Topic: 1966: The Contradiction (Read 6981 times)

Bobber · « **Reply #20 on:** February 26, 2008, 02:39:02 PM »

I'm pretty sure they didn't give a f*** about the 1966 concerts.

harihead · « **Reply #21 on:** February 26, 2008, 02:54:30 PM »

^ This so totally cracked me up, I'm still laughing. Thanks, Cor!

Bobber · « **Reply #22 on:** February 26, 2008, 03:24:17 PM »

Oh, but I was serious!

harihead · « **Reply #23 on:** February 26, 2008, 04:04:03 PM »

I know. It's just the way you phrased it, it hit my funny bone.

I'm doing taxes at the moment. I need all the support I can get!

JimmyMcCullochFan · « **Reply #24 on:** February 27, 2008, 08:12:01 PM »

^ Cue "Taxman"

Mairi · « **Reply #25 on:** March 01, 2008, 06:52:05 PM »

I agree with Bobber. I think the Beatles just got lazy. Also, they were frustrated because they couldn't hear themselves play, so they just figured "What's the point?". John talks about it in an interview from the '70s.
I think if they had returned to playing live in late '67 or '68 their career might have been different. They wouldn't have spent so much time in the studio for Let it Be, and maybe tensions wouldn't have been so high. There's nothing quite as pleasing and ego-boosting as knowing that you have just played a great concert toward an enthusiastic audience. And audience that was interested in the music, not just screaming girls.

JimmyMcCullochFan · « **Reply #26 on:** March 01, 2008, 06:57:33 PM »

I wonder what a setlist in '68 would have been like?

Bobber · « **Reply #27 on:** September 16, 2008, 10:51:19 AM »

[size=9]bump[/size]

Brynjar · « **Reply #28 on:** September 16, 2008, 02:09:38 PM »

And if monitor speakers on stage were "invented" earlier, who knows???

aspinall_lover · « **Reply #29 on:** September 16, 2008, 05:36:06 PM »

Great thread there, Bobber...........Me has to think on this awhile as to what I want to post...........carry on....

alexis · « **Reply #30 on:** September 16, 2008, 05:37:56 PM »

Blows my mind that stage monitors weren't "invented" till later. I mean, I'd have thought someone would have thought of turning a little speaker around back to the guy on stage, way back in "1822"!

Brynjar · « **Reply #31 on:** September 16, 2008, 06:16:33 PM »

I read somewhere that they were used first in the late 60s/early 70s by The Rolling Stone and The Who.

Geoff · « **Reply #32 on:** September 16, 2008, 08:01:43 PM »

Quote from: 277

I read somewhere that they were used first in the late 60s/early 70s by The Rolling Stone and The Who.

Yeah, The Who were big pioneers in all that, I think.

alexis · « **Reply #33 on:** September 16, 2008, 08:05:12 PM »

Quote from: 277

I read somewhere that they were used first in the late 60s/early 70s by The Rolling Stone and The Who.

But you know, it's not rocket science ... I'm pretty sure I must be missing something technical about why nobody just turned a second set of speakers around to listen to before the late 60s.

Apple Beatle or Fendertele, or other frequent giggers - any thoughts?

Thanks!

An Apple Beatle · « **Reply #34 on:** September 17, 2008, 12:28:55 AM »

Only immediate thoughts would be ohms law and feedback issues. Science had to catch up quick to larger crowds, meaning better mics and the need for artists to pitch themselves over increased audiences. I'm not actually sure where/when monitors first originated from but there was always going to be a need.

An Apple Beatle · « **Reply #35 on:** September 17, 2008, 12:29:44 AM »

Quote from: 56

Every time I look at a DVD of one of Paul's more recent concerts, I have to think about how amazing it must be to be Wix Wickens... He's standing there on stage with Paul McCartney and pretty much on his own he's playing almost all the parts that the Beatles couldn't do live on stage... He's making the difference between being able and not being able to play all that later stuff.

Absolutely.

duane v · « **Reply #36 on:** September 17, 2008, 12:34:04 AM »

All points well taken.....

However, the boys were in the middle of their experimentation with drugs in 1966.... There would be no way they could do a live show while frying on LSD, and back in those days it was the good LSD

I know this sounds terrible, but if it wasn't for their drug experimentation, we wouldn't have great albums like the White Album, Abbey Road or Sgt Peppers to enjoy.... and eventually it was the drugs, and the natural progression of growing older that split them apart. Let's face it, these poor chaps had been practically living together for 11 years (15-28 years old).... hell, most marriages today don't last that long

Basically it ran it's course, and the right one

BlueMeanie · « **Reply #37 on:** September 17, 2008, 04:39:19 PM »

Quote from: 1583

Basically it ran it's course, and the right one

Hear, Hear!

Regarding Wix Wickens. If The Beatles had gone back to playing live they would have needed at least a couple of extras to augment the line up. Another guitarist maybe, and a multi-instrumentalist. I guess in those days people might have said that they were cheating, but then The Stones had been augmenting their live line up with Ian Stewart for years.

The Dude · « **Reply #38 on:** September 17, 2008, 06:17:57 PM »

Quote from: 483

Hear, Hear!

Regarding Wix Wickens. If The Beatles had gone back to playing live they would have needed at least a couple of extras to augment the line up. Another guitarist maybe, and a multi-instrumentalist.

I've often wondered if Billy Preston would have become the official fifth Beatle if everything had been a bit more harmonious and the boys had stayed together. Hell, George may have even persuaded Eric Clapton to become part of the group!

Bobber · « **Reply #39 on:** September 17, 2008, 06:38:32 PM »

Quote from: 1575

Hell, George may have even persuaded Eric Clapton to become part of the group!

Please no!

News:

Author Topic: 1966: The Contradiction (Read 6981 times)

Bobber

Bobber

Bobber

BlueMeanie

Bobber