@lumpblockclod said:Any Phish show is worth listening to once. I enjoyed last night's Phish show, watched attentively, and heaped praise on parts of it. Here are some actual adjectives I used:Why people bother reading an actual review of a musical performance when it seems all they really want is someone to tell them it was the best thing ever is something I'll never understand. Vultures and Mango were not good renditions of those songs in that they were played (or at times, in the case of Mango, not played) poorly. Some of you act as if that's the reviewer's fault. Mystifying.Pointing out technical issues is not the problem of the review. The overall impression when reading the review is that the show is not worth listening to, nor enjoyable. If you are in that boat, jump off the Big Boat and paddle away in your raft towards a different island. You'll have more fun out there, learn to lessen your expectations, and even have time to read The Book.
Look, maybe you just don't think pointing out those things is important or that the flubs have zero impact on your enjoyment of a Phish show. That's perfectly valid! And part of me even agrees with you (to a point, anyway). But then why do you want to read a review at all?
Phish.net 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.
The Mockingbird Foundation is a non-profit organization founded by Phish fans in 1996 to generate charitable proceeds from the Phish community.
And since we're entirely volunteer – with no office, salaries, or paid staff – administrative costs are less than 2% of revenues! So far, we've distributed over $1,000,000 to support music education for children – hundreds of grants in all 50 states, with more on the way.