Page 1 of 1
Pogues in '91?

Posted:
Mon Feb 14, 2005 9:51 pm
by Guest
How was the typical Pogues with Shane gig in 1991 before everything fell apart? Obviously things were not so well in the band but how much of an effect did it have on the performance? Was it bad enough to upset a paying audience or did most people not notice what was happening and just saw a usual Pogues gig?

Posted:
Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:11 am
by Guest
from about '89 to '91 Shane's overall performance was weaker, his commitment and energy less and his onstage condition more ... erratic. That's not to say that many if not most of their shows were as good as ever in the final years - when he's on form he's on form (the Hells Ditch tour was memorable, and the Pogues and Chieftains gig in 91 was one of the greatest things they ever did) - but the frequency of Shane fuck-ups had increased. And by the summer of '91 he looked very ill on stage. His home performance in Tipp before a crowd of 30,000 at the Feile festival was awful with the rest of the band doing as many non-Shane songs as possible. A month later he was out of the band. On a bad night, the paying audience reacted then as now, some shocked and shaking their heads, some oblivious, and many revelling in the fact that the singer was as blasted as they were.

Posted:
Wed Feb 16, 2005 12:06 pm
by Guest
ps. One advantage the Pogues had over the Popes when Shane was fucking up, was that the Pogues could cover up to certain extent - they had so many singers (Terry, Phil, Andrew, Spider could all take a turn at the mike) and often special guests (Strummer, Steve Earle) whereas the success or failure of a Shane + The Popes show tends to rest solely on Shane's shoulders. Lucky for us Shane has rarely fucked up with either band in recent years (with the notable exception of certain long haul tours of the US and Australia), but Shane is now in overall great shape.

Posted:
Thu Feb 17, 2005 1:47 pm
by Paddy Rollingstone
Anonymous wrote:ps. One advantage the Pogues had over the Popes when Shane was fucking up, was that the Pogues could cover up to certain extent - they had so many singers (Terry, Phil, Andrew, Spider could all take a turn at the mike) and often special guests (Strummer, Steve Earle) whereas the success or failure of a Shane + The Popes show tends to rest solely on Shane's shoulders. Lucky for us Shane has rarely fucked up with either band in recent years (with the notable exception of certain long haul tours of the US and Australia), but Shane is now in overall great shape.
Would love to stick this in the face of whoever says Shane is slowly dying or the like shite.

Posted:
Fri Feb 18, 2005 2:52 pm
by Guest
yeah i think he's generally in great shape now.

Posted:
Wed Feb 23, 2005 6:20 am
by Sober
Anonymous wrote:from about '89 to '91 Shane's overall performance was weaker, his commitment and energy less and his onstage condition more ... erratic. That's not to say that many if not most of their shows were as good as ever in the final years - when he's on form he's on form (the Hells Ditch tour was memorable, and the Pogues and Chieftains gig in 91 was one of the greatest things they ever did) - but the frequency of Shane fuck-ups had increased. And by the summer of '91 he looked very ill on stage. His home performance in Tipp before a crowd of 30,000 at the Feile festival was awful with the rest of the band doing as many non-Shane songs as possible. A month later he was out of the band. On a bad night, the paying audience reacted then as now, some shocked and shaking their heads, some oblivious, and many revelling in the fact that the singer was as blasted as they were.
If his performances were still strong in the end, why has he been kicked out of the band? And I read somewhere that at some point, he was even getting off stage during a song, only to come back with his glass full of beer. I think Spider sang the songs at his place when he was doing that.

Posted:
Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:37 am
by Original poster
Thanks for answering. Presumably an occasionally good performance couldn't make up for a lot of fucked up evenings.
I managed to obtain a copy of the '91 Brixton gig and while it certainly is good I'm not sure it's one their best. Shane doesn't screw it up but his vocals sound weak to me and the whole thing sounds like it's unrehearsed. Not always a bad thing perhaps and I guess it was something quite different to see it live. The recording isn't the best either.

Posted:
Wed Feb 23, 2005 10:20 am
by MacRua
Sober wrote:If his performances were still strong in the end, why has he been kicked out of the band?
Different versions/reasons of the Parting were discussed
here. Maybe it will be interesting for you...

Posted:
Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:17 pm
by Guest
Original poster wrote:Thanks for answering. Presumably an occasionally good performance couldn't make up for a lot of fucked up evenings.
that's exactly right.

Re: Pogues in '91?

Posted:
Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:59 pm
by skinny
Evening, all. First post.
I was up front and centre at The Pogues' only Adelaide show on the Fall From Grace tour at The Old Lion Hotel (probably their only Adelaide show ever?) and though Shane was off with the faeries, the band was brilliant and the crowd didn't much care that Shane was astral travelling. I didn't even know what a junkie was back then. To see himself wobbling away a few feet in front of me and to have him spill his wine on my head was like a pure benediction as a 20yo. Will live with me always as one of the most intense live music experiences in my long and varied punter's life. This was a real band, calling on ancient muses and reaching into the existence of fifth and sixth generation Irish Australians to tickle to life the long broken connections we never knew we had to an older Ireland. Beyond all of the personal issues of the musicians coming through in Fearnley's new book (great story), the music will outlive it all, and the music was all I had to go on at the time, thank christ. If you haven't lost your mind at a live Pogues gig before, jump at any chance you can before it's too late. Living legends, all.