I like to think I have a fairly extensive vocabulary, but I learned a new word: micturition. So I thank the reviewer for that.

I also thank the reviewer for presenting an opportunity for me to comment on something that has been gnawing at me since the day after the second show in Grand Prairie on the fall tour, a show that the consensus has determined to be the "worst" show of the year (and, indeed, the "worst" since 7/19/2013).

I attended all three shows at Dick's and the last two in Vegas as well as the two in Grand Prairie. The Dick's and Vegas shows are rated among the best of the year and rightfully so. But of all the shows I attended in person this year (or last, for that matter) I had the best time at the Grand Prairie show. They played Lifeboy, which is a song I love and never expected to witness in person. They busted out Foam, and Meatstick was an absolute blast--it was a moment of pure joy for me to watch this big dude in the row in front of me flawlessly execute the silly dance steps. And then during Taste I closed my eyes, let the music wash over me, and I had a near out-of-body experience of absolute ecstasy. For me, it was hose to the max.

Now, I have not gone back to re-listen to that show. I have re-listened to the Vegas and Dick's shows multiple times. I get why someone looking over the dozens of shows from this year would not bother to listen to Grand Prairie night two. And I get why the highly rated shows are highly rated--there are some awesome jams, great setflow, and tight playing in those shows that makes them worthy of multiple listens.

But my point is this: the experience of being at a Phish show is qualitatively different from the experience of watching one from the living room or streaming the audio after-the-fact on Livephish+. I get why people who were not at the show last night (or the show I attended in Grand Prairie) might have a very different response to it than the folks who were there. Heck, I get why the responses of two people who were both there might be different (the first night of Dick's this year was hard to really enjoy after some Chad in the row behind us threw up on my wife's back just before the first intermission--the second-set Tweezer may have been awesome, but for us? Not so much. Needless to say we bailed early).

For these reasons I tend to read reviews of shows primarily to see if there were any stand-out songs, which is useful information. But the reviewer's overall impression of a show as "below average" or "drowning" or whatever? Yeah, I don't really care about that because I know from personal experience that a five-star show can fail to connect with me if circumstances conspire against it and a "2.6" show can provide me with one of the best experiences I have ever had.

I would prefer if reviewers would stick to observations about the quality of play, whether the band seemed to be in synch and grooving, and how the set flowed rather than the more subjective things like "I hate when Trey plays percussion" or "there were no long jams" or "I hate Fuckerpants." The former criticisms may help someone decide if it is a show worth giving a listen; the latter provide no real value. It's like a movie reviewer saying "La La Land sucks because I hate musicals so don't go see it." Sometimes reviews here have a tendency to veer toward that kind of a thing ("the second set was ruined because they played three songs I hate").