Count me as one who has always actively disliked Cocker’s version. I’ve warmed to it over the years (my parents introduced me both to The Beatles and Woodstock in the 80s) but I think **pulykamel **put it the right way - too histrionic.
I’ll leave you with In Praise of Sha Na Na. Sha Na Na were the kings of the 60s! Deep in your heart you know it’s true!
I don’t love Cocker’s version, but I get why people do. I think him reinterpreting a bouncy pop song into an emotional croon was a sort of symbol of people taking pop / rock music “seriously” that still kinda resonates.
Cocker’s version is a saliva-spraying, overwrought mess. As I said in the poll thread, the Beatles knew very well what they were doing when they recorded the original.
I could never figure out why they were at Woodstock. Despite their longevity they were always a novelty act riding a wave of nostalgia, rather than a creative force or influence in their own right. BTW I was listening to a radio show on NPR last week, and it featured founding member Robert Leonard, who is now a professor of linguistics at Hofstra University. His appearance on the show was about linguistics, not his membership in Sha Na Na, though it was mentioned in passing.
I completely agree with this. It’s the same song on paper only. The interpretations are so different that there’s no point in comparing. He wasn’t covering it, he was reinventing it.
When Woodstock happened, Sha Na Na was virtually unknown. A group of Columbia students who wowed people like Jimi Hendrix when they played at one of the hotspot clubs at the time Steve Paul’s Scene.
There were lots of bands that refused to play for some reason: Byrds, Dylan, Rolling Stones, Tommy James and Shondells, Doors, Zappa, Led Zeppelin, Beatles. Janis Ian has said her manager spent a couple hours arguing with the organizers with him continually asking “where is your money to pay people?”. So, yeah, get Sha Na Na…they are local, cheap ($500) and some artists like Hendrix liked them.
Plus it’s not as if everyone avoided Sha Na Na in subsequent years. They ended up doing a lot of shows at colleges in subsequent years, they were on the Festival Express across Canada in 1970 with a bunch of hippie bands and they opened the One on One concerts that John Lennon headlined at Madison Square Garden in 1972
That video is one of the very first things I posted on the Dope years ago. People seemed to dig it, and it is pretty funny. I didn’t watch it, but I’m assuming it’s the one with “what about in this turbine?” and “wonder loaf”.
“I gotta get my Fred…and Wilma!”
This is the first thing I thought of when I saw this thread.
I also prefer Cocker’s version. By a large margin. It’s got a lot more oomph!
It’s got spunk. I hate spunk!
“One of these things is not like the others…”
So? What’s your point?
I think the point is Tommy James and Shondells is the outlier on the list.
True. But the point is that lots of groups turned down Woodstock for various reasons and , like them or not, Tommy James was pretty popular in the summer of '69. James says they were in Hawaii and in a telephone conversation with management back in New York, it was “oh yeah, there is this pig farmer in upstate New York holding a concert on his farm-you interested?”
Back in the day, as the man said, I used to go to this strip club on Melrose Blvd. There was this cute little gal who did a routine to this particular decadent recording. Dumm-dumm-dumm DUMMMMMMM-DUMMMMMMMM-DUMMM, swinging her tits to the heavy beat. Best strip song ever. Also, second best rock cover song ever*. You don’t like Cocker, you don’t like Cocker. At the time, he rocked and was a better blues singer than anybody you people have ever heard.
*No 1: All Along the Watchtowerby Jimmy Hendricks.
The point is that Tommy James and the Shondells were not greatly missed at Woodstock. It would have been great to have seen any and all of the others you list.
Who?