They were not “Here, There and Everywhere”?
Apparently John Lennon was no fan of the Maharishi after he saw what he did to Mia Farrow’s sister.
I forgot, they didn’t have to put his head in a jar, it was preserved from within!
Sorry Keith but on Ed Sullivan they sounded better than you guys.
I thought the Stones sucked live
Oh they were there alright...I bet you can actually hear this picture.
Richards would know , they had to bring in Mick Taylor, to play guitar for live shows . Taylor is quoted on the stones ‘ “I just couldn’t believe how bad they sounded,” the guitarist recalled from his first rehearsals with the Stones. “Their timing was awful. They sounded like a typical bunch of guys in a garage — playing out of tune and too loudly. I thought, ‘How is it possible that this band can make hit records?’”
I Like Keef!
The Grateful Dead developed the “wall of sound” in 73 for live concerts....
Everything else pales in comparison...
At the Stones concert I went to I was right next to the stage. At the Beatles concert I was in the nosebleed section in a baseball stadium so can’t really compare.
Saw King Crimson last fall... they were awesome!
After they became big, they couldn’t hear themselves over the screaming and neither could anyone else. I had a friend who was living in Japan at the time and saw the Beatles there. They came out and of course the girls were screaming hysterically. Unlike other places though, when they started playing Japanese politeness overcame Beatlemaina and they all stopped and sat down. Suddenly the Beatles could hear themselves playing for the first time in years, and their guitars were all out of tune. So they stopped to tune them, and of course the fans all started screaming again as soon as they stopped. They asked the audience to be quite while they tuned, but nobody understood them. So they had to tune up while playing.
I saw them at the Hollywood Bowl in 1965, and who could tell how good they were or weren’t over the screaming? You couldn’t hear a note. Just AAAAAAAAAAHHHH! from five thousand people.
Can’t agree with Keith. The Beatles were one of the few bands that could do onstage what they did in the studio pretty convincingly. It’s the Stones who are so off onstage that more than once a song started and I had no clue what it was until the lyrics started. Listening to their live stuff it doesn’t sound to me like Keith or any of the others can get anywhere near their studio sounds. I have noticed though that when they do a cover song they sound like a smoking bar band. Weird.
George Harrison prepared the Rolling Stones for their first contract. Both bands made songs that are stale today.
‘If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal” (I Cor 13: 1).’
Both bands downplayed the Lord and highlighted the evil one. Allester Crowley picture on Sgt. Pepper’s cover? Not the best role model. ‘Sympathy for the Devil’? Never do that.
Eddie Van Halen is humble and thanks God every day for his mysterious talent for playing guitar. Poor David Lee Roth: vice has destroyed his ability to sing.
The most striking live/studio gap I have ever seen was when I went to a Howard Jones concert as a fluke. Howard Jones was modestly popular in the mid 80s in the MTV days. I wasn't a fan, but I saw him later in concert, and he was simply astounding at his abilities live. He was a fantastic pianist, who wove various different songs he has done together so well it surprised you when you realized they had started out different, distinct songs. Sadly not even one tenth of his talent ever made it onto MTV, he would have been far more popular if it had.
If anyone gets a chance to go see Paul McCartney these days, do, he’s certainly great in concert. I felt as if I saw the Beatles, well, nearly.
He does quite a bit of all his stuff, Sgt Pepper’s, White Album, oh it’s a blast. He even played with the guitar FROM Sgt Pepper’s.
The Beatles never particularly struck me as concert music.