If The Beatles Performed Live After 1966?

Probably same as the Beach Boys around Pet Sounds. The majority of the set would have just been the same oldies.

I think even if they had played live in 1967 it would have probably been the same structure of 30 minute sets with maybe 1 from Pepper. I mean they could have put on a pretty amazing show in 1966 but still stuck to the same old routine.

 

John would have been on the road so much he would have drifted from Yoko

 

You're dreaming

 

I'm seen some cover bands doing quite good covers of later material with a 4 set or 5 set band ; don't think that would've be a problem for them.

The Beatles are not the only band that used multiple tracks on albums, you know .... its actually pretty common. Sometimes playing with a more simple setup gives a rock-ish feel that is often welcome.

 

Has anyone ever watched this? My dream 1967 tour by the Beatles would be more or less like this, but with PL+SFF in the setlist too. Lots of backing musicians, too, so probably not that achievable.

 

The rock audience was changing at that time. Would there still be screaming girls through the whole thing, or a respectful audience listening to the music? If the audience had indeed matured, would they debut new music and try new songs out on stage? Would they jam out some tunes, like a 20 minute Mr. Kite Psych jam?

 

John's two live performances with the Plastic Ono Band in 1969 (the second one with George in tow) give us some clues as to how he, at least, might have envisaged a live Beatles concert at that time: a couple of new songs, one 'recent' Beatles song, and a whole bunch of rockers, most covered by the Beatles in their early days.

 

I bet they'd still have done Baby's in Black!