I appreciate the opinions expressed here, and you've done as good a job as one might hope toward convincing me that people who weren't at a show have a better (or even equal) ability to comment on a show than someone who was there.

That said, I always put the primacy of importance on people who were actually there--who actually experienced the SHOW, not merely 'the music'.

Anyone who attends Phish concerts should appreciate that the experience of being a phish fan--much less a single concert--extends far beyond the mere "what they played and how well they played it". Was Deer Creek 2000 merely a collection of half-a$$ed Moby Dick references, or was it actually a weird culmination of the tour, a microcosmic vibe of the era, something in the air that weekend, etc? Was Oswego "just" a semi-festival, or was it an experience that can't be documented by the tapes (i.e. camping in tar patches, 100+ degree heat, middle-of-the tour weird festival timing, etc)? And are the glowstick wars, rainstorms, general behavior of fans/fanbase, sensibilities of an era, ticket availabilities, security presence (or lack thereof), parking lot atmosphere, and placement of show vis-a-vis the tour NOT vital and unforgettable parts of the Show Itself?

I strongly submit that these things are irreplaceable, inimitable parts of a show, are in fact inherently related to an understanding of the show itself, and that this naturally means reports from on-the-ground / in-the-audience authors can often outweigh 'the importance' of the clinical couchtour review. Does this mean that I invariably trust the biased show-goer who is simply bubbling over with love for The Phish? Certainly not--I prefer objective statements and attempts at "unbiased" observations in all reviews, regardless of whether the author was in the audience or at home.

Unfortunately, many people reject this viewpoint (i.e. that one can never honestly know/review a show unless you were there) because it feels like it means that someone who stayed home is 'less important' than those who went. I find this egalitarian mindset simply silly--i mean, do court cases give primacy to eye-witnesses of a crimescene over someone who simply heard audio of the crime? (I'll gladly admit that eyewitnesses can often be shown as inaccurate observers, but by the same token, audio recordings would often omit valuable data relevant to establishing the details of the crime). In a similar frame of mind, I prefer to weigh the opinions of the actual show audience, mediating their biases the same way I would some jaded couch-tour blogger. At least with the former, I'm getting a fuller picture of The Show Itself, not merely the audio recording.

Nobody needs to feel offended by this, but maybe people do need to realize/accept that yeah, if you stayed home and just listened to the stream …you missed out on something that is an irreplaceable part of the Phish experience. Just because we listen to tapes of a show doesn't mean we had the full experience of the show—or even the music. To discount the actual experience of seeing the band play the music, the body language of the musicians, much less the auditory aspect of live music (speakers, vibrations, the mix as delivered in a live setting vs. recorded)….this would be like arguing there's no use for the live experience, if a recording is "as good".

It's fine for people who say "i dont care about anything but the music" to prefer a review that omits consideration of all but the tapes....but much like my view of webcasts (I generally reject the overt televising of a phenomenon meant to be experienced live), I kind of think it's better, when editorially feasible, to use in-person reviews.

That's all for now!