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

2000 Tour vs 2002 tour



In a message dated 10/29/2002 7:53:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, TheWho-Digest-Owner@igtc.com writes:

> Then we have what I think is the best Who tour of my lifetime, the 2000 
> tour. Here we have many great reviews marveling at the energy and sound they 
> were able to create at their age. The return to a five-piece unit no doubt 
> restored much of the crediblilty they had lost and proved 
> that they didn't 
> *need* extra musicians if they didn't want them.

To be honest, I didn't attend any 2000 shows because I didn't even know the Who toured in 2000 (great promotion, I must say).  However, I talked to people in the cities in which I saw them this summer, and the consensus in each place was that the shows this year were better.  I'm sure the energy was there in 2000, and of course John was there... but that was a tour the put together because Roger and mainly John, needed the money.  In this way, Pete's intensity night in and night out could not have been what it was this time around.  Ask AEB... he'll tell you.  Also, Roger's voice was vastly improved this go round (on average) compared to the CDs I heard from 2000.  His voice was very weak in Denver, for example (though it sounded great in the RAH video).  True, he had some struggles in that latter part of the tour, but overall it was WAY better in 2002.

mc