@bertoletdown said:

@lenuto46 said:

You guys astound me. Reading these reviews is great insight into each of your egos and how you compete with each other... pretty hilarious.

Please expound. I'd like to know more about the insights you've garnered into each of the recap writers and their interaction with one another. I'm serious. Having known these people for almost 20 years now, I'd love a fresh view into them. And myself. Go.

Haha, I doubt I have any insights that I can fully expound upon, but I have been reading these reviews RELIGIOUSLY for a long time and have been an avid phish.net reader since shortly after catching this affliction after my first show, The Clifford Ball, way back in 1996. It often seems as if the reviewer wants to be able to be negative for the sake of negativity and that can only be an ego thing, from this reader’s standpoint, and it has me wondering what goes on at the phish.net office? Are you guys so longing for the “glory days” that as soon as something doesn't measure up, in your opinion, you rally around the concept that this YEM was poorly executed, or this Antelope was not as good as the last, or whatever? There is definitely a battle of wits going on and to say I have it figured out would be quite pretentious, but I am aware of it and I know others who are as well. In fact, you guys have become a kind of good natured joke among my friends. Whenever we see something we really like, we will inevitably turn to each other and someone will say “That was sick, I can’t wait to read the phish.net later, they’re gonna hate it!” Or we wonder if you all see shows and get so disappointed that you’ll go home and take it out on the dog. I will say, of all the reviewers, I find Chris Bertolet’s reviews to be the most balanced and in general the bar-setter for what a Phish review should look like, whether or not I personally agree. That said, there are times when I read reviews, like this one by The Emu, and I am literally scratching my head. This one really had me wondering if we were listening to the same show or the same band even. And then to read a disclaimer stating that the writer is not a musician and doesn't know about technique?! That kind of thing really irritates me, simply because this band, more than anything, is striving for that kind of technical perfection and falling short (as we all do) into the ballpark of excellence. Evidence of this pursuit can be gleaned from the stripped down lighting rig, the new stage setup (it is genuinely new, this configuration has not been done before), the resurgence of songs like Mound, Fluffhead, Guelah; the resting of tough songs that have been under rehearsed ie Guyute, It’s Ice, Reba, The Curtain, Lizards, etc. They are trying to accomplish more than just sounding good, or creating interesting jams, or wowing us with crazy bust outs; they are trying to be their best, and as musicians that has more to do with technical excellence than creating sonic landscapes that stretch songs way out and make some of us very happy. That kind of exploration has its place, for sure, but in the history of Phish, the prevalence of such, when executed with aplomb, is limited to about 4-5 years tops in a 30 year history. I am speaking of 94-95, 97-98, and some hits and lots of misses in 99-00. Winter 03 has some cherry moments as well, as does the summer of that year, but it became clear that high quality exploration was giving way to the senseless meandering of leadership bogged down by an opiate induced haze of self-indulgence and confusion. So what has happened the rest of the time? They have been engaged in the struggle to be the best they can be. I believe you can find more insight into the band Phish in the periods between the big years. Listen to shows from 1993, 96, Fall 98, 09, and 2011 to really hear a band striving for something. It is easy for them to jam and make everyone happy [Soundcheck jams evidence this: Bethel Waves and this most recent Bangor soundcheck Jam, which I can say was wicked tasty] and much harder for them to be the band they really want to be.

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.