The Beatles weren't that good a live act

The Beatles made their name with their live act in Liverpool and Berlin, with raw performances and unsophisticated music. They were trailblazers. To break into the big time they had to drop the leather gear and be less basic, but their music was so original and so good it didn't need to be overshadowed by overperformance. They paved the way for the Stones and others to build on the beach head they created in popular culture, in both live and studio work. It's been said "The Beatles didn't ride the 60's bus, they WERE the bus". I'm going to assume you're too young to have been there and that you haven't researched a thing, particularly in time context.

So The Beatles were a rather pedestrian live band according to Binkconn. Perhaps you might wish to consult with members of the audiences at the Cavern Club and the various clubs they played in Hamburg. These gigs were devoid of the constant screaming of Beatlemania. Out of all the groups that were playing in the UK at that time, The Beatles conquered America first. The only competition in the beginning here in the States was the DC5, an underestimated group since Mike Smith possessed a fabulous rock and roll voice as did both John Lennon and Paul McCartney. Dave Clark's band was finally inducted into the R&RHOF but not before Smith had passed.

The first Stones tour of America was a dud. They drew a crowd on the coasts but they played many a half-filled venue and this was with Brian Jones, the most talented musician in the group by far. At least they did the T.A.M.I. show and a recording session at Chess. I saw them in '65, girls screamed but not to the point they overshadowed the music. I very much enjoyed the 60's R&B Stones but all they have been for years are parodies of their former selves combing the planet for additional pounds sterling.

The Who's first U.S. tour was even worse. I've seen them many times but you are comparing concerts using late Sixties and early 70's technology to what The Beatles had to contend with in the mid-Sixties. This statement applies to Zep as well. Not a really fair comparison is it?

Jimi had the talent, Chandler knew how to promote him and he exploded onto the American music scene at Monterey during the Summer of Love. I saw him after "Experienced" was released in the acoustically perfect Chicago Opera House and yeah, he was exciting. Saw the Beatles as well in '66 at Busch Stadium in St. Louis. Impossible to compare the two gigs. The Beatles show was a spectacle, the music secondary to the fact that they were physically there in the same place as you were. They could not give a high quality concert in that venue just as they couldn't at Shea.

Why mention The Band when Bob Dylan, along with John Lennon, Brian Jones and Jimi Hendrix are in the Pantheon of Rock and Roll Gods. He is the poet of our generation. Have never seen him live but have all his best SACD's. Of course Lennon and McCartney pinched stuff from him as well as other artists whose music they enjoyed. If you haven't heard, most songwriters do this.

Do you really think the Let It Be sessions are relevant as to how good a group the Beatles were live during their prime? Check out the new CD, "Live At The Hollywood Bowl", it just might surprise you and these concerts were performed with no stage monitors, recorded using primitive three-track decks, of course no Beatle is wearing headphones, and all above the din of thousands of hysterically screaming girls.

You are welcome to your opinion -- just make sure that you realize that your opinion goes against the judgment of just about ever single music journalist of the time. The main problem with seeing a Beatle's performance had very little to do with The Beatles themselves, who were consummate professionals. but with the sheer volume of noise generated by their enthusiastic fans.

Another issue was that they were experimenting with a lot of different things in their music, some of which could not be reproduced easily on stage -- and by the way, they weren't the only ones that have encountered similar problems. Some of their songs could not be performed live, for that reason.

I'm not going to get into an argument about who was the best live band. And maybe Jimi Hendrix, had he lived, would have outshone the Beatles -- I doubt it, but ok, when playing What If, you can pick and choose your alternate history as you wish. And I know that some people prefer the Stones -- I won't argue with that either. They are both great. But in the years that the Beatles were active, they simply dominated rock and roll. Everyone is going to have their favorite band, and it's ok if yours isn't the Beatles. Just don't try to rewrite history. Just look at the albums -- Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Pepper, Abbey Road, were all Genius. Every song on each of those albums were genius. Most bands are lucky to have one pure, solid, absolutely perfect album. There's 4. No one else has done that.

You really need to read up on your Beatle history regarding their early touring days.

Since The Beatles invented Stadium Rock concerts they were at a tremendous disadvantage...THEY HAD NO STAGE MONITORS!! I'm thinking they were the first rock group to even attempt to play for 30,000 people. Stage monitors weren't even a thing then. They had been used in a few smaller venues by acts like Judy Garland and others, but never at a stadium concert...UNTIL their Atlanta concert, when a local sound company (Baker Audio) provided monitors and a monster P.A. system for the first time on their tour. You can even hear Paul comment on the sound a couple of songs in ("It's loud, isn't it. Great!") Lennon also comments a couple songs later. Just before "Baby's in Black" somebody can be heard saying "What a show!" I believe they asked the sound guy (Duke Mewborn) to finish the tour with them. He apparently had no interest in being on the road.

It's a lot different than playing in a club or even a theater. And when you have a theater full of a thousand people, or a stadium with 20 or 30 thousand people, all screaming at the top of their lungs you wouldn't hear a thing if you had the stage speakers more than a foot away from you. (Listen to their performance for TV shows or theater concerts and it's quite a bit different.)

During their tours they probably gave up trying to display their playing ability...they were there to do their 20 minutes or so and get out alive. (I've wondered where and when they got a chance to rehearse their live show.)

None of those bands you mentioned, Binkconn, had to deal with that kind of crap...for a reason. They weren't The Beatles.

[deleted]

File the OP's post under "I haven't got the time to destroy you in an anonymous forum that requires too much time on my part and for little gain." However, I will humor the young, dumb, and full of cum troll a bit.

First, the obvious. The Beatles were the REASON that you have ever HEARD of the Stones or The Who, two excellent bands with very easy backing harmonies compared to the Beatles, and whose early songs were much easier to perform live because there was very little singing and playing of instruments simultaneously and each of these bands had one true lead singer who truly carried the vocal part of the show and played tambourine or maracas, nothing more. And admittedly, even THAT can be challenging rhythmically, so hats off to Jagger and Daltrey. I'm in a band that does a lot of simple and complex vocal harmonies and I can tell you that it is an entirely different thing to play and sing complex harmony at the same time. That is why there are so many 3 and 4-chord blues bands around with one singer, maybe one backup if they are lucky. Take a look at the Beach Boys 1964 concert at the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium and you will truly see the greatest live band of the time. It's on YouTube, I'm sure. Now THAT is skill, only topped by the Four Freshmen, Brian Wilson's main vocal influence. They were not R&R, though. They sang and played instruments live, all four of them, and the harmonies are beyond even the Beach Boys in difficulty. Give the Beatles Live at the Hollywood Bowl a listen and remember that they could not even hear themselves play and sing, yet Ringo kept a steady beat and the harmonies and singing were first rate. Oh, I'm already bored. Someone else take over for me.

You seem to be pretty ignorant about playing ability. I make my living playing music. Guess how many professionals share the opinion of your amateur ear and lack of music knowledge? Can't stand when the "know-it-all" online tries to talk as if he's the expert at something that he doesn't have a clue about...