The BEST live Who EVER

Jim M NakedI at
Mon Sep 27 14:01:43 CDT 2004

----- Original Message ----- From: "Marcus Surrealius"

> What I mean is: if you set it up as "only an entire
> show" it limits what people can talk about. There are
> only two complete shows released, for instance. There
> are some boots out there, too, but many are not the
> complete show and some here don't have them.

That's OK, I'm willing to catch up.  I'm listening to the Amsterdam '69 boot
right now and the complete Tanglewood boot is on its way to me from our
'fairy boot mother' as we speak.

> So if you were going to say: what's the best released
> entire show, it's between LAL and IOW and that's
> doesn't leave a lot of discussion room, does it?

I don't think we are limited to talking about those two shows at all. We can
include boots and we can infer some from the parts of shows we've got.  We
can say that, judging from songs X, Y and Z, and researching the rest of the
set that night, I think the show I'd most like to have seen is, for
instance, the Kampuchea show or Monterey or Woodstock.  One reason it seems
so limited is that I think most will agree the best complete show would come
from the '69-'71 timeframe.

> Can one say why this food tastes better than that
> food?
> ....
> It...just sounds that way to me. The band seems more
> "on," more powerful, more balls out.

See, you *can* be more specific!

> But LAL is so damned perfect!

That's an interesting line of reasoning.  Their technically best performance
isn't their "best" because they're not usually that perfect?  I'd have
preferred it if they screwed up some of the words here and there!

Seriously, though, I think one of the reasons Leeds seems technically more
perfect is that we are *so* familiar with it.  Most of us have been
listening to that MG, that SB since we became Who fans.

> Charlotte, NC, 11/20/71. I don't know a thing about
> the show except the set list, but I have faith.

Good point.  The band was *so* awesome during these few years that you
almost couldn't go wrong.  Why not pick something that we haven't heard

> I don't might be Amsterdam.

I can tell you that would most certainly *not* be the concert I used my only
trip in the time machine to see.  YMB, AQO and others are *far* tamer than
Leeds.  YMB is kind of a nice change-of-pace version that starts out slower,
but does have some great
guitar sections. The dialogue with the audience is (understandably) more
detatched, although the AQO intro is good.  The Tommy performance is *very,
very* ragged in places.

So, here's my reasoning for naming Leeds as the show I'd want to go to.  I'd
say the factors that make one show better then another are: Performance, Set
List, Band/Audience Connection, Venue.  Tanglewood seems like it would score
very high in performance, good in venue, but very low in set list (I'll have
to get back to you on connection with the audience).  IOW's big strengths
would be the venue and set list.  Leeds kicks ass in the first three
categories.  I can't really say about the venue, but that's last on my list

Jim M

More information about the TheWho mailing list