Ron Howard's Beatles Documentary Feature Film About The Band's Touring Years, "Eight Days a Week"*

Apparently the screaming never stopped at their live shows once the whole phenomenon started. I saw some video of them walking out to the stage at Candlestick Park in 1966 and there was already screaming like it was 1964! I was a bit taken aback by that. It still so intense. Pretty amazing when you think about it.

 

The screaming only stopped briefly in '66 when they played in Japan and, while it's quite sloppy from not being able to hear themselves while playing live for 3 years, it has some charm. Later, as bad as the "Get Back" rehearsals were, they still sounded pretty darn tight when they had to, like during the last 2 days of shooting.

 

Never doubt the ability of this forum to discuss McCartney to death; just remember the 'New' thread, which was never ending.

 

This shows, in true youtube doc style, the pressure and changes they went through in having to deal with touring. This project could have become quite the psychological piece, to really get a feel for what they went through. I am sure the orgies and the stress of the secret city to city Brain Epstein's trysts will not even be mentioned. Also, I am sure they felt like it was to much adulation in the most extreme way, and only being removed from WWII by 20 years and knowing full well the history of Germany, probably also felt some of their appearances resembled German WWII era rallies, They would slip in thinly veiled "heil salutes" occasionally to deal with it.

Look at the segment starting at 6:37. They look alternately bemused and uncomfortable. At the end, around 8:38 John goes into his spastic faces as an sub-concious self defense coping mechanism.

 

I can't say that I agree with this at all. When compared with their extraordinary studio output, I've never viewed the Beatles as being a truly outstanding live act. Maybe some of this wasn't their fault, trying to hear themselves over the deafening roar of the crowd, so they didn't really get the chance to develop in the same way as their peers. While they had loads of charm, they didn't have the same kind of technical chops and power as the Who. This is one part of the Beatles' resume where they fell a little short, IMO. I'll go put on my flame retardant now!

 

While I agree with what you've posted, perhaps @maccafan is referring to a time before they were famous.

 

They probably had more fire in their performances earlier on, but unfortunately, in terms of their material, I'm more interested in the mid to late period, which would have been much more difficult to execute live back in those days.

 

I presume that the Beatles LIVE prime would be 1961-1963 when they were playing full sets in Hamburg, the Cavern, and all the ballrooms in England. As detailed by Lewisohn, they put in 1000s of hours onstage. No other band in England was even close to matching those astronomical number of hours. However, once they started doing 30-minute gigs in larger and larger places, they no longer improved as a better live band. They probably held steady as a live band in 1964 and 1965 (the Washington DC gig in 1964 in particular shows how spectacular they could be even in a 30-minute setting), but they couldn't improve with the limited sound equipment and stadium-size audiences. Their 1966 shows were a drop in quality because they were worn out by Beatlemania by that time.

 

The 1966 shows are probably getting a bummer rap than they might deserve, overall. While the German and Japanese shows are sketchy, playing-wise, and vocally, the US shows I've heard show some tightness to them and they seem to be in tune better by then.

The two Memphis shows are listenable enough, and while the recording quality isn't the greatest, one can hear therein a raging live band lurking within these audience recordings. Candlestick is good also.

 

Oh yeah!!

 

Yes, that is interesting, pretty sure he plays the 123 string on the record?

 

I personally think that the Beatles were a truly great, powerful live act, especially before they got tired of performing 30 minutes sets where they couldn't even hear themselves play, although I can see why they shouldn't be compared to the looser, bluesier Stones or the incredibly powerful hard rocking Who.

If you are interested in hearing some of their greatest live performances, then you may enjoy this thread I started a couple of years ago:

Best Beatles Live Performances Of Each Song That They Played Live? »

Some of the links are dead unfortunately, but many are still working, and on the last page of the thread I posted my list of what I consider to be the greatest recorded live performances that the Beatles gave of each song that they performed live. Here is the list:

Best Of The Star Club:

Long Tall Sally (Star Club 1962)
Mr Moonlight (Star Club 1962)
A Taste Of Honey (Star Club 1962)
Hippy Hippy Shake (Star Club 1962)
Besame Mucho (Star Club 1962)
Little Queenie (Star Club 1962)
Ask Me Why (Star Club 1962)
Sheila (Star Club 1962)
Red Hot (Star Club 1962)

Best Of 1962-1966:

Kansas City/Hey Hey Hey (Live At The Cavern 1962)
Some Other Guy (The Cavern 1962)
I Saw Her Standing There (Stockholm 1963)
She Loves You (Stockholm 1963)
I Want To Hold Your Hand (Morecombe and Wise 1963)
Twist And Shout (Royal Variety Performance 1963)
Please Please Me (BBC Here We Go 1963)
Love Me Do (BBC Easy Beat 1963)
Thank You Girl (BBC Easy Beat 1963)
There's A Place (BBC Easy Beat 1963)
I'll Get You (London Palladium 1963)
Money (Swedish 1963 Radio Show)
Till There Was You (Royal Command Performance 1963)
You've Really Got A Hold On Me (Swedish 1963 Radio Show)
All My Loving (Ed Sullivan Show 1964)
This Boy (Ed Sullivan 1964)
I Wanna Be Your Man (Washington 1964)
You Can't Do That (Blackpool 1964)
If I Fell (Blackpool 1964)
From Me To You (Live at the Washington Coliseum 1964)
Long Tall Sally (NME Poll Winner's Concert 1964)
Things We Said Today (Indiana State Fair 1964)
Boys (Hollywood Bowl 1964)
Roll Over Beethoven (Hollywood Bowl 1964)
I'm A Loser (Shindig 1964)
Kansas City/Hey Hey Hey (Shindig 1964)
Rock And Roll Music (Paris 1965)
I Feel Fine (Paris 1965)
I'm Down (Blackpool 1965)
Yesterday (Blackpool 1965)
Help! (Blackpool 1965)
Everybody's Trying To Be My Baby (Paris 1965)
A Hard Days Night (Live At The Hollywood Bowl 1965)
Act Naturally (Ed Sullivan Show 1965)
Can't Buy Me Love (Paris 1965)
Ticket To Ride (Blackpool 1965)
Baby's In Black (Live At The Hollywood Bowl 1965)
Dizzy, Miss Lizzy (Hollywood Bowl 1965)
Day Tripper (Live At The Budokan, Japan 1966)
She's A Woman (Candlestick Park 1966)
Nowhere Man (Munich 1966)
If I Needed Someone (Munich 1966)
Paperback Writer (Live At The Budokan, Japan 1966)

 

Attempting to compare the Beatles as a live band to acts like The Stones or the Who is a bogus exercise. While the Beatles were creating works in the studio far and above anything that other groups were during the 1966-69 time frame, they never stepped onstage. But listen to the quality of the Apple rooftop performance and tell me that they wouldn't have brought down the house on the playable numbers (for the technology available at the time) from Revolver and Sgt. Pepper, and anything from Rubber Soul, MMT, The White Album, and even Abbey Road. They would have more than held their own.

 

Yes. It's not like their live show would have remained stuck in '66. As shown by Wings and the Concert for Bangladesh, etc. Lennon was part of the Stone's circus. Of all people, they weren't stuck in a vacuum.

 

I agree. Once they started playing " concerts" instead of "gigs" and the screaming mania started, these shows became events or communal happenings, where the Beatles were trotted out to be seen in the flesh and their music was sort of just the excuse for the get together. Because the Beatles fully realized this and considering the primitive PA's and lack of monitors , it's amazing they sounded as good as they did at many concerts.Being the hottest live band wasn't their priority by then. It was to get in, play, and get out alive.

 

From the man himself. Rolling Stone interview Jan. 21, 1971. He says it all right here. In the early years, they were killing it live. Nobody could touch them. Then they became famous and show business and the live music performances declined.

Because we were performers – in spite of what Mick says about us – in Liverpool, Hamburg and other dance halls. What we generated was fantastic, when we played straight rock, and there was nobody to touch us in Britain. As soon as we made it, we made it, but the edges were knocked off.

You know Brian put us in suits and all that, and we made it very, very big. But we sold out, you know. The music was dead before we even went on the theater tour of Britain. We were feeling **** already, because we had to reduce an hour or two hours' playing, which we were glad about in one way, to 20 minutes, and we would go on and repeat the same 20 minutes every night.

The Beatles music died then, as musicians. That's why we never improved as musicians; we killed ourselves then to make it. And that was the end of it. George and I are more inclined to say that; we always missed the club dates because that's when we were playing music, and then later on we became technically, efficient recording artists – which was another thing – because we were competent people and whatever media you put us in we can produce something worthwhile.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/lennon-remembers-part-one-19710121#ixzz4CjvolMVA
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

 

And how do you know this?

 

well I know it because I was there from the beginning in 1963...they were the Kings...

 

If you listen to their live recordings from 1963 , especially the bbc tracks from then, they had such an energy in their playing. I think i would also include the washington performance from 1964 as an example also.

 

There in lies the problem. In almost every video I have seen of the B's live, mostly there is just screaming girls. My only live Beatles is a needledrop of Hollywood Bowl and Live at the BBC. I have nothing available to compare. Where as with The Who, Stones, etc., there is a ton of well recorded Live releases.

 

The problem the Beatles had, was at the time, none of the engineers / equipment were ready for the large stadiums they were playing in. I am not doubting that the Who concerts were better recorded, but only because the engineers / technicians learnt how to improve them. Had the Beatles been playing live in the late 60s I think we would have had some far better recorded concerts, but unfortunately history tells a different story.

I for one, enjoy listening to their live recordings,because, irregardless of the recording quality, there is an indication of what it must have been like. I don't begrudge the fact that we don't have a pristine live recording that's not covered in thousands of screaming girls, I enjoy what is there and can only imagine what it would have been like to have been there for real.

 

If you go through my list above, or the link that I posted above, you will find enough well recorded live recordings to see how tight and rocking they could be. One fabulous example of their live abilities is the incredible performance of 'Twist And Shout' at the Royal Variety Performance concert. I would also suggest that you watch them perform 'Long Tall Sally' at the 1964 NME Poll Winner's Concert.

 

Do you enjoy the rooftop performances? I personally watch them and it makes me imagine how great a 1969 or 1970 tour could have been, where they could have performed the more straightforward rocking songs from the post-Rubber Soul albums.

If you take the rooftop songs like 'Get Back', 'I've Got A Feeling', 'Don't Let Me Down', 'Dig A Pony', etc, and add in 'Back In The USSR', 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps', 'Helter Skelter', 'Come Together', 'Oh! Darling', 'I Me Mine', 'Something', 'Blackbird', 'Let It Be', 'The Long And Winding Road', 'Julia', 'Sgt. Pepper/Sgt. Pepper Reprise', 'Golden Slumbers Medley', 'You Never Give Me Your Money', 'Taxman', 'If I Needed Someone', 'The Ballad Of J&Y', 'Old Brown Shoe', 'Getting Better', 'Drive My Car', 'I Want To Tell You', etc, then you get a great and achievable setlist, especially if Billy Preston and maybe Nicky Hopkins were part of the touring group.
Another possibility would have been to have Badfinger supplement their playing, in the same way that they supported George at the 'Concert For Bangladesh'.

 

Plenty of live footage that can be heard above the screaming. Im not sure if some folks understand that Beatles songs are not the easiest songs to play. Try playing along with John sometime on those early songs done in concert and sing. Of course the style was Johns so its harder for me to copy. Doesnt come natural like it did for him because it was his style. But still, if you think that the chords, rhythms and singing werent complicated in structure..then youre probably not a musician.

And when they were on, they played these songs proficiently and together as a band. No doubt it poured out of them more easily due to taking their knocks playing countless hours of early career gigs. Extreme unique talented songwriting and arrangements made them the Beatles. Experience made them pros on stage. But they dealt with hysteria on a level no one else had or has ever since.

I think George said something to the effect of "I wish bands like U2 or the most popular bands could go back and experiece what we did on stage. Then theyd see what its really like to be in the middle of fame" You go that fast and eventually the wheels fly off more and more. And things get sloppy at times.

 

Anyone who's performed live in front of a pumped up crowd knows how incredibly difficult it is to sing and play well in that adrenaline fuelled situation. Now take away the monitoring, which didn't exist in those days, and it shows how phenomenal the Beatles were live.