Harlemcracka writes:Scott,
I'm having trouble seeing the point you are trying to make in your second paragraph here. Sounds like you disagree with the author in paragraph 2 and then agree with him in the 3rd, in terms of how tours used to build onto the next year, or even from the start of the tour until the end of tour.

Well, I agree that some early 3.0 tours had fair number of shows light on whole band improv and therefore amounted to a great rock show worth seeing once in a while but not worth obsessing over day to day. Where I disagree with the OP is how that compares to 1.0 (or even the best years from 1.0), when weaker shows didn't circulate and queuing up the best 20 minutes of a show wasn't worth it. I also disagree with those who prefer the whole band improv of 1.0 to the whole band improv of 3.0, which I think is more interesting and well-played. Just because I think the narrative of "they are finally back to proper form" is ridiculous doesn't mean that the band didn't evolve at different periods and that the band is better than they were in 2009. Of course they are, but this is not a recent development.

I fundamentally disagree with the negativity around 3.0 because:

*most of the anti 3.0 analysis gives short shrift to first sets and fetishizes type II over all other aspects of the experience
*moreover, it isn't just type II, but the spacey, long-form variant of type II that some people find lacking, although I won't ascribe that to Jeremy specifically, I find it tolerable in concert and boring at home.
*Higher tempo jamming is harder -- if the ideas don't keep coming and one person anticipates another's next move incorrectly, it gets chunky. On a minute by minute basis, I think 3.0 jamming showed more quality musicianship and creativity. Others are free to disagree but they are not free to assert their preferences as the baseline of what makes for great phish.
*the pro 1.0 analysis more or less ignores the development of the band up until 1993 and the weaker tours (summer 96, 99) and the fact that the band has always had a fair share of playing mistakes. 7/13/94 set II goes crazy when they try to cover up a cringe-inducing mistake. 12/31/95 has a hideous flub in set I, and 12/30/93's Mockingbird had to be stopped and restarted.
*Balancing Trey's dominant position in the sound has been a long term issue for the band. I do think that 2012-2014 is generally superior to 09-11 in this regard, 09-11 being more like 90-92. But there is evidence that the rest of the band pushed back a bit and one thing that resulted from that was not writing setlists in advance, something Trey used to retain control over, and something he used to engineer segues in advance. The lack of segues in recent tours is probably more due to a greater emphasis on democracy in the band, which has had other good effects (like Fuego).

I can pretty confidently say that for the most part they weren't thinking about that shit long term when they were doing huge amounts of drugs on tour from 94'-2000, and if they were, it most likely got thrown out the window a few shows in.

I am not confident in that but we'd have to ask them. The band did huge amounts of drugs for a long time, that didn't start in 94. See the RS article about the Horde festival (93?) or read Gehr's _The Phish Book_. Moreover, I think there is ample evidence of the band caring about their reputation and legacy. Sometimes they used setbreak for self-criticism (as described in Bittersweet Motel, I believe).

The thing about non-organic drugs is that they aren't universally detrimental to performance, or at least not if one manages to stay high. Ever heard of "work hard / party hard?" For a while the band pulled that off. Then they couldn't, and Trey was the last to get off the party train (although I understand Page loved his cocaine for a long time, too). My admittedly indirect sources told me circa 1994 that Mike became health conscious and didn't smoke pot much anymore. I'm not familiar with a bad Polaris show with an intoxicated Mike, I suppose that could happen, but so could getting a Norovirus, or being exhausted to a divisive fight with a girlfriend or spouse.

Anyway, I can't prove it here but I do believe that the band is self-consciously trying to improve their craft like they have for most of their career and that we are benefitting from their professionalism more than ever. That in no way validates the OP's historical narrative.