SPAC3 RECAP: PRESSING YOUR LUCK
The last time Phish ended a run at SPAC, it was the cherry on top of a sweet 2012 first leg. This time around, the band is still gearing up for the summer and their 30th anniversary, as well as adjusting to a new/old configuration with Fish in the middle. In short, tours rarely seem to hit the jackpot right off the bat. SPAC3 2013 cashes in on a few jams, breaks even on others, and occasionally loses out. The takeaway from the evening, though, is that this slightly-above-average-great show means that the big bucks are still on the way.
The first set has great song selection, even though “AC/DC Bag” isn’t going to blow anyone’s mind by opening a show. It appears in the first or second slot so often for a reason; it’s a good way to loosen up and get the blood flowing. After a false ending from Trey, we get the real tightening of the noose, and the first highlight of the evening in the form of a solid “Back on the Train” boogie. This is a fun and extremely danceable type-I version, with accompaniment from Kuroda’s mesmerizing-yet-simple new lighting backdrop (which I’m in love with). “Divided Sky” is an excellent choice to follow “BOTT,” and the composed sections are clean. But while the jam starts in delicate fashion, with some nice additions from Fishman, to my ears there are a lot of sour notes from that point on.
“Free” has become an enormous tease for me. Every time, they get me thinking that they might stretch it out and give it some air, and every time Trey hits that chord that means the end is coming and leaves my balloon flat. But I’ll keep hoping. In the meantime, we are offered a Rift-fest in the form of “It’s Ice” and “Mound” (both solidly performed) and “Maze.” “Maze” is a different sort of tease, a potential detour into something completely un-“Maze”-like. There is a bit of reggae, which is quickly dropped, and then it seems like they might slow down and deconstruct the jam, but the result is just miscommunication and a botched transition into the Trey solo. The Trey section delivers the “Maze” tension well, but the release doesn’t explode as the best versions can. “Limb by Limb” then compresses the elements of this show into one song; the first part of the jam is fairly standard, then about six minutes in there is an interesting detour into Cactusland. But that lasts for only a minute, and there are some more unpleasant moments (again, to my ears) before “LxL” wraps up. “Walls of the Cave” is another great selection, and does as well closing a first set as “AC/DC Bag” does opening it. This version performs capably, but is not “SPACtacular.”
“Down with Disease” second set openers have become as common as “AC/DC Bag” first set openers, but when the jams have the potential to go just about anywhere, who cares? This “Disease” flirts with a few different moods. It first rages in typical rock fashion, then briefly becomes uplifting and melodic before taking a dark and dirty turn. I particularly like the last two minutes of this jam, which eventually dies and gives up to “Ghost.” Aside from some “Jumpin’ Jack Flash” teasing (and some technical problems with Page’s new vocoder), this “Ghost” mostly just floats around until the 7:30 mark, when Page injects plinko and things get interesting. There is a brief return to the “JJF” theme, but as the jam nears 11 minutes, there’s some musical indecision. Are we about to get spacey and cool down? Are we about to speed back up? No, we’re about to make an abrupt segue into “Piper,” which accelerates quickly and smoothly, peaks with authority, and descends into a beautiful coda that concludes with “Wading in the Velvet Sea.”
“Run Like an Antelope” is a little rough at the start and doesn’t run with its brother from Bangor, but it’s pretty much spot on and nice to hear mid-set rather than as a closer. It also has the vocal tag at the end, which you don’t often hear live, and contains lyrical changes which require a subsequent taste of the “Meatstick.” With that little Vienna sausage consumed, we’re ready for “You Enjoy Myself,” which is money in the bank on most nights. This, in my opinion, is not one of those nights. The jam gets off to a good start, with some staccato/plinko action between Trey and Mike especially, but what Trey plays from there just is not pleasing to my ears. I am not a musician, and I don’t have any idea about technique and equipment. I only know what I like and don’t like, and this pitch-bending effect that Trey uses, to my untrained ears, sometimes works and sometimes doesn’t. Here, as in “Divided Sky” and “Limb by Limb,” I don’t think it works. The beautiful buzz of “Loving Cup” tops us off, and SPAC ’13 is in the books.
It was a fantastic holiday weekend, and this is just the start of what promises to be an amazing summer. While I wouldn’t call this a “great” show, it has plenty that makes me excited for what comes next. Look for the band to gamble bigger and press their luck as they play Toronto and then move down the coast this week. Hope to see you at MPP! Be safe, everyone!
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Phish.net
The Mockingbird Foundation
Still, you're crazy to not love that YEM.
No earth shattering type II jams or anything, but this show was solid start to finish. Thought the piper was smoking, and it was nice to see Trey nail the Antelope peak like that after kind of butchering it in Bangor
Snooze.
i agree on every point you made. the only way our opinion separates is that i think they did a fantastic job recovering from and camouflaging their mistakes. they pushed on through them all, kept on experimenting and having fun. Example being the Piper intro was definitley jarring to say the least, but they pulled it off by building the song around that abrupt start. To be honest the mistakes, didnt happen to often and some fantastic music was played around these sour spots. Phish carried the energy of the night over the mistakes and they in turn felt easy to put behind. But in the end, i feel the blemishes do set the show down a few notches from being a truly great show.
From SPAC and a helluva start to the tour!
This is my 1st post but I have been around awhile..
Gorge 2 this summer will be my 50th show :0)
I just wanted to add a few things to the discussion...
First thing, no, the performances are not perfect
but the boys are smiling and taking lots of risks at a
seemingly increasing clip. This is a great thing!
Second, Trey has found something special with the
pitch bending aka whale call technique... When he keeps the
Swells short and controlled his sound takes a sweet
Garcia, Allman, or Clapton type of direction. This is a great thing!
What's not so great is when the effect is overused to the
point of making the listener almost dizzy... SPAC 3 featured less
Digitech Whammy than the 1st 3 shows so maybe and hopefully
Trey will continue to limit its use and keep it tasteful..
Thirdly & Lastly ...
The new light rig & stage setup is a welcome sight to me..
It's just more evidence that Phish is ready for a hot summer leg
filled with change aimed at keeping the focus on the music.
I would really like to see more shelving of the old covers but
you can't always get what you want :0)
Thanks for the reviews & the open discussions..
Brooks
That said I would like to humbly ask for a little more info on the jams themselves. I realize this venue is more of a show notes sort of thing and not a full-on surgical review, but I find that listening along with these things in mind helps me focus more intently, agree or disagree with the reviewer's view. One of the things I love about phish is that it directly rewards how much effort you put into listening, so that would be nice. No attacks on your reviews or insults about egos here. Just want more.
#metadotnet
What took me so long??
Knocking a show has everything to do w ego, and that's not bad. I wish people had enough ego of their own to not give a hoot what other people thought of the show.
Aside from flubs or miscommunications during some jams I thought the show was phenomenal, I watched it from my couch and was blown away. Both sets had wonderful flow and I was never thrown off by song selection, it all felt just right. Wading could not have been placed more perfectly and was the perfect cooldown after that strong Piper.
Another side note here; say they had not played Loving Cup as the encore and played another Phish song. When would be the last time they ONLY played Phish songs at a show? Phish was just being Phish and I loved every minute of it.
I like to think I can write about Phish and music in general fairly well, but writing about a jam is about the hardest thing I can think of. It is very hard to describe a type-II excursion -- which is perhaps one of the many things that makes them so valuable and addicting. I try, but never, ever feel as if I've succeeded, because so little of it is empirical and so much of it is subjective. Even emotional and spiritual.
But I'm going to remember this comment, and try harder.
My Facebook feed was full of people saying this show slaughtered the first2 SPACs. I don't agree in any way shape or form.
All the above being said (too long, sorry), I agree that this show was not leaps and bounds ahead of the previous three. I personally like the Bangor show for what it was, which was mellow, and find it a very enjoyable relisten. Also loved SOAM on night 2 and parts of the 2nd set that night.
Thanks for the review....keep it comin' guys, for a bunch of egomaniacs I think you're pretty cool.
I'm definitely hung up on it. I find it more distracting and unpleasant than almost anything I've heard in the band's history. The 6/18/10 Reba is one my least favorite of all time because of the use of that effect.
Just my opinion, of course, and I'm willing to believe that Trey is trying to work out exactly what he wants to do with that whammy.
Setlist & Accuracy have always trumped Jam style & Energy for me... but I'm one
of those Phish lovers that prefers the composed prog tunes. SPAC 3 Delivered...
Well Played, there will always be more shows to see :o)
Brooks
Bring on Fall Tour!!!
That Melt was the highlight of the seekend for me. Being with many friends for this show made it that much better. Loved seeing glowstick man come out for this one! Set 1 of sunday was a lil off for me, which is odd because i love ice, maze mound free and cave but maybe the pouring rain, slightly cold and still not dark had somehing to do with it. Also i reall want to hear that maze again, that lil cyncapted beat they did in the middle was strange.
Now..set 2... Damn!!!. I mean the number of heavyhitters they played was increadible.
Set the gearshift for the meatstick of you soul!!!! See yall wednesday!
Now, on to the highlights for me. It was my first time at SPAC. Shows 18-19-20 respectively. Each night was progressively better. Sunday was epic. Personally I don't think I could have arranged a better set list. I picked up a Divided Sky T-shirt about an hour before walking in on Sun. (1st Phish T-shirt
The rest of the show just kept getting better. The YEM closer was nice. The boys brought the heat, and the rest of the tour should be outstanding. I may get to MPP for Sat night?? If not, SPAC was unbelievable and it's on the list for next year for sure. The place is gorgeous.
My problem with your review primarily was that I felt you threw the baby out with the proverbial bathwater, as it were, because of your irritation. To me, a great show is by definition a show that the majority of people who experience it agree is great. An example is 8/31/12, which I think could be the single most overrated show in the band's history, but I must acknowledge it as great by consensus.
Anyway......I'll send you a get well card.
*_____________*
Theres no question the momentum is building. Bangor was safe, 2nd set Sunday showed great promise, closer to those 5 song sets the boys have done in the past.
There is something happening this year, however. It started last summer, stretched through NYE and has been obvious to me in these past four shows. This band is on the verge of breaking through to new terrain yet again – the energy is palpable. It was obvious from the first moments at Bangor; the groove is richer, steadier, and more complete. They are all settled-in in a way that might be hidden by rust or a jumpy Trey overthinking song selection, etc. They are trying to be their best and are actually approaching it. I promise, once the grease is flowing again, we are all going to see some serious shit. But I caution everyone, despite the temptation to do so, not to compare this moment to any other in Phish history as that kind of thing is foolish and futile. This machine has been ever changing since the beginning and they will continue to do so until they are really done. If you like Fall 97 better than Fall 10, that’s great for you, but reviewing Summer 13 against any other period and whatever personal disappointment arises because they are not doing what they do they way you like is not really reviewing but more like whining. 3.0 is no less valid than 1.0, it’s just a different version of the same thing. And it is that thing that keeps us all coming back for more.
Really? REALLY? Wow....you must hate 97-98, because I haven't heard a "clean" set yet during that period of blissful energetic creative wizardry. You may want to skip the tour, buddy.
So, if you and your friends think something was "sick," everyone else must be wrong? If you actually did read these reviews and recaps religiously, you would know that we do our best to provide our own honest assessment of a show. We don't unrelentingly bash everything. If we think something is fantastic, we say so. And I tried to do that in this recap as well. Did you not read that I enjoyed the Back On The Train, the Disease, and the Piper? Did you not read that I praised the song selection in the first set and the fact that they nailed It's Ice and Mound? No, because the only thing that matters to you is that I don't agree that the show was "sick" and also gave my honest opinion about the DSky, LxL and YEM.
Did you read my recap of Dick's 3 last year? BGCA 3? Apparently not, because then you might have an idea that it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with 1.0 vs. 3.0. In my opinion, those shows were amazing. Those shows were sick. 7/7/13, IMHO, doesn't come close. All I can do is give my opinion. You are under no obligation to read it, let alone agree.
I'm not sure what irritates you so much about me not being a musician. That was specifically addressing the whammy pedal, because I don't get what Trey is trying to do. Plenty of other people feel the same way. It doesn't mean I don't appreciate how skilled they are, and how difficult what they do is. The reason I write recaps about Phish shows is because I'm passionate about the band and spend an insane amount of time listening to, thinking about, analyzing, and writing about Phish.
We go through the same thing, year after year, every time someone posts a review that's even remotely critical of a show. So, again, I say with all sincerity, if you are looking for blind praise of every note that Phish plays then these recaps are not for you. I would recommend you read something else, perhaps something written by one of your friends.
The recap opens up in typical form with a solid reference to a great game show, Press Your Luck. But the excitement quickly waned and the opening lines were just muddled with missed metaphors and clichés that did not seem to work.
As we move to the second paragraph, the review is well underway. A reference to the new lighting setup was definitely a high point of the first half of the review. But unfortunately, while the content of this section was bold and daring, the punctuation was wayyyyy off. Misplaced and missing commas, i.e. "BOTT," and the overuse of words-separated-by-hyphens is all too common in these 3.0 reviews. Despite the overuse of misplaced punctuation, the review of the first set really does begin to pick up steam until the reviewer cuts it short to drop in a "SPACtacular" pun that brings the 1st half of the review to a screeching halt.
The second half of the review follows the standard template for show recaps found in "How to Write Negative Reviews for Dummies ":
(Insert Song) has the potential to take off until (Insert Band Member) pulls the plug and segues into (Insert Song), which had some great moments until it too fizzled out and lead us into (Insert Song) which was played perfectly except the second-note-of-the-third-verse was an off and Trey flubbed a lyric. Then the band (Insert song) which was good but not as good as (Insert Different Show Version). (Note: If at any point a fun moment occurs during the show, make little reference to it as possible and jump to the next song). (Insert Song) closes out the set and while it is a great song, this version just missed, just as (Insert 2 earlier songs from the night) missed.
For an Encore the review drops a Press Your Luck Reprise, which, like the first reference, misses the mark. But they do leave us with kind words to be safe and to promise that the rest of the tour will be ripe with great reviews. Can't wait!
The whole point of these recaps, for us, is to provide a starting point for discussion... of the show. So many of the commenters seem to think that the point is to examine the recap, determine how it differs from the thoughts they may have, and criticize the OP and the site for not stating their opinion. Nobody here is telling anyone what to think, and we provide copious opportunities for anyone and everyone to share their thoughts in virtually every nook and cranny of this site. If folks find pleasure in bashing us, that's cool, but if you don't agree with what someone else thinks, wouldn't it be more productive, and fun, to simply assert what YOU think? Crazy, I know.
Finally, for those who feel the need to take it a step further... and not like what we write, not offer their own thoughts, take personal shots at the writers, and then try to analyze the motives of the writers as a group... I offer you this: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mental+health+services
Keep comin'...
Pretty cute. You left out a few things, though. You left out the part where a volunteer who works overnight comes home, works around the house, gets four hours of sleep, gets up and watches the webcast, then stays up until 5:30 in the morning writing the recap so it can be posted on the free fan website, then sits back and waits for people to tell him what a shitty review it is because they have a different opinion of how good the show was. You also left out the part where those same people ignore the actual content of the review in order to make personal attacks, mock their efforts, and cry "jaded vets do nothing but hate on Phish 3.0" despite ample evidence that it's simply not true.
Not bad, though.
I don't think that it is fair to have a "If you don't like our review go somewhere else" attitude when you said it yourself- you are trying to stir up discussions.
I like this restaurant, but when a dish that i like becomes stale, predictable or just misses the mark and tastes bad that night, I feel like I should tell the chefs.
Sometimes when you are in a position to give an opinion to the masses you will have people disagree and personally attack you.
My post was not a personal attack it was a way to vent at how I feel that some reviews sound the same over and over again.
@lenuto42, you have some great points, but why wrap them up in criticism of the reviewer?
Yours was just a straight up bashing of my writing and of the review itself, rather than of the content. "Negative Reviews for Dummies?" Hilarious.
In the past I have read the comments on my own recaps because I wanted to engage in the discussion about THE SHOW. When @FACTSAREUSELESS suggested that my dislike of the whammy pedal skewed my perspective of the show, I wanted to discuss that. That's a discussion of the show and my view on it. If you have a different take on THE SHOW, that's great. I would have loved to talk about it. Instead, you wanted to bitch about what a shitty review I wrote.
But if I want someone's opinion on my writing, I'll ask someone whose opinion I value. If someone actually wants to talk about THE SHOW, you know where to find me.
There is a general taste in the mouth of Phans that you guys are negative curmudgeons. Why do you think you keep encountering this kind of criticism year after year? And the fact that you vehemently defend yourself points to just how much your ego is wrapped up in all of it. Thank you for proving my initial point better than I could.
P.S. I have read all your reviews positive and negative, but it doesn't matter at this point. The few positive ones pale in comparison to the general state of negativity that exudes here -- and it's not just my friends who think so. It is clear that you are writing for a specific group of like minded, self inclusive, folks and not the community en masse. Whether this was intended or not, the Phish.net is now bigger than those who created it and run it. There is a level of responsibility you must embrace that serves all of us, including the it's-all-Hood fans, but most importantly the spirit of fun that surrounds this band and its music. Wake up dude! Or should I ask... can you still have fun? Seriously, don't be Wilson....
We can rock it all night long...Darling
Cuz I got love...Darling
Love, Sweet Love
Set 1: Reba[1], Runaway Jim > NICU > Scents and Subtle Sounds[2], Wolfman's Brother, Walls of the Cave -> David Bowie
Set 2: A Song I Heard the Ocean Sing > Piper[3] -> Gotta Jibboo[4] > Limb By Limb, Cavern[5]
Encore: Wading in the Velvet Sea
A truly great Phish show, taboot.
"@" the .net reviewers: thank you for what you do. More often than not, you are totally on-point. I downloaded all the summer shows so far in 24-bit and if I was you, I'd have written the same review. I also read glowing reviews on phishthoughts.com and "Tackle and Lines" which, in my opinion, the shows did not live up to.
That is not to say the shows were good or bad. It's just an opinion.
I think the current format of the .net reviews (one 'official' review and then comments) creates a divide that lends itself to people who disagree with the review to feel like their opinion is less-than-important and that a middling review of a show they had a great time at somehow devalues their experience. I humbly propose that a return to a more anarchistic review page (a la http://phish.net/reviews/archive/) be considered. Since '11, it's been the same stupidity of people who had a GREAT time at a show being mad when the one official review isn't totally glowing.
"@" anyone else who wants to read it: My first and second show were 8/10/96 and 8/8/97. The first was great because it was my first, but musically, it was kinda "eh". I had high hopes for 8/8/97 and it was kinda flat to my ears at the show. The online reviews echoed that sentiment and it confirmed that I wasn't at a 'classic'.
When I finally got to my third show, 8/1/98, and realized that I was witnessing a classic show, it all seemed worth the journey. Had I read a Miner-esque fluff piece from the Tinley Park show talking about the "Hoochie Coochie Man" encore tearing about the fabric of the universe; maybe it wouldn't have been as satisfying.
As someone who was 'on' r.m.p. in the mid-90's, it was always helpful to hear about the shows so I could make a determination of whether or not I wanted to go through the rigamarole of seeking out a trade for a show. There were no 'official' reviews posted on the newsgroup but some people there had a more elevated presence and their insights were trusted.
In the modern era of everyone having immediate access to several different sources for each show within twenty-four hours of performance (and in the case of livephish.com, minutes), the 'trouble' involved with getting a show is minute. No trips to the post office, no calling Terrapin Tapes or going to Sam's Club to buy XLII's, no scammers (I'm talking to you, Vince Piracci). . .just a few clicks and boom, it's yours.
The main point is that (from what I can tell) the .net reviews are for people who weren't at the show to make a determination as to whether or not it is worth their money and time to download and give an attentive listen to a show. There will be some that want to listen to every show and there will be others who want to hear only the classics as deemed by people who have listened to most every show and know what's up. The .net reviews aren't for people seeking validation of their good times at a show and hopefully, they don't take away from the good time you had - because when you do witness a truly great Phish show, you'll know and it won't matter what .net says.
I hope this all makes sense and doesn't add fuel to the fire.
"DISCLAIMER: I have been seeing Phish off and on since 1989 and have
heard a majority of the shows in the Helping Friendly Book. I still
LOVE Phish, but am jaded, having liquidated nearly 500 Phish tapes
within the last three years. If I were to list out the Phish songs I
never want to see again *live*, the list would probably be more than a
page long. I prefer several of Phish's newest songs to the vast
majority of their older songs (which I think is really, really weird..
this band is incredible! =^). I think it is wise to distrust all
opinions on music, regardless of experience, until you hear something
for yourself, because your opinion is all that matters. I
nevertheless also think it is important to contextualize your opinions
on the Internet, for greater hermeneutical harmony."
It was, from the moment they sent the crowd in a to a frenzy that scared the crap out of the 78 year old ushers by opening with Reba, all the new songs (at the time) that turned in to jam monsters (Scents..., Walls of the Cave, A Song I Heard...), even the Velvet Cheese encore wasn't bad. :-)
Having only heard the just completed SPAC run from my very comfy computer desk chair, I enjoyed the playing, thought there was some really interesting jams, was happy with vocals of all 4 guys but wish that the song selection was a little more adventurous.
That is a relevant point, though I'm not sure there is anything that can be done about that. Phish shows are FUN. It's the point, right? :-) People have a great time – I've had a great time at every Phish show I've ever attended, even the ones that were less than awesome performances. But reviews aren't intended to validate the personal experiences of attendees. If they were, they'd be really short! And, frankly, sorta meaningless... "Wow! Awesome! Raging!" etc. Not that anyone is *trying* to be critical, of course. But here is the thing: nobody is trying to define, influence, or comment on anyone's individual experience. In fact, the person writing the recap often went to the show and, regardless of how they sized it up in the cool light of pixels, also had an awesome time.
That is an AWESOME idea. I wish we would have thought about that. Oh, wait... we DID think about that! :-) Go to any setlist, scroll down, and you'll see a review archive. Anyone can post to it, they stay there forever, and are sorted according to their popularity via their score. It is a great resource for the community and allows anyone to voice their opinion, good, bad, or indifferent. It is the very existence of this resource that makes us (well, me, at least) scratch my head when people get bent out of shape because one person's review didn't match their experience, given that the site is structured to allow *everyone* to share *their* experience.
THIS. X1000! This is precisely the intent (again, at least my intent, I can't speak for others). Because here is the thing: whether you were having the time of your life at the show, dancing your ass off with your best friends, falling in love, having great seats, meeting cool people, etc – all of the "experience" components – none of those things will be available to the person making a decision about whether or not to listen to that particular show. So we take a slightly more objective, analytical approach. Again, if you want to hear how every note descended directly from the hand of God, there are options out there.
I hope this background helps. We're really not a multi-headed "Wilson" around here... sometimes I think that the negative flak commenters imagine us standing around with arms crossed, clipboard in hand (well, ok, that is one of us, but still :-)), shaking our heads, etc, whereas the reality is that we all love Phish, and have every bit as much fun at the shows as everyone else. Many of the commenters take us WAY more seriously than we ever take ourselves, which is 'not much'. Each recap is just one person, sharing their perspective on one show, in the relatively sober light of day. If that is helpful to folks, and we'd like to think that it often is, awesome. If that isn't helpful to you, that's cool, too.
This site is set up for maximum participation. Use it. Ideally, while doing so, remember that the reason that we love Phish is because it isn't the same every night, and it is sufficiently complex and different that we're all not going to have the same reaction to every gig. If we did, it would be a "fan club" and how f-ing boring would that be?
Cheers...
In the past I have read the comments on my own recaps because I wanted to engage in the discussion about THE SHOW. When @FACTSAREUSELESS suggested that my dislike of the whammy pedal skewed my perspective of the show, I wanted to discuss that. That's a discussion of the show and my view on it. If you have a different take on THE SHOW, that's great. I would have loved to talk about it.
Good point. I'd like to get back to discussing the show too, if you're up to it at this point. I'm sorry for how this all turned out, I can appreciate you feeling a bit touchy.
Anyway, to support your assertions made in your review, I found it interesting that someone on livephish.com posted (who claims to be a musician) and explained that when Trey pitch-shifts, he often is playing in a different key than the rest of the band, creating unneccesary discord. He feels that Trey is an outstanding player and is actually playing quite well but that he is throwing off his bandmates and the audience by his constant deployment of the device.
I suppose there's a balance in all this. I still think that the show was better than you did, but thought you'd appreciate the feedback.
No one is complaining. That's the thing. With maybe a handful of exceptions; we all, regular users and admins alike, love Phish and are 'on board' with what they are doing in 2013.
Phish is playing twenty-five shows this summer, which is about seventy-five hours of music. It would take somebody over three days to listen to the tour in its entirety, which is like ten midnight-to-sunrise sets at Big Cypress in a row. That is a lot of music. Some people are going to listen to it all, which is great. Some people are going to pick and choose what they listen to - either a few select full shows or highlights from each night - and will still thoroughly enjoy the music and love Phish. What is the problem with someone providing a matter-of-fact appraisal of a performance for someone who again, loves Phish, but wants to stick to the highlights?
I love Bob Dylan more than probably any musician in history but I have yet to hear "Tempest" because I don't really have any interest in hearing it. If I was at a place that was playing it or had it recommended very highly by someone who knows every nook and cranny of the Dylan world, I'd give my ears to it. Does that make me an ersatz Dylan fan? I guess so, but who cares? It's my life and I'll do what I want.
The bottom line, to me, is this: the music is out there and is easily accessible. No one is restricting access to it and it will be around forever. If the show is in fact truly great, people are going to hear that and pick up on it eventually. Maybe it might take ten years for people to come around to its greatness, but if you like it now, that should be all that matters; and if you had as great time at the show as you say you did, who cares if someone gives it a 'C+' review?
It seems to me like a certain segment of Phish fans need to feel like they saw a great show as deemed by someone else's opinion on the internet. I can understand and relate, I read people's opinions about music to the detriment of my own critical faculties sometimes too. I'm not going to get mad if someone gives a three-star rating to an album I love and say the person doesn't know what they're talking about and say their jaded and complaining.
I don't know how to wrap this up, um, thanks for reading if you made it this far.
@pzerbo Thanks for your response, insight and kind words. Cheers!
Page is using a talk box, not a vocoder. A vocoder can be a pretty complicated device. Talk box... not so much. A talk box can give a similar result in sound as a vocoder, but it's still a very different kind of tool. Google them to learn more or ask your favorite music tech geek.
And thanks for the review!