Unfair basis for comparison of 2000/2002 tours

[Sroundtable@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 10/31/2002 11:53:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, TheWho-Digest-Owner@igtc.com writes:

> As someone will be quick to point out that I didn't see a 2002 show, I'll go by something definite and tangible...released material. The 2000 show being, of course, RAH which I have put on CD from the DVD for my listening pleasure, and 2002 being the Detroit soundboard.


I don't think it is fair to compare a DVD which was produced using far more time and manpower than another which was thrown on the market virtually raw straight from the soundboard.  Far more effort was put into making sure the sound for the RAH 2000 was top notch.
 

<Comparing the two...well, all I can say is anyone who prefers the 2002 tour must not have been much of a John fan. Pino is just not even in the ballpark. That meaty chunky bass is NOT there. I have a hard time listening to the Detroit show, it's painful for as I said earlier I can only hear what's no longer there. Daltrey's voice I've addressed, and at least in Detroit it's NOT better or even as 
> good.


As has been documented here many times, Roger's voice improved drastically by the end of the 2000 Tour, of which RAH was the very last performance.  Also remember that Roger was able to rest considerably during RAH 2000 as Pete did his acoustic part of the set, first by himself, then with Paul Weller.  Roger also got to rest the vocals during Behind Blue Eyes and I'm One.  My point was his voice from beginning to end of the tour.  Roger himself said several times that his voice was far better this time around.  I will admit that he sounded very good at RAH 2000.  My point is that he sounded as good or better than that for MOST of this tour.  I have heard Denver 2000, RAH 2000, and various other odd single song downloads from the 2000 tour as my basis for comparison.  Maybe I'll change my tune after I get my 2002 CDs (when I accumulate a little more $$).

mc