The Beatles as Musicians Discussion

[@alanarakelian5021]

That the four Beatles grew up within a five-mile radius of each other in Liverpool is amazing. One could search the world over for the four best individual musicians on the planet, put them together -- and still not equal the Beatles' magic.

[@Slydeil]

Lemmy on The Beatles and Stones live (excuse the expletives): "And the Beatles were hard men too. Brian Epstein cleaned them up for mass consumption, but they were anything but sissies. They were from Liverpool, which is like Hamburg or Norfolk, Virginia--a hard, sea-farin' town, all these dockers and sailors around all the time who would beat the piss out of you if you so much as winked at them. Ringo's from the Dingle, which is like the fucking Bronx. The Rolling Stones were the mummy's boys--they were all college students from the outskirts of London. They went to starve in London, but it was by choice, to give themselves some sort of aura of disrespectability. I did like the Stones, but they were never anywhere near the Beatles--not for humour, not for originality, not for songs, not for presentation. All they had was Mick Jagger dancing about. Fair enough, the Stones made great records, but they were always shit on stage, whereas the Beatles were the gear. I remember one gig the Beatles had at the Cavern, It was just after they got Brian Epstein as their manager. Everyone in Liverpool knew that Epstein was gay, and some kid in the audience screamed, 'John Lennon's a fucing queer!' And John--who never wore his glasses on stage--put his guitar down and went into the crowd, shouting, 'Who said that?' So this kid says, 'I fucking did.' John went after him and BAM, gave him the Liverpool kiss, sticking the nut on him--twice! And the kid went down in a mass of blood, snot and teeth. Then John got back on the stage. 'Anybody else?' he asked. Silence. 'All right then. "Some Other Guy".'" Lemmy

[@simonvaughan6017]

Lennon's upbringing was lower-middle-class suburban. He may have been insecure, but he wasn't hard.

[@Slydeil]

@@simonvaughan6017 Yes, he was brought up by his aunt in suburbia but he was from a broken home. But his first major press was beating up Bob Wooler, a Liverpudlian DJ, at Paul McCartney's 21st birthday party. And this was not out of character according to Cynthia Lennon But Lemmy was probably a better judge of them all compared to you or I ... "At the party the boys’ old friend Bob Wooler, the Cavern emcee, made a crack to John about his holiday. John, who’d had plenty to drink, exploded. He leapt on Bob, and by the time he was dragged off Bob had a black eye and badly bruised ribs. I took John home as fast as I could, and Brian drove Bob to the hospital. I was appalled that John had lashed out again. I’d thought those days were over. But John was still livid, muttering that Bob had called him a queer. A day or two later when he had cooled down he was ashamed. He kept repeating, ‘Oh, God, Cyn, what have I done?’ He sent Bob a telegram saying, ‘Really sorry Bob stop terribly worried to realise what I had done stop what more can I say John Lennon.’ Unfortunately the local press got hold of the story and the [national] Daily Mirror ran it, which didn’t help John’s image. He swore he’d never do anything like it again and, to my knowledge, he didn’t, certainly for as long as we were together." Cynthia Lennon

[@simonvaughan6017]

@@Slydeil Thanks for the reply. I think that anecdote supports what I said. Lennon was certainly given to angry outbursts, but I don't think a "hard man" would feel that level of remorse. Maybe this is just a disagreement over definitions.

[@Slydeil]

@@simonvaughan6017 He was a complex character but I think to survive his parents dumping him, his mothers death, then as a late teen the Hamburg red light district I think he and the rest would hardly be "soft lads". And he didn't back down in any confrontation be it one on one or with the "Establishment", so I would say he was "hard" in many ways despite his insecurities. But I have no personal experience of him and can only base my opinions on the decades of reading about him who did. The general gist of Lemmy's quote (and he saw the Beatles pre fame) was to emphasise the image over reality i.e the Stones "hard image", was as manufactured by Andrew Loog Oldham as the "clean cut" Moptops was by Epstein. Former Epstein employee Oldham created it directly as an "anti Beatles" marketing exercise. But The Beatles had a rougher background and had paid their dues through the likes of Hamburg, whilst the Stones never left London before they got their deal. No Elvis, No Beatles...No Beatles, No Stones

[@simonvaughan6017]

@@Slydeil I take your point about the unreliability of the bands' public images, though I suspect Lemmy was doing a bit of projecting in preferring the "hard" lads to the "sissies". It wasn't quite as clear-cut as he supposes. After all, Lennon was an art student, and while Mick Jagger and Brian Jones grew up in middle-class households, Keith Richards (father: factory worker), Bill Wyman (father: bricklayer), and Charlie Watts (father: lorry-driver) grew up in working-class ones.

[@vinylrichie007]

The Beatles were magic. The argument that Ringo wasn't technically the best drummer is false. Ringo is technically the most on beat drummer in popular music when timed out with a computer. Mark Lewisohn listened to every Beatles master tape when preparing for his "Recording Sessions" book. He noted that he was impressed that Ringo never made a mistake in any of the recordings. Ringo wasn't flashy but he was a great drummer.

[@johnheaton5667]

Vinyl Richie well said

[@beatlejames5745]

What I always found interesting about Ringo was that he said he never practised the drums. Everything he played came instinctively to him. If he couldn't immediately sit down and play it, he just figured it probably wasn't worth playing.

[@favier167]

ringo was a good technical drummer, right on, yet simple...and well placed and original...]

[@moonbeamskies3346]

Vinyl Richie In my view Ringo was a great rock and roll drummer in 1962. But as time went by his skills diminished due to many reasons.

[@Solomongrundy68]

its ok to try to help poor RIngo ... but everybody knows poor Ringo sucks as a musician. Thats why he walked out in 68'. Out of the Beatles nobody would never know about him.

[@Randyrocker1]

The Beatles were the best damn musicians on the planet, they played together better than any other band or group ever. When you listen to them doing hard rocking numbers one after another, you realize, that even to this day no one else has ever come close. Not even the Rolling Stones can touch them, try as they may, and I love the Stones. The Beatles were a rarity, and I'm so glad I got to see them perform live Sept 8, 1964 in Montreal.

[@nubworthycigars6682]

Whoa, could you hear the music? Or was it like the unaltered tapes of those days where you can hear it a little in the background but the screams take up most of what can be heard?

[@mrfester42]

A far as their individual musicianship is concerned, they were absolute masters because for the group, the music ALWAYS came first. ALWAYS! They never looked at playing their instruments as a way to showcase themselves or to stand apart. They always approached playing with the idea that they were contributing towards constructing a song. The song was the goal. In that sense, they were consummate musicians. When they were playing they put their egos aside. They all, in their own way, had very strong egos so staying together for as long as they did, which was 14 years, is in itself testament to how important the music itself was to all of them. THAT is the genius of the group as a singular entity. While playing it was total subjugation and group think!

[@clarkewi]

I agree that "All Things Must Pass" would have been a phenomenal track had all the Beatles really put their heart into it. George dis a great job on that track. One of my favorites.

[@bobmortimerisweird]

This guy sounds like He's reluctantly confessing to some shameful things He's done in the past.

[@bobsbigboy_]

Lmao

[@Mozart1220]

The Beatles were good enough musicians to be the greatest band in history. Good enough for me.

[@Mozart1220]

@Allen Albright I agree.

[@MICKEYISLOWD]

@Allen Albright It is the compositions of the Beatles that is unsurpassed still to this day. I have played guitar at pro level for 25 yrs and yes there are some tricky guitar parts in their songs but the genius is the amount of stunning songs they managed to put out in just 8 yrs. Over 100 awesome songs in their career. Now compare that to professional songwriters...they write all day long for pop stars and all kinds of situations yet they are lucky to have just a few stunners in a lifetime. That's why The Beatles are just so revered. They are like a fluke in nature or lightning in a bottle!

[@speedoflight9005]

@Allen Albright applauds!

[@iaminbetweendays]

Top 5 bass, guitar and drummer (in one band). 20 number 1 songs in 7 years is pretty good. A discography that rivals Mozart.

[@Mozart1220]

Mozart had a discography? ; )

[@nubworthycigars6682]

Mozart was a prodigy and is technically on another level.. I think he’s a little overrated personally as I think there’s more personality in so many classical composers pieces over Mozart.. it’s like comparing Steve Vie to George Harrison. I’d prefer to listen to any song by George, and especially would watch his performance over SVs.. if you’ve never seen a clip of SV “molest” his guitars on stage it’s worth watching for a second like a train wreck imo. The things that man does with his fingers is impressive technically on his triple necked guitar, but the music it makes is meh to me. Also, the faces he’s making while obviously just behind where we can see “making love” to his guitar (I’ve never seen a guitar consent to that..). I’m a classically trained bass player, and over the last few years I’ve thought myself guitar and a few other things. That doesn’t make my opinions more valuable than any others.. I’ve just literally had to play on Mozart tracks and it’s never been fun me personally (and not because it’s “too hard” or something I just didn’t like the personality and feeling of the music.. too mechanical). Respect to anyone else’s opinion.. there’s a reason people who don’t play classical music know of Mozart and Beethoven because their work transcends time. That said, I’ve had more fun play the “Ode to Joy” bits over any Mozart pieces; because the music it produces is more impactful emotionally, IMO, and I’d listen to any of Beethoven’s symphonies for that matter as well. Cheers

[@johnshannon9656]

They were excellent within their limitations and they were, as a band, the definition of how to play to the song.

[@Scotttyist]

Regarding Hey Jude and Paul not wanting George to play guitar all over it, it must have been galling for George to hear Wilson Pickett's version of it because Duane Allman plays all over that track and it really works. Oh well.

[@Mozart1220]

I prefer the original. The songwriter should have final say...

[@NigelT57]

But who's version is played all the time?

[@Mozart1220]

@@NigelT57 The Beatles' of course.

[@vivaldesque]

You're probably right! 😀 I'd never heard this version. Thanks! Nice input!

[@markofsaltburn]

George Harrison was no Duane Allman.

[@Slydeil]

The Beatles as a live band. As a musician this has always interested me. Lemmy (Motorhead) saw The Beatles in the Cavern days and stated they were the best live act he'd seen. An arrogant, tight 4 headed monster who owned the stage. I also knew a great guy and great musician called Bill Cameron, who played with Johnny & The Copycats/My Dear Watson whom Hendrix loved to watch at The Bag o Nails. The Copycats supported The Beatles in 1964 on 2 dates of their Scottish Tour and he also said they were a superb live band. The wonder of those Beatlemania gigs was that they could play together at all, as they had no stage monitors, small amps and PA. The fact they could still do so was amazing, especially as they were harmony singers too. The harmonies were one of the key aspects of their sound. They also had the unique advantages of 3 lead singers (and Ringo lol). John and Paul being 2 of the finest vocalists in rock music. I'm not sure about the Hamburg live recordings with Pete comment, as the only recordings I'm aware of are the Star Club, which features Ringo. The Stones have always sounded rough on record, let alone their ramshackle live performances.

[@nurzafirah2902]

That's the thing with The Beatles. Their aura is unrivaled not to mention the fact that four of them complement each other very well musically and make the most of it in that amazing ten years if not more. There's nothing like The Beatles. Even if you're not a fan of their music, you have to admit that this is true. Well that's my two cents on this topic. Love hearing your opinion sir.

[@johnheaton5667]

Thank you sir! Yes, unmatched.

[@oriomenoni7651]

I agree with your views. What the guys put together in those few years is so superior to whatever they came up with after the split, that there is no doubt in my mind that the interplay between the four of them was the secret sauce.

[@daijones101]

The Beatles had been playing since 1957. By 1961 they were a cracking rock and roll outfit with with a massive repertoire and some stagecraft. By 1963 they have become sophisticated musician

[@70PaulK]

The best way to judge them as musicians is to listen what the songs are like when performed by others. The songs don't have the same impact without the riffs & licks from the Fab 4. The key point is that they were generally unselfish in their musical approach, not trying to play flashy leads.

[@scottamichie]

Song writing. Song recording. Song performing. Song lead. And Song accompaniment. These are the five components of great music making. The Beatles were superior in all the above (with George Martin contribution on song recording). All four at the absolute top in all five = musical magic. Never be equaled.

[@8044868]

Agreed. I would add that early in their recording career when they were covering other artists, they sounded better than the original versions.

[@robertthomson5485]

They were a tight Rock ‘N Roll band that earned their stripes in Liverpool and Hamburg. They were a BAND. And a GREAT one at that.

[@nicholasperl]

For what I'm looking for, the Beatles were the greatest musicians of all time.

[@ChaseArkansas]

I must say I think they were equally excellent live players as recording artist together and solo. I saw Paul live in his seventies and my God he could play base and piano and handled the guitar well

[@Randyrocker1]

Oh yes, there's one other thing I'd like to mention. In 'Helter Skelter' where the guitars play against each other endlessly near the end of the cut, it all sounds like an electric sound frequency, yet underneath it all sustaining the progression is Ringo Starr adding the Beatles signature to the soundscape. Ringo was the Beatles and so, so underrated, but he made it all possible

[@jean-marieboucherit4716]

The Beatles were the tightest band ever on stage, like an incredible fireball exploding in your face. The Rolling Stones or any other group are referring to the 70s playing live with monitors, sound sound recording, lights, better equipment , the ear of rock music as such, but the energy generated was never to the level of the Beatles because the Beatles could make a chopstick wriggle.

[@martynfenton4862]

Ringo -tomorrow never knows - great drummer

[@gerrydooley951]

and "Rain"

[@speedoflight9005]

"A day in the life", "Something", "She came in through the bathroom window", "For the benefit of Mr. Kite", "Come together", and on and on...

[@kinghani]

Overlooked: how brilliant their singing was live.

[@TheHumbuckerboy]

There has long been this nonsense that The Beatles weren't a great live band but they trumped The Stones etc live IMO.

[@CB-xr1eg]

@@TheHumbuckerboy Not sure anyone knows how they sounded Live. The screaming girls usually drownded them out. Which is one reason why they stopped playing Live shows.

[@TheHumbuckerboy]

@ Clive Bindley ... There is good quality footage of early era Beatles which clearly demonstrates how tight a musical outfit they were live and how good their live harmony vocals were and this footage is available to check out on utube.

[@CertifiedSlacker]

@@TheHumbuckerboy yeah, check out twist and shout in hamburg for example: SAVAGE

[@alfching2499]

Look they’ll only ever be one Beatles,they are still selling albums that are 50 years plus in millions,say no more.

[@TheHumbuckerboy]

@ Alf Ching ... True ! Since The Beatles broke up the music world has been waiting hopefully for a band to come along that are as great but alas not one band has come close thus far.

[@MICKEYISLOWD]

@@TheHumbuckerboy That's what the 70s pog rock was all about..trying to outdo the Beatles by playing flashy lines and mixed modal phrases ect...of course they never came close to the Beatles no matter how hard they tried.

[@TheHumbuckerboy]

@ Mickeyislowd ... One of the impressive things about The Beatles IMO is how most of their songs are usually very short in duration but those songs still managed to convey everything musically and lyrically that needed saying and all within such a such period of time.

[@franco426]

Good talk. Other bands(like Rush or Jethro Tull for example) might be better musicians but the Beatles were more successful consistently because they meshed well when playing together. They had such good chemistry.

[@johnheaton5667]

franco f thx Franco

[@j.w.matney8390]

franco f I like Rush, Geddy and the boys are fine musicians. That said, I've never unconsciously hummed Tom Sawyer while Beatles spring into my head quite often.

[@rudolphguarnacci197]

What a perfect discourse. Thanks, thanks so much.

[@namesvoorbugvall]

Lennon was on fire in the 60s

[@johnheaton5667]

namesvoorbugvall ha!

[@spy1965]

Boy, I'd agree.

[@rudolphguarnacci197]

They all were

[@1nelsondj]

I think John was more open to contributions from the others on his songs, compared to Paul who knew exactly what he wanted and how to achieve it. Or maybe it was just because John wasn't a musically fluent as Paul, he described the feeling he wanted to get from a song instead of the specific arrangement so the track didn't always meet his expectations. I find his tracks to be the most rewarding on repeated listens. As for John's guitar playing listen to him on Yoko's song 'Why.' Way ahead of his time.

[@jtmichaelson]

I've never had any use for the Stones live. I've always argued that Mick just tarnishes the entire performance with his vocals. I know you said this was not a Stones video, but as a true lover of The Rolling Stones, I can leave their live performances for someone else to enjoy. Their albums, though, as some of the greatest. I've always felt lucky to have been alive in the era of The Beatles and The Stones.

[@verheese]

Hi John... interesting topic , enjoy all your video's and looking forward to seeing more album reviews.

[@johnheaton5667]

alan edwards thx Alan

[@nervo6321]

Paul did a lot to embellish George's songs ie Something, agree Come together fab musicianship by all four. George Martin described Ringo's drumming as Ringo's drag, it is very unique and instantly recognisable, also I always felt John's guitar work was very underrated because he played a lot of the complicated bits on songs like I feel fine.

[@Rob-ht8or]

live at bbc tapes are good display of what they were like live..and all ed sullivan shows they were unreal

[@docgravenshmit6692]

totally agree that the whole was greater than the sum of the parts. as a group they were magical. as solo artists they were good, but not nearly as magical. IMO George had the best solo material.

[@adamcollins915]

Whatever they asked Ringo to do, he did perfectly. Although I read Paul wanted to do his own drumming on his late 60's songs.

[@scottamichie]

George Martin said he couldn’t remember ever stopping a recording because of Ringo missing a beat.

[@hohaia01]

Fully agree with you on Georges guitar playing. Minimalist is a nice and accurate way to describe it and it did definitely enhance the music.

[@beatlegreg07]

The Beatles were so good they were all in the Beatles.

[@mycubiclepenguin868]

Love how mention that Ringo's drumming was "what was required" and how it might not be the best, technically speaking, but it suited the band perfectly. I think the same could also be said for Phil Rudd of ACDC.

[@mattyoz0]

Phil was amazing time keeper. One of the best live players in his day.

[@Mozart1220]

AC/DC drums always SOUNDED Great on the albums. Great kick drum.

[@tonym994]

thanx, John. I know you didn't intend for your observations to be riveting, and right u are, as they say in the UK.but a guy in his yard talking about these 4, can generate so many posts. it doesn't surprise me.this band still has a bright future.50 yrs. after it was over.

[@mariocastro3558]

I don't think Ringo added just what was required. He provided original and very creative drum work; e.g. "Ticket to Ride"

[@PlanetoftheDeaf]

The Beatles in the 60s were a song band, rather than a live "rock" band where the musicians would have lengthy solos to show off their skills. Hence their musicianship is perhaps less celebrated than it should. Having said that, in relative terms, I think Paul was the best musician. His melodic bass playing is both more influential and pioneering than the excellent playing of John, George and Ringo, as shown by countless polls. Incidentally, he's also the most versatile and natural musician, seeing that he's an excellent lead guitarist and decent piano player too (including fast stuff like Lady Madonna), a reasonable drummer and can play other stuff like the recorder too!

[@dr.buzzvonjellar8862]

I agree that an “air” of looseness and experimentation likely occurred on some of John’s songs. A Day in The Life is the obvious example. However, John’s songs are quite open to interpretation without diminishing the quality. They were just a bit tired of working together y 1970. As much as I’ve enjoyed listening to John’s 1970 Rolling Stone interview, his opinions about all things Beatle, were very much of the time. He was a 30 year old guy that had been sort of locked into a creative job with the other 3. Of course he’d be ready for a break. My personal favorite Beatle moment is simple and obscure... the harmony, “His sister Pam works in a shop, she never stops, she’s a go getter....”. The lilt at the end in just exquisite. Thank you John

[@jean-marieboucherit4716]

Don’t ever believe what John said about the Beatles! This is rule number one of beatlemania.

[@christheother9088]

LOL so true.

[@speedoflight9005]

True. John was a unstable emotional aggressive moron, many times and said stupid things about The Beatles. Ex. "Thrash music" to the medley-suite on B Side of Abbey Road.

[@beatleman69]

I agree with you John. The beatles brought a lot to the table back then. What made John and Paul strong song writers was they played off each other. Their roof top concert wasn't too shabby, and I think they should have gave one last official concert in 1969, like Elvis did with a world wide broadcast of them performing. Paul once said he wanted the Beatles to play live again to find out who they were, but the others wasn't keen on the idea.

[@johnheaton5667]

beatleman69 thanks as always

[@rd812]

The Beatles were good musicians. Incredible composers.

[@davidgena2667]

Interesting discussion, John. The whole defines the greatness of the band without question with the individual parts all playing key roles in its construction. But putting musicianship aside for a moment, I've always felt their greatness emanated from their incredible songwriting talents. You can be the greatest musicians in the world but if you don't have the music to back it up, then what's the point? Invariably, they had the music which, of course, explains why their music is still so incredibly listenable after all these years. In a nutshell, they are and always will be the greatest band ever. End of discussion! As always, take care my Budapest friend.

[@johnheaton5667]

David Gena thanks David you're right of course....that's the cornerstone

[@gtrdoc911]

The Beatles mastered the songwriting craft in that they would add just enough uniqueness to their songs to satisfy the musician while not alienating the lay public thus building a humongous fan base. This is unlike pretty well all jazz musicians and bands like Rush and Steely Dan which have a niche following due to the overwhelming complexity of their music.

[@Twotontessie]

Not sure I can even watch this because if you diss Ringo on any level I will lose it. As a drummer I can assure anyone he was the greatest songwriters’ drummer who ever lived. 90% of their stuff wouldn’t have worked nearly as well with someone else. He invented dozens of incredibly innovative parts that took the songs to the next level. Listen to “In My Life.” “Help.” “Hey Jude.” All of it!

[@jorgecabrera420]

They were four of the best musicians and song writers ever, but they weren't better solo artists than they were as a unit, they complemented each other's songs, they made each other's songs better. Maybe the talent and the musical growth were uncontainable at the moment they split, but if they have done it in good terms, they would have reunited along the way, at least john and paul (george always felt that the other two never appreciated him properly as a songwriter).

[@thebossman80s]

The fact that ringo’s drumming sounded unique was a happy accident of a left handed drummer playing a right handed kit. That’s why you can’t put your finger on why his unique! It’s simply because it takes slightly longer for him to bring his left hand over to the right hand side of the kit when his playing from that side.

[@PolyphonicPress]

In my opinion, George didn't become a great guitar player until after The Beatles. He really took off and developed his own style of playing with a slide. From My Sweet Lord on, his slide guitar playing is very distinctive

[@poppo509]

I'm agree with you on that. His slide guitar work on Living in the Material World shows George slide at full Blossom.

[@DoubleCross2009]

To have in one band two of the best lead singers in rock and roll history was fortune indeed. The other notable quality was their versatility, born - as Paul has said - by their all night sessions in Hamburg playing all sorts of music. And they all had ears for other genres of music, be it blues, country, soul, Tin Pan Alley, traditional or vaudeville. The Beatles were never a one trick pony and that become ever more apparent as time went on.

[@SuperNevile]

and the two best CONSISTENT composers...…..

[@TheZizisLords]

Old brown shoe was actually George on bass

[@johnheaton5667]

TheZizisLords the jury is out on that...we have conflicting accounts from Lewisohn, George and the 50th anniversary Abbey Road box...someone should ask Paul and Chris Thomas before it’s too late...but no trusting anyone’s memory after 50 years!

[@Mozart1220]

@@johnheaton5667 According to the "Beatles recording Sessions" ( Lewisohn) It was BOTH George (guitar) and Paul (Bass) playing the same notes.

[@normaharrison6143]

@@Mozart1220 George Harrison said He played both the Guitars and the Bass.

[@polipon9]

There's a good chance Paul plays drum on this

[@Mozart1220]

@@normaharrison6143 Not according to the Beatles recording sessions, which was taken from the notes and records at EMI.

[@Maverikk68]

I love the Stones, and Keith is a personal favorite of mine, but the Stones were not a better live band than the Beatles when the Beatles were playing live. Maybe Keith meant after the Stones put keyboards, horns, and several backup singers on stage with them, and had more modern stage sound. If you watch any Ed Sullivan appearance by the Stones, they are clearly not at the level of the Beatles. None of them could sing like the Beatles, especially harmonies.

[@johnheaton5667]

No matter what, I still love the Stones at their best.

[@joemasse4568]

Maverikk68 if you look and listen to the Stone's 1969 performance in the movie Gimme Shelter. Then do the same with the Beatles rooftop performance in movie Let it Be, also 1969 ,YOU will notice the Beatles were the better band no doubt, the Beatles were professional sounding, the Stone's sound like a teenage garage band, sloppy playing, shitty sounding vocals, just the truth.

[@lorenzor2555]

Joe Masse as an amateur guitar player who played for many years with a band in partys etc I agree 100%. The "dirt" rock sound of the Stones is very easy to replicate. A good garage band, with passion, but for me nothing special. And nothing special also their songwriting. While the Beatles... wow! Every time you try to play and sing their stuff you realize how great singers and what a tight superbe band they were

[@danborden3594]

Lorenzo R interesting point as at times that is true. However, I think it’s very hard to replicate many of their songs. The opening of Gimme Shelter takes more than just hammering some power chords.

[@danvol3835]

I remember in one of his last interviews, either Playboy or Rolling Stone, Lennon was asked about the Stones. His reply, to paraphrase, was basically that the Stones were not even in the same class as the Beatles. So true.

[@danvol3835]

Yeah, there are loads of guys who practice all their lives and become technical wizards. Then, in jealous fits, they get offended by the fact that while they can't put together an original phrase with life and soul, the "mediocre" Beatles will be revered for centuries to come for their instinctive insight into music over notes (quality over quantity). So, who's the 'better' musician--the one who can play impossible rhythms at lightning speed, or the one who can elicit awe and deep emotion with just one note or (truly) unexpected progression? It's a matter of taste and how you want to define it, but... More is not better, it's just more.

[@MrBuc128]

Are you Sitting in an English garden ?(waiting for the sun )

[@johnheaton5667]

MrBuc128 almost...Hungarian garden...and no waiting necessary!

[@davidjanson9900]

no that would be the egg man

[@sanjaysharma-yy7tv]

Ex Beatles created music but the Beatles created magic.

[@tagoldich]

John, check out film of the Beatles playing live in Sweden, the Royal Variety Show, the Miami Ed Sullivan Show performance of She Loves You . . . at their best I think they play way much tighter, more precise and are better able to sound like their studio performances than the Stones. The Stones had their elan, but the Beatles were tight! Also, check out the Washington concert version of Long Tall Sally, has there ever been a live Stones performance that can equal it in terms of sheer balls to walls energy? It's scintillating! Also, Ringo IS playing on the Hamburg tapes.

[@tommyhaynes8690]

When talking about Ringo it would have been good to mention he was a left handed playing a right had drum set up

[@beatlebrad5339]

This is a very good discussion !!!. You bring out a lot of good things in this . Do you have a favorite song John ? . Good video take care .

[@johnheaton5667]

Beatle Brad thanks brad

[@johnheaton5667]

fifthof no not really it changes every day!

[@TheOompahRoundabout]

I love everything about their cover of bad boy! Great hard playing all around! Tight ! Great drumming! Guitar work and Lennon rocking out with his vocals! And also long tall Sally live in Washington 1964! Ringo cuts loose! In fact his drumming for the whole show was amazing. Another stand out was boys from live at the Hollywood bowl concert! The drums to me on that track cut through more! Not sure if Ringo's vocal mic 🎤 has anything to do with it! Maybe! But I hear the kick and snare drums better! A very exciting performance! I think they were good all round players! I think for their last tour, more rehearsals was needed! And I think it was criminal that by then a decent pa had not been put together! Especially after the 1965 Atlanta concert! Epstein let them down on that I feel! They should have had monitors by then , and had they we may of got more tours! Shorter tours would of maybe helped, with more time off during as well. But we will never know. I think the roof top performance showed they could still cut it live if they wanted too! I have know doubt had they toured in 1969 they would have blown everyone away. Great vid John. Thanks. 👍🏻🇦🇺✅😃

[@johnheaton5667]

Thanks! Yes 'Bad Boy' is a lost gem!

[@tonym994]

now, Jr. ,behave yourself ! a song made for jamming.

[@sesa1076]

I disagree on the fans singing backup on Accross The Universe. I think it adds an innocence that reflects greatly the tone of the song. It's brilliant.

[@RonaldBrown59]

The magic was in all four playing together. Good discussion John. Cheers.

[@johnheaton5667]

Ron Brown right Ron cheers

[@TomCwimpRock]

Interesting discussion John - nice video..

[@johnheaton5667]

Thomas Calden thanks Thomas

[@djreid]

Thanks for the nice compliments on the Beatles performances ..it is good to hear sincere thinkers on the Beatles songs. They were young to be honest. I think by the mid seventies..John Lennon had misgivings how they could have made songs better, but for the most part, by Let it Be they would get tired of each other..What changed ? I think John and Yoko changed the Beatles. George was too a bit disappointed in both John and Paul with his songs passed by. I think they were young, they loved each other, but when changes come, the Beatles knew it was going to end in a crash with money issues...and then the sueing.. I think Lennon was right when Brian died, the Beatles died. The dream was over. Paul kept up a great movement to get the Beatles back to Live, but they got too soft.

[@MrBuc128]

The Stones had the pleasure of playing live in the late 60s early 70s and beyond of course. During a time when audio equipment for live shows had progressed 10 fold from just 4 or 5 years before when the Beatles stopped touring. As you mentioned they could barely hear themselves. So no it's not fair for Keith to say that about the Beatles. He knows that too.

[@johnheaton5667]

MrBuc128 well said!

[@terrythekittie]

And the 1969 rooftop performance with Billy Preston proved the Beatles could cut it live. No screaming kids and better sound management. Pity they couldn't have mended their ways and gone out on tour with BP. To see them play the rooftop set + Revolution, Old Brown Shoe, Hey Bulldog, Lady Madonna, Back in the USSR, Dear Prudence, Yer Blues, what a show that would have been and would have seriously challenged the Stones as live performers.

[@MICKEYISLOWD]

Keith had no talent compared to the Beatles. There are people who dissed The Beatles including Pete Townsend and Frank Zappa saying The Beatles were lousy and alright respectively...but the camera doesn't lie as you can see the envy and Jealousy they had for the Beatles written all over their faces. The thing is most people don't understand just how awe inspiring they actually were. Only high end musicians can grasp this. There has never been any band or individual since the Beatles that even comes close to their genius but with only one exception.

[@chicklets4ever51]

And what, pray tell, is that one exception, in your opinion?

[@catherinewilson3880]

@@chicklets4ever51 The Bay City Rollers, lol.

[@sjmoss148]

John had to concede that Ringo as a drummer was a great Beatle. No one could have done half as brilliantly. George referred to his time with the group as "When I was Beatle George" which explains his "When we was fab!" Remember the oldest member when they split up was 30 .....incredible!

[@robbiepeterh]

Think of Ringo’s drumming on God by John Lennon. Each fill is completely unique and played spontaneously.

[@Daberney]

robbiepeterh: Ringo's drumming is the beating heart of that entire album.

[@tonym994]

@@Daberney on quite possibly Lennon's finest hour. as an artist.

[@67Parsifal]

McCartney's transformation as a bass-player between 1963-66 is astonishing: competence to brilliance in three breathless years!

[@Mozart1220]

He was greatly influenced on bass by none other then Brian Wilson.

[@howardjones7370]

Mozart1220 None other than

[@Mozart1220]

@@howardjones7370 Wilson showed that the bass did not have to play the root of the chord, and all that "melodic" bass stuff Macca played post 1965 was pur BW.

[@howardjones7370]

Mozart1220 I was correcting your spelling, it’s none other THAN, not then, a REALLY annoying trait that seems to have come from the US, same as ‘ could of ‘ instead of the correct could HAVE, should HAVE, might HAVE

[@Mozart1220]

@@howardjones7370 You really didn't have too you know. (wink)

[@nubworthycigars6682]

Interesting discussion. Idk if I personally buy the narrative that All Things Must Pass was dismissed by the group. They recorded it like 70 times during the GetBack sessions. There’s also audio of George not wanting to play it or any of his songs at the rooftop concert.

[@jean-marieboucherit4716]

Across the universe could have been another Strawberry Fields Forever, but the mood was gone, so was the will, the incentive.

[@andrewnbrown]

The Stones had (have) a front man which is an advantage for many people. The Beatles also stopped touring before proper PA systems for big venues had been developed.

[@fernandoaldekoa2436]

The Beatles had 4 front men.

[@gerrydooley951]

It's hilarious that these kinds of things still get discussed regarding the Beatles.

[@nigelgunson1025]

Paul mccartney stated during a beatles press conference, that they were average musicians. I believe they were four very good musicians. Who am I to argue with paul mccartney.

[@paulgriffith1021]

Speaking of the Boys live, what about their performance on the roof ? They are wonderful together!

[@tonym994]

and consider that the conditions were not ideal. January 30 in London? Summer day, they'd play for 2 hrs.

[@user-nq9gz4xf7f]

The Beatles were i think enormously creative, their musicianship was secondary i think, they were never session or schooled players. We would all eagerly await the next Beatles record. It was a sixties phenomenon and it died with the sixties. Nothing that creative in music has happened since in my opinion. But it was the 1960s, so exciting, and a lost time, so i only get half the thrill listening to one of their songs nowadays.

[@gatsby1000]

Top 5 beatle song 4 me is all my loving cause the lyrics the rythem guitar and john & paul sing together and then georges carl perkinks like meldy solo i love it for such a short song it has so many memborible bits in it brillent

[@songsbymichaelroberts9078]

Wonderful indeed, and a very difficult rhythm guitar part by John (not difficult to play for 4 or 5 bars, but a big challenge for an entire song). That's George on the harmony vocal, though.

[@markofsaltburn]

I don’t care about technique, I don’t care about who played what, I just care about how records with the name “The Beatles” on them make me feel. They could be generated by AI for all I care.

[@markkavanagh7377]

4 Beatles in the room .....and Yoko. Game over.

[@davidb5659]

Of course the Stones were/are a better live band. However tight the Beatles were as a band in Hamburg, the songs they played were relatively simple, requiring little musicianship. (In any case, whatever they were in Hamburg is lost in time.) By the time they reached their peak as musicians in the late 60’s, their days of live performance were years past. That said, the hints we have of the kind of live band the Beatles could have been - the rooftop concert, live on tape recordings - suggest that they could have amazed the world if they had played live shows in 1969 onward. Then again, we’ll never know. Keith Richards sounds silly comparing the Stones live to a band that gave up live music in their early 20’s - and he has nothing to prove. The Stones have been the greatest live rock/blues band for 50 years. The Beatles were, however, the greatest band of musicians ever, transcending genre. Even they apart never (re)discovered the sublime magic that the four of them created together.

[@scottamichie]

David B Agree. But go back and replay Beatles first few albums. They were full direct live studio recordings. First album first cut, Just 17, is as tight a performance as you can imagine right from the very start. Also McCartney and Lennon vocals on one mic, live and studio in early performances and recordings , were as tight as, say, the Everly brothers.

[@MrMurph73]

John, would it be unreasonable to judge the Beatles as a live band based on the rooftop performance? Not much there, admittedly, but in that performance alone I think they proved what a tight, capable live band they were.

[@lamplighter5545]

The best example of the Beatles live is Live at the BBC.

[@RevolverAnthology]

Stones versus Beatles live...Keith, you are a dreamer...Beatles are FAR better ! I have seen Stones live, not a patch, nowhere even near

[@SuperNevile]

Does he even remember the 60's, or is he just faking it?

[@Gardosunron]

Check this out.. s://kzbin.info/www/bejne/b2SrinluqtqHadU. The Beatles were on another planet compared to any of the other Bands. Stones included.

[@rudolphguarnacci197]

Okay, Keith, get another freakin' deck of heroin you boob

[@Obladgolated]

Nice comments, interesting observations. You opened doors for me with your insights, and I'm an observer of The Beatles since 1964, when I was in fourth grade. Thank you for producing this video. On the Beatles - Stones dichotomy, to me it's clear that the Beatles were much more versatile; they consistently pushed themselves in new directions, and didn't have an obvious leader as did the Stones, who IMHO were essentially a very good rock-and-roll band, a term which I don't think really applies to the Beatles. To like the Stones, one must like Mick Jagger, to an extent that exceeds other obvious front-man acts, like The Doors or Janis Joplin.

[@stephenkater9621]

The Beatles live were AMAZING. The hamburg tapes are GIGANTIC. And you can smell the amphetamin there by the way ...

[@adammartin7007]

George also played bass on Maxwell's Silver Hammer.

[@L.E.55472]

Excellent topic, very well thought out. I have always thought Ringo was a great overlooked drummer, Rain for instance. Take care-- Lis

[@johnheaton5667]

L. E. Thx Lis

[@sirronnitram8937]

Paul would come to appreciate Georges ATMP and perform it as a tribute in his concerts

[@johnheaton5667]

Sirron Nitram only at Concert for George (2002) as far as I know...although he does play ‘Something’’ in his concerts these days

[@John-zg2ze]

You can't say that about John This man knows his onions

[@paulsullivan1650]

There's no doubt to me that McCartney was by far the best rock bassist ever. He may not have been as flashy or fast as Entwhistle, but he changed rock bass playing in the sixties. He played his Hofner, and especially his Rickenbacker 4001 like a lead player. The way he flew up and down the neck is just incredible to listen to. I've always thought that John Lennon was the best rthymn player around. Second to none. He and Townshend. Eric Clapton once said in an interview that Lennon was the best he'd ever heard. Enough for me...

[@mikeorenstein221]

Paul....you are so right about Lennon's rhythm guitar work. He "moved" the band....numerous examples on You Tube, particularly the one with him sitting on the floor with Yoko and he's playing rhythm and lead to several songs, including "Rock Island Line."

[@paulsullivan1650]

Mike Orenstein Absolutely Mike...

[@mikeorenstein221]

If there's one thing for which I give producer Sir George Martin "discredit" was his heavy hand in toning down some of the brilliant instrumental work of each of the 4 guys. Now removed, but You Tube once offered "(I Want You) She's So Heavy" with Paul's isolated bass, and just a hint of the song in the background, giving you a full appreciation of his mastering of musical theory as well as his playing. And then there's the bass, piano and drums isolation on "Hello Goodbye" in which Ringo shows off what he COULD do if and when he wanted. And then there's George Harrison's tasteful guitar flourishes in too many songs to remember that I've come across over the years on bootlegs and on You Tube. Again, the one fault of Sir George Martin was his decision not to let so many of these moments make it to our ears.

[@paulsullivan1650]

Mike Orenstein Again I agree Mike. I've heard the isolated bass on "She's So Heavy." It's incredible...

[@tonym994]

@@mikeorenstein221 that video is now GONE? SHIT!!

[@williambault2469]

PUT YOUR HEART IN TO IT

[@ericbenjamin2908]

With the exception of the early recording that used a sub for RIngo, I think, George Martin never pulled in a session player to cover for an instrument played by one of the Beatles (unlike several famous American bands and record companies saved money by not having to try to record takes with the less-skilled band members).

[@davidlean1060]

...even Pink Floyd can't boast that. They had Jeff Pocaro play on Mother, for example.

[@TagusMan]

The sum is greater than it's parts... Yeah, but that's true about all kinds of bands and all kinds of teams, sports teams and otherwise. Led Zeppelin was a sonic super nova. All brilliant musicians. All had crap solo careers compared to what they accomplished as a 4 piece together. And that's because musicians like to play with other musicians because the best musicians bring out the best in their colleagues. And that was absolutely true about the Beatles. It's not a surprise and it isn't a valid critique of any of the Beatles. The Beatles took full advantage of the alchemy of genius. And no one has done it better.

[@Beatgeneration2010]

John, just a technical sound it's, the rattling of your notes (close to the Mic) is very distracting, plus the planes, the wind, but the sounds of the Birds is always a welcome sound. (No not McGuinns (Byrds), or Ronnie Wood's Birdsl. The out door broadcasts bring their own sound problems, I think where possible the indoor setting is probably the most conducive 👍

[@macvoutie]

Vinyl Ritchie this video doesn't knock Ringo at all. He says Ringo was the perfect drummer for the gig. What he means is Ringo isn't a schooled drummer. In other words Ringo didn't formally study and I think in this case it's good that he didn't because all that the Beatles did was pretty new to music and they needed someone who wasn't tied to set ways of doing things.

[@jean-marieboucherit4716]

The is a difference between - musicians -and musicality. There was more musicality in John Lennon’s little finger than in the whole of say Led Zeppelin’s career .

[@Shred_The_Weapon]

The subjectivity about what the Beatles were capable of could probably stretch 50 times around the equator before it was properly explored. So much of what came out of them they have lain dormant and untouched, if they had landed with the producer other than Sir George Martin. That might be too simple of me, but it was almost evident from those first two records of theirs that George was not solely interested in just capturing the group on tape. I would venture he wanted to help them access the kind of potential they had as artists which a tenured professor of music might have attempted to find in them. I can just imagine that I am treading through a minefield with this one, but I’m “going for the one” anyway. Whenever we hear an example in which John, Paul and George were doing each other‘s jobs for them, it sort of brings to mind for me how the Beatles almost literally played musical chairs during the 60s. Any one of them could’ve come the bass guitarist, and (as demonstrated by “the End“), any one of them could have been the lead guitar player. The possibilities were kind of dangerous.

[@sidewaysrain7609]

You seem to have trouble articulating The Beatles musicianship. You may want to deconstruct a few songs with examples. Well let's not forget George Martin who was classically trained and key in the production and some arrangements especially in the early years.

[@anonymusum]

Keith Richard is a nutcase. I just heard "Help" performed in 1964 - I guess it was - and it was brilliant - according to the standard of that time. The Beatles were like a well oiled live machine due to all their live appearances in Hamburg and Liverpool. They were very tight and they could groove. The Stones were a amateur band in comparison. Mick Jagger for example always had serious problems in intonation - and still has - and their vocal harmonies were lousy. Just compare both versions of "I Wanna Be You Man" which was written by McCartney/Lennon and recorded by both bands. The Stones stumble through the song whereas the Beatles just roll over it. Another point: Up to Sgt. Pepper they only had a 4 track machine in the studio. That means that the band recorded their live performance in the studio - only vocals and solo work was overdubbed. The first Beatles album was basically recorded in one day and it was an extract of their live show. So how could anybody say that they weren´t a great live band? And @ Harrison: I like him as a good arranger within his guitar work. But he had the good and the bad luck to be in a band together with 2 of the greatest songwriters in rock/pop history and one of them was a very good bass player and singer, a good guitar player and a solid drummer as well, who even could play some piano stuff. And as they were approaching their end Macca wrote most of their material and nearly all of their hits. Ringo said that he was a workaholic who always wanted to meet them in the studio. I know those situations very well. The guy who works the most and who takes responsibilities slowly becomes a kind of bogeyman for those, who do less or who simply can´t do better. George always complained about being disregarded by both of them. But that´s not the point. He should have asked himself what would have happened without McCartney and Lennon? He probably would have played in a nice little band in Liverpool for the rest of his life. So basically he had good luck to meet those two, but he obviously took that for granted in the last years. Same goes for Lennon during that period. Without Maccas work he and the band would have ended in nowhere land. George Martin once said that Lennon preferred to go to parties during that time whereas Macca just kept on working, looking for inspirations in modern classical music and thried to improve his knowledge in music theory. I have the biggest respect for McCartney - maybe because he is a so called musician´s musician.

[@johnheaton5667]

anonymusum thanks for your detailed comment!

[@googoogjoobgoogoogjoob]

Beatles vs Stones live, well the main (and huge) difference that I guess Keith alludes too is that the Stones played live all through their oh so long career. But a comparison just for fun: rhythm sections very different, Stones tight and straight, Beatles more feel and melodic - evens. Instrumental add-ins: I guess Brian J just gave them the edge having the extra personnel here. Lead: Stones rhythm and bluesy, Beatles again melodic with some more rock feel - with John's such firm rhythm contribution giving George a bit more freedom - Beatles take this. Although in the ~5 y Mick T period arguably this would reverse the honours. Vocals: obviously no competition, lets say 3:1. Songs: well Stones were maybe more suitable to the live environment, but the Beatles more than trump them on quality and variety.

[@loungejay8555]

Video is 12 minutes 16 seconds long. That could be 4 minutes on John's musicianship, 4 minutes on Paul's, 4 minutes on George's and 16 seconds on Ringo's. (only joking, Ringo's great)

[@CB-xr1eg]

Took me 10 seconds to read your shitty comment. That's 10 seconds I'll never get back.