It's quite fascinating seeing interviews of people that were at Woodstock and hearing their views. Few thought of it as legendary at all. Some like Pete Townshend didn't even want to play it. Chick Churchill and Leo Lyons of TYA said it was just another festival date and they moved on to the next gig. I think they were more excited to be in dreamland America, the Mecca for many English guys of that generation, than Woodstock specifically.
When you hear 45 years later of the people that didn't want to play it or weren't there like Joni Mitchell {Free, the Doors, Jethro Tull, Led Zeppelin, Procul Harum, the Byrds, Love, the Mothers of Invention, even Mind Garage !} or those like CSN or Mountain that were relatively new outfits getting road tested, it takes on a dramatic hue but it didn't feel like that in 1969........
I tend to take the contrasting view from you in that for me the studio recording is generally more interesting than the live one
I'm pretty much the same way......unless the live recording is the one I heard first. I think it's the one I've heard first and has insinuated itself into my consciousness that gets my vote.
(particularly when you're watching a recording of a live performance rather than being there)
If there's one conclusion I've come to, it's this-¬> that being at a gig is infinitely superior to watching a recording of it or even listening to a recording of it if I was there. For the very reason that you are totally in the moment. And one moment moves directly to the next without you even thinking about or being aware of it. There's no chance for analysis, repetition or hindsight. You take it purely on face value and you either dig it or you don't but you can't hate it then years later conclude that you liked it really.