Sorry Clash, I wasn't trying to be a dick, but the toilet bowl comment was pretty dickish, I'll admit. I apologize.

My main point though was this, and I hope you take this the right way - your devotion to the Who, your repeated posts on them on every thread, your never being satisfied with their positioning, your accusations of bias against anyone who doesn't share your lofty view of them in all ways, is a detriment. In fact, it winds up turning more people away from what else you write (which is always good, outside of the Who, but also including a lot of your stuff on them) and from liking the Who more themselves. You can't possibly WANT to turn people off to the group, but that's what happens. I said on another thread (Greatest Rock Artists) recently to someone who was complaining about wading through hundreds of your Who posts that I think you're one of the best people on the site to talk music with, provided it's not about the Who, just because you can't see straight on them anymore. Earlier in this thread, when I tweaked the criteria and the Who moved up as a result, you said that the three names higher were the only three you could tolerate being above them, but now you can't tolerate it anymore apparently. I've tried explaining the rankings to you as detailed as I can, and respect you dissenting on it, but it's like you don't believe that they actually earned the fourth spot fairly or that the others earned their spots and that's frustrating. If it was an isolated incident then that'd be one thing, just a difference of opinion, but it's not with you and the Who, it's WAY deeper seated than that, and I don't understand why. Every single tiny thing with them you push for having count far more than its worth, then you denigrate others above them in various categories to try and tear them down. That's just not cool at all, and if you were an editor having to see this barrage of posts from one person about one artist all the time you'd understand. It just gets tiring after awhile, that's all.

As I said before, when you talk about other artists, and you seem to have huge tastes otherwise, always want to learn more about other artists and have great insights to other topics, your personality itself almost changes completely than when you're talking the Who, and that's when you're great talking with. Just not with the Who anymore. Maybe they're too close to your heart, like a mother defending her children's behavior to outsiders. But after how many thousand of points you've made on the Who I don't think it's likely that any editor is unaware of anything they did, including what Pete had for breakfast this morning, so at a certain point it just becomes suffocating. That's all I was trying to convey. So one last time, the Who do great in the criteria but just not quite as great overall as the three names above them, close though it may be with Springsteen, he edges them out by a slim margin. The other two by even more. No conspiracy, no missed or undervalued area, no fiendish plot... no hard feelings though either.

How about talking Johnny Otis for a change? Anyone... anyone???

these are great numbers for MJ, it's an average of almost 36,000 people!

As for Queen there is nothing much to add to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_live_performances

No problem. I give you a lot of shit, sometimes.



I was satisfied with their position on this list for years!

Seriously, though, The Who's #1 position on this list was among the least controversial and least contested on this website. Just sayin'.



Naah, I can. Now that I think about it, Bruce might have a slight edge in consistency of performance over time. Has he ever delivered a bad performance? Daltrey and Entwistle are as solid as they come, but Townshend and Moon each had a couple drugs and/or alcohol-impaired performances in the seventies. This is brutal:



EDIT: Eh, it's not as bad as I remembered. Pete's fighting a broken string. Still, a very sub-par performance from him. He's probably drunk.



Yeah.



I know very little about him, actually.

What about Jimi Hendrix's reception? John Phillips said The Who and Hendrix were determined to out-do each other and that to this day (well, he's dead now, but you know what I mean) he isn't sure who really won. I just trawled through the early issues of Rolling Stone for their coverage of Monterey and couldn't find much, but they considered The Who one of the highlights of the film. The Who certainly impressed Tommy Smothers and D.A. Pennebaker, anyway.

Yeah, two greatest live artists!

I've always personally believed that the Who's destruction of their instruments is what made for greater acceptance of Hendrix doing his routine immediately after it. I don't think Hendrix would've smashed his guitar if the Who hadn't first, but the crowd was so shocked and turned off by the Who doing it (again, wrong place and time, that's all) that when Hendrix did the same, it seemed partly a send-up, but also his was more erotic, coaxing the flames up, whereas the Who was more aggressive and angry in nature, which is what turned the crowd off, because it went against the entire vibe of the weekend.

Smothers was also looking at The Who from the POV of what would make for unpredictable spectacle-like television. What better potential controversy to have on TV than something that could result in wanton destruction? Since TV audiences had no idea who the group was, it was going to shock viewers and that what they were hoping for. Classic appearance though.

I wish I could find something that says the crowd at Monterey was turned off by The Who's performance, but I can't. David Crosby said he was shocked and offended by The Who and Hendrix smashing their instruments at the time, but by the time of Woodstock they were "heroes" to him. But, anyway, let's talk about someone else.

The write-ups at the time weren't very thorough. That was the first rock festival and the few rock magazines at the time were in their infancy. The crowd reaction is easily seen in the footage of it though, the faces are of shock and disgust. Talking with people who were there they say the same thing, they almost felt violated by it. Again, just the wrong place and wrong time to do that sort of thing.

It's Roger Daltrey's favorite gig he ever did, though. I doubt he'd think that if they were so poorly received. He loved Monterey, but hated Woodstock.

So... Johnny Otis. Give me a primer.

Johnny Otis was the first guy in rock to assemble a touring caravan of artists, backed by his own band, and which included vocalists Little Esther, Mel Walker, The Robins and others. They had some of the classic instrumentalists of the time too - James Von Streeter on sax, Pete Lewis (and later Jimmy Nolen, who became James Brown's guitarist) on guitar, Lady Dee on piano, Johnny himself on drums and vibes. They could throw down with anyone. The basic rock tour kind of grew out of them, which gives Otis enormous influence on the evolution of the live concert experience and which is why he's ranked so highly. Truthfully he should also be high on the overall artists list, but for some reason gets overlooked. He dominated the early 50's commercially, produced and played on immortal records (the original Hound Dog by Big Mama Thornton, "Pledging My Love" by Johnny Ace), wrote huge hits for others ("Every Beat Of My Heart" by the Pips, though originally written for the Royals a/k/a Midnighters) plus was credited for discovering a ton of artists, he owned his own label, was the first rock artist to host a TV show in the mid-50's. Amazing resume.

Here's three cuts with Johnny himself on vocals

EARLY 50's




MID 50's




LATE 50's

Just to go down a side alley so to speak, it's a shame Shuggie Otis stopped making music. Really talented blues guitarist and then his handful of solo records were really interesting soulful albums.

Shuggie was amazing. I love the fact he turned the Rolling Stones down to join as their guitarist and they had to "settle" for Ron Wood. Shuggie's original version of "Strawberry Letter 23" is a surreal trip of a song. Not everybody's taste obviously, but an amazing production. Glad someone knows him. His old man though was even more amazing and needs far more serious discussion on him around here. The godfather of rock 'n' roll basically.

1969

The Snatch & The Poontangs is a good album. You can get it on a twofer with Cold Shot, another great late 60's LP by Otis.

If you want a great book to read, get Johnny Otis's Listen To The Lambs. He wrote it after the 1965 Watts Riots, it's mostly about that, but it tells his own story interwoven throughout it. One of the best written rock books ever, especially considering he penned it himself.

Reading up on Johnny Otis, his stint as Snatch & the Poontangs is not something I was expecting.

Surprising that he was inducted as a non-performer.