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

Re: taking issue with critique of Roger's voice



In a message dated 10/9/2002 5:01:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, TheWho-Digest-Owner@igtc.com writes:
> Roger Daltrey was one of the greatest Rock singers of all time, and his voice lasted about 20 years longer than Robert Plant's (for one). But, to be fair, who could expect him to keep it up forever? Even in 1985 (Live Aid) he couldn't do "the scream" (end of WGFA). I'd give him an 80% of his voice rating in 2000, 75% in 2002 (although by the end of the show it's > getting ragged, as in the case of MG from Detroit).
I understand you can only go by what you heard, but I heard the 2000 Denver show on CD, and saw the Who live seven times this year, and he sounded WAY better this time around than 2000.  As good as I thought he sounded on the RAH video, he sounded much better at the gigs I saw (except maybe Sacramento and 1st half of Dallas), which I realized when I went back and watched RAH again.  Not only that, but all the locals (west coasters) I talked to who had seen them in 2000 remarked that both Pete and Roger put on superior performances.  At 58, there is no way his vocal chords can be great every time out, but they were pretty damn good when I saw the Who, including some great WGFA screams, Bargain high notes, and LROM screams (flat awesome).  He took on some of the toughest live Who material this time around, and for the most part, nailed it all.  As for Plant, I thought he sounded great at MSG.  He didn't go up and wail on the high notes as often, but when he did they were there.  I found it almost vintage sounding.  Maybe I haven't heard enough Zep, but he sounded great to me.
mc