> > > > > If ANYONE were making that argument, what you're saying might have some bearing on the subject. .....So you're arguing, in part, against something that isn't even being put forward.

I agree, I am. When I put forward a rhetorical argument, I definitely try to shut down the obvious objections before they get raised (saves time in replies and is good dialectical process, imho).

> > > > > And you're seemingly neglecting to realize that, unfortunate as it may be, it is nevertheless true that many aspects of what it means to *really* be there and *really* experience the show are also intensely subjective, variable and, as everyone who sees shows and later listens to recordings realizes, capable of interfering with a judgement of the music.

Sure--but i disagree that I'm neglecting to realize it.

My original post states: "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. "

You clearly articulate your preference, and its obviously a fine way to enjoy part of phish. I'm really just objecting to the (often voiced, or implied) viewpoint that an audio-only review is a valid assessment of the show itself (a phenomenon, an art object, live art form, etc).