If I had been able to see The Who at any time, it woulda been at woodstock(almost 20 years before I was born though) Too bad Entwhistle died. I'd love to have been able to see him. He completely revolutionized the bass.

No way I'd see them at Woodstock. That was probably their worst show in the 1969-1970 run of greatness. I'd definitely go see them at Leeds, February 14th 1970. Complete ownage of all other concerts.

You never know, there might have been way better concert then Leeds that weren't recorded.

From what we know about and everything I've read, I'd definitely go to the Leeds show. But you're right.

Yeah, from what I hear Leeds was simply typical Who. They did that every night. Leeds just happened to capture it. Which is to say they were rockin' every night. Makes Leeds and everything else all the more impressive, IMO. Just another night of great music from the greatest live band ever.

I have the Live at Leeds Cd... it's hard to tell how a band is live from just hearing it.

Uh.....

Hearing a band is usually the best way to tell how they sound. I understand the element of the visual stage show that can't be captured on audio CD, but still.

That's what I mean... They SOUND great live, but that's not the show. I mean, I have a group of friends who are a great, great band. They play a lot of Metallica tunes, and they get em perfect. But the have no stage show, so they're kinda boring to watch. Just because a band sounds good, doesn't mean they are good

They played lot's more balls to wall shows than Leeds. It's not special show.

By the way, Pete played nice song yestyrday on In The Attic show that was written around the time of Relay ?.

[QUOTE=Shady Ultima]That's what I mean... They SOUND great live, but that's not the show. I mean, I have a group of friends who are a great, great band. They play a lot of Metallica tunes, and they get em perfect. But the have no stage show, so they're kinda boring to watch. Just because a band sounds good, doesn't mean they are good[/QUOTE]

Have you evern seen Who live footage? They are pumped full of energy and really exciting to watch. I've never seen footage from the Leeds concert, but I have no reason to think it would be different from any of their other shows from that period.

To be honest, I have only seen about a 3 second video one time, when John Entwhistle died. Any recommendations?

How's the proposed tour going? Any news about what the dates will be?

[QUOTE=Shady Ultima]To be honest, I have only seen about a 3 second video one time, when John Entwhistle died. Any recommendations?[/QUOTE]

The Kids Are Alright and the Isle of Wight DVDs are both must-haves for the Who fan.

[QUOTE=Kaleidoscope Eyes]How's the proposed tour going? Any news about what the dates will be?[/QUOTE]

As far as I know, nothing on the American leg yet. The European dates are all scheduled and run to about the end of July though.

[QUOTE=Shady Ultima]That's what I mean... They SOUND great live, but that's not the show. I mean, I have a group of friends who are a great, great band. They play a lot of Metallica tunes, and they get em perfect. But the have no stage show, so they're kinda boring to watch. Just because a band sounds good, doesn't mean they are good[/QUOTE]
Well The Who are not a metal band. Nor do they need to do anything special to be exciting onstage but play the music they played. Although the Who are one of the pinnacle live acts in rock history. And that's not fanboy stuff, it's simply a recognized consensus. They were and are a very physical band. In sound and performance. Hell, John Entwhistle just stood in one place his whole career. But he [I]sounded[/I] like thunder. That"s the whole point. Of course you are going to have a performance, but a "show" is not required. You want a show, go to Broadway. Or an Ozzy gig....

[QUOTE=Lunch]No way I'd see them at Woodstock. That was probably their worst show in the 1969-1970 run of greatness. I'd definitely go see them at Leeds, February 14th 1970. Complete ownage of all other concerts.[/QUOTE]

Yeah at Woodstock I believe their drinks were spiked with acid. So naturally, it affected their performance. Leeds is where it's at.

I've heard that when the record company approached Pete about making a live album, he just gave them Leeds and tossed all the tapes of American shows into the fire. I don't know whether to believe that, but Pete is crazy enough to do it. But on the bootleg website I found last week, there were some fantastic '69-'70 shows and from what I heard, they could stand up to Leeds.

I don't know, I kind of like some of the footage from Woodstock on The Kids Are Alright, expecially Sparks.

Having said that, Live at Leeds is pretty much superior to everything, no contest. IOW is good, but I enjoy the Leeds performance far more. They seemed more 'on' at Leeds than at IOW.

I would definatly want to see LAL, but perhaps a show later on so I could hear some 70's material as well.
Bah, if I was alive in the 60's-70's I would go to every Who show I could. I would've followed them around.

[QUOTE=wanderer]They played lot's more balls to wall shows than Leeds. It's not special show. By the way, Pete played nice song yestyrday on In The Attic show that was written around the time of Relay ?.[/QUOTE]
Damn. I missed that yesterday. Perhaps they are replaying it? I like that show. Pete's girlfriend is funny and cool and a little sexy. Pete, old dog...
[QUOTE=robo2448]Yeah at Woodstock I believe their drinks were spiked with acid. So naturally, it affected their performance. Leeds is where it's at.

I've heard that when the record company approached Pete about making a live album, he just gave them Leeds and tossed all the tapes of American shows into the fire. I don't know whether to believe that, but Pete is crazy enough to do it. But on the bootleg website I found last week, there were some fantastic '69-'70 shows and from what I heard, they could stand up to Leeds.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. Everything was spiked at Woodstock. The Who didn't know, but I think they were pissed. That's the thing. The Who gave two craps about hippies, Woodstock, or peace and love. They didn't even pretend to care. Roger with all his stupid posing in the fringe and the hair. And it never fit Rog. But he was the frontman, so there you go. I mean Pete wore mechanics overalls and Doc Martens. And this was well before Docs were fashionable. They were english work shoes, plain and simple. And Keith and John were just weird. What a band.

So yeah, they hated that whole scene that day and just wanted out.
[QUOTE=wholedzep]I don't know, I kind of like some of the footage from Woodstock on The Kids Are Alright, expecially Sparks.

Having said that, Live at Leeds is pretty much superior to everything, no contest. IOW is good, but I enjoy the Leeds performance far more. They seemed more 'on' at Leeds than at IOW.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, the Leeds show is just a bit more lively. They are more on, as you say. I think venue has something to do with it. Don't forget, Woodstock and IOW are huge festivals. Leeds was recorded at a University Hall. Can you imagine the difference if you were there? I think in a small space The Who just own, simple as that. That would be like getting hit by a truck to be up near the stage.

A very good truck, not a life-threatening truck.

[QUOTE=wholedzep]I don't know, I kind of like some of the footage from Woodstock on The Kids Are Alright, expecially Sparks.[/QUOTE]

Yeah my favorite verison of Sparks comes from Woodstock. To be honest I've never heard anything wrong with their Woodstock preformance. I mean its not Live at Leeds but its not bad.

yeah I don't think Woodstock was that bad. In fact, I prefer "See Me Feel Me" from woodstock then LaL or IOW just from the composition/arrangement standpoint. True that the first line was rather flat, and that Roger completely dropped out the second to the last verse leaving only Pete and John to sing with their thin vocals, and true that it actually sped up in tempo (an aspect I actually think works better with this song then the steady tempo), but I liked the Woodstock version more from a musical standpoint, not a technical standpoint.

[QUOTE=Seafroggys]yeah I don't think Woodstock was that bad. In fact, I prefer "See Me Feel Me" from woodstock then LaL or IOW just from the composition/arrangement standpoint. True that the first line was rather flat, and that Roger completely dropped out the second to the last verse leaving only Pete and John to sing with their thin vocals, and true that it actually sped up in tempo (an aspect I actually think works better with this song then the steady tempo), but I liked the Woodstock version more from a musical standpoint, not a technical standpoint.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I feel the same way. I always look at music from a musical stand point. Its rare I look at music from a technical standpoint. Sloppy playing like Hendrix used to do sometimes really doesn't bother me because from a musical stand point the song is still amazing give or take a few errors. Why throw away a songs entire credibility because of a few sloppy notes or vocals.

Personally I really love See Me, Feel Me at Woodstock. LaL is better if you're listening just for the music, but I might prefer the Woodstock version just because of the environment. I haven't heard anything else from their Woodstock gig, but the general concensus seems to be that See Me, Feel Me was good but the rest of it is very subpar.

i've heard Summertime Blues, Sparks, and Pinball Wizard from Woodstock....it was all okay. Sparks from LaL was better, haven't heard the other two from LaL yet, but IoW they were better.

I prefer the Sparks on LaL personally, although both that an the Woodstock version are incredible.

Sloppiness never really bothered me in music.. unless its glaring skill-lessness.

Ive never seen or heard Woodstock, though I do have the first 15 mins of Hendrix's set, with the Star Spangled Banner, Purple Haze.. and something else.

NP: Sparks - LaL - I dont think ill soon get tired of this..

[QUOTE=Tusk]Sloppiness never really bothered me in music.. unless its glaring skill-lessness.

Ive never seen or heard Woodstock, though I do have the first 15 mins of Hendrix's set, with the Star Spangled Banner, Purple Haze.. and something else.

NP: Sparks - LaL - I dont think ill soon get tired of this..[/QUOTE]

Well I think that was at the end of his set not the begining. That is my favorite Hendrix live song (Bold as Love is my favorite studio Hendrix song). That "something else" at the end of Purple Haze really is well something else. It never fails to blow me away when I hear it.

Ahahaha

Just watching a Jimi Hendrix movie, and I'm at the part where he plays the Monteroux Pop Festival.

The producer/manager/record company guy says, 'Ah, shi[size=2]t[/size]. Who's bloody idea was it to have him play after the Who?!'

^hahahaha STUPID GUITAR PLAYERS, LOL....

No one follows The Who! :angry:

Townsend felt really upstaged by Hendrix at Monterey. After the Who played a brilliant set and smashed all their instruments, Hendrix had to do something to outshine them so he lit his guitar on fire and then proceeded to pull a Townsend. Townsend was pretty pissed at Jimi and they didn't get along well at first. In fact, as soon as he heard Jimi play, he supposedly called up Clapton and said that this guy was going to put them out of business. But both of them later became good friends with Hendrix and admired him a lot. Or at least Clapton did. I'm not sure about Pete, but I'm pretty sure they did start to get along before Jimi died.

So my moronic friend tried doubting Entwistle's greatness. I showed him Entwistle's little 5:15 solo and he was blown away. I love defending The Who because it's impossible to lose.