schrade at akrobiz.com
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