Re[2]: LAL

[James L Jackson <jacksonj@battelle.org>]

          Shane, re:
          
          Also, Entwistle thought that WHO'S LAST might redeem the Who 
          after the worldwide broadcast of the Toronto, Dec. 17, 1982 
          show. He admitted that the badn was wimpy that night (he 
          actually thought they should have broadcast the Toronto show 
          from the night before). Sadly, it didn't redeem the band 
          (although I do like the DR. JIMMY on it; that's absolutely 
          the only track I listen to on it).  WHO'S LAST was product, 
          pure and simple.
          
          Anybody know why they didn't offer this album to Warner 
          Bros. as part of their (violated) contract? It appeared to 
          me that no FD/IH material was on it because Warners must 
          have refused.
          
          /Jim


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: LAL
Author:  Shane Matheson <matheso@gaul.csd.uwo.ca> at ~internet
 Sun Dec  7 13:22:25 PST 1997
Date:    3/20/96 12:56 PM


On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Gary M. Gillman wrote:
          
> by the same band, which, by many accounts, was still a great live act until 
> 1982?. Eg. take Who`s Last (with that flat sound and awful crowd noise - as
          
They may have still been a great band, but they no longer were at the top 
of their form, and they had nothing to prove.  From what I hear, one of the 
reason LaL was released was to show the masses that caught on to Tommy, 
that The Who weren't just about operas, but they could rock it out like 
no one else, which they did quite admirably.  Who's Last has no purpose 
other than to document what was supposed to be the last chapter of The Who.
          
          
> it was just pure god given luck that LAL ended up sounding so resonant, pure 
> and powerful? Nothing else in the live Who canon touches LAL, I say: take
> all your 1971 SF Bargains, 1969 London Coliseum`s YMB, and even the
> Woodstock performances, and they don`t hold a candle to the original or
          
This I think is due to the fact that a) they put on a great show and b) 
they weren't in a stadium or farmer's field, they were in a gymnasium with 
all the echo & ambience that go with a smaller venue.  The other 
performances may have been as good or better, but the venues acoustically 
left something to be desired.  Same thing with Who's Last, it would've 
probably sounded at least a bit better if it weren't recorded in arenas, 
though that arena sound does more accurately reflect the Who sound of 
'82.  The Stones took the Leeds approach & recorded their last live album 
in a small club even though most people that go to see them need 
binoculars to tell who's who on stage.
          
          
> expanded LAL (although careful listening has convinced me that the "new" LAL 
> tracks are slightly inferior to the tunes on the original album, thus
> explaining no doubt the original track selection)......... Any thoughts? I`d 
> be interested especially in the reactions of some of the younger fans on the
          
The original tracks are all more powerful than the generally quirky Who 
songs that were left off.  We as Who fans may like them (this version of 
I'm a Boy & AQO are my favourites) but I don't think the general record 
buying public would appreciate them as much, and they would detract 
somewhat from the overall power of the original album (though you gain the 
continuity of an actual concert on the new Leeds)  The old Leeds was 
called "the gretest live hard rock album" and the new one shows that the 
Who weren't just a one dimensional hard rock band.
          
          
Shane Matheson      MechEng/CompSci UWO
          
 "I smash guitars because I like them. " -- Pete Townshend