The Who Live at Leeds is considered by many music critics to be one of the best live albums ever recorded.
But really … six freakin’ songs? How could anyone have thought that six songs was enough for a whole album?
I notice more recent editions feature in the range of 15 or more songs, including all the “bonus tracks.”
But six? How did this go down with the record-buying public in 1970?
Have you listened to the (original) album ? Are you a Who fan ?
For starters, what starts out as “My Generation” turns into a medly of about 6 songs - including “Tommy” songs. So that about doubles the song count. This is followed by the single most kick-ass version of “Magic Bus” they’ve ever recorded.
Secondly, this was The Who’s first live album. 'nuff said.
The Who fan album buying public of the 70’s (myself included) ate it up, gladly. Sure it left us wanting more, but it was quite satisfying in itself.
I am a Who fan, but I haven’t listened to the album. (slinks away shamefacedly)
Ah - there you go. Give it a spin and get back to us.
It ain’t the size of the dog in the fight - it’s the size of the fight in the dog. I wouldn’t mess with this dog.
It was a single LP on original release, right? So probably 45 minutes or so would be the going rate. One medley, as cormac262 describes, would take up half of one side.
It shows as having a run time of 36:24.
On the shortish side but still decent.
Two minutes longer than Rubber Soul. Pure self-indulgence. 
Purists thought the sound quality of vinyl started going down after 20 minutes or so on a side. That’s why most albums ran about 18 minutes to a side. (Lots of exceptions, but that was the general rule.)
You can’t compare vinyl releases with CDs that can store 74 minutes of music. They’re two different worlds.
LaL is one of the finest rock performances I’ve ever heard. I get a visual image of a freight train at full speed, still able to be nimble and dance along the curves. People who have only heard the studio versions of their songs from that time won’t expect the roar and improvisational ability from them.
It’s great.
You can always go for the deluxe 2 disc set.
Or the 14 track re-mastered version. http://www.amazon.com/Live-at-Leeds-Who/dp/B000002OVJ/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1210114937&sr=8-2
Some people much prefer the first CD version over the “Deluxe” reissue.
Despite the mismatched titles and the debate in the comments section, this clip is generally accepted to be the only extant footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qL-xNbqgMY
Seeing Keith come up off his stool and crash down again with the beat…wow.
Soft Machine Third had four songs. It was a double album (and the best bargain on iTunes) running about 75 minutes.
Pink Floyd’s Atom Heart Mother have five songs. Meddle had six. The first was around 51 minutes long, the latter about 45.
Rick Wakeman’s The Six Wives of Henry VIII had, obviously, six songs. It ran around 36 minutes.
Yes’s Close to the Edge had only three tracks (which had subsections). It ran about 38 minutes.
The greatest live album of all time, Allman Brothers Band Live at Filmore East had only seven songs on two albums and ran about 78 minutes.
And, the champion, Jethro Tull’s Thick as a Brick had only one track of a total run time of 43:40.
No one thought there was any problem with these, either. People didn’t buy by the song; the bought for an album of music and expected about 30-40 minutes on a single album and a bit less than twice that on a double (Pink Floyd tended to put more music on an album, which made it hard to tape on one side of a ninety minute cassette – I couldn’t transfer my Pink Floyd to cassette without cutting things out).
iTunes and file sharing has put people in the mindset that the number of songs is good.
It was a great albumn and one of my first when I discovered the Who in the 1970’s. That YouTube clip is great too.
Was it LAL or another concert, where the structural damage to the concert hall during a Who concert caused the hall to be subsequently condemned? The Who were really LOUD.
Mike Oldfield’s Amarok has one track at almost exactly 60 minutes. Of course he did it to piss off Richard Branson, but it is still an outstanding album.
In my case, my friend and I got the LP the moment it went on sale, took it home, and flipped a coin to see who got to listen to side one with headphones.
And Live Dead had only seven tracks (but since the last one totaled 37 seconds it hardly counted).
Six tracks would be all you really might expect for a live album back in the days of vinyl.
And there’s also his Tubular Bells.
The point is that back in the 70s, it was considered perfectly acceptable to perform long tracks, especially live. People expected improvisation and musicians stretching out (and also expected a live act to sound different then their studio albums). Long solos were the norm. As an example, the Cream song “N.S.U.” was 2:47 on the original Fresh Cream album, but 10:15 on Live Cream (which had five tracks). Musicians were expected to show their chops (there were, of course, exceptions).
Punk rebelled against it, starting with the Ramones (who never claimed to be particularly good musicians). The long song and solo were considered anti-rock and went out of favor. Now, if anyone tries to write a song over five minutes, it’s considered self-indulgent. So with shorter songs (and longer playing time), there are more songs on a CD.
This cracks me up. Kids today, with their iPods and short attention spans. It took me a while to accept that my children were measuring their hard disk capacities by “how many songs” they would hold. Very odd.
But looking back at pop music, cuts rarely ran longer than 3 or at most 4 minutes in order to provide flexibility on the vital radio play lists. It was a pretty big deal for AM radio stations to run the full length version of “Light My Fire.” I would have hoped that by now we’d have outgrown that technology-defined limitation and let artistic considerations define the length of recording.
Acsenray, were you assuming that a “song” had some predetermined length?
Not to be a dick or anything, but why would you start a thread about an album you’ve never listened too? 