I have no problem with negative reviews. Most critical reviews are more interesting than the two common reviews I read:

1) "short song descriptions + 2nd set didn't really take off"
2) "short song descriptions + 2nd set totally took off."

Everyone has different expectations for a show, especially based on their method of listening- live stream, live in person, or post-show listen.

This review just needs an editor. Wednesday's review didn't post till well after Noon the following day, and was cleaner in its direction and tone. This one is negative in the headline, but doesn't dig into "why" until paragraph #11. And it's a valid claim too, the "rudderless moments" and "treading water." But there's not enough explanation.

There were highs and lows last night. But wading through this review, it's hard to tell how the hell the writer* reaches that conclusion. Was it "great, awesome, fun time with friends but below-average" or several other conflicting adjectives? I think a middle school English teacher just went into rehab.

*can we get some female writers, pretty please?