Why Is PHISH so underrated on this site?

Phish is under prog-related on this site. Yet, when you listen to almost any song of theirs (live or studio) they are CLEARLY a prog rock band, and mix in many styles including jazz, funk, classical, bluegrass, fusion, etc...

i feel as though that because they are mislabeled here that many people will not explore their music (plus their label as a jam band does not help, which they are) people dont seem to know what they're really about. their first 4 albums are extremely prog rock and they have many songs on other albums that are prog rock, as well as live songs that aren't on studio albums that could compete with YES's or Frank Zappa's best work, or even any of the fusion bands here.

i said this in another thread, that, if Umphrey's McGee, a fellow jam band, are classified under jazz-rock/fusion on this site, then Phish MUST BE put there or maybe eclectic prog. i feel like this wont do much to move them since there arent enough Phish Phans on this site (from what i know) but i got to start somewhere.

Who moves for the band to be put in a prog category? any opinions?

im not saying they're jazz-fusion. im just saying they bring that focus in sometimes, especially in live settings. Lawn Boy is a very progressive album. as if Junta and Rift.

Umphrey's is jazz-rock sometimes, but not really, i dont think they should be in their respective category either.

Zappa had a sense of humor and so did Genesis and theyre very popular here.

i think if Phish were in a real prog category they would receive more attention from fellow prog heads

^^^ i'll definitly look into it. more people would probably check out the band if they were under, say, eclectic prog, for example

I'm just a lurker here, but I'll bite on this one. I agree that the jam band stigma is part of the problem, but it's not all of the problem.

Phish is (or was) Americana. They embraced every form of American music at one point or another during their career, using Zappa as their doorway into what this site thinks of as prog. At concerts, they'd often follow up an intricately composed art rock workout with a hokey bluegrass number or an acapella barbershop ditty. I think this leads lots of prog fans to think "ah-ha! prog-related".

Unless you saw them live, it's tough to understand that they viewed entire sets as one long piece of music, often breaking up songs into bits and pieces shot through with recurring themes and in-jokes. That hokey bluegrass example from before actually became part of the larger, more progressive whole.

As such, I consider them the most progressive band of the '90s (when the word progressive is taken at its face value and not the loaded word it's become), and I certainly wouldn't relegate them to the prog-related category myself, though I respect this site's decision to do so.

But then again, I'd add the Grateful Dead to the site in a heartbeat, so what do I know?

i remember a similar topic like this and someone said they only had a few prog albums and then just made albums with songs that were platforms for live jams. my argument is is that how many prog bands do you know had a string of prog albums and then changed their direction (usually to pop) and never came back (or tried unsuccessfully)

Phish never made a full prog album after Hoist, but did still make well constructed, thought out and arty music all throughout their career, even making a true prog rock song here and there.

I posted in the favorite Phish food thread.. Phish is being looked at by AR.. but as I said.. don't get hopes up. Two sets of teams must approve.. and AR are not even going to be the harshest judges 

I don't think phish are prog, i think they are prog-related. Eclectic prog could work, but prog-related is really where they belong here (still one of my fav bands)