Mike Gordon’s “hotline” voicemail (212-330-9092) currently jokes about various jamming types. It begins, however, with “type 3,” and explains a variety of jamming types up through “type 17,” which no band member will discuss “in public or even in private,” and “type 18,” which of course does not exist.
Since Mike does not discuss them, you may be curious about “type 1” and “type 2.” These jamming types were first discussed on Rec.Music.Phish by a fan named John Flynn in January 1997. You can read a great deal of information about them here in the FAQ file. These terms have been in use by many Phish fans for over 14 years, even though perhaps you couldn’t care less about them. What do they mean, again?
“Type 1” is used to describe a jam within a song’s jam segment that follows the ordinary, customary course or structure for that song -- even if the jam in question is “extended” for a longer time than normal. Such jams stay within the song’s typical chord progression, key, rhythm, melody, etc. For example, every version of “Sample in a Jar” to date -- EVERY SINGLE VERSION -- has a “type 1” jam segment. Most jams within most versions of any given jamming tune, like “Stash,” “David Bowie,” “DWD,” “Tweezer,” “BDTNL,” etc., are “type 1.”
On the other hand, a “type 2” jam occurs when the band’s improvisation leaves the song’s customary structure behind and ventures into new territory. It’s a safe bet that every 20+ minute Phish jam consists of at least some “type 2” jamming (see the list of 20+ min Phish jams here), but length is not necessarily going to indicate “type 2.” Some confusion on the use of these admittedly silly terms may be because almost every -- if not every -- “type 2” jam begins out of a song’s customary structure, i.e., almost every “type 2” jam begins as “type 1.” And, frankly, a “type 2” jam may even return to “type 1” if the song’s typical melody, theme, coda or outro is returned to after the “type 2” improvisation is finished.
Until August 1993, the vast majority of Phish’s improvisation was “type 1.” August 1993 witnessed a significant number of Phish jamming tunes taken far beyond their ordinary course to new improvisational heights. “Type 2” improvisation back then also typically launched itself out of the band’s classic jamming tunes, like “Tweezer,” “Split Open and Melt,” “David Bowie," “Mike’s Song,” and “You Enjoy Myself.” Months like June 1995 and December 1995 include a great deal of “type 2” improvisation, nearly in every show. By 1997, “type 2” arguably became more common, and appeared in a wider variety of songs (including “Ghost,” “AC/DC Bag,” “Down With Disease,” “Halley’s Comet,” “Wolfman’s Brother,” and more). And from 1997 through 2004, “type 2” jamming seemed to occur anywhere and everywhere. Although Hampton’s “Down with Disease” in March 2009 made it clear that we would continue to get “type 2” improvisation in “3.0,” such improvisation has nevertheless been less frequent than it was in 2003-2004. This is not necessarily “good” or “bad,” as “type 2” has never meant that such a jam is in any way “better” than a “type 1” jam.
Here are some recent examples of “type 1” and “type 2” jams:
Type 1 - 6/12/2011 Merriweather “Halley’s Comet”
Type 2 - 5/28/2011 Bethel Woods “Halley’s Comet”
Type 1 - 6/19/2011 Portsmouth “Down With Disease”
Type 2 - 6/3/2011 Pine Knob “Down With Disease”
In each of the “type 1” versions, the improvisation stays within the safe confines of the song’s typical structure. At no point do you not know that you’re listening to “Halley’s Comet” or “Down With Disease.” On the other hand, the improvisation in the “type 2” versions leaves the existing structure of the songs to the point that a listener who starts listening halfway through the jam likely would have trouble recognizing what song the band was playing when the jam began.
Of course, the “type 1” and “type 2” terms are imprecise. For example, what jamming type would you call the Bethel “GoldenGinTeca” ? When the jam goes all "Manteca-GoldenAge-esque," and the rhythm changes and the key modulates, this is “type 2” action. But it only lasts for a few minutes, if that. The lion’s share of the jam is typical “Gin” jamming. (The 7/29/98 Riverport “Gin,” one of Phish’s greatest improvisations in history, is largely “type 2,” however.) Is it appropriate to label the Bethel “Gin” jam “type 2” when only a few minutes of it arguably qualify? And, more importantly, do you really care? No? Neither do I.
The “jamming type” terms continue to be useful to fans in communicating when jams veer off the customary course. But please, like Mike Gordon, don’t take them too seriously.
If you liked this blog post, one way you could "like" it is to make a donation to The Mockingbird Foundation, the sponsor of Phish.net. Support music education for children, and you just might change the world.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Phish.net is a non-commercial project run by Phish fans and for Phish fans under the auspices of the all-volunteer, non-profit Mockingbird Foundation.
This project serves to compile, preserve, and protect encyclopedic information about Phish and their music.
Credits | Terms Of Use | Legal | DMCA
The Mockingbird Foundation is a non-profit organization founded by Phish fans in 1996 to generate charitable proceeds from the Phish community.
And since we're entirely volunteer – with no office, salaries, or paid staff – administrative costs are less than 2% of revenues! So far, we've distributed over $2 million to support music education for children – hundreds of grants in all 50 states, with more on the way.
"Type 3" was the label given to Phish's white-boy "pornofunk" jamming, which Trey referred to as "cowfunk." It is exemplified by Phish's funky jams, e.g., in Fall 1997 "Tubes" and "Tweezers." Its use by fans did not catch on as much as "type 1" and "type 2," presumably because its use is also very silly, and "type 3" is -- after all -- "funky type 1," or "funky type 2," depending on out of what song it occurs. (One expects "funky type 1" in songs like "Tube," "Sneakin Sally," "Boogie On," "Tweezer," and "Wolfman's," for example.) Mike, however, redefines "type 3" on his "hotline" message as part of the joke, so I figured it best to ignore it... at least until some vet brought it up.
I like Mike.
http://www.lookalike.com/lookalikes/images/austin-powers-sm.jpg
I have found that type 2 jams can be subdivided by the various musical elements that are executed. One of the most common ones is a shift from major to minor tonality (& vice versa) via the occasional pivot chord into a completely new key or by the more common modal shift. This serves as a launchpad into the next song without having to stop & start again. Phish are masters of this. The only other musicians I've heard do this are very experienced jazzers (from my personal study at least).
Some of the more risky type 2 jams involve meter shifts & added meters during the tension building. What's interesting in this case is that Mike usually brings them into it, Fish usually gets them out of it while Trey either lags behind are goes ahead of the beat as they bring resolution to a phrase. The magical moments are when they hit it all perfectly together back on the 1. When they occasionally do this, it's seems so impossible that I wonder whether it's luck or supreme musical intuition or perhaps both.
In any case, I believe they are the best improvisors in contemporary Western music. Given there is a vast library of live recordings, I think they will be studied in the future just like some of the greats of yesterday.
Phil
Phish jams such as this post? Here's another factor to ponder, what numerical # do the full out teases Trey is so prone to play (i.e.; Streets of Cairo, Mantecca, Crosseyed, ect...) deserve? Since we still have Type IV - XII at our disposal, I guess it wouldn't be a very hard designation.
Thanks for adding this point to the discussion. Anyone who is intrigued by comparisons of the different "types" of Phish jams should listen/re-listen to 9/18/99 Chula Vista "Boogie On Reggae Woman" for a more-or-less-sequential demonstration of Types 1, 2, and 3.
As an ardent non-critic and non-analytic fan {that is, in relation to the true phisher-atti [i.e. we're almost all pretty analytical (read: dorks) by nature]}, I was a little confused for some time reading reviews in my trusty Phish Companion that referenced "Type III" jamming. Eventually I figured out that meant the funk stage - cow funk, space funk, porn funk, any combination thereof.
Is this an ongoing style (or "type" or was this a phase, linked to a specific time or chronology? I'll leave that to powers greater than I to hash out. But either way - even if they never play a measure of funk again - its an identifiable style that most fans can recognize.
So I'm calling it "good."
:::raises arms like football ref signaling TD:::
And with that in mind, I'm proposing, on a preliminary basis, that the new staccato style could constitute a "Type IV."
Now I realize the ins and outs, and I don't want to get up to Type XVIII or anything here (unless the band somehow plays and creates new music for like 167 more years). But this has the potential to be lasting enough to be remembered as a major evolution in the bands musical history.
But the Type I vs. Type II (within the structure vs. abstract) is different than the Type III and proposed Type IV, which connote specific styles. So maybe it's apples and oranges, and the Type III Crew got ahead of itself 14 years ago. Not to blame them, who would have known? But is it possible that Type II could evolve to mean "outside the structure of the song, but exclusive of the funk and stacatto?"
Again, questions for bruhs and bruhettes much hettier than myself to resolve. But at this point (and especially if they push on with the staccato sound), I think its a framework worth considering.
:::punches winky-face right in the winky-face eye:::
I suggest that we change the measuring stick to "Phases." In this system, there are four phases of jamming. Phase I is relative to the standard Type I. Like @Icculus suggests, Sample In A Jar is always Phase I. It remains tightly wound inside the chord progression and rarely ventures outside of it.
Phase II can become clear to the listener in the event of confusion. This jamming phase is largely represented by discomfort in the harmonic content. Trey might attempt to create change by utilizing a chord outside of the main progression, but still in the key. For example, in minor songs (Stash, for example), he might emphasize the lowered sixth chord while Mike wanders around his fretboard and Fish sticks with Mike. The distinguishing characteristic of a jam in Phase II is that at least ONE member of the band is still holding on to the original song structure. This is what causes confusion in the listener. Phase II is a transitional phase, but these phases can last a long time. I have seen Tweezers that exist completely in Phase II. However, sometimes that last member drops out of the texture and then is created...
Phase III. Phase III is generally analogous to what is referred to as "Type II". The jam that reaches Phase III is what many of us look for in a Phish show. Most jams that leave our jaws on the floor have reached the third Phase. Recently, Blossom's "Sneakin' Sally," Super Ball's "Simple," and the Pine Knob "DWD," have accessed blistering Phase III goodness. While only one of them actually left the original key (which almost always occurs in Phase III), each of them exhibit musical properties that are unrelated to the original material. This phase of improvisation is marked by changes in key center (Phish often does this with extreme subtlety and mastery), mood, meter, and general aesthetic presence. When Mike drops one of those fat bombs on the audience, you can safely assume that you are somewhere around the third phase. Lately, Phish has shown great ability to access the third phase, but has been utilizing it to leap into another song. What many jaded fans often wane for cannot be characterized in the "Type 2" principle. They seek...
Phase IV. Phase IV represents the great happenings of Phish improvisational history. 7.10.99 Chalkdust, 8.17.97 Bathtub, or 7.29.03 Crosseyed. There are dozens more, but you get the drift. Phase IV represents not only a complete separation from the original song that began the improvisation, but also an entirely unique moment that blossoms out of Phase III ideas. In order for the jam to reach the fourth phase, it must settle into an entirely new melodic and harmonic pattern that possesses a beginning, middle, and end. These jams are extremely sophisticated and require every member to be moving through the improvisation at the same rate. While rare, they are the very reason that many of us have been hooked on Phish -- chasing around the fourth phase.
(I can explain all of these phases in terms of formal analysis if anyone needs further clarification.)
Loved your idea / explanation. I think T1 & T2 are so embedded in phish terminology / history, that it wont change.
It gave me some insight why I'm not enjoying Furthur on their latest tour. They seem to be going for T2 via randomness. There is no underlying melody, and it ends up sounding like wind chimes.
A+ post. excellent stuff.
Type 2 doesn't have any boundaries or stylistic signifiers. I feel like this is what trips people up when discussing the "Types" of jamming. Type 2 simply means that the jam no longer resembles the song it sprung forth from. Various attempts to classify the funk, and later- the ambient jamming as a seperate type sprung forth from people wanting to express that a song had left it's typical structure but had gone into a general style of jamming that Phish was doing in a lot of songs during those periods. That way, people would know that while a specific Halley's Comet funk jam is far enough from typical that it wouldn't be "Type I" it also wasn't going into unexplored realms. I understand the purpose of either definition of "Type III" but they don't fall into the continuum with "Type I" and "Type II" due to the stylistic boundaries placed on "Type III" - Type I isn't just a rocking guitar solo, Type II isn't just a space jam. When it comes down to it, it's about context, not content.
More and more, you see people referring to any spacey jam as "Type II" no matter what song it comes out of. Simple jams sound like a lot of "Type II" from other songs, but since thats what Simple jams typically sound like, it is a Type I jam in Simple.
If the same jam came from a Fluffhead outro or in the middle of Julius, it would be unequivocally "Type II". Likewise, a rollicking Chalkdust-esque jam emerging from the effervescence in the middle of Foam would be "Type II" beyond a shadow of a doubt, no matter how "normal" the music sounds.
Obviously, there are grey areas. Such as the 7/31/99 Simple which spaces out as per usual but then returns to a massive peaking ending which still sounds like Simple. While related to the structure of the song, it is also extremely atypical for a 99 Simple to get loud at the end. I'd still call it Type I, but i know plenty would disagree. Then again, plenty would disagree that a Character Zero style "standard" rock jam coming in the middle of Roggae be classfied as Type II simply because they don't think it is "weird" enough to be Type II.. But again, those people are wrong
Bring it on!
In any event, you did a perfect job summing up with you're Phase IV idea what the "Type II" label never quite captured: "...the very reason that many of us have been hooked on Phish -- chasing around the fourth phase..."
Thanks
Type II = Not within the confines of the song.
Vegas '00 Hat Jam = Type III.....they left the confines of even playing music. Discuss. ;D
I've held for years the opinion that Mike is the key to most of the epic Phish jams over the years. Mike is a master of his craft and easily the best musician of the group.
He has an extremely sensitive ear and Trey relies on ideas from he and Page when it comes to jamming. More often than we would care to admit, when a show is "average" (by general consensus) it is because Trey did not receive ideas from those two, or failed to capitalize on the ones presented to him.
Trey is a very rhythmic and percussive player, while Mike is very lyrical. Trey likes to play in space, and often gets lost in his own chops and misses the cues from Mike until a phrase behind the signal.
By contrast, Jerry Garcia was a very lyrical player, while he was well-complimented by Bobby Weir, who like Trey, is a very percussive player. Bobby would create great space for Jerry to work in, with Phil creating melodic counterpoint at the bottom end seemingly (by experience) at the other side of the known universe.
Because of this dynamic (with the lead guitar being so lyrical, riding like a bird with pins over the top of the musical bubble), the Dead had a huge, broad and expanding tapestry by effect in their general sound. Having two drummers increased this effect.
Phish, because their lead is percussive, has more of a driving, compact, intense sound. Phish's sound, generally is far more urgent than that of the Dead, primarily due to the different styles of their lead musician.
However, what Phish has that the Dead didn't is a world-class drummer and keyboardist, which adds great complexity and subtlety to their music.
As a big Miles Davis fan, I will also add that we only talk of Type 1 and Type 2 because we're talking about a rock band.
In the world of jazz, if you say "type 2" folks will just look at you funny. "It's called jazz." they may answer condescendingly.
The Phish are the best.
B. This guy needs to be a Phish.net admin, if he isn't already.
C. This guy also needs to teach classes and publish books about these things. He gets "IT".
My two cents, and as always, IMHO.