From my perspective, a review should be receiver-oriented. People read the reviews either to find out what they missed, or to maybe validate what they heard. In this case, to immediately offer a negative review of the opener was not receiver-oriented. I was very happy to hear _My Soul_, as it brought back memories of Phish past. For new phans, it is good for them to hear some of the older classic songs which have not been played a lot. Many of us do care about the opener, and we are reading the review because we did not go to the show, so likely we were not throwing around beach balls and spilling beer. And we are reading the review to find out things like, 1) how often do they open with _My Soul_, 2) when was the LTP, and 3) how this version was compared to other versions. And as far as the version, it was a good one, I loved it. The review deteriorates, I guess, because it is not perceived as constructive. The irony is that this review was highly "self-referential", as people noted in their responses to the review, though the review was promised to be the opposite. Sure there were some missteps, sure _Taste_ could have gone more smoothly, but at least they played _Taste_, and they got it together for the jam, so how about focus on the positive? I don't think Trey goes into _Light_ out of boredom, and I don't think that the readers of the review want to be exposed to such deconstructive conjecture. This was a great show, many positive moments and musical highlights, and Phish has been "back" since 2009, having seen shows live on most tours since then, and having listening to many more via the Web, I just don't get the point of the review and think Phish and the Phans who missed the show or saw the show deserve something more constructive and positive. The most positive section, with the interplay, comes so late in the review that perhaps some readers didn't have the patience to get there. If positivity is within the reviewer's wheelhouse, how about a do-over?