Yep... But at that time, the amplification was poor, and the girls (most of them screaming like hell) didn't let them play properly, they didn't get feedback on what they played.
That's were they excelled,they spent their youth playing live, hundreds of hours, just because when they got big and outplayed by the crowd, people think they weren't good, it's sad really.
Agree. It's ironic because Wyman looked stone faced dead while on stage playing bass. His expression never changed and I imagine he looked the same when he had to go to the loo very badly.
I used to feel bad that a number of recorded live Beatle performances weren’t as good as we’d like, until I was at a Springsteen concert and he did Roll Over Beethoven. He sounded like shit. Screaming into the mic. He had a real PA, amplifiers, sound man, etc, and could hear himself. Then I realized how much the Beatles had done and could appreciate their performances given the lack of equipment and support they received in those unprecedented venues for the time.
Martin Fry thinks the Beatles would struggle in the early ‘80s..I guess ‘the look of love’ was head and shoulders above the tripe Lennon & McCartney/Harrison put out 😅
The Stones were always jealous of the Beatles. Lennon/McCartney never had to jump about the stage like Jagger. Their presence, musicianship and songwriting did the talking.
In the words of Lemmy “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 humor, 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.”
The Beatles rooftop concert in 1969, albeit with Billy Preston on organ sounded and looked great even with the cold numbing their fingers...and that was with no stage effects like lights and smoke and million dollar sound system ...I would take that over watching Jagger endlessly prancing around and pre Mick Taylor they weren't that all that great live IMO.
For supposed stars some of these people aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. That stupid question, would the Beatles be popular today? You can't take the music they made in the 60s and use that as an example today because if they were on the scene today, they wouldn't sound like they did in the 60's. But whatever they did sound like, they'd be a smash because they could write, and they could sing. And they more than adequately backed themselves musically. They never claimed to be top shelf session musicians. But they would be popular in any era they were around.
Sorry Bill, I know when you said this you had not seen the 2021 Let it Be Film - I think that puts to rest all the "Beatles were not a good live band" BS
It’s interesting set of opinions. Most of the blues based rock bands- ie The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, would say that the Beatles’ music didn’t really appeal to them and that they were not a good live band. Tho i do love those bands, i have noticed that they’re very narrow minded when it comes to music. Tastes i understand but when you have musicians saying they don’t like those bands or that style of music cos it’s too soft, that tells me all i need to know about them. Saying the Beatles weren’t a good live band then tell me why they would sell out at the cavern and other clubs where they had lines for blocks waiting to see them and this before they even had a record contract. They should also check the Beatles at Washington dc doing long tall sally, they were on fire and tore the roof off of that place.
You are right on my friend! it’s funny because the Beatles and the stones and Led Zeppelin we’re all inspired by a lot of the same black blues artists and The Beatles did did some Bluey songs, but they had quite an assortment of music that they wrote, which is unlike the other bands that stayed kind of more in one area
Woman saying the Beatles weren’t a great live band is a joke and counter to every legitimate recounting of their act prior to Beatlemania. They had thousands of hours performing and at that point in time were as good a live band as there was. If not for Beatlemania and the screaming, if they had continued touring and taken backup singers - which they didn’t need- and more musicians to replicate their studio work, it would have been epic. I love the Stones, but in the 60’s they were in line somewhere behind the Beatles.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with Bill about the Beatles as a live band. The Beatles were great live when their hearts were in it and conditions weren't too out of hand. They didn't play well live during their final world tour in 1966, but by then, they were completely disillusioned with touring.
The most exciting band live are The Who especially when they perform Won't Get Fooled Again. Jagger's movements although lively to me are never in time. The most exciting thing the Beatles did was shake their hair. I admire the Beatles but their best performances were probably - as John Lennon said a few times - when they were in Hamburg. To be fair it would have been interesting to hear them with 70's sound systems if they'd only stopped being a corporation instead of a band from 1966 - no wonder they split up - not doing any gigs or connecting with the crowd.
This is the nub of it.. they stopped being a band, and it shows in the rooftop performances where they struggle with re-establishing their original Cavern tightness. The first thing McCartney did after they split was take out a band on the road in a van and just turn up somewhere to play. He was the only one still playing proper gigs and tours in a band format during the 70s. Lennon became a professional New York Lefty and only released records instead of playing regularly , Harrison went into film finance and Starr just became a wandering celebrity. It's McCartney who really has the music in him.
If the Beatles hadn't come up, there wouldn't be Synth Pop. As for Bill Wyman, he probably called up Paul McCartney and said "Hey, I just crapped all over you guys in an interview. Next time when I tell you to buy me a beer, you buy me a beer!!"
Some of this is part of that 70s/80s backlash. It needs to be understood, the bigger you are in one generation the bigger the backlash in the next. People’s opinion of The Beatles now is more relevant after all these years.
And the Stones were? LMAO........He's not being honest, more like jealous. Take the same period of their touring years mid sixties to compare their concerts. Beatles were pretty good in concert, considering they could hardly hear themselves over the crowds. The Stones werent even as good as the Beatles in concert then!
@@jimcoleman598 the stones weren't eighter ,to be honest as people were terrible, and lets be honest if he was'nt for Harrison recomendation they weren't there
Wyman's assessment is semi-fair: it's true the Stones didn't start making decent records till the dog-end of the 60s. Also true that the Stones were quite good live before they became a grotesque nostalgia attraction - but Bill himself always stood stock still the entire show (a big influence on my own onstage approach as it happens)
Rolling Stones were great in concert? What day was that ?? At least the Beatles played their instruments on Ed Sullivan, not like the Stones, see Gimme Shelter , Ruby Tuesday, Let's Spend The Night Together etc - comical! And Bill Wyman talking about visually better on stage? I like Bill, but you could have put a flower pot on stage for 1-1/2 hours in his place, and not notice any difference. Mick Jaggar could dance around, but he is a front man with no instrument to focus on playing. Big difference!
@jimcoleman598 And what band would kowtow to the demands of Ed Sullivan and change the title of their song so they could appear on the show. Jim Morrison certainly didn't.
The Beatles are the best in every way possible!
Menurut penggemar nya🤣🤣🤣
The beatles were a great live band.
The Beatles were known for their great stage presence and how tight they were as a live band.
Yep... But at that time, the amplification was poor, and the girls (most of them screaming like hell) didn't let them play properly, they didn't get feedback on what they played.
That's were they excelled,they spent their youth playing live, hundreds of hours, just because when they got big and outplayed by the crowd, people think they weren't good, it's sad really.
You saw them live?
He's blowing smoke out his arsenal. The Beatles were a great live band.
Agree. It's ironic because Wyman looked stone faced dead while on stage playing bass. His expression never changed and I imagine he looked the same when he had to go to the loo very badly.
Bill should watch the 1964 and 1965 NME awards. The Beatles blow the Stones off the stage and he know it
First time I've ever heard Bill Wyman's voice. I'm 46 and I've only ever seen him stand there in silence, mysteriously squinting at everyone.
Beatles in their Hamburg days were at peak live performance!
The Beatles were brilliant live and tight as anything between say 1961-1966 bar a few performances that were recorded 👍🎶
I used to feel bad that a number of recorded live Beatle performances weren’t as good as we’d like, until I was at a Springsteen concert and he did Roll Over Beethoven. He sounded like shit. Screaming into the mic. He had a real PA, amplifiers, sound man, etc, and could hear himself. Then I realized how much the Beatles had done and could appreciate their performances given the lack of equipment and support they received in those unprecedented venues for the time.
Listen to the live performance of Roll Over Beethoven from Beatles Anthology 1. It's a great performance. Ringo's drumming is superb on it.
Martin Fry thinks the Beatles would struggle in the early ‘80s..I guess ‘the look of love’ was head and shoulders above the tripe Lennon & McCartney/Harrison put out 😅
The Stones were always jealous of the Beatles. Lennon/McCartney never had to jump about the stage like Jagger. Their presence, musicianship and songwriting did the talking.
In the words of Lemmy “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 humor, 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.”
The Beatles rooftop concert in 1969, albeit with Billy Preston on organ sounded and looked great even with the cold numbing their fingers...and that was with no stage effects like lights and smoke and million dollar sound system ...I would take that over watching Jagger endlessly prancing around and pre Mick Taylor they weren't that all that great live IMO.
I’ve seen a lot of footage of Beatles and Stones. The Beatles were a better live band. Bill Wyman is talking bullocks.
For supposed stars some of these people aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. That stupid question, would the Beatles be popular today? You can't take the music they made in the 60s and use that as an example today because if they were on the scene today, they wouldn't sound like they did in the 60's. But whatever they did sound like, they'd be a smash because they could write, and they could sing. And they more than adequately backed themselves musically. They never claimed to be top shelf session musicians. But they would be popular in any era they were around.
Not Terry Hall's finest moment...
Terry who? 😂
Watch the Beatles live in Sweden doing 'I Saw Her Standing There' blows away the live Stones of that period.
Damn Bryan Ferry is very handsome, particularly was handsome in this interview
Who’s terry hall? Lol. Brutal.
Sorry Bill, I know when you said this you had not seen the 2021 Let it Be Film - I think that puts to rest all the "Beatles were not a good live band" BS
It’s interesting set of opinions. Most of the blues based rock bands- ie The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, would say that the Beatles’ music didn’t really appeal to them and that they were not a good live band. Tho i do love those bands, i have noticed that they’re very narrow minded when it comes to music. Tastes i understand but when you have musicians saying they don’t like those bands or that style of music cos it’s too soft, that tells me all i need to know about them. Saying the Beatles weren’t a good live band then tell me why they would sell out at the cavern and other clubs where they had lines for blocks waiting to see them and this before they even had a record contract. They should also check the Beatles at Washington dc doing long tall sally, they were on fire and tore the roof off of that place.
You are right on my friend! it’s funny because the Beatles and the stones and Led Zeppelin we’re all inspired by a lot of the same black blues artists and The Beatles did did some Bluey songs, but they had quite an assortment of music that they wrote, which is unlike the other bands that stayed kind of more in one area
Bill Wyman, nonsense. Beatles excellent live. The Stones good visually... well he didn't do much of that himself, just stood there.
Visually the Beatles were masters! They were pioneers in fashion and aesthetics in the 60s
Woman saying the Beatles weren’t a great live band is a joke and counter to every legitimate recounting of their act prior to Beatlemania. They had thousands of hours performing and at that point in time were as good a live band as there was. If not for Beatlemania and the screaming, if they had continued touring and taken backup singers - which they didn’t need- and more musicians to replicate their studio work, it would have been epic. I love the Stones, but in the 60’s they were in line somewhere behind the Beatles.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with Bill about the Beatles as a live band. The Beatles were great live when their hearts were in it and conditions weren't too out of hand. They didn't play well live during their final world tour in 1966, but by then, they were completely disillusioned with touring.
The most exciting band live are The Who especially when they perform Won't Get Fooled Again. Jagger's movements although lively to me are never in time. The most exciting thing the Beatles did was shake their hair. I admire the Beatles but their best performances were probably - as John Lennon said a few times - when they were in Hamburg. To be fair it would have been interesting to hear them with 70's sound systems if they'd only stopped being a corporation instead of a band from 1966 - no wonder they split up - not doing any gigs or connecting with the crowd.
This is the nub of it.. they stopped being a band, and it shows in the rooftop performances where they struggle with re-establishing their original Cavern tightness. The first thing McCartney did after they split was take out a band on the road in a van and just turn up somewhere to play. He was the only one still playing proper gigs and tours in a band format during the 70s. Lennon became a professional New York Lefty and only released records instead of playing regularly , Harrison went into film finance and Starr just became a wandering celebrity. It's McCartney who really has the music in him.
@@Lytton333 :)
Haircut 100 seem to have got it about right 👍
If the Beatles hadn't come up, there wouldn't be Synth Pop. As for Bill Wyman, he probably called up Paul McCartney and said "Hey, I just crapped all over you guys in an interview. Next time when I tell you to buy me a beer, you buy me a beer!!"
They would of blown you 4 miles off the stage
Terry was brilliant at playing the bored schoolkid, you know secretly he loved them.
these so called stars really prove how ignorant they all are to GENIUS 🤣🤣🤣
Ironic really. I saw the Stones in Hyde Park in 1969. I was so disappointed I left half way through. 🙄
Some of this is part of that 70s/80s backlash. It needs to be understood, the bigger you are in one generation the bigger the backlash in the next.
People’s opinion of The Beatles now is more relevant after all these years.
Bill Wyman - Me: Yeah, right. Good stuff.
Bryan Ferry - Me: Okay. Understood
Fun Boy Three. Me: Uhm... Who da fyyk is this twayt?
👍🏻
Bill wymans a div
Bill Wyman has a smell of jealousy about him.
Finally someone of his peers being honest, and not sucking them and putting them in pedestals, ita true they weren't good live
And the Stones were? LMAO........He's not being honest, more like jealous. Take the same period of their touring years mid sixties to compare their concerts. Beatles were pretty good in concert, considering they could hardly hear themselves over the crowds. The Stones werent even as good as the Beatles in concert then!
@@jimcoleman598 the stones weren't eighter ,to be honest as people were terrible, and lets be honest if he was'nt for Harrison recomendation they weren't there
Wyman's assessment is semi-fair: it's true the Stones didn't start making decent records till the dog-end of the 60s. Also true that the Stones were quite good live before they became a grotesque nostalgia attraction - but Bill himself always stood stock still the entire show (a big influence on my own onstage approach as it happens)
They were a great live band. The BBC recordings prove they were top notch.
@@michaelharrington75 if someone quit the crazy fangrils screaming probably yes
Rolling Stones were great in concert? What day was that ?? At least the Beatles played their instruments on Ed Sullivan, not like the Stones, see Gimme Shelter , Ruby Tuesday, Let's Spend The Night Together etc - comical! And Bill Wyman talking about visually better on stage? I like Bill, but you could have put a flower pot on stage for 1-1/2 hours in his place, and not notice any difference. Mick Jaggar could dance around, but he is a front man with no instrument to focus on playing. Big difference!
Spot on.x
The Beatles keburu bubar sebelum hard rock merambah musik dunia🤣🤣🤣
@jimcoleman598 And what band would kowtow to the demands of Ed Sullivan and change the title of their song so they could appear on the show. Jim Morrison certainly didn't.
@@yoanberlianasiregar2325 The hard rock is over.