Are criticisms of the Beatles as a Live Band overblown?

The first performance of Get Back in the movie is an edit of two takes. Everything else is 'as it happened' but the visuals don't always match the sound dur to 'artistic licence' - it's a movie, not a live broadcast.
On the Let it Be album, Get Back is the studio take with a few seconds from the final rooftop version edited onto the end. Dig a Pony has a bar edited out of the intro and the outro 'All I Want is...'
On 'Naked', Don't Let Me Down has a line edited in from take 2 but is mainly take 1, and I've Got a Feeling is half take 1, half take 2.
And that's it. There is no overdubbing in the movie or the album, just composite editing, but editing between live takes is not the same as overdubbing in any respect.

 

If it annoys people you might try emphasising with the other tools available like italics, underlining, underlining italics, bolding, bolding italics, or to really emphasise, underlined bolded italics!

 

Or even underlined bolded italics in red type !

 

Or, for 'improved clarity' green type. (Remember the Pete Best stuff???)

 

I don't know whether criticism of The Beatles as a live band are overblown or not but they seem rather pointless. They weren't a live band for most of their career and their early concerts could barely be heard over the orgasmic screams of teenaged girls.

The Beatles probably weren't very good electricians either.

 

But they knew a good TV repairman:



John Dunbar discussing Magic Alex: “He was quite cunning in the way he pitched his thing. He knew enough to know how to wind people up and to what extent. He was a f**king TV repairman: Yanni Mardas, none of this ‘Magic Alex’ s-h-*-t!”

 

The Beatles were a live band from 1957 to 1966, that's nine years. They weren't a live band from September 1966 to August 1969. I make that the majority of their career they WERE a live band.
Even if you only count John Paul George and Ringo as The Beatles, their live career was August 1962 to August 1966, four years. Their 'studio only' career was November 1966 to August 1969, 2 years, 9 months.

 

On the whole, I think yes, they are. Their ability to be a great live act -- evidenced and documented many times -- was always there. Their changing personal and professional situations over time, however, often negated the desire to tap those abilities.

 

Next thread: "Are cynical Hoffmanites too negative about overblown criticism of Beatle's live performances?"

 

Once Beatlemania started most of the people who went to the shows were going to the event and to "see" the Beatles; the shows were appearances much more than concerts. The fans who went didn't think it was a ripoff - I know because I remember talking to people who saw them.

The Beatles did care about the quality of their shows and after the '66 tour gave up live appearances - b/c they said it was pointless when the audience couldn't hear them, they couldn't hear themselves, and the audience didn't care. You can't look at it from the perspective of today - no stage monitors, no proper PA (the Shea Stadium concert was played through those tinny stadium announcer speakers, not a concert setup).

 

Epstein did have them tighten the length of their sets - outside the Cavern, at least - having them rope it into a professional format, more or less, I believe, as early as 1962. They began getting paid for a set amount of playing time: an hour, or perhaps two 45-minute sets (if the info in Tune In is accurate).

Not sure what the contractual stipulations were (if any) that reduced their stage show to 30 min. as headliners in 1963 (the 30 min. length that their set would stay till the end of their touring days). The playing of two shows a day may have been part of it for those type of tours. Maybe the traditional headlining spot was a '30 min. spot', so it stuck. And it could have been that the old 'leave them wanting more' showbiz mantra was built-in to that.

Were the continued 30-min spots stated in the concert contracts from there on out through '66? Could be.

Martin did try to push 'How Do You Do It' on them, which might have ruined everything! Luckily, they weren't having it.

 

Thank you for going to the trouble. I wish they would of edited out the "All I want is you" intro out of every version of IDAP. I suppose with multiple performances of the tunes played on the rooftop, they probably didn't have additional songs they intended to perform, before it was shut down. Is there any solid knowledge on this?

 

No. While John's lap steel and Vox Continental organ and Paul's acoustic were on the rooftop, they never attempted Two Of Us, All Things Must Pass or For You Blue, the songs suggested by those instruments. It's possible Mal just brought up everything but also possible, even likely, that The Beatles didn't finalize exactly what they would do until the last minute. Finally, it could have been an outside chance that they might have thought of doing I'm Down (or Long Tall Sally) too.

 

I like the idea of bolded caps, that seems to be an even better choice, that would really bring out the emphasis!
The other choices, annoy me!

 

A lot of the most influential pioneering bands of all time got criticized, (many a lot worse then the Beatles) making for criticizing them now seem even more non important after the statement and legacy the bands leave behind

 

The Beatles were a very good live band
Examples (a few)
Ed Sullivan Show
Washington DC 1964

 

I'd add...
Blackpool
Australia
NME Poll winners - both 64 and 65
Hollywood Bowl
Swedon
All of these are absolutely excellent live performances by the Beatles!

 

They were not very tight, but I'm sure it was hard to listen to the music with all the shouting and their little amps. That being said, I like bands that are not super tight live, so I really enjoy their live performances I've managed to have listened or watched. It's not that they are falling apart, but just not that tight, just a little loose. Rawer that their studio recordings, which I find very cool and interesting.

 

IMO outside of some of the 66 stuff and the rooftop show, previously they were usually damn tight. That's not to say the 66 stuff and rooftop gig aren't enjoyable.

 

I totally agree!

The Beatles were very tight, all those hours in Hamburg made them super tight, that's why when they returned to Liverpool and played the Cavern, they blew those crowds minds with their vastly improved playing and performance!

 

I haven't seen eight days a week yet. .but I'd say the Australia show in 64..palais de sportes in 1965 are pretty good shows..their last ed sullivan show in 65 is good too. The 66 stuff is pretty ragged but the german performances show a pretty good level of playing on macca'so part in particular. They were a good band. They didn't rehearse, they didn't have the technical niceties, and they weren't into the live thing at this point but they were quite good. I wonder if they hadn't been totally falling apart in 68 or 69 if an appearance at Rock and roll circus or the Toronto peace festival or an appearance at a London theater for get back might have added to their live legacy!