[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LAL
Gary Gillman,
<<Why is LAL head and shoulders, not just above all other
live rock albums, but all other live Who recordings?>>
I have always wondered why LAL "got it right." For me, the
Who's best 2 live performances that I have an audio are LAL
and their 9-16-79 MSG show, where Roger sings happy birthday
to Kenney. Both of those shows have a tangible energy
despite their different styles.
For LAL and its energy, here's my theory--the Who wanted
something that reflected them in concert; all their rock
ballsiness. You must remember, LAL was a response to TOMMY.
Pete has always maintained that LEEDS served two purposes:
-captured the Who live (they'd been trying to do a live
album at least since '68--see the SHAKIN' ALL OVER boot from
the Fillmore East--that was gonna be an official album until
they decided it had too many flaws)
-provided a real rock and roll response to those who thought
the Who's music was simply that created for TOMMY (Pete has
always had a love-hate relationship with TOMMY and it goes
all the way back to the beginning of TOMMY).
So, LAL is different from other live albums where bands try
to recapture their studio songs live. The Who never went
into Leeds U. that night with that in mind. I think that the
band always knew that the Who LIVE and the Who STUDIO were
essentially 2 different bands. What amazes me about LEEDS is
that I've often found that the Who are less than great when
they knew they were being recorded (see THE WHO ROCKS
AMERICA), so to have LEEDS be as free as it is is really
stunning.
All this, plus a little luck never hurt. I'm anxious to see
what others think about this.
/Jim