Hi.

"@" the .net reviewers: thank you for what you do. More often than not, you are totally on-point. I downloaded all the summer shows so far in 24-bit and if I was you, I'd have written the same review. I also read glowing reviews on phishthoughts.com and "Tackle and Lines" which, in my opinion, the shows did not live up to.

That is not to say the shows were good or bad. It's just an opinion.

I think the current format of the .net reviews (one 'official' review and then comments) creates a divide that lends itself to people who disagree with the review to feel like their opinion is less-than-important and that a middling review of a show they had a great time at somehow devalues their experience. I humbly propose that a return to a more anarchistic review page (a la http://phish.net/reviews/archive/) be considered. Since '11, it's been the same stupidity of people who had a GREAT time at a show being mad when the one official review isn't totally glowing.

"@" anyone else who wants to read it: My first and second show were 8/10/96 and 8/8/97. The first was great because it was my first, but musically, it was kinda "eh". I had high hopes for 8/8/97 and it was kinda flat to my ears at the show. The online reviews echoed that sentiment and it confirmed that I wasn't at a 'classic'.

When I finally got to my third show, 8/1/98, and realized that I was witnessing a classic show, it all seemed worth the journey. Had I read a Miner-esque fluff piece from the Tinley Park show talking about the "Hoochie Coochie Man" encore tearing about the fabric of the universe; maybe it wouldn't have been as satisfying.

As someone who was 'on' r.m.p. in the mid-90's, it was always helpful to hear about the shows so I could make a determination of whether or not I wanted to go through the rigamarole of seeking out a trade for a show. There were no 'official' reviews posted on the newsgroup but some people there had a more elevated presence and their insights were trusted.

In the modern era of everyone having immediate access to several different sources for each show within twenty-four hours of performance (and in the case of livephish.com, minutes), the 'trouble' involved with getting a show is minute. No trips to the post office, no calling Terrapin Tapes or going to Sam's Club to buy XLII's, no scammers (I'm talking to you, Vince Piracci). . .just a few clicks and boom, it's yours.

The main point is that (from what I can tell) the .net reviews are for people who weren't at the show to make a determination as to whether or not it is worth their money and time to download and give an attentive listen to a show. There will be some that want to listen to every show and there will be others who want to hear only the classics as deemed by people who have listened to most every show and know what's up. The .net reviews aren't for people seeking validation of their good times at a show and hopefully, they don't take away from the good time you had - because when you do witness a truly great Phish show, you'll know and it won't matter what .net says.

I hope this all makes sense and doesn't add fuel to the fire.