MSG 8/1 my thoughts

[Brian Cady <brianinatlanta2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

I did manage to make it up to New York City for one
show of The Who at Madison Square Garden on August
1st. I'll try to keep the non-Who short as the whole
"what I did on my summer vacation" thing gets a little
tiring for The Who crowd.

First off, thanks to Trish, Scott, Jeff, Dave and all
the others I met and greeted (why isn't it met and
gret?) at the Molly Wee. And thanks to the panhandlers
outside for keeping my wife from feeling lonely when
she went outside for a second for a bit of air.

As my wife and I entered Madison Square Garden, I
noticed that the crowd was more like that at a
football game than a concert. Sometimes I have to
wonder whether The Who aren't in fact a sports team.
Will Pete score any goals without the help of teammate
John? Will Roger fumble the notes, giving the ball to
the other team (the Who detractors)? Does that make me
a statistic fanatic endlessly discussing when The Who
won the FA Cup or the Super Bowl?

MSG, on my first ever trip there, brings back memories
of Atlanta's old The Omni (Who '73, '75, '80). My
wife, who went to many concerts there in the '70's,
prepared me for similarly lackluster acoustics. 
Robert Plant came on and confirmed my worse fears
about the sound. Plant was in good form and his usual
coloratura effects were performed with no signs of
vocal age. The band was...sufficient. However, it was
hard to give an completely accurate assessment as the
mix was a loud and obnoxious mix of muddy bass covered
with an annoying treble wash. Would this be how The
Who would sound?

Around 9:20pm the answer came with a pure rock and
roll explosion. Pete, Roger, Rabbit, Zak, Simon and
Pino took the stage and crashed into "I Can't
Explain." The sound was great. Pete and Zak were full
in the mix with a gorgeous series of chest-pulsing
thumps coming from Zak's bass drums.

I entered this concert with a lot of questions. Would
I miss John terribly as some fans, online and at the
Molly Wee, had said? Why were the shows this tour
getting such better reviews than 2000 when they had
John? Would it be, as more than one Who fanatic
claimed, "the best ever Pete Townshend show?"

To answer the last question first, it certainly wasn't
the Pete Townshend Show. Not that Pete wasn't playing
well because he was, in fact, playing better than he
has since the mid-70's. However, there was far less of
Pete's personality to the concert than there was in
2000. His remarks were brief and he seemed better
integrated with the rest of the band, not sticking out
as he has in the past with show-stopping (or more
accurately, song-stopping) solos. His intent, like
that of everyone else in the band, seemed to be to put
the songs across in the best way he could.

The structure of the concert was also radically
different from 2000. "What," you say, "but aren't they
practically playing the same things?" The feel was
much different, however. One song sat tightly atop the
next with no digressions for chatter and hardly any
pauses between songs. It was like a military campaign
with one assault after another, controlling the
crowd's reaction the way a great movie director can
elicit an emotion with a well-planned scene. I would
have to disagree with those who want "Another Tricky
Day" and "Eminence Front" removed. Yes, both are
lulls, but they are very necessary lulls which make
the following songs even stronger. If Roger is still
the one designing the concert flow, hats off to him.

As long as I'm on the subject of Roger, he should
write down any techniques he used to get his voice
into shape for this tour because he hasn't sounded
this good since 1982. Yes, a couple of screams had to
be fudged ("Love Reign O'er Me," "Won't Get Fooled
Again") but otherwise, there were none of that
scratchiness that has plagued him for the last two
decades and he kept right on the key throughout.

As for the absence of John, I'd have to say that, for
the most part, The Who got away with it. I approached
it with the attitude of a band with a job to do. Could
those left still put the songs across or would John's
absence warp the songs or leave holes in The Who's
sound? The answer was there were only occasional
problems and not enough to keep The Who of this show
from an unabashed victory. Pino was kept very low in
the mix throughout. Unless he had a solo, such as on
"My Generation," I couldn't have been sure The Who had
a bass player on stage. The one song I thought really
suffered was "Sparks" which had some large holes in it
which John would have filled.

Zak, however, rushed in to fill all the other musical
gaps and drove the show forward. Is it time to mention
that after a slow and hesitant start on the part of
this old Who fan, I'm becoming quite the Zak Starkey
supporter? I thoroughly enjoy his style and how it
meshes with Pete's playing and if here weren't there,
the band would suffer terribly.

So are they the Who? It's a question I try to avoid
since it smacks of silliness to me. Either the show
works or it doesn't. Either the songs are well served
or they're not. Otherwise, to paraphrase the Bard, "a
Who by any other name would rock as loud." This show
was more than successful enough for them to continue
as The Who after these tours if Pete and Roger would
like to. My one big suggestion, however, might be to
consider someone else for the bass position. It's not
that I doubt Pino's ability. That would be a bit
foolish considering his CV. And I don't insist on an
Entwistle clone. I just don't think his style helps
the band in the way it needs to be helped. A more
aggressive bassist eager to leap in and wrestle his
sound with Pete and Zak's seems more what is needed.

Other than that, a superb show and the best Who show
I've seen since 1975.


=====
-Brian in Atlanta
The Who This Month!
http://www.thewhothismonth.com
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com