Phish.net is a non-commercial project run by Phish fans and for Phish fans under the auspices of the all-volunteer, non-profit Mockingbird Foundation.
This project serves to compile, preserve, and protect encyclopedic information about Phish and their music.
Credits | Terms Of Use | Legal | DMCA
The Mockingbird Foundation is a non-profit organization founded by Phish fans in 1996 to generate charitable proceeds from the Phish community.
And since we're entirely volunteer – with no office, salaries, or paid staff – administrative costs are less than 2% of revenues! So far, we've distributed over $2 million to support music education for children – hundreds of grants in all 50 states, with more on the way.
Was it where @chillwig provided a crystal clear list of the ways in which the majority discussion have personally attacked the author and attempted to demean his ability to formulate valid personal opinions without 99 comments of agreement? Or was it when I made the joke about ranking them by stupidity. The joke is the ranking, the stupidity is the truth.
This is the perfect fan of Phish as I can tell. They use terms like "The boys" and "The Phish from Vermont," it shows their close personal connection to the performers and also that they've been around. They can heap praise upon each and every performance, regardless of whether it's warranted or not. But they never ever ever provide a critical thought that would create an illusion that they don't truly love this band. Sure you can throw a little shade to a predetermined set of songs (definitely not anything from 1.0 though) but you follow it up with a complement... "The Line is not a song I personally enjoy that much, but the boys really knocked it out of the park." That would seem to be the acceptable form of criticism.
Now we can unpack what happened prior to that. Comment #2
@WOMBAT_EN_FUEGO The only explanation for YOU is that the author "must not --clap,clap-- be able --clap,clap-- to enjoy --clap,clap-- himself --clap,clap-- anymore. That's the discourse. "Sorry you don't know how to have a good time man." That was your choice. Not to engage and maybe ask a "thoughtful" question. One that might invite the author to expand upon his original idea. Surely not all communication is limited to a single opportunity to make a point. Surely I can disagree with you and try to understand your perspective? Have we reached the zero sum game? Just right and wrong, pick a side.
And then, moving forward, people were emboldened and they insulted him personally, sbout his love for the band. about his ability to enjoy quite literally ANYTHING, and my favorite that said he was bad at sex.
The bottom line here is that this thread only hardens the point that the community present, doesn't appreciate the kind of honest criticism (funny that I've never once found someone who worries about the feelings of the producers of the walking dead when another said an episode sucked) that @bertoletdown was comfortable contributing. He still loves the band, I asked him privately. Vultures is still a relative piece of shit performance wise.
@JMart you do you on you're recap. But your take here is built upon an argument reliant on the stereotypes of internet trolls, they're fat and rude, disrespectful even, and that those individuals are here to start shit. @chillwig created a bulleted list with the behavior and the motivation of some behaviors exhibited in this thread. That's not being a troll. That's being learned.
And then you plead with "Site Leaders" to "try to find reviewers who were actually AT the show" (see @chillwig #2), well this happens every single tour. I can say with confidence that these site leaders make considerable effort to find people who can create quality review content AND be in attendance at the show. That's not possible every time out, some people choose to volunteer their time in spite of being remote. Maybe one of them can address that with you personally.
But your basic criticism will always be my favorite, ears don't work if the sound comes through the internet.