Yes I have heard those before, but it has been years. Back in the mid 80's, a friend of mind dad had several boots of Zeppelin and we'd listen to them on turntable. his dad was a Zeppelin fanatic. Had at least a dozen different boots from them.That guy had an impressive collection of bootlegs from many other bands too. I know I've heard that version in Brussels before, but I'd forgotten it. Likely because of the poor quality. The one's from Japan sound familiar too, but I'm not sure. It has been a very long time though. Ah memories... Never been a fan of non-soundboard quality though. I know it is what it is, but for all bands, regardless who they are... meh. Rather listen to soundboard recordings. I meant a soundboard quality of When The Levee Breaks. Is there such a thing? I'd love to hear it! As for smashing their equipment, it was part of their shtick pandering to working class geezers in London during the 60's. Pete Townshend,a pretentious art student at the time, claims it was an expression based on the "auto-destructive art" of Gustav Metzger. Doesn't explain Moon the Loon though. Whatever, it was a gimmick that helped push the band. It's usefulness was largely over by the 70's and rarely done from then on and the mostly out of frustration and rage. I do know that Townshend had nine custom Les Paul's that he used in the 70's and he only smashed one out of rage, as he was notorious for his nasty temperament onstage. The rest he still owns or are in someone else possession. I read an article where he stated he only regrets breaking that one guitar out of the dozens he destroyed because how good a guitar it was in beauty and tone. He may be crazy, but he isn't stupid.

I have heard the 71 LA Forum show but not the 71 Japan one, I should definitely check that one out. In any case, audio only both bands are to me a push live. Led Zeppelin is far more improvisational and expressive, while The Who seems a little more more focused and tight... except for Keith Moon who's all over the place yet still on beat. To me The Who was just visually more exciting and that's why I like them more live. They were a bunch of raving lunatics on stage: smashing equipment, screaming at each other and the audience, beating and blowing themselves up and so forth. Just more to my taste visually, hence my stance on this and my regret not seeing them live at their peak. Saw them in 2000 before Entwhsitle died and while still good, they were far past their prime and it just ain't The Who without Moon to me. Led Zeppelin's music was so complicated in studio and meticulously produced by Page that it was very difficult to recreate some of it live. My favorite song by them all time, When The Levee Breaks, was to my knowledge never played live and that likely factors into my thinking on this.

The Who's Greatest Hits, in its myriad of various releases, are all travesties. The Who released singles in the 60's which greatly differed from the album concept they took in the 70's. Their best stuff, like many other artists, is deep cuts. Songs like Sea and Sand about being thrown out of your home by drunken parents and fearing you'll become like them is certainly not a joke. Anyway, I feel I'm being trapped into a corner of being an apologist for The Who versus Led Zeppelin, when I freely admit Led Zeppelin was better. In studio it's embarrasing how much better Led Zeppelin is. My only contention is that The Who have many times been called the greatest live band in the world and there was a reason for it. I just don't understand why both can't be appreciated and respected instead of Led Zeppelin fans constantly slag The Who? Don't bother comparing and judging them against each other just enjoy the music of both.

Of course I've seen those, I've been a LZ fan for over 30 years. There is no reason to get hostile or insultatory. I belive Led Zeppelin is the better overall band, but I still think The Who was better live. Sorry our difference on this annoys you.

I've always loved this debate, though I do think it's comparing apples to oranges. My two favorite bands of all time are Led Zeppelin and The Who, in that order and have loved both since I was a young teen. I readily admit that Led Zeppelin is the better band, but it is a lot closer than most Led Zeppelin syncophants admit too. Led Zepplein easily wins over The Who with it's non-live recorded material. Jimmy Page was an amazing producer and every Led Zeppelin album sounds phenomonal, even towards the end of the carrer when Plant's voice wasn't as good and their songs were substandard compared the their brilliant first four albums. The Who were plagued with shoddy production of their albums from the get go and only really figured out how to record well towards the end of their original career when Pete had already written their best songs and wanted out, Keith Moon was badly out of shape or dead, and the band was just grinding on past their prime. However, as a live band there really is no comparison: The Who was better when they were both in their prime. The difference is even more obvious when they are viewed visually. To be fair to Led Zeppelin, there isn't as much good footage of them playing as The Who back in the day. The Who made their career of playing live, and people in the know who saw them in the hayday circa '68-'76 almost always say the were killing it all times. Sadly I'm too young to have seen either band in their prime, and feel pity for the pathetic sham of "The Who" that is just too tired and too old destroying their reputation as a live band. Led Zeppelin had the good grace to admit is was over and not tarnish their legacy like Pete and Roger are doing. Even when they felt they had played poorly, hated the gig and venue, and were stoned out of their minds on LSD from having their drinks spiked, The Who played like this at Woodstock: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdaHT6cGv2U