The Beatles didn't snub live shows because they didn't like the oncept of concerts, the music they were preforming was too sophisticated to be done properly on stage, that and they could barely hear themelves over the teenage girl crowd's screaming.
A bit of both, actually.
The Beatles were HORRIBLY strained from touring - they didn't have tours like band do today, they were ALWAYS on the road, and the shows they were playing were hectic and the crowds were unruly and psychotic. Their was way too much stress on them to do all this while being expected to throw out almost two albums a year and be writing constantly when given free time, and John was starting to gain a lot of weight, so...
They sorta just called it quits on touring - which then allowed them to realize that not touring would allow them to put more emphasis on song-writing and more complex arrangements which they could never have done live. _________________ A dick that's bigger than the sun.
The debate of music as a listening art or as entertainment is nothing new and probably goes back to the first cavemen howls. Even classical composers as Mozart and Liszt have been accused of killing the music scene in their days by writing music for the masses ... No one in their right mind now studies music history and says of Mozart that he killed the music scene of his day ... or do they?
Mozart no. Liszt yes. There are very few works by Liszt with actual substance in them, they´re mostly show off pieces. (Just a footnote, has nothing to do with the actual topic, sorry.)
Another super-interesting/music-scene-altering hypothetical to consider: The story goes that when the Beatles were first discovered, playing shit clubs all over Germany, they were actually a band of raucous assholes (even Paul!) who ate food on stage, swore at audience members, things like that. Once somebody wanted to put them in studio, though, they had to clean up their act, or else!
Always made me wonder what a Beatles (Quarrymen?) album would have been like if they hadn't been encouraged in a more polite direction. Would we have had another group of proto-punkers the likes of Iggy Pop? Would John have gone on to work with Bowie or Eno? How cool would THAT have been? Imagine (no pun intended) a world in which punkers actually *like* the Beatles!
I've always taken Rock&Roll to mean the sort of music made in the 60's by Chuck berry, Elvis, Little Richard etc... The death of that scene had nothing to do with the beatles. it was due to a myriad of events that happened to all the key players.
Bill Haley's popularity died down.
Little Richard turned to gospel music.
Chuck berry got put in jail for transporting a minor across borders.
Elvis joined the army for two years.
Jerry Lee Lewis married his 14 year old cousin which raised uproar and killed any chance of breaking through the UK which might of kept his career going longer.
Buddy Holly and Ritchie Valens died in a plane crash.
Eddie Cochran died in a crash.
All this left was Bo Diddely who was always more of an R&B guy.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
And why is it 'The Beatles' anyways? if anything, I would blame Frank Zappa or Cpt. Beefheart for it 
