It's weird that you can't grasp that some of us were annoyed by Mahoney's 12/29 review not because of its lack of breathless fluffage, but because of what he chose to spend time covering.

I skimmed it again. It's about 1,500 words. There were two great parts to that show that have held up after a few weeks -- the wackiness of the 20 Kungs, and an amazing, peaked-out Hood.

The dude gave the Kung all of 17 words ...

"when Trey started "Kung" and this worked up a good deal of momentum over the "20YL" riff."

... and then 30 words to the Hood:

"this "Hood" was well worth a listen. It was lovely, fiery, energetic, beautiful, all the things we love about this great piece of music as played by these four musicians."

(But, I should add, those 30 words came after his zillionth dig on the show: "The greatest "Harry Hood" second-set closer of all time, or even the recent approximations circa summer 2014, couldn't drag this great, awesome, fun time with friends but below-average Phish show into the win column,")

He spent less than 50 words on the two most noteworthy tunes, and what seemed like a thousand-plus on what was flubbed or mediocre or falling short of what he'd hoped. Is it that hard to understand how that would irk some people who still love Phish?