Beatles Live/Thomas Potter/and thanks...

Sigel, James (N-CSC) james.sigel at
Thu Feb 10 14:22:32 CST 2005

> Mc, Deni, Joel, keets, et al:
> >>hey were a fantastic live act for that time.  I saw them I
> know.
> >>Deni
> >>
> >Deni:
> >
> >Fair enough.  BUT honestly, were they a great live act because of the
> >performances themselves, or because of the event itself.
> Had to weigh in on the Beatles live...  Everyone has said some pretty
> insightful stuff about this topic, but to consider the Beatles live
> performances throughout their career, you need to consider the
> evolution of the Beatles as artists as well.  Very true, as they got
> older and more into their studio work, playing live as a quartet
> simply wouldn't do; too much studio production to reproduce live.  Not
> to mention the very famous attitudes of the Beatles by 1965 - why play
> live?  Nobody can hear you over the din of screaming girls.  So as the
> Beatles became more famous, their live shows became more scarce.
> For me, the Beatles were exceptional as a live act in their early
> days.  Have you ever heard the cuts from their Cavern Club days, what
> is it, circa 1962-63?  Those Beatles were raw and rollicking.  Ringo
> simply beat the shit out of his hi-hat and provided an incredible
> backbeat for the other three.  The early live recordings that can be
> found in the Anthology series as proof positive for me, that they had
> power and passion; that's all I can ask from any band.
> Keets:
> >Interpreted this way, does TOMMY really have potential for a good
> children's 
> >story?
> I think you make a good point for this.  Harry/Tommy are both
> mistreated souls who find themselves on a "magical" (amazing) journey,
> etc.  Very interesting...  But if Harry opens a Holiday Camp, I'm
> leaving.  :-)
> And thanks to you who gave links for me to the ebay Houston DVD.
> Until next time...
> Jim in Colorado

More information about the TheWho mailing list