Are criticisms of the Beatles as a Live Band overblown?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by JABEE, Jan 11, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. the pope ondine

    the pope ondine Forum Resident

    Location:
    Virginia
    tbh that ones pretty ragged as well

    that's true, if theyd toured in 68 or even 67 I think it might've been different
     
  2. stereoguy

    stereoguy Its Gotta Be True Stereo!

    Location:
    NYC


    Well, for whatever its worth, MANY early fans of The Beatles made this statement:
    'If You Didnt See The Beatles in Hamburg, You Havent Seen The Beatles". Brian definitely neutered them somewhat.
     
    ODIrony likes this.
  3. john morris

    john morris Everybody's Favorite Quadron

    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    The Beatles were a great live band. I would say better than most. But how is any band to be any good if they CAN'T HEAR THEMSELVES PLAY. The Beatles were great up until that point where the show was drowned out by teenage girls screaming (including my Grade 9 history teacher).
     
    ODIrony likes this.
  4. john morris

    john morris Everybody's Favorite Quadron

    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    What?!....The rooftop show has overdubs! Thanks (no really) how much worse can my day get?
     
  5. john morris

    john morris Everybody's Favorite Quadron

    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    Good point. And heh....I can't argue with a man who motor is completely decoupled from the platter.
     
  6. john morris

    john morris Everybody's Favorite Quadron

    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario

    Some years ago I picked up a Euro DVD, The Beatles In Japan. It's not available anymore I don't think. It will play anywhere, Region 0. Nothing edited here - they gave you all the footage that they had: Both full afternoon and evening shows, news coverage of the Beatle Protest (cops grabbing signs out of protesters hands.), and the full press conference. I think it's 90 minutes and all.

    It fun to watch but...The Beatles play and sing so bad. But this was 1966. Get the DVD if you can. It's a must.
     
    goodiesguy and BDC like this.
  7. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    F' the critics...as usual they don't know what they're talking about...: )
    The Beatles were great live...try performing on stage with NO MONITORS, a crappy sound system, and a gazillion screaming fans..you gotta hear your self...
     
  8. While I agree with a lot of what you're saying here, I have to take exception with the bit about 'by 1973, the only thing saving their live shows from being overly bloated was Mick Taylor'...

    Have you by any chance seen the Ladies and Gentlemen concert document of the '72 tour, heard any of several widely circulated boots from that tour, or checked out the more recent Brussels Affair release from the '73 tour? As much as I love the original Jones-era Stones live, I would have to say that the band hit its absolute peak as a live act during this period, playing with a tightness and energy that I don't think the Beatles could have matched under any circumstances. And it was all the better because Mick laid back a bit from his over-the-top stage antics and allowed the band to have more of the focus for a change, while still delivering possibly his best live vocals ever. Just incredible stuff.

    I will allow that the 'bloat' had definitely set in by the '75 tour a couple years later, though they've still had their moments from time to time over the years.
     
    blutiga likes this.
  9. Helter Skelter

    Helter Skelter Forum Resident

    When you hear audio of them playing at the Star-Club in '62 it's just the greatest ever.
     
    ODIrony likes this.
  10. notesfrom

    notesfrom Forum Resident

    Location:
    NC USA
    Plenty of nice post-fame Beatles concert recordings floating around, all told. (Though it sure would be nice to have any of the 1964-1965 UK concerts, other than NME and TV shows). Play these loud and get what the fuss was all about.

    Empire Theare 1963
    Washington DC 1964
    Australia 1964
    Indianapolis 1964
    Philadelphia 1964
    Vancouver 1964
    Paris 1965 - Afternoon performance.
    Atlanta 1965
    Houston 1965
    Candlestick Park 1966
     
    Paulwalrus likes this.
  11. CoryS

    CoryS Forum Resident

    Listening to the Beatles Anthology Revisited gave me a much better appreciation of their "peak" live performing days, BEFORE they arrived in America. Not just the Hamburg days, which are largley undocumented, but during the run up through the UK Beatlemania the band still seemed very engaged in putting forth their best live performances.

    And short of being there to witness it, I certainly got the impression that they were indeed the top live act on the scene at the time.

    It seems to me that everything after became more about the the phenominon and hysteria of what Beatlemania had become than the musical performance.
     
    Paulwalrus likes this.
  12. BDC

    BDC Forum Resident

    Location:
    Tacoma
    I think I have that, at least the 2 shows. I've downloaded probably near everything unofficial in video that circulates on the torrent sites, all burnt do DVD and dumped from hard drive. The DVD you mention is most certainly unofficial. I seem to remember most of it being decent outside "If I needed someone"/"Paperback writer"/"Nowhere man"/ could be off though on the latter, Circus Krone "Nowhere man" is pretty good. I could see various factors at play-(Amps cranked because PA's didn't do that job in those day, making it hard to hear vocals through the mains. Crowd noise wouldn't of been too much issue with polite Japan audiences/Jet lag from long trip to the pacific/and keeping it real, possible rehearsal issues. They should of had actual practice in Japan, and I'm pretty sure they didn't.
    Yep particularly since nobody will ever again attend a Beatles concert.
     
  13. RRRRRRRRIIIIIIINNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGOOOOOO
     
    blutiga likes this.
  14. blutiga

    blutiga Forum Resident

    And more RIIIIINNNNGGOOOO!!!!
     
    Paulwalrus likes this.
  15. alexpop

    alexpop Power pop + other bad habits....

    Didn't Keith Richards comment on them as a live band, as not being good/corny ?
     
    ODIrony likes this.
  16. alexpop

    alexpop Power pop + other bad habits....

    Think they looked cool / great musical chops live Saville Row /rooftop.
     
    maywitch and blutiga like this.
  17. blutiga

    blutiga Forum Resident

    Lennon would have been amazing live in the late sixties/early seventies if he wanted to front a fully charged Beatles. Toronto and Rock N Roll Circus show what an intense live performer he was around that time.
     
    Paulwalrus, notesfrom and alexpop like this.
  18. bob60

    bob60 Forum Resident

    Location:
    London UK
    For most of their live career they their audience was mainly young screaming girls, I imagine it was difficult to hear how well they were playing on stage. Just the same when you see clips of David Cassidy a few years later, it is just a hysterical screaming noise teenyboppers enjoying themselves..
     
    blutiga likes this.
  19. nikh33

    nikh33 Senior Member

    Location:
    Liverpool, England
    I see this stated as fact so often but it's not true. The Beatles varied their sets more than any other live act, even in 1964-66. Of the 12 songs they played in their first concert in the US in Feb 64, only two were in their set at their last concert in Aug 66, and both had been left out for long stretches. I Wanna Be Your Man was played in early 1964 but by June they'd switched back to Boys. In November-December 64 they did Honey Don't instead and in August-December 65 they alternated Act Naturally and I Wanna Be Your Man. Long Tall Sally was their usual closing number between February and December 1964 but they swapped it for I'm Down in August 1965 until August 1966 when Long Tall Sally was reintroduced (though John did try to get Paul to sing it at the Munich show in June).
    The oldest Beatles tracks in their repertoire at Candlestick Park in August 1966 was I Wanna Be Your Man, released November 1963, Long Tall Sally, released April 1964. None of the other songs were more than 20 months old, and two had been released in the US just two months earlier. Their biggest hit, I Want to Hold Your Hand, was retired from their act in September 1964, ten months after release.
     
  20. john morris

    john morris Everybody's Favorite Quadron

    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    Yes, I agree...F#$!@ the critics!
     
    Paulwalrus and Michael like this.
  21. john morris

    john morris Everybody's Favorite Quadron

    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    I love the Stones but I am Sick and tired of Kieth Richard's stupid comments:

    Like, "I never got Led Zeppelin..."
    Or the infamous, "Sgt. Pepper wasn't a good album...."
     
    YardByrd and andy749 like this.
  22. CrombyMouse

    CrombyMouse Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vienna, Austria
    I think that The Beatles were in their "live prime" during relatively early of period of their history. Most band from 1960s did not even exist when Beatles were playing their 100, 200 show.

    According to numerous sources they had extremely severe schedule in Hamburg which certainly laid confidence as live musicians.

    Late in middle 60s as we all know they experienced huge problems while playing live struggling to hear their instruments amidst the crowd noise. In a way there were ahead of their time - composing complex music without possibility to play it live.

    They mostly did not use any studio musicians during 1962-1966 (when they were still touring). Since recording back then was mostly was live, this means they were professionals.
     
    Paulwalrus likes this.
  23. Regandron

    Regandron Forum Resident

    Watching the clips of Twist and Shout and Long Tall Sally above, anyone saying that the Beatles were not exciting because they didn't have a frontman is talking nonsense. Looks pretty damned exciting to me....
     
    Paulwalrus and D.B. like this.
  24. Tristero

    Tristero In possession of the future tense

    Location:
    MI
    It goes without saying that rigors of Beatlemania prevented them from really developing as a live band, so it's hard to know how they might have sounded under more ordinary circumstances, but I've never been blown away by their live performances in any way. Maybe some of this has to do with the fact that I tend to prefer some of the more sophisticated stuff from them that would have been difficult to pull off in concert back then. It also has to do with the manner in which they present themselves--clean cut, polite, eager to please--whereas a band like the Stones had a little more of a feral edge to them. Also, Paul's pre-song announcements were always stiff and drab. When the audiences cheer wildly no matter what you do, it's only natural that this might sap a band's hunger to excel on stage. Oh well, you can't have everything--they were the consummate studio band.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018
    jay.dee likes this.
  25. andy749

    andy749 Senior Member

    Listen to the BBC stuff. They rocked live like nobody's business. Better or every bit as good as the Stones. They were tight! Imagine in '63/'64 if they would've had 1969 amps/equipment...they could've blown Humble Pie off the stage. Slamming them for not being a good live band during the height of Beatlemania is silly. Not fair in a way. The screaming girls, no monitors, etc I think it was more of an exhibition of the Beatles often times more than real live performances. Yeah they were probably going through the motions at times.

    The rooftop performance is pretty wonderful considering how long it had been since they played live and the conditions they were under.

    Keith Richards, Lou Reed, Pete Townsend, Ray Davies, I've read fairly nasty critical comments by these guys about the Beatles before and sounds to me like some kind of jealousy plain and simple.
     
    john morris and AJK74 like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine