Beatles live



JOELTLE515 at aol.com JOELTLE515 at aol.com
Tue Feb 8 21:02:57 CST 2005


In a message dated 2/8/2005 8:36:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Sroundtable at aol.com writes:

> Fair enough.  BUT honestly, were they a great live act because of the 
> performances themselves, or because of the event itself.  Could anyone 
> attending such 
> an awe-inspiring event really be objective as to the actual performance?  
> Did 
> their live renditions of their songs elevate beyond the studio versions, or 
> did they just do a great job playing and singing?  Did any of what they did 
> on 
> guitar, vocals, drums, bass make your jaw drop or blow you away?  Or was it 
> that the aura surrounding the Beatles concert that blew you away?
> 

technically speaking, especially in the latter part of their touring career, 
they weren't able to recreate the sound they were getting in the studio onto 
the live stage. they were moving into "unchartered territory" in the studio. I 
remember paul especially saying it was very difficult singing the harmony 
parts on "nowhere man" live and "paperback writer" being difficult to perform in 
those days. and this was before they came out with those speakers that lets the 
band onstage hear themselves as well as the audience so even if they messed 
up, they probably didn't hear it and the fans didn't care cause they couldn't 
hear it anyway. too much screaming. and they did only perform for like 20-30 
minutes. 



More information about the TheWho mailing list