I don't mind a negative or mixed review with specific evidence cited from the performance, like the comments about this set 1, but not for the first time, I do tire of all the narrative-shaping. Whether 2017 will be more like early 2016, late 2016, 2015, or 1994 couldn't possibly be extrapolated from 2 shows; the author appears to be setting up an improvement narrative for 2017 in order to consign 2016 to the dustbin of history... shortly after begrudgingly admitting that the 2nd half of 2016 was basically as good as 2015.I haven't responded to most of the comments, because I have my opinions about Phish, it's only fair that all of you can have your opinions about my recap. Flame away. But I do want to respond to this accusation of so-called "narrative-shaping." I have no idea what the rest of 2017 will look like and absolutely nowhere in the recap did I try to even implicitly predict where it might be heading. To the extent that I will "shape a narrative" on 2017 (or, you know, form and share an opinion), I'll do it on the basis of the music they play. I don't need 2017 to be good, bad, or in between to consign Summer 2016, to my own personal dustbin.
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.
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 $1,000,000 to support music education for children – hundreds of grants in all 50 states, with more on the way.