Live acts

Scott Schrade schrade at
Wed Feb 2 19:27:04 CST 2005

> What about The Stones?  They were head and shoulders above 
> The Beatles live, as were The Who in 1965. 

Well, The Who may have put on an exciting show in 1965 but they 
didn't really mature as a live act until 1969.  And the Beatles never
got the chance to mature as a live act.  They just quit.

One could say a Who show in '65 was exciting only because of the
autodestruction, not the often-times sloppy performances.  I don't
know if *I'd* say that.....but one could say it.

> Beatles were awesome and their shows were huge events, but it 
> wasn't the great performances that made the concerts big, but rather 
> the fact that they were THE BEATLES! 

But the fact that they *were* the Beatles made it a great performance.
Do you think the Fab 4 weren't giving good performances when they
played live?  Looks pretty entertaining to me.  Ringo was beating the
hell out of those drums, flopping around like a Moon-Lite.  Plus, the 
lads were always well-rehearsed in that little, end-of-the-song, bow 

I think you have a case of Beatles-envy, Mc.  I know.  I get it all the 
time.  But, sometimes you gotta step back & realize.....the Beatles 
were pretty fantastic.  Despite not ever *maturing* as a live act.  ;-)

- SCHRADE in Akron

More information about the TheWho mailing list