got into a heated argument at work the other day with my manager who is very into phish. lets hear some opinions.

Apples and oranges. Both are talented and have VERY opinionated fans about who are the better players.

C'mon people, I can't believe this is even debated! Grateful Dead, of course!

I know really.....reminds me of that "whos better Furthur or DSO" thread.

Without the GD, there would be no Phish.

I have to stand by the Dead on this one.
The guys from Phish are all great instrumentalists but lets face it , Trey is no Jerry Garcia

Van Gough or Monet?

William S. Borroughs or William Shakespeare?

Mozart or Beethoven?

I love 'em both!

Farrah, of course. Oh wait, that's the hottest Charlie's Angel.

I think they are really uncomparable in a sense. The Dead started in the late 60s and revolutionzed music. There really wouldn't be Phish without the Dead, thats for sure. But Phish did take the music 'furthur', going from just fans to making music of their own, and actualyl having quite sucess at it. I think the same could be said for Widespread Panic. All of really talented muscians that do their 'jamming' in different ways and styles. I think they are all around the same level of talent, for sure, or else they wouldn't be as popular as they are.

I've never understood why Deadheads don't like Phish, and Phish phreaks don't like Deadheadhs and shit. IF you are a true fan o the MUSIC, shouldn't you love it ALL?

I agree with whoever said its like comparing apples and oranges. And on this forum, its obvious what the responses will be...

BUT, what the hell, IMHO...

I'll take the Grateful Dead any day. Now don't get me wrong, Phish is a powerhouse jam band. Their tight, and I love it when they go off on long, trancy, dreamy jams. But for me, theres too much pre-writen, planned out, composed stuff in their music. I just don't dig their entire repertoire.