Well damn, if you articulated it better the first time around, I can't imagine how. I thought that was an extremely well thought out and well written response. I'm not sure I agree with your logic in all cases, but at least you have some logic to base your thinking on, and I respect that.
One thing I noticed, in comparing my reactions to what you wrote here to how I felt after reading your reviews, is that I in the former case I wasn't left feeling put off by an almost bitter, vitriolic tone...Bitter isn't the best word I'm sure, but it's the best I can come up with right this second. Perhaps your use of words like "grotesque, magical, hocus-pocus, bleed", are the difference, and I'll submit that perhaps that is for entertainment value. Perhaps it's not. But it's almost like I'm reading something from two different people. In your reviews, when you mention production, one can almost visualize you literally spitting the word out. Seriously. What you wrote here doesn't have that tone at all. So...I feel a bit awkward, and like we should give you the benefit of the doubt here, in the future at least. Perhaps it's just chance that you haven't liked the way production was used in all of your first several reviews.
Yet, you didn't really address the most glaring part of your most recent review, in my eyes - that being that you essentially admit to dropping the score of an album by 2 full points because it "wasn't raw voices". Perhaps that was hyperbole...but it does seem to walk the line. I mean, RARB reviewers are supposed to be comparing albums to the "general body of recorded a cappella" or something like that, right? If your statement was not pure hyperbole, then one could say that you essentially said that according to "the tides" the album would merit a 5, but since it didn't sound just like the group you saw live (raw voices), it got a 3. I might be reading too much into that, but a statement like that rather leaves you open to such interpretation. Know what I mean? One does get the sense that even if you were being a bit hyperbolic, that this IS indeed how you think all recorded a cappella should sound, if at all possible. And I guess what concerns me about that (if "concern" can be even used when talking about an album review, lol), is that I suspect you're going to be disappointed more times than not. And that disappointment has, thus far and at least to this reader, manifested itself, again, as disdain, at best. It's going to make for a lot of upset groups.
Of course, I make all these points, arguments...and yet really on many days I lean towards your side. I'd sometimes love to hear more natural singing. But in my opinion that would require a lot of culling that I don't necessarily support, and that certainly won't happen.