@chillwig said:

@PhunkyBallOfTits said:

Why is it the reviewer can spend too much time critiquing the band, but when a lot of people critique the review some people say fuck off in the form of "phish.net isn't for you"?

If you have a quality point to make and you can support it with reasons, then great. But that's not what goes on here in large part. In my experience, the comments to a negative .net recap typically fall into one of the following gripes:

1. Can you still have fun? Maybe you should stop going (ad hominem)
2. Couch tour recaps don't count (attendance bias)
3. "I stopped reading after the negative thing ..." (epistemic closure)
4. Unless you can do better, you should shut up (appeal to authority/courtiers reply)
5. These guys are 50-something cut them some slack (appeal to pity)
6. We should be grateful that they play at all! Blessed! (straw man)
7. Slop doesn't matter because it's all about the yams (false dilemma)

I could go on, but suffice it to say that each of above happened in the thread above, some more than onces. If one of those takes is your knee-jerk response to a salty recap, then yes - maybe phish.net recaps aren't for you.

To me, "phish.net isn't for you" is also a knee jerk response. Kind of a double standard. I can critique the band, bc this is my place to do so, but if you don't like it then leave? I get that some (jaded? maybe so, maybe not) vets can't get past flubs or quality of composed sections. I get that some people are bigger picture- jams, overall fun, set flow etc. Why can't both be here?