More On The '89 Tour

["Scott Schrade" <schrade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Well said. For every one who calls the 89 tour "The Who on Ice" there
> were hundreds if not thousands who thought it was great.

I was one of the ones who thought it was great, too.  At the time.  I be-
lieved that that tour was going to be my only opportunity to see the band.
So I accepted it.  And appreciated it.

Then, 10 years later, in 1999, all of a sudden The Who (or more accurate-
ly Pete) decided that in order to tour they now *didn't* need the plethora
of backing musicians to present a Who show.  *That's* what left me scratch-
ing my head.

> As far as I am concerned, simply looking at a boot of the show I went
> to, they played 6 songs I'd never heard them play before, 1 song I
> hadn't heard them play since 1968, and played with verve and vigour
> another 23 songs - that's 10 songs more than they played on this tour
> just finished in total.

Very true.  The set list & song selection on the '89 tour *was* outstand-
ing.  In fact, that was the riskiest thing about that tour.  Sure, I enjoyed
hearing the rarities, but my enjoyment was somewhat tempered by the fact 
that those rarities were filtered as it were through a 15-member ensemble
of musicians thereby drastically altering the simplicity, power, & unique-
ness many of those songs had in the first place.  No matter how rare the 
tune, each was rendered in bland, diluted, big-band style which robbed
the very essence of the songs.  Too many cooks spoiling the meal.

> For God's sake, the tour was billed as the 25th Anniversary tour, and
> "die hard" fans knew that there was going to be a lot more than just
> Pete, Roger and John on stage, so it's almost hypocrisy to go and then
> say it wasn't what they wanted.

I don't know if "hypocrisy" is the right word.  Die-hard Who fans will 
take the opportunity to see the band in any format because we're freaks.
Keep in mind the context of 1989.  I, like most, thought, "Well, this is
it.  This is the last time (or first time in my case) we're probably gonna 
get to see The Who."  Take it or leave it, my son.  Take it or leave it.
I took it.  Glad for the chance to get to see my heroes.

It's not how I would've liked to have seen the band in '89.  But beggars 
can't be choosers & all that.  

Now, if each subsequent tour The Who embarked upon had been sim-
ilar to the '89 tour, fans probably wouldn't be complaining so much.  We
would've resigned ourselves to the idea that that's what The Who had
become, & left it at that.

But, as you know, that's not what happened.  Ten years later we get
the, dare I say, "proper" version of The Who as a 5-piece & fans were
rejoicing.  All of a sudden the '89 tour seems like a bad dream.  A bit
of a swindle.  I, for one, felt somewhat cheated.  Why couldn't the decis-
ion to tour as a 5-piece been made in 1989?  Chalk another one up to
Pete's finickiness, I guess.

> What I think most "diehard" Who fans who complain about that tour are
> really complaining about is Pete not playing electric guitar. 

That's just *one* of the complaints about that tour.  There are others.
But, yes, that's a biggie.

> And for them to say it that act of self protection by Pete somehow tarnishes 
> a legacy is plain dumb - IMO.

I disagree.  Actually, it would've been better had they just skipped that tour
altogether if Pete wasn't up to snuff.  Of course, hindsight is 20-20.

> The rest of the 10,000 or more who saw each show, as you say, didn't
> care, were entertained, enjoyed themselves, 

10,000?  The Who were nearly selling out *stadiums* on the '89 tour.
There was a huge amount of excitement, promotion, & expectation for
that tour.  The Who - reunited after 7 years.  I stood in line for nearly
24 hours with hundreds of people waiting to get tickets.  There was a 
*ton* of promotion, too.  People were excited.

Then, the audiences got a dose of a bloated, watered-down, safe version 
of a band that was made famous & respected for its rugged, no-holds-
barred ferociousness.  I truly believe many fns gave up on The Who after
that tour.  Not the die-hards, mind you.  Just the common, everyday rock
fan who enjoyed The Who's music & concerts.  After '89, I believe many
of them said, "Bye, bye.  That's not The Who *I* know & love."  And
they were right, too.

> and probably were the bulk of the 10,000 or more who saw the Who on 
> each night of the 96 and 97 Quad tours, 

The QUAD tour I can overlook for its use of extra musicians.  The band
wanted to properly play the piece live &, because of its complexity, the
extra musicians were needed.  No problem.  However, they weren't need-
ed in '89 - as they weren't needed in 1999/2000.

So, I'll sum up my diatribe on the '89 tour saying again - I felt lucky at the
time to get a chance to see my heroes & did enjoy the shows for what they
were.  However, the subsequent tours have made me realize that that tour
could've been groundbreaking, & ground-shaking, in the way the 1999/2000 
shows were.

One could say that the '89 tour made the 1999/2000 shows seem that much
better.  I'll give you that.  But I *do* believe many casual fans decided The 
Who were past it, & not warranting of their money or attention any longer.


- SCHRADE in Akron