Re[3]: The Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame is Full of Shit.

["Kevin Winn" <kwinn@chrome.com>]

Jim responds to my earlier post:
>>The problem as I see it is the Who's songs really took a whole new life 
>>when played live.  The band recognized very early that they would be 
>>trying to reproduce their live sound on record, rather than the other way 
>>around, as it was with most bands.  TKAA's version of "Baba" is on a 
>>whole 'nother level from the one on Who's Next 

>Kevin, I truly believe the Baba from TKAA stinks, I have yet to hear a good 
>Moon version of Baba--but then I haven't heard all the bootlegs. Is there a 
>good Moon version of this song out there?  Did they play it that much when 
>Moonie was alive? 

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree about this version of "Baba,"  
because I think it's one of the best later live tracks they ever did.  
Pete is absolutely manic, Daltrey's howling "WASTEEEEEEEEED!" is truly 
bone-chilling, and the romp through the ending section has all of them 
smiling.  It is one of the three best songs in the film IMHO.


>>I'm convinced that any selection for the R&R Hall should have been taken 
>>from TKAA (Baba, WGFA, Roadrunner) Woodstock (Young Man Blues, Sparks) 
>>or Leeds (YMB, Substitute, Shakin' All Over, MG [especially the version 
>>of Sparks contained within], Magic Bus).

>Well, on this point we disagree.  TKAA has some good material on it, but 
>the Shepperton Studio stuff that they did shortly before Moon died is not 
>representative of their better live work.  I agree that the Who live was 
>a special new life form, but we're still talking influential to others, 
>not representative of the band's best stuff.  I think this point has not 
>been fully appreciated by many who've joined in on this commentary.  I 
>think the material the Who's most noted for is still stuido cuts.  

My point has been all along that the Who live IS their most influential 
facet.  They took live performance to new levels of intensity and passion.  
*That* was their greatest contribution to the world of Rock music.  They 
just happened to have a lot of great songs to help them do it.  Don't get 
me wrong, I love a LOT of the studio work.  But I think their real 
influence is the legendary live shows.  They were the first band recognized 
as "stadium" level.  They still (I think) hold the world record for loudest 
rock concert.  The stories and rumors about their post-concert hotel 
trashings are well known.  PT is commonly recognized as the godfather of 
the punk movement of the late 70's, which (thank god) restored the 
rebellion and (therefore) integrity of Rock.


>>As for the Hall itself, I think the name of the place should've been the 
>>Museum of Modern Popular Music, as that's what it appears to be to me.
 
          >To some extent rock was institutionalized long ago with the 
          >Grammys, which still do not appreciate real rock music (re: 
          >the Who have won no Grammys for stuido or live material).  
          >Your "Museum of Modern Popular Music" would also have to 
          >include jazz and country music because they are also 
          >"popular."  I don't think those areas belong in a rock hall 
          >of fame.  --Jim

I don't think that anyone in the industry would include jazz or country in the 
*classification* of Popular music, despite being "popular," as they're clearly 
different genres of music.  As for the Grammys, I agree wholeheartedly.  Year 
after year the Grammys distinguish themselves as being further from real 
appreciation of excellence in Rock, and more to "what sells the most."  Case in 
point: One would think that Eric Clapton would have won a Grammy for any number 
of albums and songs in his career (Layla, Cream, Blind Faith, etc.), but his 
first Grammy came in the category of "Best Male Vocal" for the song "Bad Love" 
off the Journeyman CD.  What's wrong with this picture?


OK,
KLW