A Chocolate Orange

every now and then something happens which has an effect that isn't quite what was expected or hoped for. when Stanley Kubrick, for instance, adapted the novella A Clockwork Orange, it is unlikely he ever thought it would be frequently referenced in criminal courts. in not quite the same vein, i had visions of my sister Gillian doing little more than saying "thank you" when receiving a chocolate orange from your humble narrator, and then simply scoffing it.

whereas Gillian was delighted to receive the chocolate orange, and she can been seen phoning and alerting the press (rather than, say, her brother who got it) below, it wasn't simply the case of admiring it and then eating it.





Gillian has a keen eye for details, and with her usual curiosity decided to check the expiry date for the chocolate orange. this she did and indeed photographed.





as there are some five months before Terry's declare this chocolate orange something akin to unfit for purpose, Gillian is, apparently, having none of eating it on the spot. instead, in her unquestionable wisdom, she's decided to have it locked away for a more appropriate time!





it looks like it has been locked away with a number of other goodies, too!





now, i wouldn't wish to create an image of my sister being heartless, cruel or without compassion, but it does seem to even the most casual of observer that she is having no debate about the chocolate orange being locked away for now. consider, if you will, how Gillian is apparently making Katie exchange her most favourite pair of shoes just to hold the box which contains this citrus loaded confectionary for a moment.





if for some reason you are of a mind that the above strikes you as a fair trade, consider how Gillian is then tormenting Grant with it. as far as i can work out, Gillian is denying that there is even such a thing as chocolate oranges when asked by Grant, never mind owning up to presently being the custodian of one. to rub salt into that denial wound, Gillian then proceeds to taunt Grant with this sought after item whilst he is asleep, and posts images of this humiliation across the whole of the internet!





well, there you go. think very carefully about the consequences of bestowing a gift upon my sister seems to be the moral of this story! one can only hope that, as and when Gillian decides it may be eaten, that it is worth the wait and cost for all!


be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

credit asked for

there's a school of thought that says comments by certain people should be ignored because the ground from which they speak is wonky at best. Mark Boucher could be said to be one of those people, in particular as just about everyone i knew thought of him when recent revelations indicated what a lot of us knew - that some people were in the SA national side more for who they knew and were connected to rather than their form and talent.

however, with apparently nothing else on in the world at the moment, certain media outlets here have decided to "go big" with Boucher's allegation that his old mate, Jacques Kallis, "doesn't get as much recognition as he should". my initial reaction would be that this was just Boucher filling air, for he was short of something intelligent to say, but as so many seem to have picked up on this, let's run with it.





one thing that has to be made very, very clear up front is that the facts on paper do not lie. looking at his record alone, Kallis has been one of the single greatest players the game has ever known. in respect of figures for batting, bowling and in the field there are few that can come close to his numbers, either in their own right or as a collective of an all-rounder. to this extent, his old school named their cricket oval after him, and you rarely, if ever, hear a word spoken against him by his fellow professionals.





however, in giving some creedence to Boucher's comment (without, and i cannot stress this enough, particularly agreeing with it), you rarely hear many words spoken about Kallis from his contemporaries. when pressed in interviews, all you shall usually get from his opponents (and in some cases team mates) is that he's "very difficult to get out" or that he's "technically gifted".





one of the big question marks raised about Kallis is the price of those fantastic statistics. for all the earned praise he has been given for his abilities, i have yet to hear him called the one thing all cricketers crave to be declared. that is, he has never been named as a "match winner". sure, he has given performances which have helped his side win, but he's never gone out, by default or design, to grab a game by the scruff of its neck and turned it around.

this is something illustrated in the odd low-ish rate for a national side often not very far off the top spot in world rankings. the SA win rate under the current captain is "only" around 50%, which is rather low for a team ranked so high. how many possible wins have been turned into draws, how many losses have come from draws that could have been by the unusual indulgence of allowing Kallis to bat in a way that seems more for the benefit of his record than the team's cause is a matter which has received more than a bit of attention from those who dare speak up about him.





outside of a fanatical but limited following, one doesn't really hear Kallis being celebrated across the board like other greats with somewhat lesser records. a lot of this is to do with the business-like, apparently stats-chasing approach he brings with him to the field. Kallis is technically gifted, sure, but hardly brings any flair or entertainment to his playing style. being boring, if you wish to be blunt, shouldn't count against the status of a cricketer - Boycott, for example, is usually heralded as one of the most boring batsmen you could ever have hoped to watch, but at least he had (and indeed has) an abundance of personality which he brought to the game.

in this sense, however, it has to be said that Kallis represents the entire SA cricket side. the whole team, in particular the very little liked captain, shows little or no personality at all, either on the pitch or off it. for most of the time he has been captain Smith has rarely shown any appreciation or thanks to any of the crowds who have followed his team, and he has a reputation for being abusive beyond all normal lines to his opponents.

considering their attempts at having a personality, however, they are perhaps better off remaining boring. in one of the most comical and cringeworthy incidents the game has ever seen, for some reason they decided to let it be known that the much mocked bowler, Andre Nel (and in much mocked i refer to the fact that the State TV broadcaster used him as an example of why you should rather listen to cricket on the radio instead of watching it), became an alter ego, "Gunther", when he took to the field. that's right, the players are so lacking in any sort of entertaining skills themselves that they are happy to admit to pretending to be someone else in order to seem interesting.





when addressing the complaint about "not getting enough credit", it says it all that the man with the easiest job in radio (wouldn't you just love a 10 hour week where just over 50% of those hours are done by someone else? where your holidays are measured in months rather than weeks?) called in a statistician to prove how "celebrated" Kallis is. any other cricketer would have had a fellow professional called in to speak on their behalf, but apparently none were available to rebuff the claim.

so then, it's not that Kallis "doesn't get enough credit", it's more that he simply gets just the credit he has sought for his career. sorry, but as great as his figures are, he just doesn't excite the crowds as much as those who do get the kind of credit and celebration Boucher apparently expects for his chum.

relax, it's January

hi everyone

well, usually around this time of year you'd expect me to rattle on once again about January 10, 1987, which was the date of the only instance of me being fortunate enough to see Frankie Goes To Hollywood live, so to speak. this year, for a change, i thought i'd give it something of a miss.

that's not to say, however, that Frankie Goes To Hollywood will be free of celebration here. it was in this week in 1984 that this man did more than anyone outside of the band themselves or their record label to make Frankie the huge selling, popular big act they became.





a very healthy percentage of Frankie Fans owe being made aware of the band, or rather the band being so well known, to celebrated Radio 1 DJ Mike Read. now, many will know the story of Mike Read and the first Frankie single, Relax. however, for those unaware or wishing to relive it, here we go!


after Trevor Horn "discovered" Frankie via the innovative, influential and sadly missed Channel 4 TV show The Tube, he snapped them up for his new record label, ZTT, and commenced turning their most popular tune amongst their cult following, Relax (In Heaven Everything Is Fine), into the version of Relax that we all know (and love) today. it was released as a single in late 1983, garnered favourable reviews and made a steady, sure climb up the charts. it also got regular airplay, until Mike Read happened to pay more attention to the lyrics and cover than he had done before.





the band nor the label, ZTT, made any effort to hide exactly what Relax was all about - in particular, they certainly didn't shy away from it in respect of the video made to promote the song (more on that later). however, somehow the content of the song flew by most, at least until January of 1984. the legend has it that Mike Read clocked what was going on and immediately pulled the record off mid-play, followed soon by a general ban across the BBC.

although clearly testing the boundaries of acceptability (at the time) with the song, no one in either the band nor the record label actively sought to get the record banned as some sort of publicity stunt. whereas acts that followed Frankie did try and get a similar ban due to the widespread media coverage which followed the decision to take Relax off the airwaves, at the time not having your record on Radio 1 seemed akin to commercial suicide.


the reverse of what was expected happened, of course, and Relax went on to become one of the biggest selling singles of not only the 80s but of all time. the oddity of the world at large - if it had been banned for being violent it probably would have sunk without a trace. however, as it was banned because of being of a sexual nature, the curiosity of many was, as it were, aroused.

if the song itself and record cover were not overt but not shy in what it was all about, the video for Relax certainly didn't pull any punches. although freely played today, the video received an "even bigger" ban than the song did, if such a thing is possible.





whereas music videos had been around since the 60s (sorry, those of you who for some obscure reason believe Queen invented it with Bohemian Rhapsody), it really was in the 80s that the form took off, mostly via the advent of MTV. a pioneer from this time was Duran Duran who made videos full of glitz, glamour and attractive models which helped sell their impressive records in even larger volumes.

Frankie kind of followed suit, delivering a video for Relax which showed a world somewhat more realistic to aspire to and attain than, say, Rio did, and made it quite clear that any and all forms of pleasure were exceptionally welcome in their world.





it was a trip into the dark and seedy underworld where adults and teenagers alike wished to go, where every and all fantasy was there, available for the taking. as a consequence, it was and remains one of the most brilliant music promo videos ever made!





in retrospect, i do wonder if instead of just banning Relax the BBC wished they had rather quietly dropped it, instead playing an alternate track, such as the magnificent cover of Ferry 'Cross The Mersey from the b-side of the 12". playing a b-side was something of a standard practice back then, and i dare say no one would have noticed the subtle change; at least not as much as the world noticed the very blatant ban!

so, would Frankie have been as big a hit as they were if it were not for the ban? there's a case to say it's unlikely. whereas Relax was posting reasonable sales pre-ban, it's the juggernaught of cash which flooded in after the ban that allowed for a huge promotion drive for their next single, Two Tribes, and the debut album Welcome To The Pleasuredome. and by promotion drive, i mean Two Tribes remained at Number 1 for 9 weeks (with Relax re-charting and joining it at Number 2 for a chunk of those weeks), and one in four households was estimated to have a copy of the album in it by the end of '84. the genuine talent of Frankie, mixed with the excellent skills of Trevor Horn, was always going to be a success, but it's the radio ban and the attention which followed that lifted the group to the status they still enjoy today.

well, what are you waiting for? go and play the song!


be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(early) Happy Birthday, King

hey everyone

a bit early as i suspect i shall not get the chance to do an update on Saturday, but all the same - a very happy birthday indeed to The King, Elvis Presley.





let this serve as a reminder to you all that The King, Elvis Presley turns 76 on Saturday - peanut butter and KFC should feature at some point on your menu.


be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

more of the wildlife

hey everyone

well, Anthea was both flattered by the comments her pics have been getting and had no quarrel with my comments on the last post. as a consequence, she has very kindly forwarded on some more examples of her handiwork for me to share here!





i am not sure if she has allowed me to post the next one by accident - whereas all of her photographs have been excellent, this one of a jackal is simply stunning, and should surely be worthy of consideration for a competition or other publication.





unsurprisingly the most popular pics from the first post were those of lions. well, who doesn't love lions? here are two more magnificent shots!





and in following the confusion of credit in the last post, Anthea was delighted to inform me that she took all of these pics!





thanks again Anthea! no doubt there will be more images for us to enjoy as and when she feels the need to share some!


be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

so, 3-1........

to borrow, paraphrase and elaborate on a rather familiar phrase, if they didn't think that it was all over, they surely do know that it is now.





well done lads. although i would rather hope that, instead of reading this, you are currently knee deep in empties at any or all of the very, very fine alcohol serving establishments the wonderful city of Sydney has to offer!





if the 2005 series is seen as the "greatest" Ashes series ever (or at least since Botham's Ashes of 1981) and the 2006/2007 series the most one-sided (featuring, as it did, one of the most ferocious, talented all-round Australian teams ever), then it's unsure exactly what this one will be defined as. with three by an innings victories it is difficult to see it as anything but the greatest away tour England have ever embarked on.

never mind that for a now. there have been far, far, far too many dark days in the world of the English cricket follower to worry about anything else but basking in the bright, shining light of this incredible day.






to refer to England fans as "long suffering" is no understatement. to follow our side we must surely be as barmy as Boycott labelled the army of followers who chanted and supported England through thick and thin. a vindication of the time, effort and money spent what often looked like a hopeless cause? absolutely!





England went into this series tipped, with great caution, as the slight favourites to win. this was a very, very strong English cricket team, especially when contrasted against an Australian team apparently struggling to replace a number of retired greats. no one, however, in their right mind would surely have staked a penny on the emphatic nature of the three victories England took. to win so much as one Test by an innings against Australia suggests that you are rather good at the sport; to win three by this margin in the same series sees instant legendary status bestowed upon you.






a moment, if you will, to say a good bye and thank you to that rarest of English cricketers, one who has three Ashes series wins to his name. nice work Colly, enjoy the celebrations!





yes, OK, a number of people would argue that Paul Collingwood should have been dropped before the 5th Test, as his form just hasn't been there this series. he has, however, been an excellent servant of the game, and i, along with all fans, are surely glad that the was allowed the opportunity to call time on his Test career on his own terms.

Colly's departure does make it somewhat easier to get Stuart Broad back into the England Test side. there was no way you could see any of the current bowlers being dropped after the performances given, and anyway it is time that Broad was developed into the all-rounder that he so clearly is.

on the subject of departures, let us hope that we have not seen the last of this great player.





as captain, an awful lot of pressure and blame has been placed on Ricky Ponting for the shortcomings of Australian cricket in this series. whereas he is not blame-free, his absence in the 5th Test has hopefully shown that it's not all his fault. how easy to forget that he has a formidable record of wins as captain, despite losing three Ashes series, and is one of the greatest batsmen the game has had the pleasure of witnessing. i really, really hope he is allowed to bow out on his terms, with the grace and gratitude he has truly earned.

man of the series? a tough call, really. Alistar Cook is the obvious candidate, with his runs setting up some of the most superb wins English cricket shall ever experience. however, with the greatest respect, wickets win you games as much as runs do, and in the justified celebration of what Cook has done, i would not wish it to be that the stunning work of James Andersonwas overlooked.





nice one Jimmy! taking 25 wickets in a Test series is a magnificent accomplishment. the batsmen did their job in getting the runs, but it was a bowling attack led by Anderson that made sure Australia could neither equal the totals or, in the case of three Tests, just bat out for a draw.

whereas not quite in the league of an Ashes series, i note that in the middle of the year India tour England. this will be a series which shall effectively decide who is the best Test team in the world at the moment. no prizes for guessing who i shall be backing!


be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This painted child of dirt that stinks and stings…

The world of literature isn’t particularly well known for fast reactions to developments in its realm, but an announcement earlier this week has seen a snowballing effect of, apparently, “furore”. The announcement relates to new versions of The Adventures Of Tom Sawyer and The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn being published; the trick being that they are, and there is no other word for it, censored versions.





Alan Gribben, a renowned and respected scholar of Mark Twain, was frustrated to see two of Twain’s finest works, if not indeed two of the greatest novels from America, not included on reading lists at schools. Some research led him to believe that the only reason for this “ban” was the presence of quite deliberate racial slurs in the text. He took the decision, then, to sanitize the descriptions, replacing a dialect heavy “injun” with “Indian” and the infamous “n” word with “slave”.

Now, there has been a great deal of comment around this already, most of it taking a stand against the changes. My initial reaction was “this is wrong” too, I must admit, but with a touch of thought this might not be the great desecration of literature that some are making it out to be. That’s not to say I propose to defend it entirely.

My overall view would be that if the books have been excluded from schools because of the slurs, it is rather the case that they have been excluded because of bad, lazy teaching. Twain used the words he did for a very good reason; you suspect that he may well have anticipated the words would have been reviled as they are one day and thus he wished to encapsulate a time (and all that was as wrong as it was right with it) and a society which used them freely. If schools are prepared to rather just ban something as important as great works of literature rather than teach them in a way that puts them in context – something that is surely required to educate anyway – then there is something fundamentally wrong with the direction education has taken. You cannot and should not airbrush history. However ugly or uncomfortable, history must be faced.




I am not, however, saying that the changes should not have been made for one particular edition. Whatever my views on this being a case of lazy or poor teaching, the general consensus of society is that, simply, it wishes this word to be removed from as many things as is possible.

The “n” word has become the most reviled word in the English language over the last quarter of a century or so; allowed to be used only by, it seems, rap singers and, for some inexplicable reason, film director Quentin Tarantino. As I recall it was in the infamous O.J. Simpson trial that the phrase “the n word” was coined as a replacement for just saying it when the testimony and evidence of one of the detectives, Mark Fuhrman, were called into question after his, shall we say, “liberal” use of the word was exposed.





If removing this word allows a classic of literature to once again be given to and enjoyed by children then I am inclined to not fight against it. However, it is somewhat questionable that it seems acceptable to just replace the word with another slur in the form of “slave”. I can only presume that this is not deemed to be quite as offensive. At least not yet – watch this space.

The decision made here is not exactly without precedent. Numerous film and TV adaptations of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn have, after all, relayed their adventures to millions without including these words. And there’s another example in the world of literature, lest we forget – Lambs’ Tales From Shakespeare presented heavily sanitized versions of The Bard’s works. I have no idea if this caused a fuss or furore at the time, but it did open up the world of Shakespeare’s magnificent plays to many who otherwise would not have experienced them.





A lot of people have presumed to assume what Mark Twain would have made of these changes. A number of them have sided with a statement he made when a printing press presumed to change the punctuation marks on one his texts; something along the lines of “they should be shot without being given time to pray.”. I wouldn’t have the first clue as to what Mr Twain would have made of it, but I would hope that he would acknowledge something that has been lost in all the fuss around these new versions – that is his original texts shall not be erased entire, that these changes pertain to one version only. For a random example, when The Rolling Stones changed the words to “Let’s Spend The Night Together” to “let’s spend some time together” for an American TV show, the original version of the song didn’t vanish, after all, and the result was that the song was heard by as wide an audience as possible. The rap singers who I mentioned as being the apparent custodians of the word causing so much offence are known to produce “radio friendly” versions of their (ahem) “songs”, omitting this word and indeed several others.





If it’s the case that these two edited versions exist purely for schools and for the more sensitive parent, then I see no reason to stand in the way. The original versions of the books shall remain available, now and presumably forever. With some good fortune exposure to these wonderful stories will encourage yet more generations to discover the sheer joys of literature. A touch of sensitivity-inspired editing is a very, very small price to pay in comparison.

One thing I do take offence to in regards of this whole matter is the comments made about Alan Gribben. Many people have labelled him as “stupid”, “crazy” and several other slurs which question his sanity and intelligence. He is a man with a great passion for literature in general and Mark Twain in specific, and is doing everything he possibly can to expose his works to as wide an audience as possible. One suspects he expected such a backlash but pushed ahead anyway. As far as I can see, looking at the wider picture, he deserves a great deal of credit for his actions, not the widespread vilification he is getting.

Of course, equal to that is the delight I take in the fact that so many people still clearly take literature so seriously and so passionately. Literature is worth fighting for, not about.



as well as being excellent to each other, read!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

watching the wildlife

hey everyone


well, after a month or so of updates pertaining to "just" an astonishing Ashes series and how we've got on over the festive season, how about something of a change of pace?

a rather good friend and wonderful colleague of mine at verk, Anthea, has taken a keen interest in the noble (and handy to show off on the interwebnet) hobby of photography. she is, if i am any sort of judge of this kind of thing, rather good at it too, as this picture of a jackal hopefully helps to show off.





now, i have been wildly enthusiastic of Anthea's hobby and have strived to encourage her. to this end, i have made several suggestions in regards of possible photographic subjects, mostly involving nuns. and bananas. for the most part Anthea is rather diplomatic in opting to not use my suggestions, and it has to be said that what she snaps instead is probably more suitable for a wider audience. like this one, for instance, of some hippopotamuses either playing or possibly fighting.





and indeed this one of a giraffe possibly stalking the photographer!





i am led to believe that Anthea's other half, Keith, might have taken one or both of the next pictures. i'm just waiting for Anthea to stop babbling about vacuum cleaners and get back to me on the correct, clarified credit. in the mean time, then, enjoy the pictures!





quite impressive, i think and i hope you find!!

and nope, no confirmation of who took what whilst i went off, self-sacrificingly, to rid the world of another Marlboro. i think, if it matters, Keith is certainly responsible for the pic below!





well, if i have behaved myself enough with comments in this post Anthea has intimated that she will kindly allow me to share some more here in the not too distant future. there are some absolute crackers of pictures that i have seen, but as they are in some sort of competition i cannot put them up here at this stage.


be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Classic Album - Live At Leeds

the live album in the world of rock tends to have, to say the least, an uncomfortable place. all too often the purpose of a live album tends to be a contract filler or a cheap cash in - see Guns N Roses "Live Era" for clarification of this. very frequently it turns out the album, and here i am thinking of certain releases by the likes of The Rolling Stones and Simple Minds, has been "touched up" in the studio before release, robbing fans of the actual, unaltered sound supposedly captured.

some bands have over the years taken a vocal stance over the seemingly obligatory live release. Morrissey famously allowed a live album from The Smiths to be released on the sole condition that it was called Rank, with the emphasis on rhyming slang. the Manic Street Preachers have vowed never to release one too, seeing them as a con.

every now and then, however, a live album captures what it is supposed to. Frampton Comes Alive! is one of the best examples, a case of the live album sounding and selling better than any studio efforts from Peter Frampton. both The Stranglers' Live (X Cert) and Bruce Springsteen's sprawling Live 75 - 85 are evidence that live albums can be done properly every now and then.

and then, surpassing the three i have mentioned, there is Live At Leeds by The Who.





the origins of the Live At Leeds album are what you would expect of The Who. the band were rather satisfied with the American tour of Tommy in 1969, to the extent that they felt a live document of it would be a worthy release. however, when confronted with hundreds of hours of recordings to go through, the band felt that it might be easier just to go out and do a couple of shows, record them and release the best of them rather than spending weeks locked away pouring over the performances. thus some dates were arranged for February 1970, with Leeds and Hull being marked for recording.





it wasn't quite as simple as perform, take the recording and release it, however. there was a problem with John Entwhistle's bass powerline, which led to a static "click" appearing through most of the tracks. this saw most of the recordings, mindful of the limitations of producing equipment at the time, unusable. it did, however, lead to the infamous comment on the record about the clicks being OK...





...but still left the band with only a 6 track album to release, 3 of which were covers that they had never done studio versions of.

this isn't to say that the original album release (and first edition CD) was a loss, however. the six tracks you do get are the sound of The Who at full throttle, rarely sounding better. for all the debate around who started heavy metal (Cream? Led Zeppelin? Black Sabbath?) there's a case to say the way The Who tore up Young Man Blues on this record gave birth to the rather harder sounding offshoot of rock.

as good as side one of the album is, side two is where you find the treasure. a 15 minute take on My Generation, extended by some interesting bursts of their rock opera, Tommy, is sheer menacing genius. a take on the song that you would think is impossible to follow up, in fact, if this wasn't The Who. whereas Magic Bus in the studio was a quirky, close to novelty thing, on stage it becomes a devastating track, something that once heard you can't un-hear it and appreciate the studio version ever again. when compiling the soundtrack for GoodFellas director Martin Scorsese insisted on using a segment specifically from this recording of the song on the soundtrack.






the design of the album was fascinating for an art-orientated band. after the elegance and extravagance of the Tommy lp packaging, Pete Townshend seemed to go for a deliberate, low-key, almost bootleg look and feel to the album with it being released in a plain brown card cover with a stamp on the front to tell you what it was.

a different story on the inside, however, with some fascinating extras.





included in a pouch with the record (something my Dad still has) are things which surely made the purchase at the time worthwhile. you got copies of their invoice for playing Woodstock (where they famously and wisely insisted on being paid up front), a letter suggesting that the band "wasn't suitable" for a particular ballroom, a bill for damage done at one particular concert, and all sorts of other photographs and correspondence.

whereas this six track version was enough to establish the record in the list of "must own" albums for any serious rock fans, the 90s onwards saw more attention paid to it. following the magnificent 30 Years Of Maximum R & B box set of The Who released in the mid-90s, revamped and expanded versions of all their albums came about. the first expanded edition of Live At Leeds was in itself a revelation.





yes, that's right, nine extra tracks featured on the re-release! apparently "mastering technology" had improved to such an extent that it was possible to address the static clicks which had left much of the Leeds recordings unusable. the band made sure you knew that, if you look at the CD face.





of the nine extra tracks, there are some fascinating revelations. regular opening track Heaven And Hell is here in all its glory - listen away as three musicians and one vocalist battle away for the limelight from the start. the live reading of A Quick One, While He's Away on this version is perhaps second only to the infamous Rolling Stones Rock And Roll Circus recording in terms of the best captured performance of this mini-opera. in terms of their "proper opera", Tommy, audiences were treated to a slice of the performance from Leeds here with the inclusion of Amazing Journey and Sparks.

through some oddity, there was not a proper, full "official" live recording of Tommy available from the era, the closest you could get being the distinctly ho-hum 1989 revival album Join Together. the performance from The Isle Of Wight Festival surfaced as a CD and DVD, but felt bland compared to the hints of Tommy given on this expanded edition. these two excerpts made you wish for more, and indeed more was to follow with a third version of Live At Leeds.





the "deluxe" version of Live At Leeds gives you as full a performance of Tommy as they gave at the time - Sally Simpson was a rarity, and album tracks like Cousin Kevin , Welcome and Underture rarely, if ever, got played on stage. it is a superb record of the band peforming their creative masterpiece from the era when it was created. these days i am usually more inclined to play this version rather than the studio album of Tommy, and believe me i hold the studio version in the highest possible esteem.

to make it an "easier" listening experience the set-list had been changed on this deluxe edition. it's not like The Who came out, did the hits and then did Tommy as a finale or second act, as the order of these discs suggest. Tommy was usually the centrepiece of their set, with a number of tracks before it and after it. how they found the stamina and energy to do over two solid hours of music night after night isn't all that much of a mystery considering their well documented off-stage habits, but remains something to behold and admire.


2010 saw a fourth and, hopefully for the sake of finances, possibly final version of Live At Leeds being released. it should really be called the "everything you could possibly wish to hear" version.





in regards of the content, the first two discs are not all that different from the 2 CD "deluxe" version. some more dialogue from the band has been restored between songs, including it has to be said a very annoying explaination of A Quick One by Pete that lasts nearly as long as the song itself!

the last two discs are the winner for this set. they feature, with a track listed shuffled like Live At Leeds, the previously discarded Live At Hull recording. it seems that Who fans in Hull didn't get to hear Magic Bus, beyond that the tracklisting is the same as Leeds.

comparing the Hull and Leeds gigs is an interesting thing to do. performance-wise, there's very, very little difference - except to state quite clearly that the recording of My Generation from Hull features possibly the greatest ever performance of this song by Roger Daltrey that i have ever heard. all the technology in the world, however, seems unable to mask or fix the fact that the Hull gig, for whatever reason, is a noticably weaker recording than Leeds. just as well, really - as many good friends as i have in or from Hull, well, Live At Hull just doesn't sound as legendary rock and roll as Live At Leeds, does it?

believe it or not, four different versions of the album is not quite where the Live At Leeds story ends. the recent, brilliant documentary on The Who, Amazing Journey, revealed actual footage from this celebrated gig.





whether or not there is enough quality footage from the gig entire to justify a DVD release remains to be seen. i certainly haven't even seen a bootleg of the footage floating around, so it remains to be seen if whoever provided the snippets seen in the documentary has any more. beyond that, though, bar releasing yet another version only having the discs run exactly as the concert did, it could be that the album has, with a perhaps generous but for fans necessary four versions, been released as often as it is ever going to be.

so just how and why is Live At Leeds so significant? beyond the comments made here, a lot of the reason this live album works so well and so many others fail lies in the methods of making music adopted by The Who. as Pete Townshend has observed in a number of interviews, most bands at the time were attempting to emulate the studio sound on stage - notably The Beatles, who subsequently just gave up on live performing as a result. it was different for The Who, as they sought to capture the dynamics, energy and spontaneity of a stage performance in the studio. this album stands out as an example of why Townshend, Daltrey, Moon and Entwhistle were right to try and do it that way round.

in researching this post, i discovered by chance that the English Heritage Association seem to hold the album in as much high esteem as i do. very few recording studios get "heritage" status awarded to them, let alone venues on the basis of one particular concert. the city of Leeds can boast such an honour!





it would be pretty safe to say that any rock band truly worth their salt has had this album cross their mind when they have booked a date to play a gig in the fine city of Leeds. Live At Leeds sets a very, very high benchmark for what a live album should sound like, and it is a benchmark that so very few have been able to get near. i would argue that this album is as essential as their two greatest studio works, Who's Next and Tommy, and should belong in the record collection of every serious music fan.

if you haven't heard the album and seek it out after reading this, happy listening!



be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!