shorter shows

Sroundtable at Sroundtable at
Thu Aug 12 20:53:23 CDT 2004

Sorry, AOL screwed this up before so it ran together.  Here is how it was 
supposed to read.

In a message dated 8/11/2004 6:57:07 PM Central Daylight Time, 
thewho-request at writes:

> "This view may not be popular, but The Who have become a lounge act.  The
> author stopped short of calling them just that, but they are.  Their shows
> are getting shorter and shorter (I am surprised that this only gets a
> cursory mention here) and even more predictable than what we expected."

Mc writes:
> Both shows I attended in CA were in excess of 2 hours.  The 2002 shows were 
> 2 
> hrs 15 minutes with 21 songs.  These two shows were almost that with 19 
> songs.  They jammed out more this time around.  I didn't feel in any way 
> cheated.  
> I saw Aerosmith and they were actually under 2 hours and left out some 
> significant hits.  I would certainly rather the performances I just 
> witnessed at 2 
> hrs plus than 3 hrs of Pete and Roger running through obscure songs and just 
> playing the notes faithfully.  After all, they ARE 60 years old, and it's 
> not as 
> if they have abandoned the physical nature of a Who show.  They give us 
> everything they have on stage.  What I witnessed was not a lounge act.  
> Aerosmith 
> has to swing from trapezes and wear wild outfits and shower the crowd with 
> confetti.  The Who speak with their performance.  Hollywood Bowl was 
> absolutely 
> spectacular.
> Mc

More information about the TheWho mailing list