[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 2000 Tour vs 2002 tour



Hmmm I will say seeing a few shows from each tour that the sound was much
better this time around. Pete was Pete AND Roger was BETTER! No John though
but I had so much trouble hearing him in the mix in 2000 but he played such
high notes they blended in with Pete much of the time....Bill

----- Original Message -----
From: Schrade, Scott
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 8:41 AM
To: 'thewho@igtc.com'
Subject: Re: 2000 Tour vs 2002 tour

> However, I talked to people in the cities in which I saw them this
> summer, and the consensus in each place was that the shows this year
> were better.

I saw four shows in 2000 & four shows in 2002.  The 2000 tour was better.

> I'm sure the energy was there in 2000, and of course John was there...

Pete & Roger played with the same intensity in 2000 as they did in 2002.
Plus, as you casually mentioned - "John was there" in 2000.  That's not
exactly a *small* bonus.

> but that was a tour the put together because Roger and mainly John, need-
> ed the money.  In this way, Pete's intensity night in and night out could
> not have been what it was this time around.

How would the reasons for the tour affect Pete's intensity while playing?
And for someone who didn't see any shows in 2000, you sure seem to have
some concrete opinions about the shows.  You may have heard some boots from
the 2000 tour but that's hardly akin to being there.

> Ask AEB... he'll tell you.

He's busy.  He's got headphones on, jamming the Kinks.

> Also, Roger's voice was vastly improved this go round (on average)

Daltrey's voice may have been a tad better in 2002....but not by much.  And
that's the fact....., Jack.

Sorry you missed the 2000 tour.  You missed seeing The OX play with the
boys.
You're in denial.  The 2000 tour was far better than the 2002 tour.  How
could it not be?  The fucking OX, for Christ's sake!  Do you know the power
of The OX?!

<sigh>  Poor OX....


- SCHRADE in Akron