If this would have happened and the two great bands were booked for Woodstock 1969, The Stones and The Beatles. One plays Saturday night at 8 pm and the other on Sunday night at 8 pm. The premier slot is Saturday night. It's August 1969 who gets the Saturday night top billing? The Stones are preparing for their first US tour in three years, last playing the States in 1966, and The Beatles last US tour was also in 1966. All things being equal at that time in history, who gets the top billing and why? Both would release new albums in late 1969. The Stones "Let It Bleed" in December 1969 and The Beatles Abbey Road in September 1969. Both had new songs to play. Who would 400,000 + people want to see more?

The Beatles.

The Rolling Stones are my favourite band of all time but it would have to be The Beatles. They did more to change society and therefor created more of an impact during the 60s than any other performer in the 20th century.

As the Beatles always sucked live and hadn't performed in front of an audience since 1966 while the Stones were into their golden era (68-72) and had just recruited MT, the answer is dead easy.

Quote
dcba
As the Beatles always sucked live and hadn't performed in front of an audience since 1966 while the Stones were into their golden era (68-72) and had just recruited MT, the answer is dead easy.

Yes, but keep in mind that the "Stones in August 1969" would most probably have sounded similar to "Stones in July 1969", which is a kinda frightening thought ;-)

Neither the Beatles nor the Stones – who the promotor and the audience really wanted to have on the bill was no other than Bob Dylan (maybe therefore they put up that festival more or less in his backyard).

I’m in complete agreement with Silver Dagger, here. The Beatles were revolutionary. Without the phenomenon that was John, Paul, George and Ringo, I feel that popular music would have evolved very differently. They were crucial to the transition from rock n’ roll to what followed.

Gene Baby shoulda opened ... frantic and cheaper too ... HHHaaaaaaaa



ROCKMAN

Quote
dcba
As the Beatles always sucked live and hadn't performed in front of an audience since 1966 while the Stones were into their golden era (68-72) and had just recruited MT, the answer is dead easy.

The Beatles in 1966 were still screamed at so they could not hear what they were playing. Playing live in 1969 would have been a whole new experience for them as the audience actually listened to the music. A 90 minute live Beatles set in August 1969 would be to die for.

I don't think it would have been a gear or audience problem. They were good composers but bad musicians. Listen to their BBC sessions : the music is nice decent and pleasant (like a bunch of good amateurs covering their fav tunes).

Now listen to the March'64 BBC session by the Stones : you have a bunch of 21yo kids who already play like gods. "Cops And Robbers" is a true masterpiece.
The Watts/Wyman has often been labeled the best rythmn section in rock. It's safe to assume nobody ever labeled the Macca/Starr pair that way.

Quote
dcba
I don't think it would have been a gear or audience problem. They were good composers but bad musicians. Listen to their BBC sessions : the music is nice decent and pleasant (like a bunch of good amateurs covering their fav tunes).

Now listen to the March'64 BBC session by the Stones : you have a bunch of 21yo kids who already play like gods. "Cops And Robbers" is a true masterpiece.
The Watts/Wyman has often been labeled the best rythmn section in rock. It's safe to assume nobody ever labeled the Macca/Starr pair that way.

Very good observation in regards to the Watts/ Wyman rhythm section . My 2 cents about the "headliner " ? would be the 2 bands would flip a coin and the winner of the ceremonial coin toss would then pick if they wanted to headline Saturday night @ 11pm or midnight , or festival closer on Sunday night / Monday morning . Now having said that what do you do with Jimi Hendrix ? Also you want to make peoples heads explode in ecstasy and blow there minds have the Mighty Led Zeppelin fly Friday night /Saturday Morning to close the first night of the festival !

Quote
TheGreek

Quote
dcba
I don't think it would have been a gear or audience problem. They were good composers but bad musicians. Listen to their BBC sessions : the music is nice decent and pleasant (like a bunch of good amateurs covering their fav tunes).

Now listen to the March'64 BBC session by the Stones : you have a bunch of 21yo kids who already play like gods. "Cops And Robbers" is a true masterpiece.
The Watts/Wyman has often been labeled the best rythmn section in rock. It's safe to assume nobody ever labeled the Macca/Starr pair that way.

Very good observation in regards to the Watts/ Wyman rhythm section . My 2 cents about the "headliner " ? would be the 2 bands would flip a coin and the winner of the ceremonial coin toss would then pick if they wanted to headline Saturday night @ 11pm or midnight , or festival closer on Sunday night / Monday morning . Now having said that what do you do with Jimi Hendrix ? Also you want to make peoples heads explode in ecstasy and blow there minds have the Mighty Led Zeppelin fly Friday night /Saturday Morning to close the first night of the festival !

Led Zeppelin. Now that’s a rhythm section to rival Wyman/Watts. The Who’s rhythm section is up there too. Pink Floyd had a nice rhythm section. And McCartney/Starr was a hell of a rhythm section!

Quote
Valeswood

Quote
dcba
As the Beatles always sucked live and hadn't performed in front of an audience since 1966 while the Stones were into their golden era (68-72) and had just recruited MT, the answer is dead easy.

The Beatles in 1966 were still screamed at so they could not hear what they were playing. Playing live in 1969 would have been a whole new experience for them as the audience actually listened to the music. A 90 minute live Beatles set in August 1969 would be to die for.

I wonder what a 90 minute setlist by the Beatles at Woodstock in 1969 would have looked like? Maybe even a two hour set.

Quote
NashvilleBlues

Quote
TheGreek

Quote
dcba
I don't think it would have been a gear or audience problem. They were good composers but bad musicians. Listen to their BBC sessions : the music is nice decent and pleasant (like a bunch of good amateurs covering their fav tunes).

Now listen to the March'64 BBC session by the Stones : you have a bunch of 21yo kids who already play like gods. "Cops And Robbers" is a true masterpiece.
The Watts/Wyman has often been labeled the best rythmn section in rock. It's safe to assume nobody ever labeled the Macca/Starr pair that way.

Very good observation in regards to the Watts/ Wyman rhythm section . My 2 cents about the "headliner " ? would be the 2 bands would flip a coin and the winner of the ceremonial coin toss would then pick if they wanted to headline Saturday night @ 11pm or midnight , or festival closer on Sunday night / Monday morning . Now having said that what do you do with Jimi Hendrix ? Also you want to make peoples heads explode in ecstasy and blow there minds have the Mighty Led Zeppelin fly Friday night /Saturday Morning to close the first night of the festival !

Led Zeppelin. Now that’s a rhythm section to rival Wyman/Watts. The Who’s rhythm section is up there too. Pink Floyd had a nice rhythm section. And McCartney/Starr was a hell of a rhythm section!

Jonesy and Bonzo were dynamite , as well as the Ox and Keith Moon . That bass line in the middle of My generation is spme of my most favorite bass playing ever . Also honorable mention of Joey Kramer and Tom Hamiliton are killer as well . Nick Mason and Roger Waters as well ! Heck if we are talking about bassist then lets throw in the man who dropped a bomb -Phil Lesh from the Grateful Dead along with Billy Kreutzmann and Mickey Hart , who are formidable in there own right !

Yes. Yes. Yes. I love all of that, The Greek!

The Beatles

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
NashvilleBlues
Yes. Yes. Yes. I love all of that, The Greek!

Me to

The Beatles

__________________________

Quote
Rockman




Gene Baby shoulda opened ... frantic and cheaper too ... HHHaaaaaaaa

One of the best performances by anybody, ever!!!

Quote
falo01

Quote
dcba
As the Beatles always sucked live and hadn't performed in front of an audience since 1966 while the Stones were into their golden era (68-72) and had just recruited MT, the answer is dead easy.

Yes, but keep in mind that the "Stones in August 1969" would most probably have sounded similar to "Stones in July 1969", which is a kinda frightening thought ;-)

Not at all imo. Tuned guitars and a couple of days more rehearsals could have done the trick. It could have been wonderful!

Obviously the Beatles. They hadn't toured since '66, and were still putting out hit records. The media attention alone would have been enormous. They might have pulled in another quarter million just on the strength of them being there. They could have previewed cuts from the soon to be released Abbey Road. It took the Beatles breakup for the Rolling Stones to really come into their own.

Quote
Big Al
I’m in complete agreement with Silver Dagger, here. The Beatles were revolutionary. Without the phenomenon that was John, Paul, George and Ringo, I feel that popular music would have evolved very differently. They were crucial to the transition from rock n’ roll to what followed.

I love me some Stones but you got that right Big Al. The Beatles were another animal altogether.

Dylan.

The Beatles broke up in September 1969, when John told the other members he was quitting.So I doubt he would have played Woodstock a month earlier under any circumstances.

The Beatles without question. The Stones had their shot at Altamont and that turned into a shitshow.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-12-03 23:48 by terraplane.

Co-Headliners!

That Gene Vincent clip gave me a workout just watching! Awesome

Quote
24FPS
Obviously the Beatles. They hadn't toured since '66, and were still putting out hit records. The media attention alone would have been enormous. They might have pulled in another quarter million just on the strength of them being there. They could have previewed cuts from the soon to be released Abbey Road. It took the Beatles breakup for the Rolling Stones to really come into their own.

This is a very interesting and thought provoking thread, but I think 24FPS post above (as well as Silver Dagger's-"They did more to change society and therefore created more of an impact during the 60s than any other performer in the 20th century") make a compelling and strong case for the Beatles by a country mile!

Yeah.. the Beatles are the likely answer as to who the fans would have wanted to see more.. but no slam dunk I don't think.
Both bands were invited and declined, with John stating at the time he couldn't get them all together if he wanted to, and Mick citing scheduling conflicts.

The Stones would have fit in the festival lineup better I think.. while a live Beatles set would have, imo, seemed out of place looking back.
If they were to play live again at that point, a stand-alone gig would have been more fitting.

Looking at the actual late Sat night line-up, into Sun morning, starting with Canned Heat @ 7:30, Mountain, Grateful Dead, CCR, Joplin, Sly & The Family Stone, The Who, and finishing with Jefferson Airplane.. I think again, the Stones would have been a better fit.

What???? No one has gone for Sha Na Na? What's wrong with you folks? My two cents worth - Stones and Beatles back to back on one night culminating in a whole new rock'n'roll circus wherein they come together, Hendrix and Dylan on the second night. Before these artists/bands all other performers at Woodstock could be considered warm up acts.