I might be the only one, but isn't there a conflict between criticizing a review for not having enough discussion of the music and then criticizing a review that is done solely on the music for not having enough discussion of the scene or on-site energy? They both seem to be hurled at the same review, amusingly.

(I would think everyone who visits this board would agree that not much can compare to seeing Phish live and in person, but I think that excitement and happiness is a separate-but-parallel companion to the music. If a review on the Blog is from someone who is only listening to the music, then you know what they are commenting on. It is almost more pure to the songs that were played. While a review from someone who was actually there could be filled with a number of caveats, almost as excuses for the fun that was had in spite of this or that miscue . . . )

Sorry. Rambling a bit.