Infancy through adolescence, whether it be in the case of an organism or a culture or a band's music, is a time of hyper-accelerated growth that is not a sustainable system for longevity. It is necessary in the developing and maturing stages for phase shifts to occur at a rate that would exhaust and burn out an older phenomenon. Specifically, with Phish progressing through jamming styles from 93-00 represented a band in this maturing phase. Now that members of the band are pushing 50, I think it's neither unexpected nor unwarranted to allow a longer time frame for development that reflects a maturing sound that is relevant and not self-referential but is actively and slowly finding its way past the boundaries of redundancy and structurelessness.

Without change, they would truly be a nostalgia act or a stagnant culture or a dying organism. With change that progresses too quickly, the foundations will not be there to support the adventure. I for one think that they will eventually get back to pushing things farther out of the box because they will get bored with doing things the same way. This is kind of the essence of phish, that with each plateau it is not enough to ride the wave, that they are serious musicians who care about the quality of their sound and not content with repetition. This is why they broke up the band in 2000, a feeling of ennui, the we've been to the mountain top now where do we go?

On further reflection it seemed to me that this was a necessary step in the progression of the band as they searched for new ways to be enveloped into the unknown. We all know why 2004 ended the way it did, and this was reflected in the deep dissatisfaction that Trey had with his life in general. Before we argue about how I could possible know this, can we all agree that a drug addict, any drug addict, is generally unhappy with life?

2.0 is some of my favorite phish precisely because they drank so deeply from the pool of mystery tending towards dark psychedelia. BUT, it seemed as if they had strayed too far and had not maintained proper foundations too allow the search to continue. 3.0 can be frustrating in terms of the speed of development. They are a better band this year BUT have not taken the 20+ plunge. I don't see why its so naively optimistic to think that in the next couple of years they will pull together the nuanced play that 2012 offers with the willingness to take the deep risk that 2011 came up with a few times. The peak jams of last year showed both a capability and a willingness; the attention to detail of this year demonstrates a rock solid foundation. Put them both together and you've got a completely reincarnated band.

It might, might, gasp I know, turn out that phish needed to slowly submerge itself into the waters instead of diving off the deep end, and this is exactly how they have done it. 5 years off and a sober trey are going to change things. 88-92 wasn't exactly a jammers paradise either, but they were building the foundation of that journey that 93-98/99 became. It takes time to do this, like Jerry relearning how to play guitar. I know I'm going to get some thumbs down for the dead analogy but it seems somewhat similar to 86-88 for the dead with the renaissance of 89-90 to come.

Final point: you mention 94-98 in the years of prime development for phish. What about 86/87-92?? Those early shows are exciting for how much love the band had for simply playing music and for us historically recognizing the seed of what they would become in some of the diamond-in-the-rough shows from that era. Why can't 3.0 be looked at in similar fashion? They are essentially attempting to reinvent themselves and I think that you are the one kidding yourself if you think either: they haven't changed from 09-12 or that they will never again be capable of throwing down consistently large jamming shows.