Live In Boston - Dvd [2003]

I Like this DVD. Alright, it's not the best ir could be, as both Vegas Job and Live at the Royal Albert Hall better this one by far, but it has it's moments. You Better, You Bet and Won't Get Fooled Again ranks as the best on here, but most of the other tracks come across adequately. All in all, The Who are far from the spent force some accuse them of being. Pino Palladino provides a great replacement for John Entwistle, and Zak Starkey reminds us just how much he's like Keith. All in all, not a patch on the Who at their best, but adequate.

I Can't Explain/Substitute/Anyway Anyhow Anywhere - what a start! A similar set list as to when I saw them in Glasgow with Entwistle. There are nice Quadrophia and Tommy sections thrown. All in all a decent DVD. Roger and Pete are full of energy and put on a good show. However, you can't help missing Moon and now Entwisle.

7/10

You know what? I'm sick of people claiming The Who are washed up. Anybody who has actually SEEN them recently as opposed to watched them on TV will know that they still have a lot of passion in their performance, and they still gain overwhelming admiration from the audiences they play to.

This performance was recorded just weeks after the death of John Entwistle. It's not their greatest performance...perhaps they still wern't used to turning around and not seeing John standing there with his bass. It's understandable. They had to get used to a slightly new sound with Pino Pallidino...a fine bassist in his own right. They're "backing band" are actually very well known. Rabbit has been with them for years. There's nobody who could drum like Keith Moon, but that doesn't mean Zak Starkey isn't a fine drummer in his own right.

People complaining that Roger doesn't sound as good as he used to? He's in his 60s...no 60 year old sounds like he did when he was in his 20s...absolutley nobody. Complaining that he doesn't swing his microphone around? Same answer. My dad is only in his 40s and HE wouldn't be able to swing his microphone around either (although, admittedly, he's not a singer).

The problem seems to be that people want The Who of 1971. But, its not 1971. People age. I'm glad Roger's not going crazy with the mic these days...lets face it, he'd look ridiculous and it would effect his voice. I'm glad Pete isn't going through the motions in his stage moves, the way the naysayers seem to want him to be. They seem happy doing what they are doing, and there are still a helluva lot of people who want to see them.

Is this The Who? Not really...there are 4 members of The Who. I've heard people comparing the current Who to Page and Plant...but Page and Plant didn't have all living members of Led Zep onstage with them, The Who do. However, I'm also not so ignorant of the way business works to know that The Who is like a brand name, and unless it says "The Who", people won't know who it is. And they need to break even financially.

So, to the naysayers...bite me...