Beatles

[Jack68]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WBelmO65J4

[Jack68]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMfrllQQ6_U

[ELVIS]

It's THE Beatles...

[ELVIS]

The Beatles LIVE 1964 !!




:elvis:

[ELVIS]

What idiot was it around here who said The Beatles had no stage presence...

What a fucking douchebag...


:elvis:

[Jack68]

True..always..THE BEATLES.As far as the stage presence .Id argue that.Besides obscure youtube clips..shea ,Smothers brothers...Mccartney is the only one i thought commanded a stage.Lennon and Harrison looked terrifired.At least to me.

[Jack68]

By the way the song is called anytime at all.google it.

[minkahed]

I think it was Elvis who said the Beatles had bad breath and needed to fix their teeth. LMAO

[VAiN]

I've always liked this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3RYvO2X0Oo&feature=youtu.be

[ELVIS]

What the hell is a minkahed, a transvestite ??

[Terry]

I wouldn't really consider The Beatles dynamic live performers.

Maybe in the Cavern Club days they were a great pub band, but they essentially just stood and played...and they were only a live act for about, what, two years of their seven year run after they began releasing records?

Am not a Beatlemaniac by any means, and while I can agree with some of the points people make about the greatness of the Beatles as songwriters and recording artists they're not even in the top 20 far as greatest live acts of all time go.

[minkahed]

No, but I bet you are ...Douche

[Von Halen]

I wouldn't really consider The Beatles dynamic live performers.

Maybe in the Cavern Club days they were a great pub band, but they essentially just stood and played...and they were only a live act for about, what, two years of their seven year run after they began releasing records?

Am not a Beatlemaniac by any means, and while I can agree with some of the points people make about the greatness of the Beatles as songwriters and recording artists they're not even in the top 20 far as greatest live acts of all time go.

I think they suck. They aren't in my top 500, in any category.

[Va Beach VH Fan]

I wouldn't use the term "suck", but I concur with Terry (not the first time, BTW)....

However, I love to play the "1" CD in the car when I have to make a road trip, hit after hit after hit......

[binnie]

I've never really understood Beatlemania.

Sure, they penned some catchy pop tunes, then took loads of drugs, met a genius producer and made some 'far out' records. But where they really that much better than their peers? The Small Faces, The Who, The Rolling Stones, Hendrix? Zeppelin?

I don't hear it.

Maybe if they'd recorded 'I wanna cum on your face' rather than 'I wanna hold your hand' I'd have been more onboard......

[Va Beach VH Fan]

Don't forget the ridiculously stupid foray with the maharishi in India.....

[chefcraig]

I wouldn't really consider The Beatles dynamic live performers.

Maybe in the Cavern Club days they were a great pub band, but they essentially just stood and played...and they were only a live act for about, what, two years of their seven year run after they began releasing records?

Am not a Beatlemaniac by any means, and while I can agree with some of the points people make about the greatness of the Beatles as songwriters and recording artists they're not even in the top 20 far as greatest live acts of all time go.

Yet who has ever begged the question of whether or not the group could cut the mustard in live performance? The truth is, the band would perform on a postage stamp sized stage through amps that had roughly the same audio-output as a handful of transistor radios, without the benefit of fold-back stage monitors, all while being drowned out by the excessive screaming of an audience filled with barely pubescent girls. The live recordings of Shea Stadium and the Hollywood Bowl back this up, along with video of the clearly disinterested band goofing off and cutting up while knowing full well that even if they bothered to play well, it would fall upon deaf ears.

As for the group's early studio recordings, the ultimate remark comes courtesy of a young Pete Townsend from The Kids Are Alright:

Pete Townshend: If you steer clear of quality, you're alright.
Interviewer: But wouldn't you say a group like The Beatles have a certain musical quality?
Pete Townshend: Oooh, that's a tough question. Alright, actually, this afternoon, John and I were listening to a stereo LP of The Beatles, in which the voices come out of the one side and the backing track came out of the other. And when you actually hear the backing tracks of The Beatles without their voices, they're flippin' lousy.

[ELVIS]

At least none of The Beatles were caught "doing research for a book"...

[chefcraig]

At least none of The Beatles were caught "doing research for a book"...

Yeah, that bugs the living shit out of me as well. You spend roughly 30-35 years admiring an artist as if the sun shines out of his asshole, and then suddenly discover he's about as noble as one of those priests that mysteriously gets shuffled from one church to another.

[DLR Bridge]

Yeah, that bugs the living shit out of me as well. You spend roughly 30-35 years admiring an artist as if the sun shines out of his asshole, and then suddenly discover he's about as noble as one of those priests that mysteriously gets shuffled from one church to another.

What the hell ever happened with that? Nothing? Ah, the spoils of success. Well I haven't heard a Who song since that scandal without out thinking to myself, WTF??? I remember hearing Brian May of Queen saying on the radio, "Pete's a great guy. Everyone should just leave him alone." Sure thing. I just hope they enforce Meghan's Law in his neighborhood.

[ELVIS]

What the hell ever happened with that? Nothing?

He obviously greased enough palms until the heads connected to the palms turned the other way...


:elvis:

[binnie]

'Do you think its alriiiiight, to leave the boy, with Uncle Earnie......?'

[chefcraig]

'Do you think its alriiiiight, to leave the boy, with Uncle Earnie......?'

"Fiddle About" was written by John Entwistle. Which begs the question as to if it was based upon some personal observation of events...

[FORD]

Yet who has ever begged the question of whether or not the group could cut the mustard in live performance? The truth is, the band would perform on a postage stamp sized stage through amps that had roughly the same audio-output as a handful of transistor radios, without the benefit of fold-back stage monitors, all while being drowned out by the excessive screaming of an audience filled with barely pubescent girls. The live recordings of Shea Stadium and the Hollywood Bowl back this up, along with video of the clearly disinterested band goofing off and cutting up while knowing full well that even if they bothered to play well, it would fall upon deaf ears.

It's true that the early tours were pretty chaotic, but any other band from that era sounded about as bad (see the Stones first live album "Got Live If You Want It" for example). The Beatles themselves have said in interviews that they literally couldn't hear themselves play over all the screaming, so it's a miracle they managed to play at all.

On the other hand, they sounded pretty damn good to me on that roof in 1969. They had actually kicked around the idea of doing a real tour at the time, but they didn't go through with it, probably because they could barely stand to be in the same room with each other by that point. Ironic, considering the lack of live performances and being perpetually in the studio is probably what drove them apart in the first place (more than Yoko or Linda or anybody else's wife at least)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWzs3YbtehI

[damngoodtimes]

Pete was exonerated, but that only made the small type. Overzealous investigator looking to make an example of the famous rockstar.

[ELVIS]

Whatever...:rolleyes:

[Terry]

Yeah, that bugs the living shit out of me as well. You spend roughly 30-35 years admiring an artist as if the sun shines out of his asshole, and then suddenly discover he's about as noble as one of those priests that mysteriously gets shuffled from one church to another.

The more days that pass by and fade in the rearview mirror, the less starstruck one becomes.

Perhaps even more so when one's teen rock idols are hitting their sunset years.

[Terry]

It's true that the early tours were pretty chaotic, but any other band from that era sounded about as bad (see the Stones first live album "Got Live If You Want It" for example). The Beatles themselves have said in interviews that they literally couldn't hear themselves play over all the screaming, so it's a miracle they managed to play at all.

On the other hand, they sounded pretty damn good to me on that roof in 1969. They had actually kicked around the idea of doing a real tour at the time, but they didn't go through with it, probably because they could barely stand to be in the same room with each other by that point. Ironic, considering the lack of live performances and being perpetually in the studio is probably what drove them apart in the first place (more than Yoko or Linda or anybody else's wife at least)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWzs3YbtehI

I wouldn't say the Beatles were necessarily a bad group to hear live, but even among their contemporaries I'd put the Beatles way down the list of bands I'd wanna see in concert if I could jump in a time machine, go back and see any band I wanted.

[atlantakat]

To each their own but I imagine that The Beatles shows in Hamburg and the Cavern club were as good as any band from that vintage -- good enough for Brian Epstein to want to sign them immediately after he saw them play. (Kind of like Templeman, et al with a certain band playing in Pasadena). The Ed Sullivan shows, the BBC broadcasts and the concert at the Budakan all amply demonstrate that the Beatles were just fine as a live act when they were focussed and playing in a venue where they could hear themselves. By the time they were playing stadiums the band was tired/bored -- literally living at a pace that kills. And they knew full well that no one could hear them and they could not hear each other. The sound systems were jokes and the band was commited by that time to making music in the studio that was too complex to be pulled off live with the technology available in the mid-60s. But by the early and mid-70s Paul McCartney was putting on shows that were as big and energetic as any other band and he is still putting on amazing shows today. Put it this way, as prolific as VH was from 1978 to 1984, the Beatles went from Please Please Me to Abbey Road in the same period of time, put out 13 albums, numerous singles, repeatedly redefined pop music and pop culture and I would not be surprised if they played as many or more shows in three years as VH did during the Roth era (that would be an interesting fact to check). Hard to knock them. As Paul Gilbert said: "I have three gods: 1. The Beatles, 2. Classic VH and ....... no, wait! There are only two gods!"

[ELVIS]

Never saw this before...

Skip past the first song and watch the magic...




:elvis:

[sonrisa salvaje]

Roll up for the mystery tour. What more needs to be said?

[chefcraig]

I love the way Lennon and McCartney swap highs and lows (Paul predominantly taking the lighter, higher parts ) during the harmony singing here. (Yeah, the video is static, but the sound is quite good.)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asx4gPNFiAE

The boys take a look at Motown production values, and almost pull it off.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmtaw0fr0xI

And seriously, tell me these mother-fuckers couldn't bring it in a live setting.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpONboAyXNc

[chefcraig]

And since I'm already half (if not 3/4) in the bag already, why the hell not? :guzzle:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTxZs-pRZ_M

Happy Trails, friends and neighbors, I have some rented DVDs to watch. Oh, and Jan Van Halen's horn reminds me of a McCartney tune. May the good news be yours.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RPx6A3gKiA

[fourthcoming]

That version of "This Boy" from Ed Sullivan is so good it's rediculous. I would have loved to seen them in either their Hamburg....amphetamines and beer days or somewhere circa 1970. I'm sure it would have been great to see them without thousands of dumb American teenage girls screaming their heads off. Have seen McCartney a few times and he's still great. Beatles live in '66 In Japan are pretty listenable recordings because the girls aren't going bonkers during the songs.

[fourthcoming]

Pete was exonerated, but that only made the small type. Overzealous investigator looking to make an example of the famous rockstar.

Funny how $$$$$ has a way of "exonerating" people