(Please read with an donkey's Beach Boy accent) Hi my name is Pete named after the Pete before me my father true fact ... I couldn't agree more with the review rebuttal and have the bruises to prove it and groove it all across the intertr0nZ ::JUDO CHOPS::

Can we have a .Nettie for Run-on Sentence Of the Year?

Weeellllll.... I’m not sure I can completely agree with EVERYTHING she says, but she does make more sense than the initial review.

While we are at it, may we have a .nettie for most anal retentive punctuation Nazi,,,?

That was necessary

That is a bunch of gibberish.

I understand that the reviewer was harshly critical and injected some biased opinion (in re You Sexy Thing). I also understand that it’s always all good, always a fun time at a show. I understand that this band has nothing to prove and throughout 3.0 has displayed their genius and creativity over and over (Bakers dozen, chilling thrilling, ‘13 fall tour, Magnaball, 12/30/17, etc, etc, etc).

But I fail to see how it’s controversial to be disappointed when the band flubs a song you love. Especially a relative rarity like Mango. Especially when you know they are capable of never missing a note. And if it occurs frequently over a show or tour, it does seem a little unprofessional.

Again, this “rebuttal” is absolute gibberish.

“Unrehearsed” is one thing, but “unrehearsed garage band” is a bridge too far.

:::storms out of Phish:::

@Doctor_Smarty said:

Yes! Best part of the rebuttal OTW to deserved memeification.

I just wanted to support the Sunday church comment. I don’t stay sober but I do put on a white button down and wear my donut tie with my donut tie pin.

Megaphone drop indeed! I dont know if that made any sense at all but what a wonderful read on a crowded train ride home.

Time to close the books on that show and move on to Camden.

Amen. Sunday was special.

Not sure I followed half of this but thank you for defending this show for all of us who were there and had a great night to end a very special weekend.

I totally agree that the original recap I just read about N3 on Sunday seemed a bit off. I definitely enjoyed it. Sure, there were certainly a few flubs. But that is to be expected when trying to cover such an amazing, diverse catalog. If Phish stuck to only 30-40 songs all tour (while most bands stick to even less than that), I am sure it would be perfect. But that's not what I go for. Thank you for the rebuttal for those of us who enjoyed Sunday night!

Once again, the initial recap didn’t say it wasn’t an enjoyable show. It spoke of multiple highlights, such as the 2001, and the great vibe at Alpharetta. Recaps aren’t for blindly praising the band. They aren’t for fluff. As Trey said in Bittersweet Motel, we don’t just “lap it up,” we get online and talk about why it was a bad show. And while Sunday was far from a bad show, it did have some musical mishaps. Quite honestly, this tour has made me frustrated with the degree of flubbing occurring on a near-nightly basis, and I know I’m not alone. I love the band for its looseness and the occasional flubs are endearing, but if you’re going to completely butcher a song, maybe don’t play it. There’s a fine line between looseness and being unprofessional.

The “don’t you dare criticize the band, everything they do is perfect” mentality is nothing new, though. I remember listening to the tapes from Coventry and much of 2004 in general, then hopping on .net to read show reviews and being alarmed by how many people thought the band sounded perfect, when they clearly sounded like a strung-out shit show (with some mind-bendingly great jams, mind you). And there’s always the old chestnut, “a bad Phish show is better than any other band’s best show,” which is nonsense. Paying to hear a band butcher their own catalog is a bummer.

That’s what the original recap was getting at: Phish have had far better moments than the “Vultures” from Sunday. If you had a great time at the show, or if technical execution isn’t important to you, then someone’s criticism of a technical aspect of the performance shouldn’t hurt your feelings. I had an amazing time at 8/11/09, which wasn’t a great show.

Recaps are supposed to be critical evaluations of Phish performances, the good, the bad, and the BGCA “Waking Up Dead.” If you can’t separate your subjective experience of being at the show from a critique of the music itself, reading recaps may not be your thing. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Sooo... There's a lot going on at a Phish show. I look at a run of shows as an interconnected whole. The first night of Alpharetta, the band came to play. They split minds open with cosmic force. First Tube and Tweezer set openers are no joke! Darkness and light emerged. The first show was the wallop. The 2'nd night was the exploration of what emerged after night 1. There was darkness and patience, and some chasms were opened wider and some concerns were addressed. They were Waiting all night, Still waiting, Slaves to the Traffic Light. It was beautiful but also we were left a little uncertain. The Squirming Coil got away after all. Night 3 was the healing night. We needed it. We needed to KNOW we were sexy. We needed to feel the cosmic group orgy, ecstasy of the dance party that was laid out. If any night was able to sustain some flubs, it was night 3, because we needed that Tweeprize, sex sandwich. Just be happy you didn't get "Sexual Healing" because that shit could've happened too.
I love what happened over these three nights. Night 3 wouldn't have happened without night 1 and 2. There is no doubt that the band is elevated when they execute perfectly but there is so much going on at a Phish show in terms of the band-audience interplay and the psych factor that you've got to let all that into the mix in order to TASTE what happened in a show or shows. There's a curveball for ya!

Well, I don’t think N3 was “perfect”. There were obvious flubs. But it is not perfect vs awful, as the two sides have seemed to argue here.

I think there are two types of folks. One, those who hear Waking up Dead quite butchered and think: “That didn’t go so well; not so well at all actually. But let’s try the next. And I’m ready for the next moment, because it could be anything!” Two, those who hear Vultures slightly butchered and think: “That was terrible. What an embarrassment. Why do I spend my money on this (or stream for free) unrehearsed junk?”

I don’t mind hearing both sides. But I’m definitely glad I am part of the former group. It must just be our personalities. I tend to be laid back and do not get upset too easily. Rip on me all you want, but it won’t phase me.

@hdorne said:

Once again, the initial recap didn’t say it wasn’t an enjoyable show. It spoke of multiple highlights, such as the 2001, and the great vibe at Alpharetta. Recaps aren’t for blindly praising the band. They aren’t for fluff. As Trey said in Bittersweet Motel, we don’t just “lap it up,” we get online and talk about why it was a bad show. And while Sunday was far from a bad show, it did have some musical mishaps. Quite honestly, this tour has made me frustrated with the degree of flubbing occurring on a near-nightly basis, and I know I’m not alone. I love the band for its looseness and the occasional flubs are endearing, but if you’re going to completely butcher a song, maybe don’t play it. There’s a fine line between looseness and being unprofessional.

The “don’t you dare criticize the band, everything they do is perfect” mentality is nothing new, though. I remember listening to the tapes from Coventry and much of 2004 in general, then hopping on .net to read show reviews and being alarmed by how many people thought the band sounded perfect, when they clearly sounded like a strung-out shit show (with some mind-bendingly great jams, mind you). And there’s always the old chestnut, “a bad Phish show is better than any other band’s best show,” which is nonsense. Paying to hear a band butcher their own catalog is a bummer.

That’s what the original recap was getting at: Phish have had far better moments than the “Vultures” from Sunday. If you had a great time at the show, or if technical execution isn’t important to you, then someone’s criticism of a technical aspect of the performance shouldn’t hurt your feelings. I had an amazing time at 8/11/09, which wasn’t a great show.

Recaps are supposed to be critical evaluations of Phish performances, the good, the bad, and the BGCA “Waking Up Dead.” If you can’t separate your subjective experience of being at the show from a critique of the music itself, reading recaps may not be your thing. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Phish has thrown a curveball... in that it seems they didn’t practice as much as they should have for this tour. The band is undeniably not tight, but at the same time very experimental. I’m loving some of these new sounds and jams but the “studio” song sections are being flubbed and mistimed big time. The Vultures and Petrichor were very hard to listen to. Being there warrants dancing regardless. The band must go through changes to stay fresh. Work on those vocals and timing and we are golden!

So what if they miss a note? It’s all about the energy!

the original review screams "I've seen a lot of shows but don't know much about music". Nothing wrong with that, but if you're going to be a critic, don't just say "this was a trainwreck song". Tell us why it was a trainwreck. Look, our own perception and mood at shows always effects our reviews. I'm not even sure the original reviewer was there. If you weren't there, you really shouldn't be .net's official reviewer on the show. I digress.

Sunday was high octane on energy, a dream setlist, and a lot of creativity/spontaneity. I think the original reviewer would be happier if the setlists were like 92 where A: they only had o many songs to choose from and B: there were a boatload of repeats. I can get that. If you jam a song 12 times on tour, you're going to be good at that song. If you have catalog like phish and want to play a lot of different songs, there simply just isn't a way to do it, get older, and simultaneously add to your catalog. Its give and take. I thought the review was spot on for being a "good version bad version" of a song review or "did Trey hit all the right notes"....but the reviewer should ask themselves this: Do you want it to be like 92 in that all you;re hearing are songs they've written in the past 5 years over and over again? Cause for this phan, that's a hard NO.

TLDR: original reviewer doesn't understand the difficulty of the position that phish has put themselves in. Not gonna comment on their musical background, but it was like reading an essay where there were some good general points but no real meat and potatoes. Maybe they were just dumbing it down or keeping it short for the non-musicians out there.

Look, it was a super-fun show for phans of all ages, and the setlists throughout the weekend were EXTREMELY difficult ones. Maybe the original reviewer would prefer no mans>blaze on>winterqueen>more>joy as a set that gets a bunch of repeats and is pristine by end of tour, but I for one would not. Everyone at Friday and Sunday had a lot of fun and the overall show experience for the run was far superior than the average in 3.0. Can.You.Still.Have.Fun?

-signed,

Lifelong musician and huge 3.0 critic

@bcp5296d said:

the original review screams "I've seen a lot of shows but don't know much about music". Nothing wrong with that, but if you're going to be a critic, don't just say "this was a trainwreck song". Tell us why it was a trainwreck. Look, our own perception and mood at shows always effects our reviews. I'm not even sure the original reviewer was there. If you weren't there, you really shouldn't be .net's official reviewer on the show. I digress.

Sunday was high octane on energy, a dream setlist, and a lot of creativity/spontaneity. I think the original reviewer would be happier if the setlists were like 92 where A: they only had o many songs to choose from and B: there were a boatload of repeats. I can get that. If you jam a song 12 times on tour, you're going to be good at that song. If you have catalog like phish and want to play a lot of different songs, there simply just isn't a way to do it, get older, and simultaneously add to your catalog. Its give and take. I thought the review was spot on for being a "good version bad version" of a song review or "did Trey hit all the right notes"....but the reviewer should ask themselves this: Do you want it to be like 92 in that all you;re hearing are songs they've written in the past 5 years over and over again? Cause for this phan, that's a hard NO.

TLDR: original reviewer doesn't understand the difficulty of the position that phish has put themselves in. Not gonna comment on their musical background, but it was like reading an essay where there were some good general points but no real meat and potatoes. Maybe they were just dumbing it down or keeping it short for the non-musicians out there.

Look, it was a super-fun show for phans of all ages, and the setlists throughout the weekend were EXTREMELY difficult ones. Maybe the original reviewer would prefer no mans>blaze on>winterqueen>more>joy as a set that gets a bunch of repeats and is pristine by end of tour, but I for one would not. Everyone at Friday and Sunday had a lot of fun and the overall show experience for the run was far superior than the average in 3.0. Can.You.Still.Have.Fun?

-signed,

Lifelong musician and huge 3.0 critic

This is pretty great.

He gets you, man. He really *gets* you.

/lifelong internetter
//that’s actually not true

Criticizing the band as needing to practice more because they flub a few songs during a tour shows you don't understand how they do their thing. If they flubbed every song of every show, fine. But they've been killing it for a couple years now. A few flubs here and there is part of the price you pay for a band that takes risks and can play at their level and still sound fresh, loose, and inspired. This isn't a Philharmonic concert, it's Phish. Improv genius doesn't come exclusively from practicing; half of it is letting go and letting whatever happens happen. Sometimes that invites flubs. Sometimes those flubs turn into something even greater. You'd rather never get a 8/4/15 Weekapaug because it grew out of a spectacular flub? Brown Phish is the best Phish for my money. Go listen to the albums, they're always played note-for-note.

"Bravo boys thank you for the slap and tickle"

So, we're at the point where we are barking at each other about flubs. This has been going on for ages.

I would like to point out that there has never been a "flub free" era of Phish. Go ahead and go back and listen again if you doubt me. This is improvisational rock and roll, people.

I agree...forever flub Fee. If I ever hear a perfect Fee I'm out!

@ChalkDustJoe said:

All I have to say is...whoever wrote this original review is, a unhappy ungrateful piece of garbage

Says the guy talking about positivity

Folks comparing last weekend's performances to performances from Coventry and speculating on Trey's drug habits is where I draw (step to?!) the line.

I know you were attempting cuteness and clever prose but you failed horribly. Please stop.