@steve_and_em said:

@TheLizard said:

That may be true, but I listened to the recording of sunday night's show last night, and if you weren't there you would not have known that they didn't include in the recording how Trey was playing Eleanore Rigby teases before they threw down Crosseyed and Painless. Or how Trey had just put down his guitar during yem and started getting down while Mike laid out his unexpected barrage of bass bombs and funky slapping with a huge smile on his face. Saying you don't have to be at a show to review it is like saying you don't have to have eaten an entire bowl of Capt'n Crunch in order to write a review on it. Just a taste of one piece would be sufficient. Without eating a whole serving, you wouldn't know that after a few minutes, when the milk just starts soaking in, the cereal starts to cut the roof of your mouth. Or the gritty feeling it leaves on your teeth after you finish the bowl. You may have gotten a taste of the show by listening to it on your computer, but you would not know the gravity of Mike's thunderous bass bombs. Or appreciate the look on the band's faces when they are fully immersed in a particularly outstanding jam. A huge part of the show is the energy that the band exudes while playing to all it's adoring fans. Isn't that one of the reason we try so hard to get into the show itself. Or how good the acoustics of the venue were. You may listen to the soundtrack of a movie, but without seeing the film, you can not make an accurate review. I can't tell you how many times I have left a show with me and many of the other show goes feeling that the show was absolutely stellar, only to read a review back at the hotel that the show had been lack-luster or just average. I know, to many people, the drugs they took can play a large part in swaying this perception, but as I attend the shows fully sober, I am not influenced by those things. The overwhelming truth is that the quality of a show can only be accurately depicted by someone who was in attendance. And when I haven't attended the show, they are the only opinions I can fully trust.

This one just got me a little bit and I felt like I had to point out that the analogy you use would be someone basing their ENTIRE opinion on seeing Phish live by listening to it on tape. The truth is that I don't think that is at all what is happening. What you are trying to say is that no matter how many bowls of Cap'n Crunch anyone has eaten they cannot make an opinion on THIS bowl of Cap'n Crunch. While it's true, they can't see the bowl, they don't know if it is clay or ceramic or even how big. They don't know the size of the spoon or even possibly if it is 2% or whole milk, but they have HAD bowls of Cap'n Crunch before. They know about many of the things you describe. And while it is true that it may not deliver the entirety of this PARTICULAR bowl, I think that the opinion of people who have eaten Cap'n Crunch for breakfast, lunch and dinner for a LONG time has merit, even if they only get to sample YOUR particular bowl.

Not being a jerk, but either the analogy was not what you intended or it was a perfectly accurate analogy for exactly the opposite of what you were saying.

I don't know what is so hard to understand about this, but obviously you are having trouble. It's very very simple. If you are listening to a recording of the show, you are just getting a taste. Not the full experience of the show. I don't really care how many shows anyone has seen live. We all know that each show is incredibly unique and just because you have seen and heard a live bowie or reba or stash or whatever before, doesn't mean that you experienced that particular one if you weren't there. My analogy was exactly on the point I was trying to make. It's not my fault you have trouble understanding it.