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.
I can only imagine what The Beatles in their prime would have sounded like LIVE with modern equipment / PA & without all the girls’ deafening screams . They were a fab live act BEFORE the Ed Sullivan show .
Well, the Stones lost Brian Jones, he was probably their best asset in the studio, and then they started bringing in studio musicians on their later albums. They’d bring the piano players on tour with them, but not all the rest of the guys who played on the album, and sometimes those guys played more of the album than real Stones members who were off shooting heroin.
Plus the band follows Keith’s lead when they play live, and Keith can have an unreliable sense of timing. Most bands are following the drummer, but in the Stones, if you listen close, you’ll see Watts is always trying to keep up with and cover for Keith.
They were always a good live blues band though, so when they play simple stuff like that they can really rock, but they tend to simplify some other songs when they’re playing live it seems to me.