Can we please stick to reviewing the shows and not other people's reviews? Meatballs wanted a reaction and he clearly got one. He was probably aiming for negative 20 and we almost helped him get there.

How is any of this relevant to the quality of the show? People are treating this page like its a forum post; there is a reason there is no "reply" feature here! Move your conversations to the threads (even if they are completely warranted) please so that this does not turn into PT.

Also, I realize the irony of my own comment not reviewing the show, but I swear this is a once and only time. Ok, fine, Crosseyed was done better at Bill Graham's, McGrupp had extra jam-sauce and Bouncin killed the flow. Tweezer brought it back and was enjoyable while the Hood pairing was unique but otherwise not noteworthy.

Sorry for the lameass review, but I generally save the in-depth reviews for shows that actually move me greatly. I was just prompted to put in my $.02 when I saw the majority of "reviews" not actually reviewing the show.

Worth the dload (which to me should be the only point here on the reviews page)? Yes, but just barely.

With a "1" being Coventry and a "10" being 7/6/98 I'd give this show a 4.25. There were some moments but the flow was just not there. Usually that is more forgivable if there is a killer jam in there but for this show there's some enjoyable stuff but nothing jaw-dropping.