Talk:Live at Leeds/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Can anyone confirm or deny that on "My Generation" on Live At Leeds Roger Daltrey replaces "Why don't you all f-f-f-fade away" with "Why don't you all f-f-f-fuck off". This point is in dispute at Talk:My Generation (song). Are there any other live recordings of "My Generation" where "fuck off" is used?

I have replied there. It's clearly a deliberate innuendo; on the remastered and deluxe editions Townshend makes the same joke when introducing "A Quick One", saying "They f-f-fornicate." I also added a fact-check flag to the MG article, since almost the whole thing looks like a collection of unsupported hearsay ("one of their many live albums", indeed). — B.Bryant 12:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Summertime Blues (again)

Apparently the version at Leeds is supposed to be similar to Blue Cheers? I find it more similar to the version by the Who. It sound exactly like it does at Woodstock, Monterey Pop, and Isle of Wight. None of which sound like Blue Cheer's. AznWarlord (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What's that?

Does anyone happen to know what Roger is singing in the little song between "See Me Feel Me/Listening to You" and "Coming Out to Get You" in the interlude following "My Generation"? I can hear a "so" here and there and a "goodbye, goodbye" at the end of every line. I like the way it sounds. By the way, someone needs to check their sources. L@L is most certainly not 19 some minutes. I own the record. "My Generation" is about 14 1/2 minutes alone, and "Magic Bus" is about 7:40. If someone knows how to change it, would they please do so? It's starting to bother me.

Yeah, I actually have no idea how long Live at Leeds actually is. Allmusic says it's about 19 minutes long as well. I own a copy of the record myself, and the tracklist is:

1. "Young Man Blues" (Allison) – 4:45
2. "Substitute" (Townshend) – 2:05
3. "Summertime Blues" (Capeheart, Cochran) – 3:22
4. "Shakin' All Over" (Kidd) – 4:15
5. "My Generation" (Townshend) – 14:27
6. "Magic Bus" (Townshend) – 7:30

but it's not the original pressing at all; the catalog number is MCA-2022 and it has a note that it was formerly DL7-9175. The Allmusic guide indicates that both My Generation and Magic Bus were truncated on the original pressing, though. Does anybody actually have an copy of the original pressing to see for sure? It's possible they included the extended versions of the songs when it was repressed. SchnappM 22:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The confusion is because there are two releases of Live at Leeds; the original 1970 version, which was indeed only 19 minutes long with 7 songs and normal-length "My Generation" and "Magic Bus", and the later version which runs a lot longer with some of the original songs made longer. --Jacj 04:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, then the article should be tweaked to show that. Do you know in what year the album was changed to include the extended versions of the two songs? SchnappM 20:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The original only nineteen minutes long? That's ridiculous. I've never heard that and I know more about The Who than most. I'm sure the original lp's versions of "My Generation" and "Magic Bus" were full length, taking up all of side two. I'm making the change. Clashwho 17:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not 19 minutes. I'm listening to a copy of DL7-9175 right now and it's got the track listing above, in case anyone's still in doubt. 152.3.240.124 19:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

---

No crackling noises????_____

The article states that the recording was very clean except for deliberate distortion. My original LP version doesn't support that assertion---- the crackling and popping noises were obvious the first time I pulled it out of the sleeve back in 1978. That wasn't dust I was hearing; there was definitely some niose in the mix.

Damning with faint praise

The article fails to mention that Live at Leeds is considered by many as one of the greatest live rock albums of any era. The article seems to be written by a person who has never actually listened to the album.

flarf

Fixed. 74.77.208.52 17:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that Pete Townsend confidently sought to release a live album after a strong performance at the Woodstock Festival in summer of 1969. After all, the Who had played at the Monterey Pop Festival in 1967 and had been known to be powerful performers on stage since their earliest days. But after reviewing all the live material, he realized how inadequate the band sounded on stage. Perhaps this is where the apocryphal story of Townsend threatening to burn all tapes of existing live material emerges from. What it did do is motivate him to whip the group into a tight disciplined group that could focus and deliver the intensity of their performance in their live acts for recording. They practiced and drilled for the remainder of 1969 and early 1970 so as to emerge as a true powerhouse of a group. Live at Leeds and the concert at the Isle of Wright festival heralds their success. Live at Leeds fortuitously was released before the Rolling Stones' Get Your Ya-Ya's Out and cemented the reputation of the Who as one of the premiere live groups in rock. The release of perhaps the "greatest live rock album", followed by perhaps the greatest rock studio album (Who's Next) prevented any serious consideration of the Rolling Stones dubious claim of being the "greatest rock and roll band" for years.

Deluxe Edition Release Year?

The article lists it as 2002, yet my copy of this cd has a 2001 copyright and Amazon lists a release date of September 18, 2001. I changed the date to 2001 unless someone can explain why my CD has a 2001 copyright.

-duxie

It was released in 2001 in a regular CD (jewel) case, and re-released in 2002 in the now-familiar Universal Deluxe Edition digipack that they use for everything. The CDs are exatly the same, though. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 06:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Cosuin Kevin

The article says Live at Leeds includes every Tommy song, but it doesn't include Cousin Kevin. I'm changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C33Four (talk • contribs)

Yeah, see Tommy (rock opera)#Live recordings. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 06:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Summertime Blues"

Is it hearsay or fact that the version of "Summertime Blues" was actually recorded at Hull City Hall, not Leeds ?!

Derek R Bullamore 10:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hearsay. The sleevenotes don't mention it (and they're quite detailed in the Deluxe edition). --kingboyk 19:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Bugger, there goes my fiver then. You again, Kingboy, hope you are keeping well, old fruit.

Derek R Bullamore 21:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes thanks Derek, and you? Have a look at this link, seems to be close to definitive (official sleevenotes, annotated with corrections by a fan) - http://www.thewho.net/linernotes/LiveAtLeeds.htm --kingboyk 01:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly English

What does "Regardless of great approvements at the Leeds gig by many fans and critics" mean? I'd change it, but I'm not really even clear on what the author meant to say. Improvements? Approvals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melshocker (talk • contribs) 21:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A rename media request was filed

A {{Rename media}} request was added to Image:Thewho liveatleeds.jpg so that the Wikimedia Commons image of the same name can be used in this article to illustrate the blue plaque at the University of Leeds refectory, commemorating the album's recording.. 67.101.5.230 (talk) 10:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC).

Turned inline use of non-free image into links to workaround mangling by BJBot (tasks • contribs • actions log • block log • flag log • user rights) 67.101.5.75 (talk) 08:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC).

the who

I have the demo of the who live at leeds. It was handed to me from family also paper work where they were turned down by kings agency at lacarno ballroom by barry perkins. also where they were to play woodstock for 1hour. they were to be paid I might better not say. I bet E.M.I records Norman is kicking himself for turning them down. Or John B. I also have a few other written stuff. o well i love the group anyway. I just was trying to find out about some of this stuff.all I know is what I have I just want to know more about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.140.173.108 (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of Memorabilia?

Would it be acceptable if I took a picture of the inside gatefold of this album with the memorabilia and put it in the packaging section? I bought the album at a flea market in perfect condition, with everything, if not most of, the aforemention items included.--TheChrisParker (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Tapes of the US tour burned?

Hello, I noticed the article mentions that Roger Daltrey denied the burning of the tapes. I'm currently listening to Planet Rock, a radio-station from the UK, doing a feature on the album, and in it, Pete Townshend confirms that he had them burned.

I don't know enough about Wiki-editing to turn this in to a valid citation, or what research to do before I can, so I'm going to refrain from making the edit myself now (might do it anyway on a later date, if I ever get in to editing seriously) but I thought other people working on this might want to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinzarr (talk • contribs) 23:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Next Album

Dan56 (talk · contribs) has reverted changes on the infobox as to what the "next album" field. To avoid an edit war, I am bringing the discussion here. I would prefer Who's Next to appear in this box as opposed to Tommy (EP) for two reasons - firstly, the former is more notable as appearing the standard chain of the band's discography as documented by Dave Marsh's book and AllMusic, amongst others. Secondly, a non charting EP that does not cite multiple, independent, reliable sources is at risk of being nominated for deletion. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. North8000 (talk) 10:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

When the article is deleted, sure. Otherwise, notability isn't a factor for the chronology parameter. Template:Infobox album#Chronology suggests making a separate chain for album types when the artist's discography is complex. You argued that there is a canonical sequence, which sounds fandom-related; Wikipedia aims for a general audience. If a change were to be made, it would be to make a single chain for live albums, but the Who's discography seem complex enough to warrant that. Dan56 (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

IMO an EP with no new material and which was barely released would not meet the common meaning of a released album. North8000 (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

How was it "barely" released? It either was or it wasn't. Dan56 (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I did argue there was a canonical sequence, but I then backed it up with two reliable sources on this talk page. I note that the documentation for Infobox album states, right at the top, "The design and content of all music-related infoboxes should follow Wikipedia's verifiability policy." which I would imagine trumps everything else, as implying other discographies, beyond what sources say, strays into the realms of original research. There's also the more prosaic matter that an EP isn't an LP, so shouldn't appear on an album discography. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the sources you provided (nothing shown at the GoogleBooks link; a "main albums" list by Allmusic is supposed to be interpreted as a canon?), how is this purported "canonical sequence" aimed at a general audience rather than just fans already familiar with the discography? If there is a source that explicitly says "these are the albums associated with the Who's canon", then it would only be of use here, a section that summarizes an artist's major works (Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines). It doesn't spill over to the chronology chain. Dan56 (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Any arguments as to whether an EP is an "album" or not should be made at WP:ALBUMS. What matters is that there's an article for Tommy (EP) and it's release follows this album. If the EP in question lacks that much notability, nominate it for deletion. Dan56 (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

We're not talking about deletion of an article on the EP, we're talking about whether or not to consider it the "next album" for the purposes of the info box. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If it's about the purposes of the infobox, this guideline is clear--the only exceptions are for complex discographies. Dan56 (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Now come on, it's been well documented that AllMusic is a reliable source. As for Marsh, if you read the book in question you'll find the discography. I can dig out more reliable sources and illustrate them here, but it will take time to do so. Alternatively, you could dig out a reliable source that states why your view is where consensus should go. Guidelines are just that - guidelines, and in my view, a discography presented in multiple reliable sources should be used over the personal opinion of one Wikipedian's interpretation of a guideline. I am not inclined to go back to WP:ALBUMS as I already went there (and also to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pink Floyd/Archive 3#Chronology in infoboxes) over the exact same issue with Atom Heart Mother and concluded there was, at best, no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Reliable for what? Where at their page does it say "canon"? And how am I supposed to read the Marsh book when there's not even a snippet preview here? Could you at least quote a page, that is if it actually says "canon"? Why should you have to dig out more sources? You should be able to find one reliable source that explicitly says "these albums are part of their canon", rather than original research in which you notice a similar thread of lists like the one found at Allmusic. This is a moot point anyway, since Wikipedia aims for a general audience who will not be familiar with an unsubstantiated canon of albums that is only realized by a particular group (fans, The Who editors, etc.) who noticed it themselves (GoogleBooks search for "'The Who' canon albums", nothing.) Dan56 (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no personal interpretation here. The guideline for the chronology is clearcut. If you don't like it, start a discussion at WP:ALBUMS. Dan56 (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You may not be able to view the preview due to copyright reasons. If you can't find the book on the web for verification purposes, you'll need to find, purchase or borrow a print copy. Many featured articles cite print sources, and the fact they cannot be easily found is unfortunate, but not a reason to fail WP:V. WP:SOURCEACCESS and related essays have more. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I may? Can you see it? Just tell me if there's a passage that says "canon". And I didn't say it fails WP:V, as if any of this is relevant to this discussion, i.e. "next album". Dan56 (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think our conversation is done here. Happy editing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I got Tommy (EP) deleted. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)