No Subject

[Ian Derby <csc2imd@cabell.vcu.edu>]

> 
>    I must admit to having never seen the Kampuchea version of "Baba O' Riley"
> (or anything else, other than "Behind Blue Eyes" on the video).  And I'll 
> readily admit that the 1979 Chicago stuff is far superior to, say, Toronto '82,
> but, in my opinion, it still isn't very good- it's more like the lesser of two
> evils.  


I think the '79 tour is better than "isn't very good" for the
following reasons.  From the original three's point of view, it was
the band reborn and they showed it on stage.  Compare to say
Shepperton '78, where the band looked tired and seemingly going
through the motions (musically, not stage presense).  I dare say had
the band not fired Keith in late '78 (had he lived) and did a tour
that it would've been a serious dissapointment, much worse than what
actually happened a year later. 

I even give credit to Jones, who knew he was out of place and played (in his
style) full of nervous energy in '79.  From then on I would
definately use "isn't very good" because the freedom from Keith's
problems was only a snickers bar pick-me-up, and not a long term
cure.  Lastly the band was still improvising on stage in '79, which
is a hallmark of the Who.  Pete was playing extremely well, John was
better than ever, and Roger sung with emotion (well he always
does).  It would be hard to not tell that especially in Pete's case,
he had infact come alive again.