Beatles Live



Sroundtable at aol.com Sroundtable at aol.com
Thu Feb 3 19:00:56 CST 2005


In a message dated 2/3/2005 1:01:59 PM Central Standard Time, 
thewho-request at igtc.com writes:
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 
maneuver.

I didn't say the performances weren't good.  I mean they WERE the Beatles and 
were great talents, but the actual performances weren't anything spectacular. 
 They bobbed their little mop tops and played the tunes as they were on the 
records.  The simple fact that a band is who it is doesn't make a performance 
great.  I saw The Eagles live and people went wild because it was The Eagles, 
but the actual live performance, while musically very entertaining and full of 
great skill, wasn't great.  In fact, they were more physical and active than 
The Beatles were, which isn't that much.  The Beatles did cute things that made 
the girls scream wildly, but to me, such things don't elevate a show from 
good to great.  It's like seeing The Music Man on Broadway and being thoroughly 
entertained, then seeing Tommy on Broadway and being blown away.


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.  ;-)
No question I have a case of Beatles-envy, but I am being objective in this 
case.  Beatles were fantastic overall, no question.  But as a live act simply 
good.

Mc



More information about the TheWho mailing list