Show & Venue Reviews, What's New, Pussycat?
Please share your Tom Jones shows with other fans. Setlist? Audience? Energy? What was it like being there? We’d love to hear from you.
And, while you’re telling us about the shows, please let us know what you think of the venues where Tom plays. Clubs, theaters, casinos — Tom Jones performs in all of them. Which venue do you think is the best? The worst?
So that other fans will know what’s in store when they buy their tickets, please tell us a little bit about the venues you know. If possible, try to use the format below so others can tell at a glance what you think. The best venue will merit ****. More than one review of a venue is welcome.
Speaking of Reviews — This Is Worth A Second Look; TJ One Month, Enge The Next
Sunday, March 9th, 2008
Below is a review worth rereading (or reading for the very first time). Robert Christgau was at the time he wrote this the music critic for Newsday, the Long Island daily. He has also written books and articles for Rolling Stone, Esquire , was the rock critic for The Village Voice and writes for several other pubs. You can hear him on your local NPR station and can find his work at his website. From the time we came across this a few years ago, it’s been one of our favorite reviews because Christgau knows his stuff and it’s an honest evaluation of Tom Jones in 1972.
In this piece he went to the Westbury Music Fair (now the North Fork Theater at Westbury) on Long Island which, as we’ve said before, seems to be one of Tom’s favorite venues and at which he’s performed fairly regularly since 1971. He’ll be back in November.
When this was written Tom played 13 shows — opening on a Friday, playing two shows a night Friday and Saturday, one each evening Sunday through Thursday and then two a night Friday and Saturday. And, since tickets were about $12, many fans went to all 13 shows for a total of $156. [NOTE: The "Inner Circle" about which he writes was the "club" people who patronized Westbury could join for $5 a year. That gave them access to early announcements and early ticket sales for Westbury shows.]
For these reviews, Christgau — who, as you’ll see, knows his music — took his mom to see Tom in April and Engelbert in May. The photo of Tom is from the next month, May 1972, at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas. The photo right is of Enzo Stuarti, a smooth Italian tenor who had success in the US back in the day.
Two Nights at the Westbury Music Fair
1. Tom Jones
There were seven women in Section A, Row F, behind us, and the woman with the aisle seat, right next to where his burly helpers would hustle him on and off the round stage, had earned her prize appropriately, with middle-class virtues. The very night she had received her Inner Circle bulletin, in January, she had ordered her tickets for Tom Jones’s opening night at the Westbury Music Fair. I had my seat by press privilege, and my mother, who accompanied me, had done nothing more strenuous than skip her church group to do so. She was acting very cool about it.
My mother is a sane, intelligent, demure woman with little interest in popular music, but as we eavesdropped on the women behind us, reminiscing about Elvis Presley and complaining about the plethora of uniformed guards, she got worried.
“I know this guy is going to get to me. I’m putting up a big front, but I know. I saw Enzo Stuarti and before it was over I was falling all over him, and you know what he is. It’s the ambiance.”
She was right, but she has nothing to worry about — she succumbed to talent. Jones is very good at what he does. He has one of the best voices in popular music — not one of your failed opera baritones, but a rich, husky ballad instrument with heavy black and country influences and that essential romantic Welsh fillip — and he knows how to use it. Not many singers could do such a wide variety of top-forty material — from Wilson Pickett to Al Green, from Frank Sinatra to Three Dog Night — so credibly. Only once, on Till, did he indulge in the overdramatizing most similar performers feel is obligatory.
Of course, the seven women behind us were not there for a rock and roll appreciation course. They were there for, you know, sex, and that is more problematic — it is considered gauche, somehow, for a woman in her thirties to exhibit her libido. Not that the crowd thought so. Women from eleven to sixty paraded at Tom’s whim to the stage to present their love offerings — stuffed animals and champagne and a house key or two. They wiped the sweat form his face and his body and kept the handkerchiefs as souvenirs. And they kissed him, to the glee of their less fortunate sisters. Tongue kisses received especially enthusiastic applause. Their husbands, those who were there — women outnumbered men about four to one–appeared indulgent. It was like New Year’s Eve–one tongue kiss never ruined a marriage. Sex at a distance. Nothing like it for letting off steam.
I know I’m not a thirty-six-year-old housewife, but I reserve the right to be a little saddened and a little confused by all of this. Jones is a fine singer, but even my mother noticed that he’s an awkward, rather overstated dancer. He dances a lot more surely than I do, but then, he gets paid for it, and if Wilson Pickett were to swivel his hips that way, he’s be laughed off the stage of the Apollo. Elvis Presley and Mick Jagger also move a lot better than Jones, and movement is what all this sex is about, right?
Nobody at Westbury is complaining. Jones sold out three thousand seats for six nights as soon as the first ad appeared. That doesn’t make him quite the attraction the hype claims — many rock acts sell at least as well just as fast, and Presley, for example, would do a lot better if he wanted the work — but it’s impressive enough, and it ought to be remembered that Jones’s fans have the money (and the inclination) to go to places like Las Vegas. That’s obviously the kind of success Jones wants, and he earns it likably enough. He is at least as indulgent of his fans as their husbands are.
All in all, not a bad evening. My mother and I have a date to see Engelbert Humperdinck when he comes around.
Newsday, Apr. 1972
2. Engelbert Humperdinck
My mother and I returned to the Westbury Music Fair to see Engelbert Humperdinck last night. The truism about Jones and Humperdinck, who are both managed by a smart man named Gordon Mills, is that they project mutually exclusive images: the rough-hewn, sexy rocker and the handsome, romantic balladeer. Since I think of my mother as sentimental, I thought she might prefer Humperdinck, but she didn’t. Neither did I.
I am a rock and roll person, and although I assume Humperdinck is good at what he does, there’s no way I’ll ever like it. I think the smooth, melodramatic pop style is as false as the fantasy lyrics of To the Ends of the Earth and Through Spanish Eyes. Moreover, it tends to undermine whatever emotional possibilities survive the structure and melody of more realistic material, such as Humperdinck’s big one, Release Me. Musically, the evening was a loss for me before it began.
Sometimes, though, a charismatic performer overwhelms your prejudices, so that you marvel at the sheer fact of his presence at the same time you deplore it. Last night, however, even my low expectations were betrayed. I expected that Humperdinck would at least act comfortable with his own sexual appeal. Instead, he felt compelled to embellish it with naughty jokes (”If you have a virus, it gets you in the place you use most — it got me in the throat second”) and endearing mannerisms (”Cease!” or “That’s so cute!”). As my mother put it: “What seemed to be so natural with Tom Jones with this guy is so contrived. He’s working so hard at it.”
His audience was, of course, mostly female, a little older and a little less swinging than the Jones crowd. They didn’t grab as much or scream as much or come on as much, but then if they dig Humperdinck’s dreamy but somewhat sedate illusion, that probably isn’t their style. They doubtless prefer to simply bask in the experience.
For me, the most moving moments in the show were provided by the fans. A woman in a black beehive next to me — a squatter who eventually was forced to relinquish her sixth-row seat — clapped wildly throughout the first two songs, almost like a little girl, while her blond friend simply sat there, close to tears. I was especially impressed by a woman named Ingrid who was elected by Humperdinck to sit on the stage during his rendition of Sugar Sugar. She did a marvelous siren act, beckoning him with a crooked finger and then attempting (unsuccessfully, I’m afraid) to cool it a little when he approached.
The fantasies that performers like Humperdinck cater to are unreal, but there’s something beautiful about them. How wonderful that the human spirit should preserve its utopian impulses, its longing for some sort of serene romantic perfection, even if the image around which these impulses organize themselves is a very silly and inflated man. I don’t suppose Humperdinck’s fans are going to feel very flattered when I say they’re too good for him. But that’s what I think.
Newsday, May 1972 from the book, Any Old Way You Choose It, 1973
March 9th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Did I read correctly that TJ will be at Westbury this November?
March 9th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Greg: Yes, you did.
March 9th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
I haven’t seen it on any of his webstie schedules or Westbury’s. Are you sure? Do you know the dates?
March 9th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
No, Greg, don’t know the dates but he’s really supposed to be there. Can’t reveal sources, but we know it’s true — barring any unexpected changes.
March 10th, 2008 at 6:36 am
Ellen: Wanna go? I’ll meet you there.
March 10th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Good to read the report which I haven’t read before. I would also like to revert back to my post of Feb 29th, Re: Welsh Idol.After my enquiry to the B.B.C., I was told that anyone who wishes to vote can do so by sending their vote to Welsh Idol National Assembly for Wales Freepost SWC3358 Cardiff Bay CF99 1Gy.Great Britain. I don’t expect freepost will apply outside the U.K so best put a stamp.So, come on everybody — VOTE. Let’s get Tom the title he deserves in his homeland and show how loyal his fans are to him wherever they live.
March 10th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Thanks for posting these two interesting reviews. Some reviews reveal more about the reviewer than about the performance. I think that Christgau reveals some of his ambivalence about women through his descriptions of the two audiences, while leaving the specifics of Tom’s performance pretty vague.
While describing his mother as “sane, intelligent and demure,” he characterizes the other females in the audience, of a certain age, as “housewife.” In the Engelbert review, he describes one woman “in a black beehive,” another as “clapping like a little girl” and her “blond” friend. I wonder if he would have described a bald man and his friend with the blond crewcut.
He can’t deny Tom’s obvious vocal talent although he doesn’t waste too many words actually describing the music and Tom’s specific treatment of it. In fairness, he does mention the “essential romantic Welsh fillip” which I had never heard about. My understanding is that it refers to the snap, crispness and precision which I’ve always found so exciting in Tom’s interpretations. (This reminds me that I’ve always hoped that Tom would record some especially evocative Welsh melodies with and without a traditional choir.)
The reviewer is left with “not a bad evening,” but “saddened and a little confused”, by Tom’s appeal considering his “awkward and overstated” dancing which compares very poorly with that of Mick Jagger’s? I don’t think Mick Jagger has often been accused of being a great dancer. I may be wrong about that and now, I am really confused. I guess Christgau does reveal that he doesn’t understand what women can find appealing.
What’s amazing to me is how Tom Jones’ reviewers, even at the time of his most spectacular vocal performances, never fail to find creative ways of giving begrudging compliments while avoiding to discuss the musical performances seriously and in context if his full body of work. Some of Tom’s more overt performance style must account for some of this, but not for all. What Tom did have, among several qualities, which are missing from most of today’s performances, is a playfulness and humor. I find that most of today’s popular performances have an aggressive, angry and premeditated sexuality, making the performers fall into a few very predictable types and creating a kind of synthesized excitement. The excitement that Tom inspired was created, not synthesized, from real talent and artistic devotion. Let’s hope that eventually Tom Jones’ body of work will be evaluated in context, fairly, specifically and intelligently, in the way that it deserves.
March 10th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Maria: that was a very thoughtful review of the review!
As a person with first-hand experience of the frenzy of the 1970’s concert experience, this review really hit-home. I was a teen during this time period and I might say an atypical teen. I enjoyed Tom for his singing. It was amazing to see the absolute delirium that would spring forth at Tom’s concerts. Surely, I thought, that the audience was at the concert to appreciate Tom’s vocal ability and delivery of the songs. Sadly, I feel that most of them were not. As Christgau says in his review, the women “were not there for a rock and roll appreciation course…They were there for, you know, sex…” I would sit at the concerts and wonder if the throngs of drooling women were enticed by Tom’s voice or his rugged good looks and sex-appeal. Could they actually hear a word of the song he was so beautifully singing or were they preoccupied by the mere thought of offering their handkerchief to wipe his brow? This scene must have made it more difficult for Christgau to give a meaningful review of Tom’s vocal ability and showmanship.
I do absolutely disagree with his opinion regarding Tom’s dancing during this time period. Tom could move like no other. I feel that as the years passed, his dancing became more rehearsed and polished and lacked the “raw” appeal that I enjoyed.
Tom has given many interviews wherein he states that he wants to be appreciated for his voice. Well, he should. But, I believe that his sexual image has been there from the beginning and he has done his best to perpetuate this image.
So, all-in-all, I feel that Christgau gave a fairly good review considering that most reviewers of this time were scathing and highly critical, and mostly from men, who I feel, felt quite threatened!
I can’t comment on Engelbert.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Holly: I appreciate your comments in reaction to Christgau’s review and to my comments. I agree with you about the dancing as well. Like you, I was a young teenager during that period. I loved Tom’s voice, music, performances and exotic persona on his TV show and tried to follow his music for a few years after that. I didn’t see him perform live until very recently in Atlantic City. After his TV show went off the air, I saw him on TV and was disappointed that he was moving away from the elegantly sexy image that I appreciated on his show and was moving toward a more obvious raunchy image. I felt that such an exaggerated image was beneath his dignity, considering how incredibly musically talented he was.
In comparing Tom Jones to the Beatles, it’s interesting that they each had the magical 7 years of 1964-1971 and then something changed. The Beatles stopped performing live after a few years because they couldn’t tolerate the behavior of the screaming fans who were not listening to their music and they eventually broke up. I guess those fans felt they had already heard the music on the records and were at the concerts for other reasons. I read that John Lennon especially, was so upset with the prospect of performing under those circumstances that he would be sick before performances.
On the other hand, Tom’s response to the extreme reaction of some fans, was to “turn up the volume” and become more provocative, or at least not to discourage that fan behavior. I don’t know if this was because he didn’t have enough confidence that his voice would be enough or that it would last. Like with any other human being and artist, I’m sure his decisions were complex, personally as well as professionally. As with the Beatles, it seems that most of Tom’s fans, then and now, come to the comcerts not mainly to hear the music in a live setting. I guess they may feel that they’ve heard Tom’s voice already as good as it’s going to sound on the recordings. Considering that alot of venues don’t have the best sound systems and are often way too loud these days, maybe they’re right.
Then and now, I feel the sexiest feature of Tom’s performances, by far, is his voice and choice of music. Everything else supports that or distracts from it. Of course, that balance is different for everyone. He obviously makes his decisions based on what is most natural and pleasurable for him. He has certainly tried to give his fans variety in his recordings and we all very much appreciate his efforts, no matter what our performance preferences might be.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Holly, Maria: Both of your really thoughtful critiques omit one essential ingredient of Tom that has been true of him for many years. That is, no matter why he began it (and it was, they say, just his interpretation of the American R ‘n’ R music he loved) his overtly sexual image is something he’s had fun with over the years. His great sense of humor about himself and his image is obvious in every interview where the subject comes up. We can all be as correctly high-minded as we wish about his voice, but the fact remains that the voice is only a part of who he is. It may be the essential part — and we believe it is — but, certainly, the rest of the package is important.
Nowadays he deals very smoothly and subtly with the undie-tossing (except when the “Georgia Peaches” are in the house) but we think he probably realizes it will be part of the persona forever. And that’s not all bad because it is no longer the entire persona in anyone’s mind. So, we don’t disagree with what you said, but we must add that one cannot help admiring a man of his age who is still perceived as being so sexy. He is pure magic and, as hard as anyone may try to deny it, his image is part of his magic.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Moderator: Your point is well taken. As I mentioned before, I still prefer Tom’s natural and playful sexual persona (at its best) to most of the calculated performances of today. For me, it comes down to whether the rest of the package serves the emotional truth and impact of the song or becomes self-indulgent, pandering or automatic and distracts from it. I think it’s personal taste in the end. Tom certainly serves up incomparable variety with total credibility, so that anyone and everyone has something to appreciate.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:38 am
PS: We have to add that, fairly recently, when Tom was asked what caused the fire that destroyed the famous Caesars Palace sign in the 1970s — you know, the one featuring him standing with his hand on his hips, wearing a white shirt, black slacks and black sequined jacket that was on the January page of our tji.com calendar? — he just quietly said, “I’m so hot.”
Yes, terrific sense of humor and that’s part of what makes him who he is.
March 11th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Moderator and Maria: Again, very valid points well taken. Tom’s sense of humor has been key throughout his career. Without it, he would not be who he is. I have been to concerts by other singers who purport to be “sex symbols” and their acts became very tired and obnoxious because they take themselves too seriously. Tom’s ability to have fun with his image is part of his wonderful charm. Let me leave no doubt, I am a very devoted fan and I have been there since the beginning. I only feel that in some weird twist of fate, that the insanity of his concerts in the early years helped to create his image and that the reviews of his shows also helped to create that image. Take this review from Westbury - I feel that people or fans would have read that review and felt that they now had to live up to the expectation of creating a love-fest at his concerts, complete with the requisite props.
I’ve taken people — OK, women — who were not fans to Tom’s concerts. Each came away from the concerts a fan in varying degrees. They all could not deny his raw sex appeal NOR his powerful, wonderful voice. But, many were confused (at first) over the admiration and the sight of some women who would be willing to sacrifice themselves at Tom’s feet!
To me, Tom Jones was and is the best popular singer and entertainer that I have ever witnessed. I have enjoyed him for these many years, even through all of the pantie throwing and pants worn so tight that they defied description. He is the real deal and the whole package, no pun intended!