Good stuff, Icculus – your content on this site is always a joy to read, and your combination of wisdom/voice and bitching and love for the band is always a treat. Fuckerpants. Gets me every time. Felt the same way for a long time, though I never had the words for it, haha.

I wanted to point out a few things that I think might be noteworthy with respect to the gist and motivation for Charlie's last two blog posts. My sense is that a lot of the pushback about one, two, and three stars reviews on the site are born out of .netters looking for external validation of their experiences at shows. No one on couch tour is ever offended. I think everyone pretty much gets this, but I would attribute it to the effects of social media as a cause. We live in a world where if someone doesn't immediately respond to our text, or like a social media post, our insecurity creeps in and then feeds on itself. I have seen shows that were such an emotional level of investment for me – 12/31/13, for example – that even a slight knock on the quality of the performance can feel like a slight that stings. It did when I read about the flubs in Mockingbird that were part of the .net review of the show, which were posted the next day. Still a damn good version compared to the relative nightmare of a version on 8/31/21 (apologies if that one hurt!). I hadn't read a word before I immediately scrolled to Charlie's assessment of MSG 6 and 7, which I attended. Both were barn burners, I don't need any help there, but I was hoping to see that coveted 5 star review for one of them. In my mind I had them as reversed (MSG6 a 4 star, and MSG7 a 5 star), but the point is I was looking for external validation. Hypocrite through and through it seems. That bias really came from having attended 8/6/17 of Baker's, and I was expecting tour closer/MSG 6 of this year to take the cake. It may very well not have. The point is that turning to .net for validation, or at least always expecting validation, isn't fair to this community. Neither is uncontextualized bitching that basically leaves people wondering why the hell one even turns to this site. I suppose it's a delicate balance.

As far as this site is concerned, I care far more about the written reviews than I do about star ratings. Full disclosure, I have seriously never even looked at them, and I've been attending shows since 1995. I am familiar with most show reviews on this platform in the last 10 years, and I usually give them a glance if not a full read. Ever notice that the critics garner all the comments? Seriously. Post a late afternoon review about your transcendent experience and it's criquets. Pull a Michael Ayers review of Dick's 2 of this summer tour and seemingly everyone wants to chime in. The outrage and butthurt is palpable. I get it, according to our human nature we'd rather look at a train wreck than a...

On another note, I would seriously like to thank all the reviewers who posted early in the day, the day after shows for this summer tour. It seemed like a concerted effort. I have reviewed shows myself, and while I will concede that it's an honor, it's also a task and at times a pain in the ass. You have no idea how relieved I was to not have to review MSG 6 or 7. @suzydrano did a great job with MSG 7, but you can sense that it was a to-do for her. As much as I love the deep dives, I do wonder if letting reviewers know they can push out shorter content/reviews sooner to elicit more comments/camaraderie/discussion would be good for .net. Livephish has the audio out within two hours, and lately I've found myself hopping on to take a peek at hot takes. Hells'd if we should let those pricks eat our lunch. It's a tough call. I love .net's thorough reviews with fans pouring their heart out on the page to conjure up what went down at a show. Been there myself. But when they are pushed out at 5pm the next day with the band about to take the stage just a few ours later, and no one is even commenting, I do wonder if .net reviews lose their relevancy.

Rant over. Enjoy the rest of the weekend everyone!