AFTER 66 the nestles stopped touring.from revelover forward they experimented more.
I think they broke up from lack of touring. I want to hold your hand is vastly different then tax man
It seems like two different bands.
I like both, but choose touring Beatles.
Their studio work remains groundbreaking 50+ years later, but their tours were characterized more by screaming teenage girls than by great music. If the Beatles had continued touring, we would have been treated to the horror of, say, George Harrison playing lead guitar on “While my Guitar Gently Weeps” instead of Eric Clapton, like God intended.
The Beatles were never very good as a touring band, not because they weren’t great musicians but because the crowds were screaming so loud that the music got drowned out. And as the band started doing more complex work in the studio, it became a logistical nightmare to perform live and come close to duplicating the sound.
Nah, they broke up because of egos and boredom.
I like both early and late Beatles. The raw energy of the early stuff was phenomenal, and the studio magic was bleeding edge.
As noted, their performances were hampered by overenthusiastic crowds and primitive amplification equipment…but watch “I Saw Her Standing There” from the 1964 Washington gig…they were a *really *good live band. (Jump to 10:25: https://vimeo.com/244758056)
I had never seen that concert before. Thank you!
I’m not sure of all the reasons behind it, but by their last shows, they were sounding worse than the high school Beatles cover band you might have suffered through at a talent show: - YouTube
Seriously, I just enjoyed the last half hour of my life very much!
thanks for posting that; it’s a great listen what fun to watch them having such a good time.
Aside from all the flashing stars, I loved seeing that too. I can’t remember ever seeing John perform on a George song live before.
I think the Beatles broke up right before new technology and staging practices revolutionized concerts, and that impacts their reputation as a live act. If you look at rock concerts through 1966, most seem to be 4-5 guys strumming away with some small scattered amps. Starting with events like Monterrey Pop and the rise of dedicated rock concert halls like the Fillmore East/West, more sophisticated audio prevailed. Live albums from 1968 are a huge leap from 1965. If the Beatles had continued touring, perhaps their stage show would have caught up? Also the recording of live rock really improved greatly, there are few live albums (other than folk/acoustic) of rock groups before around 1967 that seem to stand out…maybe Dylan’s 1966 British tour is an early example of improved live dynamics?
The 1969 rooftop concert, as ragged as it was, is the closest thing to an adequately recorded live show we seem to have. So their best work for posterity is the studio work.
If I could travel back in time to see them live, I’d imagine the Cavern days or their very first theater tours would be the best. Aside from that, the only concert footage that I find suggestive of a great show is their Australian 1964 concerts.
…I meant the Beatles stopped touring in 1966 right before concert staging really changed.
In Melbourne, also in a boxing venue: (festival hall). And the crowd was less well behaved than the earlier Washington crowd: for parts of it, the band just mimed, because the noise was so loud nobody could hear them anyway.
I like the Washington concert. Among other things, no backing band: they had to do their own backing. And notice the lack of air-conditioning. Remember Dire Straights “That ain’t working”? Back in the day you wouldn’t have made that mistake: those boys were clearly working for a living.
I get the goosebumps whenever I see footage of their early years. I agree, it was like there were two different bands. I love the early Beatles. There are a few songs that came along later that are good, but for the most part I don’t care for their music once they grew mustaches!
A lot of their later studio work couldn’t easily be played on stage if at all.
That means they had to play something that sounded sub-par when in actuality they were fine musicians.
But you can’t have it both ways. they could push music to the ragged edge in the studio or play something catchy that can be played live.
Just take the opening note of “It’s a Hard Day’s Night”. It could only be played in the studio to get the sound we hear on the original recording.
They had to modify it live and it just wasn’t the same.
I prefer post-moustache Beatles…well, late ‘65 through late ‘67…but i love digging up their earlier concerts on YouTube. Thank you for the link the Washington ‘64.
Just think, it was only 5 years after the Washington gig that they performed live for the last time on a London rooftop.
Man, John’s playing a Rickenbacher guitar there. I only know them for their - great - basses.
I would just like to say, that of course the Beatles were a great touring band. Until they started making records and got popular the world over. So when I saw the thread title, I thought of my reply in that respect, and also immediately included in my mind the types of songs they did on albums that they would have also done in their early years (and thus included these in “touring Beatles”) to make a decision: studio Beatles. As time has worn on, this period holds my interest more. I still love “I Want to Hold Your Hand” and “A Hard Day’s Night”, but Rubber Soul and forward are what I prefer now.