@waxbanks said:

@joechip said:

If "waxbanks" thinks last night's main sets were so great, why wouldn't he enlighten us on their merits?

I think pointing out that a jam does not leave the structure of the tune actually is descriptive and helpful in a review of the show.

ok, tired as i am, i'll bite: how is it helpful? are you less likely to listen to the show, or parts of the show, based on the percentage of 'type i' and 'type ii' jams? aren't you going to spin the entire show once, regardless? are you interested in the music (separate from enjoying it, i guess) at a level below 'typical/atypical'?

this isn't about pzerbo, either; same goes for every other writer around here, including me. what's helpful about knowing in advance whether a given tune is 'in the box' or 'out of the box'?

Well, I did happen to listen to this show on the radio , but when I read a review of a show I'm yet to hear, for me it is a relevant point to note where the tunes left their structure and where they did not. Those are the parts of the show where I'm most likely to hear unique music. If I have a limited time to listen, I will listen to the parts which have the potential for uniqueness. Or I will burn a single CD to listen to in my car which includes the parts of the show which, according to an experienced listener like @pzerbo, contained unusual or exceptional playing.

These seem like very obvious points, but that's what I'm looking to get out of reading a review. When I'm at the show I enjoy it all, but on playback I only tend to listen to highlights. What constitutes a highlight might be the rarity of a tune, a new cover, a "Standard" version which contains exceptional playing, or a unique jam. A useful review will point out all of these things, which IMO @pzerbo has done here and elsewhere very well.