@rusty said:

It seems there is a big divide between those who were at the show(s) and had a generally positive view and those who were watching/listening at home and didn't care much for the shows. Which, i dont think can be overlooked. At home, it is so easy to get distracted etc. whereas, at the show I can't think of any place i would rather be. And I don't recall a time at any of the shows I've been to where I was angry or bummed because they cut a jam short or played some tunes that I don't like (which is a pretty short list). But IMO, what happens AT the show between the band and audience is what really matters most---because it IS so fleeting and unique (and by unique, I mean the actual experience of being there, hearing it as it happens, the way it sounded/felt to your own senses). I mean, it is so easy (and fun) to lose oneself in the music at the show without looking at Phish stats, Phish most-recent-time-played charts, looking at your watch to see how long this Tweezer jam is etc...
However, if one must engage in "ranking" the overall performance, doesn't the music deserve more than a one time listen/kneejerk reaction, especially if folks are going to throw around phrases like "best 3.0 version ever!" etc. ? Shouldn't the tapes be allowed to age a bit first?

this.

and, conversely, i have been to shows where i remember being enamored by a jam and then on second, third, etc listen, realize it doesn't stack up to others. but that's the beauty (IMO) of being at the show. in the moment. on some level, the "as it's happening-ness" of a live show allows you to lose yourself in the music for a time, and not need to think of how it stacks up against other renditions.