Re: TKAA DVD Review

["Schrade, Scott" <sschrade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I have to admit that, given the hype we've heard about this restoration, 
> I was expecting to be more blown away by the sheer picture and sound 
> quality. 

I know what you mean but we should keep in mind the varying sources which
make up this "film."  Good audio, crappy audio.  Newly-filmed crisp foot-
age, old scratchy rough footage.  The producers & engineers did the best 
they could.

One thing that did sort of piss me off, though, was that the picture at
times seemed just a tad out of synch with the sound.  The audio, at certain
points, not throughout the entire film, seemed just a bit behind the pic-
ture.  Again, I'm sure synching everything up was a daunting task.  I be-
lieve they did the best they could.

> That's just not the case. However, not having seen the film in nearly 20 
> years and now having it in DVD form with re-mastered sound, it's like 
> finding an old, lost friend.

I envy you.  I probably watch the movie a dozen times a year.  It's en-
grained in my memory banks.  Must be exciting to watch it after not having
seen it in 20 years.  

Make no mistake, I still find it thrilling.  I think now, however, I get off
more when I show it to other people - friends who may have never seen it.
*That's* exciting.

> One thing that jumped out at me was that most of the old footage was shot 
> really close up. 

Definitely.  Like during "I Can't Explain."  And even the Woodstock foot-
age.  Like when the one Woodstock camera man gets obsessed with Roger's
cross necklace & feels the need to zoom in & "capture it."

> you've got to select a 2 channel audio track. 

Yeah, I did that right off the bat.  Picked "stereo."  Maybe I should ex-
periment listening in other modes.  I was very surprised at how low Pete's
guitar was mixed during "WGFA."  And how much the drums had been cranked!

> See, I'm just happy to be seeing the movie again. I can see why, having 
> seen it countless times, you'd be less impressed by the production qual-
> ity. 

Man, I don't want to sound negative.  I know they spent hours restoring it
& it *does* look a hell of a lot better.  But, after reading about the work
that was done, any little blob on the screen now jumps out at me & screams,
"Ha!  They missed me!  Fuck you, Schrade, ya' twerp!"  (I really hear that.)


> I was too busy just going, "wow."

Oh, it's still an awe-inspiring movie, make no mistake about it.

> > The "A Quick One" segment has the lights removed.  And the picture 
> > suffers somewhat 
>
> But, what a great performance. 

Definitely.  There are a few things I like to look for in this segment.
Watch, early on in the song, when Pete winds up for a windmill & whacks 
his arm *hard* against one of Moonie's drum mic stands.  I don't see how
he didn't either break his arm or break the mic stand!  That *had* to hurt.
Plus, after whacking it, Pete has to steady it & adjust it to its proper
position!  They must've added some overdubbed guitar to fill in the dead
spot.  Unless feedback-wash saved the day.

Also, Pete's vocal microphone is pointed too low for the entire song.  He's
forced to kind of squat down a bit to sing directly into it.  Then, near
the very end of the song he tries to push it up *with his face* while con-
tinuing to play guitar!  

> WGFA is much better than B'OR. B'OR's just 'dum....DUM, dum" the whole way
> through. WGFA builds as it goes on, and there's more variation.

And there's something bizarre about watching & hearing only Entwistle (with
just a little bleed from the synth & Roger's vocals).  But it gives you a
nice idea about how OX accented & approached various segments of the song.
Very neat. 

> If you haven't seen the film for a long time, or have never seen it, you 
> really owe it to yourself to get down to Best Buy (or log on, they had it 
> for $19.99 with free shipping yesterday) before they jack up the price.

Right on!  Buy this DVD!  Support The Who!  Two discs for twenty bucks.  
It's well worth it!

LONG LIVE THE WHO!!


- SCHRADE in Akron

Nature does not deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.
	- Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762)