@FACTSAREUSELESS said:

@pistilstamen said:

@FACTSAREUSELESS said:

Perhaps my own expectations are the problem. I am looking for honest and professional quality reviews of the actual music, not sonnets on how unimpressed or unmoved a reviewer may be based on their own expectations of the band.

Um you've read a Charlie Dirksen review before, right?

I don't know. Have I? Is he on this site?

You did. You said it was a bad review. Read above. Read Icculus.

That said... Bangor (I was there and excited to be there) wasn't a great show. A reviewer is not shitting on someone else's thoughts of the show. I had a lot of fun at Bangor (they played my song, after all... but it wasn't a great version, though I'd argue the Hampton version was a great version for a first set Jim). You can still be excited and have a great time and dance like crazy at a show if it's not a great show. Here's the thing about Phish... very rarely is a show just bad. It's not great, but it's still good. It's still fun. It's still something I want to go to as many of as I can.

Hampton night 1 was slightly above average, mainly because of that Carini. Was it a lot of fun? Was I excited to be there? Hell yeah! But it wasn't an amazing show by any means.

And yes, reviews tend to be subjective. But I've found the reviews I've read here to be written more objectively than reviews on other sites. You may not agree with them, but that doesn't mean they're wrong. And just because they said a show wasn't great does not mean you should not have had an amazing time at a show.