My quick take on the shows:
*Friday had some great heights but also some staid covers and well-played standards.
*Saturday had great setlist flow, a real greatest hits feel with only one cover, very consistent type I rocking with glee. I danced my freaking feet off, but wished for one more really out there exploratory piece.
*Neither was face-melting, but I think both were probably better than 8/5/10, a show that hardly sucked. A total experience worth traveling for. They are not the setlists I would have written exactly but I'm glad I didn't get disappointed in the middle of the show once I realized that history was not being made... I was too busy having a good time and listening to some great performances.

My long take on the review politics:
I think the reviewer is missing a lot of the subtle musicianship going on within the structured parts and periphery of the so-called standard songbook, suggesting that the reviewer is listening more carefully only when there is a type II soundscape. Thus, I think the perspective is pretty narrow and I'm afraid JDG isn't the only .netter with this bias. Successful type II is glorious stuff indeed but I think most people overestimate the % of type II, even in the mid 90s, and tend to forget about the less successful adventures altogether.

The most absurd part is when the writer petulantly suggests the band shelve songs that aren't spontaneously producing "better" versions of themselves: "Do you disagree? Then I challenge you a month from now to listen to any of the first six songs and identify its specific version." A ridiculous challenge, based on the premise that an ideal concert would include unique versions of every song played. I can't agree. Sometimes as songs, you know, there IS one best version; as expressions of something beyond pitch, tempo and meter, songs work better with the words not being broken up by an improv segment that might be inventive (or not) but definitely has nothing to do with the emotions and feel of the song.

"We want you to be happy, for this is your song too." --I hope that Trey doen't debase Joy by relegating it into a mere entry point into some longwinded jam. Joy deserves to stand on its own. There may not ever be a best Joy or special Joy or unexpected Improv Joy, but I'd be disappointed if they just stopped playing it because outspoken fans can't get past their own need for novelty, fireworks and type II to get themselves to listen.

I absolutely loved hearing my show neighbors on Saturday predict a 2nd set Bouncing because they hadn't played it yet in 3 sets! It had to be coming up! Then other people started listing tunes that hadn't been played and it started to dawn on them that 1) they probably weren't getting their Bouncing and 2) Phish has a deep catalog and they can basically play any of it at any moment and just might. It was adorable. Not that I want to hear a 2nd set Bouncing, but these sorts of reviews lack the context of all the new fans and how the band tries to balance all the various genres and styles in their music.

For example: there were 30 odd people all dressed in Larry Bird jerseys with a sign in a front section of the amphitheater. Not a favorite of mine or good placement in the set but a nice touch to fulfill the request.

The reviewer might be the salt of the earth, a mensch, a real pal, but I don't think much of this piece. The Gorge 2011 was not all time epic but all the setlist politics about 3.0 vs. previous eras has gone off the rails. Previous eras are filled with first sets, type I and only occasional truly great improv. It isn't a 3.0 thing. It is a "best of your show collection" vs. 3.0 thing. Aborting jams is a new development I don't care for, but the .net spent many hours wishing for fewer repeats, more impov, and first sets that felt more like 2nd sets in the 1990s. Grousing about 3.0 not living up to campground fantasy tour setlist fun isn't worthy of being posted, and while this review is better than that, it is falling into that zone of cliche.

Phil, that zone of cliche is due to editing choices made by .net folks. You've done an admirable job trying to moderate ad hominem and otherwise keep it pleasant but at the same time keep posting show reviews that devolve into the same themes and then come into the thread to fend off the less articulate responses to those themes. The most inventive and comment worthy aspects of the music are more subtle than in the past and I don't have the musician's vocabulary to explain the neat things in the nooks and crannies that I am hearing, and nor do most fans, and I think the discourse suffers accordingly. This particular review was a perfectly ordinary opinion that came off as bitter and maybe even uninformed.