Re:

[James L Jackson <jacksonj@battelle.org>]

> 
>    I must admit to having never seen the Kampuchea version of "Baba O' Riley" 
> (or anything else, other than "Behind Blue Eyes" on the video).  And I'll 
> readily admit that the 1979 Chicago stuff is far superior to, say, Toronto 
'82,
> but, in my opinion, it still isn't very good- it's more like the lesser of two
> evils.  
          
          
>I think the '79 tour is better than "isn't very good" for the 
>following reasons.  From the original three's point of view, it was 
>the band reborn and they showed it on stage.  Compare to say 
>Shepperton '78, where the band looked tired and seemingly going 
>through the motions (musically, not stage presense).  I dare say had 
>the band not fired Keith in late '78 (had he lived) and did a tour 
>that it would've been a serious dissapointment, much worse than what 
>actually happened a year later. 
          
>I even give credit to Jones, who knew he was out of place and played (in his 
>style) full of nervous energy in '79.  From then on I would
>definately use "isn't very good" because the freedom from Keith's 
>problems was only a snickers bar pick-me-up, and not a long term 
>cure.  Lastly the band was still improvising on stage in '79, which 
>is a hallmark of the Who.  Pete was playing extremely well, John 
>was better than ever, and Roger sung with emotion (well he always
>does).  It would be hard to not tell that especially in Pete's case, 
>he had infact come alive again.   

Ian is definitely on the mark. There was a falloff, and some of it 
must be borne by Jones. But the 79 stuff I've heard is some of my 
favorite. I consider it good fortune that the Who carried on and was 
able to play with the energy they had in 79 (don't tell me Cincinnati 
wasn't devastating--they were never the same after it; that plus 
Pete's solo career ended the Who).

Thanks, Ian.

--Jim