hosed". You are right in that I certainly did not emphasize the audience, but this was because my entire analysis presumes it. Of course there has to be someone there to hear the music in order for it to have any existence. Again, this point was a premise to my entire discussion and you are not disagreeing with me. It, also, is "a given" in the analysis. | I feel that this is a basterdiztion of the word "hose". First "hose" | only exists in the present. A tape cannot capture a "hose"; the | connection between the people and the other side exists only in being. | It is the existance in being that is THE "hose" not merely sound. It is Absolutely, but of course a tape can capture Hose, so long as there is a being there to listen to it. The audience is not merely at the show. Everyone who hears the music from then onward becomes a part of a larger audience of beings that can hear and share in the glory of the hose. To limit it to those present is, with all due respect, ridiculous. People can be hosed off by Phish's music via a tape. It doesn't take very much imagination to be at a show, especially if you've been to many of them. | true that the free wheeling jams you speak of inspire such hosary, but | that does nto mean that the sounds are themselves the hose. Such songs I think you misunderstood me, because I never meant to imply that Hose "equaled" a certain kind of sound necessarily. It doesn't. It is a Spirit that transcends the confines of a the "mathematical" music and carries the audience and the band along the flow. It is not at all static. | grow, and the book will plant the seed.) Likewise I do not limit a hose | to your type of jam. A "hose" may occur in a vocal jam, an accupella | Amazing Grace, anytune. But that doesn't mean that it does. When there I said at the very end of my post that any Phish tune may Hose us off. We are not disagreeing, here, although I have heard about 1000 hours of Phish, and assure you that I have never experienced Hose in Amazing Grace, although the vocal jam is a tough call. ;) Vocal jams are pretty crazy, but honestly, they are expected to be. The normal vocal jam is absolutely bannanas and often is unpredictable (I say _often_, because it isn't usually hard to gauge when one will end, and it has been easy to predict when it will begin (out of YEM, for example)). But I do NOT deny that the Hose can occur during a vocal jam. The Spirit isn't predictable, and transcends all boundaries, or it wouldn't be the Spirit. | is a strong hose actualised and realised by many many many people, you | can sometimes tell by the musical patterns. The song shifts from its | regimented composition and interacts with the people creating new or | different sounds to our ears. Then again sometimes that change in music Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely right. We aren't disagreeing. | Likewise a normal song, played as normal can hose. If, as you say, "a normal song, played as normal can hose," then the whole concept of "Hose" is worthless if, by this statement, you mean to suggest that a perfectly normal version of Strange Design or Sparkle, that deviates not at all from the average version, can hose. If you are saying that a perfectly normal version of Sparkle can hose, you have completely made the concept meaningless to the community. The point is that the Hose is a special event, and is NEVER a "normal" or routine experience. If, rather, you mean to suggest that ANY SONG can HOSE period, then I would agree, because it can... any Phish song, as I concluded my original post, can Hose, but the Song itself must be musically and creatively transcended and can't simply be played according to the "mathematical" plan. Am I making any more sense? Because I think this is important. A song like Cavern that is played perfectly normally absolutely does not "Hose," otherwise the concept is completely and utterly worthless, and does an enormous disservice to the beauty and the wonder of It. Again, let me reiterate that my understanding of It is based on its usage amongst the majority of people I've encountered in the community. My understanding of It ALSO requires actualization and a state of being, since if there were no beings there could be no "Hose" to bear witness to It. You concluded your comments with a reference to "actualization," which I found ironic. By your understanding of Hose, every Phish show I have in my collection likely has a Hose moment for someone in the audience, and this is obviously an enormously broad understanding of the limited concept. If Hose were so readily actualized, it would be a worthless, useless term. We might as well call every Phish song "Hose", since someone could very well have a mystical experience in the midst of a perfectly plebeian "Sample in a Jar" or "It's Ice." andrew ============================== ------------------------------ From: hannula@panther.middlebury.edu (Kim Hannula) Subject: Re: **What Does THE HOSE Mean to YOU?** Date: 5 May 1996 13:21:30 GMT Charlie Dirksen responded privately to one of my posts. I asked if we could take the conversation public again, and he said yes, so here it is: Me: |: If the band gave up all control of the jam, no ego, nomind, etc, and |: what came out was Sparkle (or Bouncing, or SITM, or Rift, or ...), |: played note-for-note as written... | |: would that be the Hose? (By Mr Dirksen's definition, I mean) Charlie: |THis ain't public, because I think your question answers itself... I mean, |if the band gives up all control of the jam, what comes out cannot, by |definition, be one of their purely "mathematical" or structured songs. Me: I disagree. I think it is possible to play a structured song without thinking. I think it is easier to go into Not Thinking mode while doing something familiar than it is while exploring unfamiliar ground. (I used to play finger exercises on the piano as almost a type of meditation.) Zen monks live a very structured existance while attempting to acheive a state of mind that, to me, sounds very similar to Trey's description of the Hose. It almost makes me wonder -- would Phish be able to acheive such a relinquishing of control if they didn't spend so much time on group improvisation exercises? Kim ============================== ------------------------------ From: "Craig D. DeLucia" Subject: Re: "Hose" Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 11:53:07 -0400 Richard Schadle (rtsst12+@pitt.edu) had written: > > If WE are the FLOWERS and PHISH is the HOSE with MUSIC as the WATER, the > WHO is the GARDENER? Exactly. That's why the boys chose to play Quadrophenia for Halloween. I have heard that Frank Zappa sold the fertilizer, so I'd say a Zappa album is a good bet for this year's Halloween show :^) Couldn't resist, Craig ****************************************************************************** Craig DeLucia "My feet, they finally took root in the earth, cdeluci@hubcap.clemson.edu but I got me a nice little place in the Phi Kappa Tau stars..."--Bruce Springsteen Administrator, Bus Stop .Net Bus Stop, Bruce, Phish, DMB, BT, MMW, Seapods ****************************************************************************** ============================== ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dirkch00 Subject: Re: "Hose" Date: 3 May 1996 00:50:24 GMT | hours of listening aside (you can be hosed in a moment) I've never | experienced a PHISH "Amazing Grace" hose. But have in an other context. | irrelevent. Really!? So have I!! =^] Add that to the list of Stuff we have in common (outside of a deep appreciation of the Hose, whatever It is.. ;^). | perfectly normal song, played normal....CAN....but this only implies the | potential to "hose"...not that it does....What is normal anyway? | Everynight different experiences and different people.....This is | belaboring the point. I only meant to say that it CAN..has the potnetial | to. Oh I see your emphasis. My point is that the Hose isn't something subjective, I guess. It is "objective" in that it is a type of transcendent jam that many subjective perceivers can objectively relate to. With respect to your comment on what's "normal," I've never heard a Sparkle that was anything even approaching Hose. Just total structure (like Dan Purcell mentioned about Lifeboy). Complete form. No deviation. That's what I mean by "normal." | I agree that my definition would make it meaningless to the community. | Simply because this community (phish.net) relies on measurable | objectivity. "check this show x/xx/94 or this x/xx/92" of "harry on | 11-12-94" so we can all listen and say "ohhh-I hear the way the that | goes, ok that's a 'hose'" But in live interaction, were the past is only | remembered and not rewand, It is perfectly clear. Ok, now I am lost. I mean, what is the point in communicating about Hose if it is meaningless and isn't something that two or more people can subjectively relate to but objectively communicate about? Your comments about what constitutes "normal" or "special" I find a little curious. I mean, I think you know exactly what a normal version of Cavern sounds like, since you've likely heard it numerous times. A "special" version would be one that radically deviates, such as the version from the summer of 1994 in which they sing the lyrics of Wilson over the music of Cavern. I am not sure what you mean to suggest. If you mean to suggest that what constitutes "normal" or "special" are purely subjective power moves, I would have to disagree, because a song that Phish writes follows an objectively cognizable structure and form, and any deviation at all from it would by its nature be ab-normal, or, sure, "special." The degree to which it is "special" is up to the listener, of course, but it is certainly true that multitudes of people can agree that certain versions are very special, and meaningful, and far from normal. Do you see what I am saying? You are absolutely, entirely correct that it is the being, the individual, who experiences the Hose. I think my combining of IT and THE HOSE was really uncalled for, and I regret it, now, because what is known in many circles as "IT" (when did you get IT with Phish/Dead..) is sure as hell not the same as Hose. Let me reiterate: **IT** is not **THE HOSE**, however, in my language, the Hose is worthy of at least capitalizing as It. But perhaps shouldn't be graphematically reproduced as IT. ;) So, yes, one's experience of IT will always be personal and can never be compelled by even the sickest and most "special" of jams. But what constitutes HOSE is a different matter. The Hose, is simply a jam that transcends the boundaries that were originally expected.. the Hose can occur in the middle of a Bathtub Gin (see 8/13/93, 12/29/95 to a limited extent, 5/20/94 I think it is), or it can become a JAM that takes off out of a song (DWD at SPAC last summer or at Providence this past fall). Am I making any sense? I am not sure what we are arguing about. Which makes any discussion about The Hose intensely ironic, of course, and replete with ambiguity. But I can honestly say that I feel I have tried my damnedest to reasonably articulate it. See Nooter's follow-up for more info, because I didn't disagree with anything he wrote. OOOOH!!! I see!!!! You are confusing **IT** with HOSE!!! That's all. We aren't disagreeing. It was MY MISTAKE in my original post to suggest that **IT** was THE HOSE, because **IT** is something entirely personal and deeply spiritual, and you, Richard, are absolutely correct that someone might get **IT** with respect to hearing a normal version of Cavern. Getting **IT** though is simply NOT what is meant by the Hose. Your comment as to being not being captured on tape seems, again, to evade me, because even if "being" only exists "in the now," that NOW might as well be when YOU are hearing it on the tape for the first time (or not). I know people who have got **IT** with respect to Phish via a tape, and though it may not necessarily have been dramatic as at a show in the 7th row at Wolf Trap on 7/17/93 during 2001, it still can be one helluva religious experience. I think it is ridiculous to suggest also that tapes can't capture Hose, because the Hose is simply music that is transcendent. You ask at one point whether I "can really be sure" that I have "connected." Richard, I mean, seriously, do you know me even vaguely? You think I would have spent an hour coming up with a post about the Hose if I had never got **IT** with respect to Phish at least once? As far as "hearing the music," I suffer to a great extent because that is often all I hear. I am usually able to block out everyone around me at a show (to the dismay of some friends at times), and often block out the lyrics or ignore them entirely (not all the time, of course). I don't know how to react to someone suggesting to me whether I hear the music. I want to call you a fucking asshole, but you've been such a genuinely pleasant correspondent over the last 24 hours, that I hesitate to be so base and immature. But still, to even suggest whether I really hear the music is offense. If I don't hear the music, what have I been listening to all these years? My own soul? My being? What the hell are you getting at, because I think I'm not hearing you.. ;) charlie andrew kingmoron420 ============================== ------------------------------ From: dpurcell@uclink3.berkeley.edu (Dan Purcell) Subject: Re: "Hose" Date: 4 May 1996 19:37:26 GMT Kim Hannula (kim@pangea.Stanford.EDU) attempts to clarify KingMoron420: (snipped for brevity) : IT is something members of the audience experience. : The Hose is something the band experiences. I'm not sure that was the distinction Charlie was making, actually. My own personal distinction (which I think is similar to Charlie's) would be as follows: IT is completely subjective. Each person has a different moment when they got IT, and became clued in to how interesting and adventurous Phish can be. For me, I initially got IT during the absurd Non-Shot-Ass Harpua on 4/20/89. Over the years, I lost sight of IT, but I rediscovered IT at San Jose 12/3/94 (a mediocre show, but still) during Slave (a mediocre Slave, but still). There's no necessary correlation between net- or community-wide evaluations of quality and IT, really. IT is a moment when, for whatever reason, Phish makes sense to you, elevates you, gives you an understanding of their purpose and shares their direction with you. Even if the show itself is less than fantastic, it's possible that something within that show connected with you, subjectively, and caused you to See The Light. That, to me, is IT. "Hose," on the other hand, is capable of intersubjective definition. (I hestitate to use the word "objective"; small digression: think of terms like "obscenity." It's obviously very difficult, very slippery to define that word, but law enforcement personnel, legislators, and judges do every day, and in doing so they (in theory) rely on some broad, community-based consensus in deciding what is obscene and what is not. Of course, they often just make it up, but that's another matter. "Hose" is similarly slippery, because its meaning is bound to vary from person to person. I do think, though, that we can hammer out some consensus on some of the aspects of the Hose.) Hose does not really depend on the band alone, or the audience alone. Hose can be preserved on tape, and I think it's foolish to argue over whether or not it's more acute when heard live or not. The beauty of taping is that it allows us to discover things we might have missed live, and to probe deeper into jams that have many layers. At the very least, Hose is a) spontaneous and b) unusual. It cannot be previously planned, and it must involve some departure from a song's planned, quasi-mathematical structure. If Phish plays Rift precisely as composed by Trey, not for note, to the nth degree of utter perfection, that can't be a Hose. That is the way the song is designed. There is no spontaneity there, no secondary creative act. A Hose is a spontaneous act of musical creation. It does not rely on the primary creative act of composition. It does not rely on a ten-step flowchart. It is a moment when the band (as DownerMan, I believe, said) lets go of its conscious minds and plunges wholeheartedly into new territory, where the music generates momentum of its own, where the grooves spring fully operational from the instruments, where every note is an idea and where the concept of "soloing" is meaningless because the structure over which one musician might solo has been abandoned. A third requirement might be in order, too. A Hose, it could be argued, must be c) a full-band experience. Solo moments, like Page's segment in the 12/30/94 Tweezer or Fish's Ringoesque departure in the 11/30/94 Mike's, do not really count, at least for me. They don't involve the whole band in full flight; they remind me, rather, of Chris Squier taking long and ponderous "virtuoso" bass solos in "9021Live." This type of relentlessly forced, ponderously sketched-out creativity can be more boring than Page and Plant. It's rote, and I hope never to see Phish succumb to that. When Fish takes a two-hour drum solo in a spinning metal cage bedecked with M-80s and Roman candles, it'll be time for me to find something else to listen to. (I don't anticipate that Phish will become Motley Crue anytime soon, of course.) This sort of spontaneous, unusual, full-band Hose manifests itself fairly often. I'll try to confine myself to five examples: 1.) The 12/29/94 Bowie. After a lousy first set, the second set opens with a good Guyute, and then the Digital Delay Loop leads into Bowie. Bowie's jam segment begins with little fanfare; it's the typical spacy and chaotic stuff...after three or four minutes, though, something clicks. There's a McGrupp-like jam, and then a speedy little segment, and then, an absolutely glorious and protracted Hoodlike passage, with Trey spinning vibrant and gorgeous licks over a rich chord progression which sounds ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like David Bowie. Then they do the "Lassie" bit, and finally back to the structure. Depending on what day it is, this is about my favorite Phish jam, and is a prime example of creative, full-flight Hose. 2.) The 12/30/93 Mike's -> Horse. Trey normally begins the Mike's jam with dissonant guitar noize (much to the dismay of Charlie Dirksen, who has often labeled such efforts "crap" `{;-)> ), but here we get a Different Approach: the jam slowly spirals downward, moving into uncertain territory, away from the ferocious energy that normally defines Mike's, away from the inevitable Mike's ending (which of course never comes). Mike follows Trey, adding some beautiful little runs on the bass, not concerned that this might turn out to be a blind alley, ready to accept the challenge. Finally, of course, the jam segues into The Horse. See also 10/31/94 Simple. 3.) The 12/1/95 Mike's -> Weekapaug. It's unclear whether or not this was planned, but I doubt it. The first straight Mike's -> Groove segue with nothing in between, and it's a little rough. Here, the Mike's jam is not angular, dissonant, and wacked-out, but smooth and energetic and melodic and soaring. Trey takes it up, wrenching off lick after spiraling lick. He backs off, allowing Page to take a funky little clavinet solo. When Weekapaug kicks in, after about 13 minutes of improvisational craziness, it's IN THE WRONG KEY. It's a full step higher than normal, and the band knows it...they approach Weekapaug tentatively, but eventually plunge in (even though the vocals are wretched). Finally the jam disintegrates amidst a flurry of off-time audience clapping, but to that point it was a wonder to behold. The band apparently liked the straight Mike's -> Groove segue so much that they used it twice subsequently on the Fall Tour, a case of the Hose bringing forth new and practically relevant ideas. 4.) The 8/15/93 Stash. The first experimental Stash (until I hear otherwise...), and I thank the much-mentioned KingMoron420 for the tapes. This version has absolutely nothing in common with the average (read: dissonant jam in Eminor; see 7/8/94 Great Woods) Stash jam. It takes off into a dusky and abandoned airplane hangar, where the band wheels around carelessly in the vast absence of light, spacily and first, cautiously taking steps, putting their feet down onto a floor they can't see, hoping they don't fall away into the blackness. 5.) The 12/31/95 Drowned -> Lizards. With all due respect, I don't believe in "Jam" on setlists. In theory, if every song can Hose, if every song can unhook itself from its moorings and venture into completely new and unexpected territory, each song must have the potential to include a "Jam." It's true that Drowned had never before featured such a jam, but five years ago Tweezer had never featured a truly experimental jam, whereas now those jams are a given whenever the song is performed. Every Phish song has the absolute potential to take sharp left turns into fuzzy and experimental territory, even though, practically, we know that Rift and Horn and HorseSilent and Cavern and Sparkle never will. The jam (not Jam) out of Drowned finally solidifies along a simple two-chord pattern, picking up steam until it's not recognizable as Drowned but has taken on a completely different character. Finally, after Trey plays around with Fire on the Mountain licks for a while, Fish slows the beat down to a mid-tempo shuffle, and the historic (and, even for a complete non-Dead fan like myself, UNDENIABLE) Fire on the Mountain teast occurs. Then Lizards segues in. I don't know if this added anything to the discussion, truthfully. I may have just recapitulated other folks' thoughts, but I thought I'd have at it, especially since this is the most interesting thread (or group of threads) on the net in months. To sum up: IT is the moment where any one person, subjectively, "got" Phish, discovering some musical affinity between themselves and the band that forever cemented their interest in Phishstory. The Hose, on the other hand, is an intersubjectively-defined Moment where the band leaves structure behind, and engages in spontaneous, unstructured, full-band improvisation that is exemplary in character. Obviously, not all spontaneous, unstructured, full-band improvisation will be Hose; some of it just sucks (see the bizarre and otherworldly 6/8/95 Tweezer, which doesn't really "suck" so much as distress and confound). Some of it is, though, and that's ultimately the reason I spend so much of my time listening to this goddamn band. Please, continue this discussion... Dan... ============================== ------------------------------ From: akeeton@cs.ucsd.edu (Allan Keeton) Subject: Re: Response to Herschel's HOSE moment Date: 4 May 96 16:35:47 GMT Alek Grabinski writes some of the best descriptive text yet: >hagst3+@pitt.edu (Herschel A Gelman) wrote, on the topic raised by >KingMoron420: I prefer "The Nameless Lord of the Guttersnipes" It has sweep & majesty. It *THUNDERS*. It gives even the most plebian inhabitant teleologic thrust. We yearn to--one sweet day--become a Guttersnipe and fall under the Lord's dominion. Sweet Mercy! >|Basically, I consider a Hose moment to be when a band member is soloing, >|and producing some great music. >If this is your definition of the Hose, then the other bandmembers are not part >of the Hose; they're the hoe, the trowel, the WeedWhacker and the Garden >Weasel. Damn! I change my mind. I wanna be the Garden Weasel, rather than the Lawn Gnome. >MAJOR disagreement. The Hose occurs when the band members *transcend* >_conscious_ listening, and take it to the next level, the visceral level, to >the little lizard portion of the brain which connects us to the universal >rhythm, where the Music on the Other Side is flowing full force through the >fingers and the feet and the hands, with no *consciousness* to filter or strain >what's coming through. In the very limited exposure I've had to being a >participant in the generation of Hose-like music (limited mainly by the fact >that my neural signals must usually take a detour into the "developed" portion >of my brain), the most transcendent moments are characterized by a complete >loss of temporality, of awareness of time and space and self. Now THAT'S good >eatin'! Yuuummmmm! First, I wish to point out the obvious: The disagreements in this thread are ones of semantics rather than of content. There are those who would like to honor the somewhat common experience of transcendence, of floating in or surfing on the emotional intent of the music with the term "Hose." This can be experienced by one person or by many & its boundaries may extend both before & after the concert itself. In fact, one can feel transcendant in the middle of a rather routine day, put on some music & find that it perfectly expresses what one is feeling. Or one may be bouyed to this state by the beauty of of song that one has heard many times, even though the piece was played "mathematically." If this were not so, classical musicians would be out of business. One might even imagine (& it might darn well be true) that the band & most of the audience has brought their surfboards & has mounted the inner rising surf with you. This should be honored & if you wish to call it "Hose," I have no qualms. Little Lizard Brain & The Nameless Lord of the Guttersnipes wish to reserve the term "Hose" for those rarer moments when something completely OTHER comes through. This is not just good music which floats your boat, but is more active. It is creativity itself. Not only does the MUSIC come through, but CREATION comes with it. The music isn't played it is being invented, destryoed, turned on its head & ressurected anew. This type of experience is much more objective. You can plop someone down in front of a tape & say listen to THIS! It is these rare events that they wish to crown with the term "Hose." You can see their point, they want a term unsullied by other references that will point toward this, most ineffable thing. The Poster makes no choice, soon you will not hear his voice ... ...Allan *8^) ============================== ------------------------------ From: dirkch00@dons.ac.usfca.edu ( Charles Andrew Dirksen) Subject: Re: **What Does THE HOSE Mean to YOU?** Date: 5 May 1996 17:16:52 GMT Kim Hannula (hannula@panther.middlebury.edu) wrote: : |: If the band gave up all control of the jam, no ego, nomind, etc, and : |: what came out was Sparkle (or Bouncing, or SITM, or Rift, or ...), : |: played note-for-note as written... (snip) : I disagree. I think it is possible to play a structured song without : thinking. I think it is easier to go into Not Thinking mode while doing I agree that Phish can probably play songs like Horse Silent Cavern Sparkle Bouncin and Sample blindfolded, and without thinking about them, but I emphasize the "control of the jam" part of your original query. Even if they weren't thinking about playing Bouncin, what comes out musically is still note for note a controlled "Bouncin," and well, though they may not have been thinking about playing each note or even every other note or ANY note, they are still in control. Very much in control, actually. So in control that they don't have to think about what they are playing. That's not entirely what I have in mind when I talk about The Golden Hose.. there's control in the Hose, and I think there is also thinking going on, but ego? Not really.. no one band member is sticking out.. it is more like they all form one ego. The idea of the Zen of the Hose is verrrry interesting, but, as I told you, I'd have to dig up my notes on Buddhism to craft anything coherent about the theory of Zen and Art of the Hose or something.. ;) charlie ============================== ------------------------------ From: Isaac Josephson Subject: re: the hose, transcendent nature of music Date: 3 May 1996 17:16:35 GMT This is from an interview with Trey back in 1993: "I feel like a vehicle. I'm not even creating the music. Its bigger than that. Carlos used the analogy with the hose. He watched one of our sets. When we came off stage, he said he had been envisioning the audience as a sea of flowers and the music was the water, and we were the hose. "And then he said he used to talk to Marvin Gaye about this stuff. Marvin Gaye used to say that the music was up there and if you think you're making it, you're wrong. But certain people are good vehicles for the music. And the best thing you can do when writing or improvising music is to get out of the way. "Music's sort of this transcendent thing. Its like the surfing thing. You're floating around out there and this wave comes along. And you can catch it and ride it. It can thrash you violently, but if you let go of your fear and everything and just go with it, its gonna give you the ride of your life.

Its like in Dune, where they rode the sandworms..." *** It seems as though "the hose" analogy is more of an overarching philosophy of the transcendent nature of music -- kind of like an aristotelean form. Some individuals, or bands, serve as an excellent conduit for the music. That is, they are able to capture the water and focus it into a sort of "stream" directed toward a particular audience. What is more interesting to me here is the "wave" of which Trey speaks. I think that is more what we are talking about here. IMHO, the "wave" does not depend on the objective quality of the music, nor the nature of the audience. It is, instead, of an extremely personal nature. Like someone said earlier here, it happens at that moment when the music is in perfect sync with the individual. I would argue that the unique nature of Phish is not that which comes across in the talent, or the band/audience relationship. These things are certainly rare, but there are other bands and musicians who have them. What places Phish in on a level far beyond most other bands and musicians is their ability to make that "wave" happen on an enormous scale. In terms of communication: Phish is not engaging in one-to-many (the band to the audience) communication. They are engaging in several simultaneous one-to-one communications (the band to many individuals in the audience). Listening to Phish, many times, *is* like riding a wave. I know it sounds hokey, but, during those times, my "whole being" is exactly in sync with the music. For lack of better terms, I "ride" with the music, body and soul. Occasionally, I will break out of this and look around. Whether it be at a show, or listening to a tape in someone's apartment, there are people all around me experiencing the same thing. This level of communication, to me, is the most unique, most amazing thing about Phish. ============================== ------------------------------ From: sauldude@merle.acns.nwu.edu (saul e. wertheimer) Subject: IT, was "what does the hose mean...?" Date: 4 May 1996 17:06:16 GMT with regards to the meaning of the "hose," i have seen reference made to "IT." i have heard IT many times in music. i have heard it in phish's music, miles davis, grateful dead, thelonious monk, bb king, and others. in the book "on the road," by jack kerouac, there is a discussion of IT. when i read it, i found it so interesting because i knew exactly what dean meant. i think that IT is like the concept of quality, found in "zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance," by robert m. pirsig. this quality cannot be defined, yet most people seem to know what it means. we see quality in our daily lives: music, literature, arts.... yet no one seems to be able to put a finger on exactly what it means when something has quality (or, for that matter, when a musician has found IT.) one factor that links quality for all of us, is that we all seem to recognize the quality in phish's music. here is a passage from "on the road": "Dean and I sat alone in the back seat and left it up to them and talked. 'Now, man, that alto man last night had IT -- he held it once he found it; I've never seen a guy who could hold so long.' I wanted to know what "IT" meant. 'Ah well' -- Dean laughed -- 'now you're asking me impon-de-rables | -- ahem! Here's a guy and everybody's there, right? Up to him to put down what's on everybody's mind. He starts the first chorus, then lines up his ideas, people, yeah, yeah, but get it, and then he rises to his fate and has to blow equal to it. All of a sudden somewhere in the middle of the chorus he *gets it* -- everybody looks up and knows; they listen; he picks it up and carries. Time stops. He's filling empty space with the substance of our lives, confessions of his bellybottom strain, remembrance of ideas, rehashes of old blowing. He has to blow across bridges and come back and do it with such infinite feeling soul-exploratory for the tune of the moment that everybody know's it's not the tune that counts but IT --' Dean could go no further; he was sweating telling about it." i hope this all makes some sense. i'd like to hear what some of you think about this. peace... sauldude. el shabaz wertheimer * 720 clark st. #3-s * "nothing left to do but evanston, il 60201 * smile smile smile..." sauldude@merle.acns.nwu.edu * - grateful dead (847) 328-5191 * ============================== ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dirkch00 Subject: Re: "Hose" Date: 4 May 1996 16:02:48 GMT | is more rare. We may think we hear perfection, but somewhere there is | included in the circle a point not of equ-distance, and not perfect. You just don't get it. That's fine. If you don't hear perfection when you hear a perfect version of Bouncin', but rather hear some sort of "equ-distance" hooey, that's beautiful. You are making me tired. And I am in the midst of studing for civil procedure, and have not the wits to deal with silly debates about Phish's perfection or lack thereof. Of course they aren't perfect all the time, Richard. No "mere mortal," as you put it at one point, can be. | (spirituality) and call it "silly" argue. Again you avoid the question. Again you failed to read what I wrote. But that happens all the time in cyrberia (whooooooosh). | I gave not my arguements but instead wanted to develope yours. To | establish what is a "hose" useing your definition. I spotted a problem | in you rframework and brought it to your attention. So please, I'm | asking nice, what is it that causes the music the "transcend" and become | a hose? (remember you were the one who wants to forsake subjectivity | --otherwise "hose" would be useless--- and ground this would in | objectivity so that everyone understands what a "hose" is. A noble | undertaking, far more difficult than just saying, "to each his own" as I | basically do. But what remains is the above question.) Actually, it isn't at all difficult. To objectively ground **IT** would be impossible. To objectively ground at least some semblance of a meaning for Hose is obviously not impossible, since it is clear by this thread that it already has, more/less, centered around a similar understanding of Hose. Why? 12/29/94-2 Bowie 11/26/94 Bowie Every experimental tweezer that involved spontaneous improvisation that was unpredictable, even though it may have sounded like crap to some people (it sounded like transcendent bliss to others). Runaway Jim from 6/16/95 12/9/95 YEM Jam, which became something more harmonious than any YEM Binghamton's second set (what WAS THAT!?) 12/12/95 Prov DWD>JAM 11/30 and 12/2/95 Tweezers 8/13/93 Bathtub Gin Aug something 93 Tweezer & Stash.. 8/15 I believe 11/12/94 Harry it sounds like based on trustworthy sources 12/31/95 Drowned>JAM, MikeS, Weekapaug>Sea and Sand.. 11/22/95 Free (welllll... yes) SPAC 95 DWD>JAM>FREE and many more | You offered to sit me down next to you, rewind a bit a yesterday, and play what you think is | a "hose" so that I may understand what is a "hose". While I think we'd The Hose never sounds the same. It is never the same thing twice. It is not predictable, and thereof could well might occur in the middle of Sparkle, Cavern, Bouncin, HorseSilent, Rift, etc. | have a good time doing such. Would listening to the show you choose | allow me to understand a "hose" or just hear one. If I don't understand, | it seems we may be back to a subjective idea of "hose". In that you say No, if you don't understand, you don't understand. That doesn't determine whether it is objective or subjectively perceivable. Many people don't understand many concepts that numerous other subjective perceivers are easily able to communicate about via an objective lived world of things and phenomena. | it is and I say it is not (I=someperson). Just because a great number of | people agree does not mean you're right. The point is, if we are going | to use the "hose" in this manner we need objectiveity, as you have tried | to do. I haven't tried. I've already succeeded. I am trying to make people like yourself, who obviously haven't heard very much Phish, to understand. And well, I can't do that, because it requires music. The mere written word apparently is not sufficient with some people, since they have no experiential basis in reality by means of which to comprehend Hose. | above. What is it that transcends the music, what is transcended music, | how do you catagorize a crazy jam as "hose" or "normal". Without these I already have answered your question. You just haven't been paying attention. I'm sorry that you couldn't see the light. I recommend listening to as much Phish as possible. Seek and you will find. | questions answered (in a way other than, listen to this show and you'll | know) the word "hose" falls back into the cavern of subjectivity and lost | (as you said for the purposes of this community.) No it doesn't, Rich. Not at all. You haven't listened to any of the shows above, I assume. Or if you have, do so anew. If you still don't get it, then you don't get it, and I can only pity you, because it is a glorious event to behold Hose, and I sincerely wish all could share in its majesty. It is only by listening to Hose, as many more before you have, that some objective communicable ground about it is formed. If you don't understand this, nothing will make you understand. charlie ============================== ------------------------------ From: kim@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Kim Hannula) Subject: Re: "Hose" Date: 4 May 1996 17:25:07 GMT In article <4mfv38$1o3@agate.berkeley.edu>, dirkch00 wrote: > >Actually, it isn't at all difficult. To objectively ground **IT** would >be impossible. To objectively ground at least some semblance of a meaning >for Hose is obviously not impossible, since it is clear by this thread >that it already has, more/less, centered around a similar understanding of >Hose. May I interject here? Charlie, I think your distinction between *IT* and the Hose is a little confusing. This is my understanding of the distinction you are making: IT is something members of the audience experience. IT is what makes people cry (or laugh aloud) in the middle of a jam. IT can be different for different people -- a feeling of time suspended, a perception of being part of the music, etc. Different people get IT from different things (lots of people got IT at Halloween in 1994; I didn't). The Hose is something the band experiences. It is the ultimate experience performing music: the moment when one feels as if he is not consciously controlling what is happening. The experience isn't limited to Phish, or even to musicians. I think it's sort of the same thing that athletes are talking about when they say they were "in the zone". The ball swooshes into the net without thought of where it needs to be aimed. You stick out your hand and the frisbee is there. Your fingers fly over the keyboard without the need to plan the next phrase. Is that the distinction you are driving at, Charlie? If the Hose is something the band experiences, then they would be the final authority on whether the Hose was happening at any given point in time. Doesn't mean we will never notice it, of course -- the Hose is likely to generate extraordinary music. But I'm not sure that the experience of relinquishing Control over the music is restricted to free-form, never-before-played jams. (Yes, Charlie, I think I'm changing my mind.) Kim ============================== ------------------------------ From: Richard T Schadle Subject: Re: "Hose" Date: 4 May 1996 15:33:45 GMT Drew, again on unixs so I'm forced to paraphrase. First, we seem to understand each other on the issue of perfection. Our only difference is how often PHISH achieves such "perfection". You are of the oppinion that it happens more often than not (certain songs) where I feel that perfection is more rare. We may think we hear perfection, but somewhere there is included in the circle a point not of equ-distance, and not perfect. You attempt to counter my accusation that you begged the question of what is it that makes a "crazy jam" a "hose" and what leaves it in the muck of normality, by attacking my understanding based on subjectivity (spirituality) and call it "silly" argue. Again you avoid the question. I gave not my arguements but instead wanted to develope yours. To establish what is a "hose" useing your definition. I spotted a problem in you rframework and brought it to your attention. So please, I'm asking nice, what is it that causes the music the "transcend" and become a hose? (remember you were the one who wants to forsake subjectivity | --otherwise "hose" would be useless--- and ground this would in objectivity so that everyone understands what a "hose" is. A noble undertaking, far more difficult than just saying, "to each his own" as I basically do. But what remains is the above question.) You offered to sit me down next to you, rewind a bit a yesterday, and play what you think is a "hose" so that I may understand what is a "hose". While I think we'd have a good time doing such. Would listening to the show you choose allow me to understand a "hose" or just hear one. If I don't understand, it seems we may be back to a subjective idea of "hose". In that you say it is and I say it is not (I=someperson). Just because a great number of people agree does not mean you're right. The point is, if we are going to use the "hose" in this manner we need objectiveity, as you have tried to do. It would be interesting if you would, rather than reply to my message, develope from scratch an objective meaning of "hose" --include givens for unformilare readers--and include in it the answer to the question I posed above. What is it that transcends the music, what is transcended music, how do you catagorize a crazy jam as "hose" or "normal". Without these questions answered (in a way other than, listen to this show and you'll know) the word "hose" falls back into the cavern of subjectivity and lost (as you said for the purposes of this community.) rich ============================== ------------------------------ From: "Craig D. DeLucia" Subject: Re: **What Does THE HOSE Mean to YOU?** Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 00:47:18 -0400 On 2 May 1996, dirkch00 wrote: > Several people have written me recently asking about THE > HOSE, and what exactly It means. The following does not > profess to be Gospel. I would be *THRILLED* to hear what > anyone has to say about their encounters with Hose, or > their understanding of Its meaning. Gladly, Charlie :^) > As regards the "Hose" in the sense that I colloquially > employ the word, welll.. as a noun, it is simply a JAM > that sends the soul skyward in a manner that is mystically > astray from the expected and typical course. =^] This is a good definition. I think that part of what makes the Hose so special is the fact that it is highly individualized. There are certian moments in certain versions of certain songs that I know move me, but others might not feel the same way. But more on that later. > For example, if, suddenly, in Bathtub Gin (see 8/13/93 -- my > first experience of Phish Hose), the jam segues from being > a typical Gin-sortof jam into a weekapaugian groove, > that's Hose. In Antelope, it wouldn't be an "Antelope" if > the jam didn't kick your ass and follow a fast-paced, > tear-it-up style. This jamming isn't "Hose," since it > would be akin to a normal Antelope; that is, what you'd > _reasonably_ expect to hear within the confines of The > Song. Hose in Antelope would be something completely > unusual for Antelope: where the Antelope takes on a > different form