archive : A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z sdtk comp
Cover Art Who
BBC Sessions
[MCA]
Rating: 8.4

"As always, this is Brian Willey. We're here in the studio with Pitchfork music critic Chip Chanko. Chip, what will you be doing for us today?"

"Well, Brian, I'll be doing a few pieces from my most recent review, the Who's BBC Sessions. Two... three... four..."

"I work with a guy who claims that his favorite year is 1966. This wasn't specifically because of the British invasion (the Animals, Small Faces, the Kinks, the Yardbirds, Rolling Stones, Creation, the Beatles) or its influence on American garage bands (he's the expert on this topic-- I'd ask him to name a few but he's in the bathroom right now). 1966 was the year music changed. It lost its innocence. Drugs, new recording techniques, stereo sound-- all these factors pushed rock and roll from out of the nest to about six inches above the ground, where it learned to soar."

"Yes, yes, yes. To all of our listeners, we're here with Pitchfork music critic Chip Chanko. Now, Chip, I believe it was on 'Top of the Pops' that you quipped you don't own any Who albums. What sort of authority does this give you to review BBC Sessions, or for that matter, call yourself a music critic?"

"Brian, I'm just here doing my thing. I'm listening to the stuff and getting the word to all the fans out there. Here's another part of my latest review... and a one..."

"The Who manifest the change music was going through. From straight-ahead rock to the broad scope of Pete Townshend's later works, they evolved as the scene evolved. BBC Sessions captures on-air performances from 1965 to 1973. The band routinely stopped by Radio 1 Studios between albums and tours. The radio format limited them to the basic song structures (no long jams) without being able to perform any studio tricks, so energy is the most important ingredient here."

"Once again, that's Chip Chanko, staff writer for Pitchfork, coming to you live from the virtual 'pages' of Pitchforkmedia.com. Chip, which number do you have for us next?"

"Well, I think I'll do a little more from my latest review, The Who's BBC Sessions... Ahhhhhhhh Yeeeeeeeeaaaaaahhh!!!!"

"The fact that these songs are presented in a live format makes this a great documentation of the transitional periods of the Who's career, stripped of their studio effects and complex production. From their early hits "My Generation," "See My Way," and "Substitute" to the more expansive "A Quick One (While He's Away)," these versions span the pre-Tommy days to the follow-ups like "The Seeker," "Relay," and "Long Live Rock." The collection works as kind of a greatest hits antithesis to Tommy or Quadrophenia, and as a counterpart to 1970's Live at Leeds."

"Hello hello! One and all, this is Brian Willey, and with me here in the studio is American music critic Chip Chanko. Chip, your latest review of the Who's BBC Sessions is out now. What can you tell the fans and I about it?"

"Well, I've been listening to a lot of music from that period lately. With this review, I wanted to get across to all the fans out there how this albums stands out to me. It's a really interesting collection of tracks, even for someone that's just getting into this kind of stuff. They throw a few great covers in there ("Good Lovin'," "Dancing in the Street," "Shakin' All Over") and in a setting like this, they really wore their influences on their sleeve. It's straightforward and raw at the same time."

"There you have it. Chip Chanko, everyone! Splendid! Hey, what are you doing?! Ladies and gentlemen, Chip Chanko is whacking my keyboard into my computer monitor! Mr. Chanko! This is outrageous!"

-Chip Chanko

TODAY'S REVIEWS

DAILY NEWS

RATING KEY
10.0: Indispensable, classic
9.5-9.9: Spectacular
9.0-9.4: Amazing
8.5-8.9: Exceptional; will likely rank among writer's top ten albums of the year
8.0-8.4: Very good
7.5-7.9: Above average; enjoyable
7.0-7.4: Not brilliant, but nice enough
6.0-6.9: Has its moments, but isn't strong
5.0-5.9: Mediocre; not good, but not awful
4.0-4.9: Just below average; bad outweighs good by just a little bit
3.0-3.9: Definitely below average, but a few redeeming qualities
2.0-2.9: Heard worse, but still pretty bad
1.0-1.9: Awful; not a single pleasant track
0.0-0.9: Breaks new ground for terrible
OTHER RECENT REVIEWS

All material is copyright
2001, Pitchforkmedia.com.