Re: Roger's voice, etc.

["bill sturm" <hiwatt70@hotmail.com>]

I think that date was hardest for roger because he needs a few shows to get 
his voice going.     Bill


>From: TJLY99@aol.com
>Reply-To: thewho@igtc.com
>To: Owner-thewho@igtc.com, THEWHO@igtc.com
>Subject: Re: Roger's voice, etc.
>Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 01:55:05 EST
>
>Singers are the most dispensable part of a musical entourage.
>
>
>and geniuses are the most underrated until dead.
>
>
>by the way, remember our "who vs. beatles" argument? know where that went?
>away after september 11th. but it seems another argument is erupting
>concerning roger's voice. will it have to take another world tragedy to end
>it? well, I hope nothing happens.
>this argument started because people were concerned about how roger's voice
>sounded on the night of october 20th at madison square garden. I ask "who
>cares?" the sex pistols never had a great singer, but they've seem to get 
>on
>well. why? attitude and energy and that's what the who showed that night.
>plus, have you noticed that the often snobbish critics are agreeing that 
>the
>who stole the show that night even though roger did seem to sound a little
>outta whack? and did you notice that the who seem to have gotten the 
>biggest
>reaction from the firefighters, policemen, etc?   even if roger did have a
>cold of some sort, he went out anyway, and that's what roger is good at. 
>not
>saying pete dosen't do the same thing (reference to 1989 when pete cut his
>hand on the whammy bar but went on with the tour with a bandage and last 
>year
>when pete broke his wrist and went on the same way. meanwhile, Jimmy page
>gets a bad back and cancels his tour with the black crowes).
>the argument about roger the singer and pete the songwriter have always 
>been
>an ongoing thing. but it's nice to know that these two "different" people
>managed to find peace with each other in 1996 and beyond.
>
>"you like potatoes, i like tomatoes, let's call the whole thing off."