Music Banter - View Single Post - 10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles
View Single Post
Old 03-23-2008, 04:00 AM   #66 (permalink)
Rainard Jalen
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ADELE View Post
The stones were better live and that is why they still tour. Their music is good live like the who.
The Beatles later work is orchastra orientated so live shows would be theatre rather then live gigs. I mean, they couldn't perform songs from pepper at the Marquee and get everyone up for the gig. That is why people prefer live stones.
The stones did he acid phase but returned to rock quickly.
Bands that do good live gigs always keep going but bands that do studio work tend to either stop touring or tour their other work that is better live. The Beatles wouldn't tour with "love me do" anymore so they just quit.
The stones were a live band like oasis who emulate them now.
The Beatles had plenty of stuff to tour with even if you just took Hard Days Night --> Rubber Soul and the non-album singles (e.g. Day Tripper, Paperback Writer, I Feel Fine) and the B-Sides (e.g. She's A Woman, I'm Down). But you're right that Sgt.Pepper was not tourable material for its orchestral orientation.

However, I think you got it the wrong way round. They didn't stop touring because of the sonic shift. Rather, the sonic shift was borne out of their decision to stop touring. Sgt.Pepper for example was originally conceived when the Beatles were exploring the question of how they could create a record that would do the touring for them. That's where the fictional band concept arose from.
Rainard Jalen is offline   Reply With Quote