Was that the tour they made a movie of? I think I saw it, but I don’t remember Sha-Na-Na. Maybe they just didn’t put their spot in the film.
I never knew that Sha-Na-Na came out of Columbia University.
I do remember that in later years John “Bowzer” Bauman did a lot of charity work with handicapped kids.
Not only did Sha-na-na come out of Columbia, but they played many early gigs there. It was great. I’m not positive, but I think I was a freshman when one or two of them were still enrolled as undergraduates.
If it’s the tour on the train through Canada, yes Sha Na Na are in it. However, they don’t look much like they did later in the 70s, or today for that matter, when they reached success buying into the 50s nostalgia craze engendered by American Graffiti and Happy Days.
The main singers and players in the band looked and sounded like every other third-or-lower-tier, long-haired stoner band of the day, except they had a couple of guys wearing leather jackets and had pompadours, and three dancers in gold suits doing typical 50s backup dancer moves.
The whole thing came a across as a gentle, lovingly surreal, deconstructionist pastiche by some new college graduates of the music from their childhood.
I have not sat through the Woodstock movie, so I can only assume this is the act that hit the stage then, too. I’d say it would have fit in just fine. “Grease for Peace”.
Yeah, but Sha Na Na wasn’t a group from the late '50’s. It would be like if they started a rock tour today and had a big-hair and spandex band doing Great White and Poison covers. Sure, I could see someone doing that as kind of a comedic break from the heavier acts, but if that’s why the promoters of Woodstock choose Sha Na Na, I haven’t seen a cite for it.
I still don’t think the OP has been well-answered.
The wiki page says this about the promoters. . .
Still doesn’t make sense that an act that seems like a Vegas Lounge act would fit in.
On a slightly OT note: I don’t think I believe you when you claim not to understand the OP. Why must people be difficult on these boards? Anyway…
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for answering that.
I wasn’t trying to be difficult. I was curious why the OP singled out Sha Na Na, and found the phrasing “give me a reason” a bit odd.
As others have alluded, Woodstock’s performers list covered a broad range of genres that were popular with the young folks of the day. Not all of the attendees were hippies, and the acts certainly weren’t all “hippie-ish” bands - vis. Creedence Clearwater Revival, Santana, and Blood, Sweat, & Tears. Sha Na Na essentially pioneered the “50’s Nostalgia” schtick with their half tribute/half parody approach, and were better known during the 70’s than, say, The Grateful Dead. Having started college in '69, and seen the relative popularity of the various Woodstock performers in subsequent years, I didn’t find it at all strange that Sha Na Na was among them.
In doing a little Googling on the topic I’ve found that they weren’t particularly well-known or popular before Woodstock, so on that basis the question of why they were included is a good one. But since the OP chose to ridicule me rather than answer why he only asked about Sha Na Na, I don’t know whether his question was inspired by that, or the hippie thing, or what.
Arrgh. Properly coded:
Thanks for answering that.
I wasn’t trying to be difficult. I was curious why the OP singled out Sha Na Na, and found the phrasing “give me a reason” a bit odd.
As others have alluded, Woodstock’s performers list covered a broad range of genres that were popular with the young folks of the day. Not all of the attendees were hippies, and the acts certainly weren’t all “hippie-ish” bands - vis. Creedence Clearwater Revival, Santana, and Blood, Sweat, & Tears. Sha Na Na essentially pioneered the “50’s Nostalgia” schtick with their half tribute/half parody approach, and were better known during the 70’s than, say, The Grateful Dead. Having started college in '69, and seen the relative popularity of the various Woodstock performers in subsequent years, I didn’t find it at all strange that Sha Na Na was among them.
In doing a little Googling on the topic I’ve found that they weren’t particularly well-known or popular before Woodstock, so on that basis the question of why they were included is a good one. But since the OP chose to ridicule me rather than answer why he only asked about Sha Na Na, I don’t know whether his question was inspired by that, or the hippie thing, or what.
Thanks for answering that.
I wasn’t trying to be difficult. I was curious why the OP singled out Sha Na Na, and found the phrasing “give me a reason” a bit odd.
As others have alluded, Woodstock’s performers list covered a broad range of genres that were popular with the young folks of the day. Not all of the attendees were hippies, and the acts certainly weren’t all “hippie-ish” bands - vis. Creedence Clearwater Revival, Santana, and Blood, Sweat, & Tears. Sha Na Na essentially pioneered the “50’s Nostalgia” schtick with their half tribute/half parody approach, and were better known during the 70’s than, say, The Grateful Dead. Having started college in '69, and seen the relative popularity of the various Woodstock performers in subsequent years, I didn’t find it at all strange that Sha Na Na was among them.
In doing a little Googling on the topic I’ve found that they weren’t particularly well-known or popular before Woodstock, so on that basis the question of why they were included is a good one. But since the OP chose to ridicule me rather than answer why he only asked about Sha Na Na, I don’t know whether his question was inspired by that, or the hippie thing, or what.
[/QUOTE]
Creedence makes sense. They had The Band. Country Joe MacDOnald. They had traditional folk there.
BS&T makes sense. They had Sly & The Family Stone. Some funk, dig?
Santana fits in along with maybe Ravi Shankar and Johnny Winter.
I think Sha Na Na is definitely the odd ball.
I think the OP’s question stems from the way we look back on Woodstock now, versus what it really was.
The general impression of most people, I would venture, is that Woodstock was a hardcore hippie fest characterized by acid rock, actual acid, and everything else we remember as stereotypical “sixties.” But as evidenced by the posts describing the mix of bands that were there, the state of rock music at the time, etc., it was more than that. There certainly was plenty of all the hardcore hippie stuff, but the fact is that it was a big music festival with lots of acts, and just like any other big festival today, not all the acts are the same.
It seems that, in the moment, Sha Na Na didn’t stick out in the way it seems when we look back on it. I suspect the attendees thought Sha Na Na weren’t exactly the kind of act they came to see, but they didn’t wonder why the hell they were there. Just sort of the B or C level act that you watched before Hendrix.
But for all of us who weren’t there and who only know Woodstock from its legendary status as the ultra-hip pinnacle of the sixties rock era, it does look kind of odd to see a group that doesn’t fit in with that image. The thing is, they don’t fit in with that exaggerated image of Woodstock, but they fit in with the real Woodstock much better.
Nothing new to add – just wanted to say that this is a question that I’ve asked myself quite a lot but never thought to ask here (I watched Sha Na Na’s television show a lot as a kid, and was floored when I read that they performed at Woodstock). It’s good to read Dopers’ perspectives on the subject.
Because I was not doing an in-depth expose on Woodstock novelty acts. I saw something on TV about Sha Na Na being at Woodstock and it struck me as odd. I was not inferring or suggesting I had researched, or was even interested in other acts that may or may not have warranted a slot at the festival.
It is just a pet peeve of mine that there are so many people here who take this board so seriously that you have to research and proof/re-proof your posts. We aren’t writing a thesis here. Sometimes it really is as simple as what is written on the screen before you.
In a slightly broader perscpective: At the time of Woodstock, you could hear The Doors and Johnny Cash on the same radio station – Back in those days targeted lists, were pretty much just begining to appear and targeted stations weren’t truly organized. In short, people listened to a greater variety of things and didn’t dismiss something out of hand because of genre or style.
The variety of programming at Woodstock represented the variety of programming available on most stations (though some acid stuff didn’t get on for political and time constraint issues).
I know many dopers here feel, as I do, that the subdividing of music into artificial genres and zombie loyalty to a single type of performance style is pretty much what killed listening to radio being pleasureable.
I miss the variety of music being generally available and only the internet has helped bring some of that back. (end mini-rant).
This guy just about is writing a thesis but to add to your puzzlement reveals that Sha Na Na were making only their seventh ever appearance at Woodstock.
And sometimes that’s not as simple as we like to think it is.
We haven’t communicated well. Looking back, I should have said - simply - “Why do you ask?” To me it did not seem odd that they were there (ref. my post #26), and I wondered what your perspective was, in the hopes I could offer a reply that addressed it.
What I found odd was the phrase “give me a reason.” It seemed to imply they had no right to be there. Had it been worded differently, I likely would have reacted differently.
Different communication styles. Different assumptions affecting interpretation. Sorry for the mix-up.
Not to mention Frank Sinatra, the Ventures, the Temptations, CSNY, Tom Jones, The Who, Brenda Lee, the Archies, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Peter Paul & Mary, David Ruffin, Bob Dylan, and yes, even the occasional golden oldie. All back to back.
To paraphrase L.P. Hartley: 1969 is a foreign country; they do things differently there.
I don’t see why there should be an issue: Woodstock’s promoters seems to be short a band; Sha Na Na was popular in NYC, so availble on short notice, so why not get them?
Sha Na Na, BTW, were not a parody group: though they had fun with the songs, they sung them straight and with a lot of affection. And music fans were a lot more wide-ranging in their preferences back than. Collections of oldies were very popular (see the Crusin’ series), and most of the people at Woodstock knew the songs. People were willing to listen to good music, no matter what the genre.
And lots of the bands at Woodstock were small potatoes at the time: It was Crosby Stills and Nash’s first gig; Mountain has not released an album yet (though Leslie West had released a solo album by that name, confusing people), Joe Cocker and Santana was barely known. The Band was only known as Dylan’s backing band, and several other performers had only a single album out. The only really established popular stars at the time were the Who, the Jefferson Airplane, and perhaps Blood, Sweat, and Tears, depending on when they released their singles – their first album (actually second, but that’s another story) was a monster hit, but I don’t know if it was before Woodstock or not, and Woodstock had nothing to do with it
The promoters had good taste – a high percentage of their acts did become major names, partly due to the Woodstock mystique and album (which was certainly the most played album on college campuses in the fall of 1970), but mostly because they were good. Some did have cult followings, but to the average music fan and average hippie, only a handful had any reputation.
Further, groups like Creedence Clearwater Revival were more disliked by hippies than Sha Na Na ever was.
That reminds me: only two years before Woodstock, Jimi Hendrix was opening for the Monkees.
I think it is a great question, and I’ve enjoyed reading the responses here. Sha Na Na is one of those acts that has always seemed a little oddball to me - I don’t mind them - they just don’t seem to “fit” into any one niche.
I could be wrong …
I used to watch their show - I’m such a fogey! 
Another PLAUSIBLE theory, but does anyone actually have an answer?
Don’t you see a big difference between Sha Na Na and pretty much every other band on the bill.
I guess the thing is. . .is that 60’s rock and Woodstock have the feel of being quite distinct from what came in the 50’s, say Buddy Holly, or Jerry Lee Lewis, or The Everly Brothers. Not that the “hippies” would have disrespected those acts, but the music of Woodstock was definitely moving in a different direction. Sticking in a band that was a throwback to that style certainly must seem odd to you.
I question why you think CCR doesn’t fit in. It was country/folk but so was Arlo Guthrie, Country Joe, The Band.
The Band was out of Memphis at the time, if I’m not mistaken. CCR was on a San Francisco label.
“You’ve Made Me So Very Happy” and “Spinning Wheel” were both hits before Woodstock.
As for major stars, obviously you forgot Jimi. And although she had had only one big hit at that point (and not even under her own name), I’d add Janis Joplin. The Grateful Dead hadn’t had any hits yet, but had solid underground star status. And Ravi Shankar was a big name, though hardly a hitmaker. CSN[Y] didn’t need to be established–like Blind Faith around the same time, they were a hungrily anticipated supergroup before they ever played a note. I don’t even agree that CCR were so despised–surely they were hipper than the Clayton-Thomas incarnation of BST.
As for Sha-Na-Na…have you seen the footage of their performance at Woodstock? That’s got to have seemed pretty trippy at the time.
Hey, post #4,000!
I didn’t mean to say they parodied the music. Their costuming and stage antics tweaked the 50’s greaser stereotype.