@Wombat_en_Fuego said:

@lumpblockclod said:

Why people bother reading an actual review of a musical performance when it seems all they really want is someone to tell them it was the best thing ever is something I'll never understand. Vultures and Mango were not good renditions of those songs in that they were played (or at times, in the case of Mango, not played) poorly. Some of you act as if that's the reviewer's fault. Mystifying.

Look, maybe you just don't think pointing out those things is important or that the flubs have zero impact on your enjoyment of a Phish show. That's perfectly valid! And part of me even agrees with you (to a point, anyway). But then why do you want to read a review at all?

Pointing out technical issues is not the problem of the review. The overall impression when reading the review is that the show is not worth listening to, nor enjoyable. If you are in that boat, jump off the Big Boat and paddle away in your raft towards a different island. You'll have more fun out there, learn to lessen your expectations, and even have time to read The Book.

Any Phish show is worth listening to once. I enjoyed last night's Phish show, watched attentively, and heaped praise on parts of it. Here are some actual adjectives I used:

Brilliant
Flawless
Propulsive
Thrilling
Panoramic
Sassy
Buoyant
Satisfying
Playful
Energetic
Moist

Okay, I didn't use "moist." But the review I wrote--which maybe you read and maybe you really didn't--isn't what you say it is. I suspect you're like most people seething about this recap. Even when interspersed with deserved praise, you don't want to hear anything critical at all, true or not. Having that world view is certainly your prerogative, but so is your media diet.

And hey, thanks for inviting me to quit Phish. That was pretty enlightened.