Writer’s Workshop: Mr. Miner (a.k.a. Dave Calarco)

HT: One thing that I think is an interesting struggle that all music writers face is balancing between being objective and critical while knowing full-well that you‘re a fan of these musicians you write about everyday. Obviously, this is heightened in your case, given that you focus on one band in particular, so you can‘t go biting the hand that feeds you so-to-speak. Have you grown more comfortable dishing out the bad with the good as you’ve grown as a writer?

MM: Well, ever since I started reviewing Phish shows, I’ve never really tried to balance any line. Each and every night, I am giving my honest take of the show without worrying about how it’s going to be received. I certainly try to articulate my thoughts in an engaing and descriptive manner that any serious Phish fan would enjoy—and some nights I achieve that better than others—but when it comes down to it, the show reviews are simply my perspective. Objectivity is not something I am trying to achieve. The fact that so many read them and enjoy them, whether they agree or disagree with my opinions, is a very satisfying aspect to writing them.

In terms of writing critical things about the band, I’m not sure I ever had an issue with saying something negative about a show if that’s how I felt. If I don’t think a set, jam, or song placement worked, I will say so, because as I said, I am giving my honest opinion on the performance. But I don’t harp on the negative in my reviews. I enjoy writing—and I think fans enjoy reading—about the highlights of the shows, the most exciting jams and truly engaging music that went down.

Therefore, I focus on the positive aspects of a show as opposed to constantly highlighting faults or shortcomings. This is not to make the review seem “fluffier” in any way, but what’s the point of noting all the licks Trey missed in a song or show? Unless, of course, the negative aspects are so glaring that it affects the contour of the entire performance; in that case, I’ll say so. But the bottom line is that Phish is such a positive experience for me, and on most nights, I leave the show glowing with plenty of highlights to discuss, and those are what’s fun for me to write about.

HT: Similarly, one thing we all face in writing about Phish is you get a particularly harsh dose of is criticism from other fans and readers, as everyone thinks they know more than the next guy about the band. Does it ever get to you to see people criticizing your writing or the blog in comments or on Phantasy Tour or wherever it may be?

MM: Because Phish is something so many people feel so passionately about and connect to in such a personal way, putting any opinion of a show out for public consumption will inevitably draw criticism from someone. I knew that would be the case from the get go. One day I’m called a fluffer, the next I’m a called a cynic; it’s all quite amusing on one level. But to be honest, in willingly putting myself out there each and every night, the feedback has always been far more positive than negative, so more than anything I’ve found the any negative emails or comments to the board as comedic asides to the overall experience. On tour, when I would wake up after writing them, I’d share any absurdly negative comments on my blog as points of comedy to my friends, so it was never something that affected me in any serious way. I don’t read PT, but I’m sure they have plenty to say!

Occasionally, people take it a bit too far, blasting me in a very personal email. But as I’ve come to realize, this is usually in the case where I write a negative slanted review, a kid had a blast at the show, and then feels that my review is in some way invalidating his experience, which, obviously, it doesn’t—it can’t. People need to remember that I’m just one person writing one opinion of the show. Again, what has been crazy to me over the years is both how many people care to read my opinion and how many people with whom it really resonates. That’s been an awesome part of the overall experience of writing about Phish.

HT: So, let’s talk about the book. What are some things longtime Mr. Miner readers can expect and what do they get in a book form that you wouldn’t get on the blog?

MM: First off, they will be able to hold a gorgeous hardcover coffee table book drenched with amazing full color photography that they will be able to get lost in for years to come. Between the design and aesthetic of the book, the photos, and the amount of writing within, I think it will be something many Phish fans will love. There’s a certain tangibility to books, especially artistic books like this one, that has started to fade away from our culture with electronic media, and I think this book provides a lasting relic about a band and a subculture that we all love so much.

Additionally, it is a volume that really chronicles a fascinating time in the lives of everyone in the Phish community. Five years after Coventry, Phish was back in our lives, and people didn’t know what to expect. The years of 2009 and 2010—the foundation for the band’s 2011 explosion—are followed in great detail in the first part of the book. The second part is organized by subject into four sections—Tours & Eras, Shows, Songs & Jams and Culture—and everything is tied together with a systems of “Connections” that enable the reader to navigate the book by topic, in whatever way he wants.

Another interesting part of the book that is brand new is its introduction. Throughout my time writing about Phish, I’ve never written a definitive essay that explains my understanding of the Phish phenomenon. I decided to do this as the introduction of the book. I called this section “What Is Phish?” and it has several subsections that go into the many aspects of the Phish experience. This essay sets forth a framework of understand with which to read all of the essays in the book. I think this will be an engaging section for fans, both new and old, to read.

PAGE THREE = The Challenges of Getting The Book Published & Best Hoods