Yeah I agree - Stones came into their own AFTER the Beatles had left the scene, so its a moot point really.
Stones fans always say they were better live, but if you look at Stones circa '63-'66 they're pretty static on stage. It's only in '69 that you get Mick and his "f** dancing" (John's quote), and of course we'll never know what the B's would have been like.
I think giving up playing live was the B's biggest mistake.

hmmm im not sure on that one .. ive been doing gigs for the last .. i would say 12-15 years .. and believe me its not fun at times..so i can understand to a point why the Beatles gave up touring .. weather it was a good thing or not .. but if they did carry on would they have produced the albums they did ? who knows .....

I don't think they had to tour - festivals and one-offs maybe. I just think it's the glue that binds bands together. The Devil and idle hands and all that

yeah .. doing those type of gigs do keep you tight musically.. and im sure it wouldnt of hurt to do a few shows a year ..

Prehaps one of the best live performances ever by the Stones!  The Jumpin Jack Flash song and Stray Cat Blues is historic!

The Who was the best act of the night

It's a piece of Rock and Roll History that's nice to see because it shows just how a few bands got together with little hoopla! Today the record companies, lawyers, and the entire money making machine would have ground to project to a halt! The Rolling Stones were definatley on thier game! On another note I'm surprised that the band didn't film some thing cool for the "S-M-R" Lp?

I just loved the way John was dancing to Sympathy for the Devil.

John was awesome in the 'You Can't Always Get What You Want' video

yah yah yo

I'm not sure The Beatles would have been very good at jamming. That was what was happening musically around the time Get Back was worked on. They could rehearse a song and play it as rehearesed. Listen to the number of takes of Get Back. They are all almost identical. They would have had to develop their 'chops' and John was not interested, as he said in rehearsing. George was too methodical and Ringo not much of a soloist. Paul could jam with the best of them. They were tight. Solo years shows this..Paul was the only one who had the confidence to play live.

I wanted to get this DVD only because John was in it, but my mum won't let me buy it cos she can't stand the Stones, especially Mick Jagger. I don't know what's her problem, she's not the one that's gonna be watching it. Poor me...

Quoted from flux

I'm not sure The Beatles would have been very good at jamming. That was what was happening musically around the time Get Back was worked on. They could rehearse a song and play it as rehearesed. Listen to the number of takes of Get Back. They are all almost identical. They would have had to develop their 'chops' and John was not interested, as he said in rehearsing. George was too methodical and Ringo not much of a soloist. Paul could jam with the best of them. They were tight. Solo years shows this..Paul was the only one who had the confidence to play live.

I have to agree. I have some different long versions of 12 Bar Original and it gets pretty tedious and so are some of the other jams on various boots, but I'd still love to get my hands on the 27 minute version of 'Helter Skelter' to see where that went, aside from the obvious blisters.

Rolling Stones are a pretty awesome band but they will never been anywhere near as cool as The Beatles!

^ true