I guess I'm missing something here because I saw the video clips of the show and thought the band did very well. I wasn't expecting amazeballs chemistry or a new set list since this show was only the first of a two-off. What's the big deal? From the clips I've seen of the US festival, I'd say the band had a similar mindset going into that as they did with this show. It's business. They did well.
Anyone irate enough to write the article the LA Times writer wrote has no real idea of what the band has become over the last 15 years. Also, I think the writer believed he had a genuine "angle" in using LB's "undiplomatic" comment--which was cajoled out of him--as grist for the mill in reviewing the ensuing concert. I get the sense he went to the concert expecting--even hoping--it would confirm his thesis so he could write what he wrote. The problem is, I don't think he was all that accurate: the band sounded more than reasonably good. And they're all approaching or over 70.
|