Re: RAH first night controversy

["Ian Clarke" <gai67@dial.pipex.com>]

Kevin

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

For many of us who went to all five UK gigs, comparing one with another is
evitable.  Further, coming direct after Watford, the 1st RAH, in my opinion,
was poor.

However, talk to those who only went to the RAH, and a different perspective
is obtained.

It's say they played very well on the 2nd night, but still there was
something missing.  PT seemed to be deliberately not talking much between
numbers, but just intent on playing well (and that's the idea) but when he's
really enthusiastic, you always get a PT chat.

It's all down to personal views;  most feel the 1st Portsmouth was better
than the second.  I'd say the 2nd was best.

In the end, what does it matter, all Who gigs are good.

IanC



----- Original Message -----
From: <Sroundtable@aol.com>
To: <TheWho@igtc.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 9:58 PM
Subject: RAH first night controversy


> I can't get a read on how the show actually was on thursday night.  My
friend
> tells me it fuckin rocked and was incredible, another report says it was
the
> worst Who show he'd ever seen.  someone else loved it and said they cried
> during amaz journey/sparks.  the review i just read by that morrison guy
> praised it for its energy but said john's bass solo during 5.15 was
> "excruciating" , yet everyone on the list says it was awesome.  someone
else
> was annoyed that pete kept saying he was bored and didn't have his usual
> banter w/the audience, but the review said he was doing it a lot.  does
the
> truth lie somewhere in the middle?  one thing everyone seems to agree on:
> john's vocals during My Wife were terrible.  what's up with his voice?
does
> he sing lead in JEB? (i've never seen them).  is he off-key or is the
voice
> just weak?
>
> Kevin mc