Permalink for Comment #1377409074 by Scott

, comment by Scott
Scott Narrative shaping isn't just about the future, it is about the past.

For example, my claims about the value of the Simple in relation to 4 other very long or very epic 3.0 jams are also trying to shape the narrative, and so maybe it is more accurate to say that I dissent from the narrative itself as a matter of substance and and from the review format as a matter of review writing aesthetics. I love that sort of dialog over interpretation and aesthetics, but it works better in forum threads and through things like the jam tournament than it does as an introduction to a particular show recap/review.

Let me put this way: I find the stock market ups and downs/trends approach to analyzing the historical direction of the band as an artistic enterprise to be boring and/or based on incomplete information. Attempting to put a show into historical context within hours is fraught -- and also unnecessary.

My post got speculative about the motives for the recurrent 'stock market style' analysis and if that felt like a flame I apologize. There is a wider trend of overwrought reviewing of which I found this to be an example, and it is really the trend in general and not this review in particular that I'm commenting on.

I hope that clarifies my position and I wish everyone to have a great day. I just listened to the Carini from last night so :) :) :) is a non-commercial project run by Phish fans and for Phish fans under the auspices of the all-volunteer, non-profit Mockingbird Foundation.

This project serves to compile, preserve, and protect encyclopedic information about Phish and their music.

Credits | Terms Of Use | Legal

© 1990-2018  The Mockingbird Foundation, Inc. | Hosted by End Point Corporation