'Live At Leeds'

I think the live album is an interesting concept especially when the live album is considered, arguably, one of a band's or performer's best albums. This is probably different in the early days of recording as some jazz and R&B artists may have only had live albums to go on or not many studio albums to even it out.

But The Who are a different animal. I don't particularly like them, but many consider them a great band responsible for some of the greatest rock and roll songs and albums in the history of the genre.
Yet, one of their best is an unevenly recorded live album with the bare minimum of hits released on the heels of their magnum opus, Tommy.

Live albums, generally, are for fans of the band. If you want the general gist of Paul McCartney, buy his greatest hits. If you're a fan, get Tripping the Live Fantastic. Marginal fans have little use for live albums.

Why do live albums have appeal? I think you get a sense of how they sound outside of the studio without the crutches of producers, multiple takes and multi-tracking. It's raw.

The Who are an interesting band to see this side of. Keith Moon is always excellent and brings it no matter what. But I find that doing these songs live is tougher for Pete Townshend who is responsible for all of the melodic contents of the band as there's no other guitarists, keyboards or anything outside of a bass guitar and drums.

His guitars on Live at Leeds are uneven and hurried. He's trying to do everything to paste together these riffs he constructed in the studio. Seems forced. That's probably why "Substitute" is the best track off the album.

Thumbs down for butchering "Summertime Blues."