David, you make a worthwhile point, but that's a ten-year performance period over which, in general, Phish frequently played with improvisational abandon, and there's no amount of forest-through-the-tree statistical analysis that will undo that.

Wouldn't you agree the salient point here is that you are, in fact, quite easy to please when it comes to Phish? You mentioned elsewhere that the end of the set--presumably Birdwatcher-> Kung--saved the show for you because you like silly Phish. Isn't it from that place that you fashion this argument?

I need a definition of "frequently." I saw Phish 56 times in 93-94. "Improvisational abandon" was probably present to some degree in 11 of them 3/14/93, 8/20/93, 5/7/94, 6/17-18/94, 6/22/94, 12/9/94, and 12/28-31/94, but even in those, that's mostly defined by having a good Tweezer or something. It was there, yes, but it was there in the great shows but there were a ton of shows, a TON that didn't have that.

So yes, I am somewhat easy to please when it comes to Phish, although I should say that, "saved" was meant in the sense that it would have been something fun to remember, something worth waiting in the rain for, not as in, "Let's run to LivePhish and download it and listen to it again and again." I like the silly stuff, I like the subtle improv they've been doing, I like a well played Slave or Divided Sky, I like a hot Type I jam. If I didn't, I would have given up on this band well before 1997 rolled around.