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!

Yes, terrific sense of humor and that’s part of what makes him who he is.

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.

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.

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.

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.