@icculusFTW said:

Thanks for that -- I do agree that it's great to get multiple perspectives on a given show, though I think that's what the community reviews of each set are for. The "official" one is just one person, but that shouldn't stop you from reading all the other reviews that are shared.

Still, though, I think you're right that a community conversation review approach is a cool idea.

That would work great on the Phish.net podcast! Which I'd love to produce if ya'll want one...

@mistarich said:

I agree with your retort of my post. In my defense i was not trying to state the phish.net reviews should all be "fluffers" saying the band can do no wrong so no one feelings get hurt. That would do no one any good and would be downright boring. Going to 58 shows in 3.0 I have seen my fair share of lackluster shows and can admit that. My main point is that phish.net is a website "by the fans for the fans", and is well respected in the community and therefore should have more all-encompassing reviews as opposed the opinion of one fan. For example, while the Wrigley shows were less than stellar, phish.net chose to have the review done by someone who wasn't even at the shows and he made a point about the lack of energy. In that review I would liked to hear that he had a conversation with friends who were there. A "communal" effort to the reviews could be greatly beneficial is all that I am saying. We do all love Phish here and we are critical of the band sometimes because we care so much. In this instance I was critical of phish.net because I care about it and highly respect the opinions that come out of it.

[/quote]

I also failed to read your initial posts which were very well rounded and a good read. I think a podcast involving a round table of 4 or 5 seasoned fans (even a few newbies) would be super interesting and educational!