Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Indica]

I obviously agree that in comparison, the records hold alot more wealth... but dismissing their live performances as ordinary is slightly harsh.

The Vocal Harmonies of This Boy (Miami Ed Sullivan), the vocal power (and guitar work) on Till There Was you (Royal Performance)..the tight playing of Ticket to Ride ( Blackpool Night out)

These are just a few snippets..but in no way is The Beatles live stuff flawed.
It's bloody brilliant.

[Ydoll Gwyn]

These are just a few snippets..but in no way is The Beatles live stuff flawed.
It's bloody brilliant.

There is no way you can say this when the Beatles themselves were so very often dissatisfied with their live playing during Beatlemania years.

I think they were all three things.

There is no way you can say this when the Beatles themselves were so very often dissatisfied with their live playing during Beatlemania years.

How could they not be dissatisfied? They couldn't hear themselves. Things would break down and they wouldn't even know it. The concerts were just crazy affairs and it became boring for them. They were robots after awhile. Look at their tour in 1966. The were already recording incredible things, to wit: the "Revolver" album, and they were still playing 'Rock and Roll Music'. Where is the impetus to become a technically brilliant live musician when nobody, including yourselves can hear you, coupled with the fact that you've moved on and are so far beyond what you can possibly reproduce live?

[Ydoll Gwyn]

How could they not be dissatisfied? They couldn't hear themselves. Things would break down and they wouldn't even know it. The concerts were just crazy affairs and it became boring for them. They were robots after awhile. Look at their tour in 1966. The were already recording incredible things, to wit: the "Revolver" album, and they were still playing 'Rock and Roll Music'. Where is the impetus to become a technically brilliant live musician when nobody, including yourselves can hear you, coupled with the fact that you've moved on and are so far beyond what you can possibly reproduce live?

Well, exactly. That's why I can't follow people who say things like:

... but in no way is The Beatles live stuff flawed.
It's bloody brilliant.

[slick rick]

don't stop short j r dollys nose is up your butt......

I think they did the best they could with what they had, namely having to continually tour, audiences that drown them out, tiny Vox amps, etc., so I have to give them credit for being a decent live band given horrendous circumstances. The Budokan shows are a testament to that, some of the few that they could actually hear themselves.

[Sondra]

You know, just because the Beatles thought the performances were subpar, doesn't mean that that's the way they appear to us or to anyone watching back then. The combination of the four has always been something more than ordinary. Their performances were electrifying for reasons other than having great sound or quiet audiences. This is what people saw in them on and off the records.You can see something in that band beyond just playing great tunes.

[Harrison]

Brilliant Musicians which then developed their songwriting.

[Indica]

The Beatles may have been disatisfied..but that's becasue they are brilliant.
Any other band, creating such a sound from what they had..would be chuffed.

They even said the same about many of their recordings.
Lennon has often been quoted saying half of the Beatles catalogue is rushed, half-baked and nothing like he wanted.

[In Blue Hawaii]

Songwriters? Yes.

Recording Artists/Musicians? Yes. Real innovators. George Martin shares credit too.

Live playing? Maybe..

As soon as you bring live performances into the discussion, the parameters may change. The problem with the Beatles in concert is that thier great live recordings (Hamburg '62) are only available in lo-fi. I think they kick serious ass, I love 'em to death; exciting and raw and powerful. But, understandably, nobody wants to give 'em a serious listen for the painful fidelity. And so it's come down to common thinking that the cleaner recordings made during the Beatlemania period are as good as they got live. But by that time, the pressures of global success and worldwide touring etc., had instilled a certain cynicism and with it the feeling that they had made it and didn't need to bust thier ass in front of people who couldn't hear and didn't care what they sounded like.

It's interesting to think what might have happened if McCartney's idea to go back on the road anonymously with the Fabs was taken seriously in '69. He brought this idea up to the band right around the time of Elvis' amazing comeback special, which brought the King face to face with a live audience for the first time in almost a decade, with mindblowing results, I think Macca was inspired, and hoping to reconnect and plug into the exact same kind of energy Elvis had found. It gave Elvis a new artistic lease on life, which is exactly what the Beatles were looking for at the time. Imagine what those shows might have been like.

[Lostio]

I think they were all that. Brilliant songwriters, musicians and entertainers.

One of the most awesome music bands ever to exist.

[GreenApple]

They were the ultimate progressive band.

They were an oasis of inspiration for a range of other bands, even up to Oasis.

Each one found a niche in the band - John the progressive, Paul the soulful, George the spiritual, and Ringo the fun one. Rigo was talented enough to be the fourth Beatle, and was talented enough as a drummer and a singer, and finally songwriter.

History will show that they are, indeed, the ultimate band, and 35 years from now there will still be websites like this for people to analyse them and their music in detail and get half as much fun out of it as they do listening to their music.

[Sondra]

They are THE Band. Brilliant. We'll never know how great their live playing was because they had to play under such crappy conditions. Even John said they were an amazing live band over in Hamburg, but no one got to really see that side of them.

[An Apple Beatle]

First and foremost I'd say they were people.  

[Kevin]

Each one found a niche in the band - John the progressive, Paul the soulful, George the spiritual, and Ringo the fun one.

Isn't that view a little....dated?

[JonnyMoondog]

A band.

[pc31]

What were the Beatles, first and foremost?human???!!!!

[Heart]

What were the Beatles, first and foremost?human???!!!!

LOL!!!
 

[raxo]

What were the Beatles, first and foremost?human???!!!!

I'd always thought they were aliens!