Are criticisms of the Beatles as a Live Band overblown?

Their concert sets were hardly inspiring. I certainly think they could have been very good had they applied themselves.
But the evidence as is, they weren't as epic as u2, Springsteen or even the Who or Stones became.
The Rooftop concert shows what could have been. Frankly I'm happy they applied themselves to the albums.

 

Yes.
Because they were never able to grow into it and develop the live act because of the ridiculous hysteria of those attending.
I'm a live music guy, and I think about all the lost great moments that could have been....if the audience had only controlled itself.

 

I didn't say the Beatles lacked energy at all.

They were both great in their own ways, and both energetic in their own ways .

As far as Brian and Keith being more energetic than the Beatles that was totally untrue in the shows I saw .
Brian stood there smirking and looking "Brian Cool" and Keith certainly didn't move much , as opposed to Paul who bounced all over the place.

That being said, as I mentioned already , I loved both shows and both bands so I don't really want to knock either band.


The one advantage I may have here is that I actually saw both bands live in 1966, so I can speak from personal experience .
As the cliche goes , you hadda be there.

 

One interesting observation from hours of Nagra tapes is that their impromptu attempts at Beatle oldies were too loose, though interesting (see Love Me Do). Their actual covers were loose but a few were very good. If they did a few older Beatle classics in the somewhat rehearsed vein of One After 909, it would have been fantastic to have for the record on video/multi-track tape. I do hope there is video footage of "tracked" Abbey Road tunes, most specifically She Came in Through the Bathroom Window and Oh Darling.

 

Yes.

 

As I said, I don't disagree with you about who's the better live performer in 1966.
And I don't want this to turn into a Beatles vs Stones thread...which it already somewhat has become.
I get that you like the more punk-like bands in a live performance and the Stones played to that.
Different strokes for different folks.

I believe there is ample evidence that The Beatles were very good as a live band, especially in 1963, 64 and probably much of 1965 (the BBC, Hollywood Bowl and Shea Stadium recordings are testament to that). I don't think anyone is questioning that they slipped dramatically in 1966 because they grew tired of it. Admittedly, they were not very good at on-stage animation (Paul still isn't) and they really weren't a jam-type band that could just take off and improvise on stage.

As for them cheating the fans by not giving it their all - well, contractually Brian had committed them to the performances. Remember that John wanted to cancel the concerts after the JC statements and Brian told him it would cost them $1 million or more (likely in lawsuits). And as Ringo later said, people came to their concerts to see the band, not really to hear them. And George said that they were more like "political gatherings" than concerts.

 

I don’t disagree about phoning it in being a rip off. For me, you’re either all in or you’re out and their half-assing the ‘66 shows was embarrassing and awful for the fans who came to hear how great they actually could be.

I don’t agree with your contention that the lack of a frontman was a weakness in any way for them live. Lennon and McCartney’s vocals with significant help from Harrison and their overall musical ballsiness as a unit made them a fantastic live act when they were out to prove something.

 

Always wondered about Lennon and the Beatles were at their best in Hamburg..... With Pete Best on drums????
Reading Tune In made me aware how rarely Ringo played there with them.

 

And, let's not forget that the Beatles often had to play without being able to hear themselves [or anyone else].

They would often be playing based on the visual cues of where they were in the song [heads bobbing, etc] especially in '64 & '65. It's a wonder there aren't more tapes of them singing off key or playing off time...

 

I’ve never heard anything live from their touring years that I wouldn’t rather hear in studio form. I do really like what I’ve heard from the rooftop concert though. Aside from a couple vocal flubs, those are some really solid performances.

 

That’s because they’re in color.

 

It's curious how Lennon was an astute observer (listener) of other bands, but full of hyperbole and misinformation about his own band. Here's an example: Someone gave him an early vinyl bootleg copy of their Stockholm '63 show (terrific, btw) but told him it was the Decca audition (not so terrific). Much of his braggadocio about the early live Beatles was likely based on that bootleg. It's very surprising that he didn't know the difference.

 

To me, live music evolved over the 60s almost as much as recorded music, and various artists were at different stages of their 'evolution' any given year.

So to compare a 1965 Beatles concert to a 1965 Stones concert for example doesn't make much more sense than comparing Rubber Soul to Out Of Our Heads. (Love both bands equally by the way.)

In 65 The Stones were playing fast paced exciting shows of mostly cover songs played in near double time... the same phase The Beatles had already gone through in the early 60s. By 65 The Beatles were trying to recreate the sound and arrangements of their mostly original songs on stage as originally heard on record, at normal tempo...a phase The Stones would move to in the late 60s.

Things moved so fast in the 60s that I think you have to compare bands at similar phases in their development, not what they were doing in the same year, whether in the studio or on stage.

Mark

 

Roof top performance has overdubs, as does the commonly circulating 65 Shea.
That said, there's a lot of great performance footage without overdubs.

 

But it doesn't touch them in 64

 

Rooftop does not have overdubs. Some songs do edit together two takes.

Best live audio of Beatles other than Rooftop (excluding live for radio or TV) is recent Hollywood Bowl reissue.

 

I was actually wondering this.

 

It's tough enough when you can't hear the guy standing a few feet away from you, and when the audience can't hear you...how hard are ya gonna try? In spite of all that, The Beatles pulled off some pretty damn good live performances probably running on adrenaline and muscle memory. (Prellies and herbal jazz cigarettes notwithstanding.) I like the attitude of @Glenn Christense: The Beatles & The Stones were pretty freakin' great, sort of apples and oranges to compare their respective live performances.

 

Ok editing together two takes. kind of the same thing...Nevertheless edited. I'm not trying to win any arguments here, just keeping it real. Nor do I consider the circulating footage Illigit......
The Beatles are my fav all time, Stones #2. I consider the Beatles better in almost every way, and absolutely love the Stones. Nobody is gonna change anybody's mind here, and I'm not about to let somebody with a different opinion than mine piss me off. I respectfully disagree with Leo. We can agree to disagree. I'm on the fence about the Beatles phoning it in in 66. I like the 66 Krone footage Leo posted, and respect the fact that he didn't post 66 Japan Paperback Writer to beat the point to death.

Stones Hyde park is hideous, but IMO that takes nothing away from them being a great band, WGAF. A lot of people think Altamont is bad...I don't, outside of the tragedy. The film "Sympathy for the devil" shows the Stones struggling to get together the most simple thing. In the end the result is great and props to them for that.

I love Hollywood bowl, and the new one (which I have) did nothing to further convince me, nor Howards film. My favorite Hollywood bowl is my B&W boot that shows all or near all of it(multiple performances), warts and all. The official HB is quite edited, BFD........

My heros, both bands, but not omnipotent, I don't mind at all being iconoclastic...

 

I don't think either take on its own is any worse a performance than the edited version, they just have some lyric flubs. The complete takes are available and are all compelling.

 

I agree with Lennon. The Beatles sound like they were probably a great band on the Hamburg Tapes. I think they could have been great in the late 60’s, but we’ll never know.

 

I don't blame the Beatles for giving up touring and packing it in. I love music and playing guitar when in the mood, but don't care too much for travel, and wouldn't like waking up in a strange place, playing for a bunch of screaming yayhoos, most of whom don't get it. It took me a while to realize this, I like sleeping in my own bed. I found playing locally in bands sometimes playing my worst, was at times when most appreciated. Now this probably doesn't apply for the most part with the discerning listeners of the Steve Hoffman forum, but outside that it very much does. The road and professional musicianship isn't for everybody. That and I came to the conclusion I'm not as good as I used to think I was, but still play and write,

 

I'm sorry I didn't know there were a lot of criticisms of the Beatles as a live band. LOL I missed that. Admittedly they couldn't hear themselves and as a result basically rushed through most of their shows during the height of Beatlemania but seems to me whenever they very fact that they were so good on the rooftop shows they were a really good live band. And even during Beatlemania there are still plenty of examples of them killing it live.

 

They were actually pretty damn good. You try performing in front of a roar so loud you could not hear yourself. With no monitors and woefully inadequate amplifiers they performed their sets by rote, relying on Ringo's drums to keep them from going raggedy Andy. Thats why their set varied so little between 64-66. Little wonder Lennon thought they were better in Hamburg, the Star Club was a much smaller venue and they could hear what they were doing. There was no "mania" roar, just an appreciative crowd of drunks and hookers.

 

In my mind, there were 2 Beatles bands.... Pre Sgt Pepper and post. The pre band had their best days BEFORE they couldn't hear themselves play and the band that gave up touring and became the best studio band ever. I think talking about their live prowess is pointless.