First things first: The Beatles are the greatest band in the history of rock. Period. The Stones? Please.
A good chunk of bands old and new would be blessed to have a songwriter like George Harrison on board. He was the third-best songwriter in a four-man group.
But the whole "greatest band in the world" thing is not today's discussion. Here's what we know about the Beatles:
- In a short period of time — only eight years — they unleashed the most popular music catalog of all time.
- Each of them could play the hell out of their instruments. Yes, even Ringo. He's better than the little credit he gets.
- They quit performing live in 1966.
But here's my hypothetical: Let's say they toured in 1969, pre-Abbey Road, but post-White Album. Aside from the likelihood that they would have killed each other, which would have been entertaining enough, would it have been a good show?
The live recordings I have are pretty spotty. Some good, some middling. They always seem really rough, though that could have something to do with being ferried around the country and listening to screaming girls for hours on end.
But in 1969, long after the "screaming girls" years, how would they sound live? Were they even capable of playing together, as a live band?
My stance: They'd be frickin' amazing, but with the potential for train wreck always present.
Your stance: In the comments. You know the drill.
5 comments:
When was the Apple rooftop "concert"? Looked like they performed alright then. 1 vote for awesome.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqiAl84ipIk.
They stopped playing live because they realized that the revolution happened in the studio. The work couldn't survive the mania of screaming and psychosis their concerts had become.
But in 1969, their blues-influenced jam still rocked. Could they have pulled off "A Day in the Life" live? Probably not without a campy Pink Floyd production. But most of *Revolver* and *Rubber Soul* would have sounded amazing live. Even a lot of the later work, too. This sure does: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZj_bCNVvGw&feature=related
Eric,
I am impressed by the way you are able to converse with sophistication on topics as diverse as Romanticism, Beatle-ology, and lactate threshold! You are a polymath!
Blessings,
GaryN
It depends so many bands get trapped to play a "song" each time they play live.
It would be good show if you can do it inside with backing band of sorts there is a lot of producing in Beattle albums so that would be interesting how they would pull that off.
Actually, Harrison was the best song writer, without Lennon, Paul was pretty weak and vise versa. Personally they were too poppy for my taste. To this day I can't sit down and listen to a Beatles record, and while I'll admit that the Stones last several records are pretty weak, I could listen to Hot Rocks every day and not get sick of it. The Only problem with the Stones is they stayed around too long, my guess is that the Beatles would have been pretty weak later as well, (see Bruce Springsteen).
Post a Comment