John Lennon used to wonder if the Beatles concerts "were any good"! It is a valid question because, as the musician up on stage, you don't really get a sense of what the audience get. You can't "see" yourself whilst you perform. Furthermore, whilst on stage the sound can be pretty appalling, even today. If you are right next to the drum kit for example, it is quite difficult to hear what you are playing. It sounds a bit odd given the volume rock'n'roll bands play at, but it's the truth! One loud sound cancels another loud sound! Sometimes, the whole band blends into a kind of mush and you don't know if you are singing flat or if your guitar is out of tune. Bands get over these obstacles by rehearsing and playing regularly. Familiarity in this case breeds confidence and well, familiarity! Sometimes, just knowing the song VERY well is enough to get you through a very bad stage set up. I say all of this from a view which takes into account todays fairly high tech stage set ups, which includes something that the Beatles rarely had (if ever): on stage monitors! The monitor on stage is there to assist with the melee which comes from raw rock'n'roll. A good monitor can make all of the difference! So, with that in mind were the Beatles any good?
There are stark differences between their live performances of say The Star Club in 1962 and the Budokan in 1966! My own personal opinion is that they were a GREAT live band with great swagger, drive, power and plenty of Mach Shau! Undeniably though they were at times affected by the madness of cicumstance and of course - various substances . However, you do have to look at that Japanese gig and think WHAT was going on there? and, don't they sound WILD at the Star Club?
The footage of the 1966 gigs in Japan shows that they were very "relaxed", sorry...er.. completely stoned on stage. In fact SO relaxed one might conclude that some "Jazz" ciggies were used before hand? From the footage, George looked completely stunned during the incredibly slow performance of If I Needed Someone...and I might add as flat as a pancake on vocals - though he seemed to be more amused than bothered! However, there is still a bit of a swagger underneath, which indicates great ability albeit laced with boredom and familiarity. Witness the version of Rock'n'Roll Music at the "dark suits" performance.
It was a different story during the Star Club performances.
One word folks - "Prellies!"
Some of those tracks are played with high octane rocket fuel on board! Witness "I'm Gonna Sit Right Down And Cry Over You"!!! A thousand miles per hour and it's coming atcha!
I tend to think that their performances were "assisted" in order that they reach those kinds of nose-bleed tempos! However, cutting through the poor sound quality of those recordings it is obvious that there is a hunger and ability within the band that is just breathtaking.
In Hamburg, they tore it up. They blew the back wall down.
The Hollywood Bowl album didn't seem to go down too well with critics of the time of release. It has still not been released on CD and it is one that divides the fans. My own view is that it would take something unique to beat their version of Long Tall Sally from that gig! The band are set on stun during this blistering performance. Doesn't sound like there are too many "medicines" assisting them at that point! It is just pure, honest to goodness brilliance on display. It is bottled fire! They are yet to lose their enthusiasm and one senses there is still a hunger there waiting to be fed. That one live performance captures all of the swagger, confidence and their sheer ability in bucket loads. Remember they were playing through backline amps with no monitors and were relatively miles apart on stage. It must have been hell trying to hear each other. This is an indication of how good they were. Even when they couldn't really hear each other or themselves with dreadfull equipment and no proper P.A, they still managed to work on instinct and sound "pretty darned good". I think there can be no question of if they were "any good". They were good. Sometimes though, perhaps the boredom of repetition set in and the various "medicines" got in the way.
There can be no denying it, there are some dreadful examples of the Beatles live credentials out there. However at the core, I think the Beatles were an extraordinary live band which came from playing "millions" of gigs, great natural ability and of course the explosive shared chemistry found only once in a lifetime.
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
About Me
- The Beatcomber
- I've been a musician for around 25 years with a primary interest in songwriting and production.
3 comments:
I agree with all you have said about their live gigs. I think the proof that they were amazing "even" live is the rooftop concert. If you look at how bored they were while recording a lot of the get back rehearsals, its a testament to how professional they were when it came down to really putting down the music. Also although not totally live the BBC stuff really shows how good they were at just playing a song through.
Michael Green
And then there was the screaming. I can barely fathom how they were able to keep it together enough as a band to perform in the face of that sort of roaring-shreiking, especially after the initial ego-high novelty of that wore off. It's easy to understand why, after several years of fighting to hear themselves on stage, they finally headed for the studio.
The gig on Swedish tv in late 1963 (bootlegged, and also appeared in part on Anthology 1) is also a particularly smoking example of the Fabs playing live,and the audience, while excited, doesn't cover up the band with screaming. They're in tune and cooking! Hollywood Bowl is pretty amazing considering the circumstances but doesn't quite reach the same level as the Swedish date. There's also that cut (on the Anthology video) of them doing Nowhere Man live in Germany, and again, without monitors, they manage to 95% nail it. I'd be interested to know if the Beatles EVER had stage monitors - I understand that they didn't come into common use until the late 60s.
Post a Comment