Would the Who open for the Stones? i suppose they will go first but it will be a double bill, they wont be like Airborne or some of the other support acts

Incidentally, folks, if you subscribe to TheWho Live TV, tonights show in Locarno is being broadcast in full

Phoenix will not be at Sun Devil Stadium. The poor folks in Arizona are getting out of that hole and are about set to open the most advanced stadium in the world in September. Can't remember its name right now. But it supposed to be out of this world.

Just jours after the tour was announced I won tickets to the Chicago gig on WXRT radio! What a great way to start my birthday weekend!
I first saw the Who when I was a very young teenager in '68, in a very small club in St. Charles, Illinois. Unforgettable. Strangely enough, I recently unearthed a bootleg from that very same show. I couldn't believe it.
I hear Roger and Pete still have the fire and passion in them.
Can't wait.
In the early days, The Who always gave the Stones a 'run for their money' when it came to live performances.
The pairing of the 2 bands on the same bill should be interesting, if it happens.

>Phoenix will not be at Sun Devil Stadium. The poor folks in Arizona are getting >out of that hole and are about set to open the most advanced stadium in the world >in September. Can't remember its name right now. But it supposed to be out of this >world.


Cardinals Stadium?

[en.wikipedia.org]

Yes it is Cardinals Stadium. It will hold 73,000 for concerts.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Daltrey's voice was shot up until about 3
> years ago. Those hypnosis sessions with Paul
> McKenna seemed to have worked.

I disagree. I saw them in '97, '00 and '02 and thought Daltrey sounded great every time, especially the last two. I've been watching the webcasts and his voice doesn't sound appreciably different to me, but perhaps I'm just not picking up on the nuances.

Doolittle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've always been a Who fan & around 1999 (when
> they started playing as a 'stripped down' band
> again, with the superb Zak Starkey on drums)- I
> really thought there was going to be a 're-birth'
> of the band, with new music etc. Then John
> Entwistle died. He (& indeed Keith Moon) were SO
> integral to what made the band, that what remains
> now just isn't 'The Who' anymore. OK- it may be a
> good show- but I wish they'd stopped 'dragging the
> corpse' of the band around now.

Gotta disagree with that as well. They aren't as good without Entwistle but they're still a great band. I'd give the show I saw in '00 with Entwistle a 9/10 and the one in '02 without him an 8/10. Not as good but not too far off. Entwistle was willing to continue the band without Moon, I don't see the problem of the other two being willing to continue without Entwistle. It's not like retiring the name is going to bring him back to life.

For me personally it wouldn't make any difference if they called it Townshend/Daltrey instead of The Who, I'd still go see them and enjoy it just as much. But I understand that to a casual fan the name The Who is more recognizable and therefore it makes sense to keep using it. I think in a way it also serves as a tribute to Moon and Entwistle by keeping their memories and the group's music alive. Let's face it, we probably wouldn't be discussing Entwistle right now if The Who weren't on tour.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-07-14 18:25 by ohnonotyouagain.

Just Scored 2 at Jones Beach on Long Island. came to about 200.00 Upper deck 1st row dead center.