Comment Re:Musical styles not for live performance? (Score 1) 237
No speculation
Then why doesn't it agree with their own reasoning?
the band didn't tour and amassed fortunes on record sales.
Nobody is denying that. They were a great rock band.
They had the luxury of not touring when screaming teenagers became annoying.
So the screaming teenagers (and others) were not annoying when they played at Shae stadium? which btw, was the first ever concert in a stadium.
A handful of songs may not have been possible live (Revolution #9 or something)
Now you're just being ignorant. Revolution #9 was released on The White Album, which is much later after they stopped touring. I suggest you take a look at the live recording of "Nowhere man" for example. It sounds nothing like on the studio album. Or "Tomorrow never knows". Please enlighten us how they would have done all the loops etc without modern synthesizers?
but their music was performed live by their contemporaries in the late 1960's.
Some it was yes, but hardly ever those studio tracks that were difficult to play live in a four-piece band.
They could have done it if they enjoyed playing in front of large crowds or needed the extra money.
On the contrary, much of their post-Revolver music was not made for that. You know, they did love playing for large crowds, but got fed up with not being able to hear themselves while playing and thus not being able to improve. Money had little to do with this. Sorry mate.
Want to add a note though. Using The Beatles as an example today is sort of pointless, because we do have all the modern technology available.
