Nice review. Hot, boring take: Phish are not “over the hill” or beyond the “glory days.” That’s an observer bias not borne out by the musical/musician maturation Phish, like so many other “seasoned” musicians, often demonstrate, only to be misunderstood by the non-musicologically aware crowd.

What if Trey’s playing some composed parts more gently not because he’s scared of a “flub”, but because they sound clearer and better that way? Of course, all of their playing has shifted over time. But just b/c young jocks whack it faster than vets doesn’t mean it’s better that way. Guitar 201 teaches that greater shred/technicality/speed/boner is often not as impressive as evocative finesse/dynamics/soul, but it seems many phans who pine for the salad shredder days of yore never got that memo. I’m in the minority perhaps, but I find myself listening mostly to 3.0 shows because of their feel, synergy, skillfulness, ensemble improv, sound quality, current musical relevance, and overall musicality than 1.0 shows. The latter are impressive (and yes I was at 12/31/95, 90s Halloweens, Went, etc, and had the time of my lift), but I still prefer the evolved Phish (at least for modern times) than some Xerox from the past when it sounded more like everyone’s following the guitarist (or the guitarist is a bit too dominant), the jams rarely shift keys or develop improvised progressions, the vocals and harmonies are often sketchy, and the band has to rely more on whackiness than depth b/c the former is so much easier than the latter for less mature and developed musicians (and audiences) to pull off. Don’t get me wrong, I loved Phish then and I’ve loved most every show I’ve been at. I just love them even more now and have nothing but respect for where they’ve come to and from.