This is a good question for some thought. Would the USA be different than Europe? Try to answer this without any favoritism or bias.

niether.....mick in 1969 would NEVER back up anyone in 1969..they were the greatest rock and roll band in the world in 1969...plus they didn't have too...1969 the stones put on the biggest money making tour in the history of the business, back in the day..

not even close. The Beatles, easy. By far the bigger record sellers and they were playing stadiums in the mid 60's when the Stones were playing theatres


>Try to answer this without any favoritism or bias.

see how many replies it gets before your request for a rational discussion goes out the window....

Beatles, but I would have left after the support act...........

Well, since I personally don't view any Beatles/Stones comparisons as a personal pi$$ing contest, I'd say the Bealtes would have headlined.

The Stones would have blown them off the stage, though.

Good answer, James!

Fank ya Gazza!

yeah Gazza I saw the f**k you Gazza on youtube! I hope those kids don't say that all the time now! Pretty funny shit!

LOL....its reached epidemic proportions in Latin America, I believe.

So much so that I've even heard it rumoured that it will be the title of Shakira's next single.

What is this about then?

Oh, imagine how many warhorses!!!!

I wonder if they'd do "We Love You"?

The Beatles would make the biggest headlines before the tour. Because they said in 66 that the they had done their last show and had released good records like, revolver, sgt pepper, white album and abbey road.
They was still the best record makers in the world, but Stones has always been best on stage and never announsed that they had done theyr last tour.
But after a week or two on the road I think the Stones have been back on top in the media.

(Recalling the rooftop performance in 'Let It Be'. Recalling the MSG footage in Gimme Shelter).

If this happened, and it wasn't enough to end the Beatles, it sure would have humblled them.

If the Beatles has toured in 1969, they'd probably NOT be the Kings of the World they are today. I mean, imagine them touring with The Who in '69? Zeppelin?

They'd have to tour with the Monkees to look decent onstage again.

Yoko would be the headliner

jamesfdouglas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (Recalling the rooftop performance in 'Let It Be'.
> Recalling the MSG footage in Gimme Shelter).
>


a band who hadnt played live in almost 3 years and who decided at very short notice to play a few new songs on a rooftop in the middle of winter whilst in the middle of a fractious recording session and a well-oiled machine playing to 20,000 fans towards the end of a one month tour is hardly like for like, to be fair!

The Beatles definitely did not have the same stage presence as the Stones. But that rooftop show was something to remember. The sad thing is I think they were ready to peak.

Lets not forget the Stones had a dedicated lead singer who was an act in itself. The Beatles were musicans and singers bundled together which makes a more predictable stage show.

Prior to 1969 anyone know who played more live shows?

Crosy, Stills & Nash were more interesting onstage than the Beatles.

The Sicilian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Beatles definitely did not have the same stage
> presence as the Stones. But that rooftop show was
> something to remember. The sad thing is I think
> they were ready to peak.
>
> Lets not forget the Stones had a dedicated lead
> singer who was an act in itself. The Beatles were
> musicans and singers bundled together which makes
> a more predictable stage show.
>
> Prior to 1969 anyone know who played more live
> shows?

of the two bands, you mean? Probably the Beatles as they formed four years earlier than the Stones and were playing lengthy residencies in Hamburg as far back as 1960.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> of the two bands, you mean? Probably the Beatles
> as they formed four years earlier than the Stones
> and were playing lengthy residencies in Hamburg as
> far back as 1960.

Yes both bands. Aside from club shows how about shows in cities around the globe?

The Beatles.

The bigger question is how many tickets do you think they could have sold for this?

"Take all the pain...It's yours anyway"

The Sicilian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > of the two bands, you mean? Probably the
> Beatles
> > as they formed four years earlier than the
> Stones
> > and were playing lengthy residencies in Hamburg
> as
> > far back as 1960.
>
> Yes both bands. Aside from club shows how about
> shows in cities around the globe?


Still the Beatles for the same reason. They were performing and touring earlier than the Stones were.

The last Beatles show was 29.8.66 and whilst the Stones wound up touring in spring 1967 for a couple of years they didnt play that many shows in 1966-67 compared to 1964-65 when they were very active indeed. The Stones' 1000th show took place during their 1967 European tour.

Woody24 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Beatles.
>
> The bigger question is how many tickets do you
> think they could have sold for this?

Depends on the price. Figure with both bands and inflation and greed...$1,500 USD for a cheapie? $5,000 for a decent seat and $7,500 for the best seats?

I think the Beatles would have lost their aura if they hadn't split.
They could not compare to the Stones, The Who or Led Zep, which were the major acts live.

The fact that they stopped playing live before everybody could notice the huge differnece between them and great live acts has helped them consolidating their legend.

BTW, Gazza, when did the 2,000 th Stones show finally take place ?
I remember that before the KR incident it was supposed to be in milano

BTW2 Gazza, you got mail

[doctorstonesblog.blogspot.com]

In 1969 The Beatles were Gods, Living Legends, Supernatural Beings. The Stones were just famous.

"The fact that they stopped playing live before everybody could notice the huge differnece between them and great live acts has helped them consolidating their legend. "

They could have been great live. The huge arena & stadium rock concert had yet to be refined and perfected when they were touring. For the most part they and the show organizers were winging it.

Well, except they had no real interest in performing live which is as good a reason as any to not to do it. But if they decided to tour in 1969 it would likely even then have to be stadiums and festival sites. I would imagine rotating bill and equal time/conditions but to be honest it's a ridiculous question as there would be no real reason for the bands to tour together.

OK the stones had their 1000th show in '67, and just had their 2000th at Twick #2?????? With all those years of tours in between there, how is that possible?!

They played severaal shows each day in the early 60ies, and after that, more or less 100 shows per tour : 72/73 75/76 81/82 89/90 94/95 97/98/99 02/03 05/06.
Add 1969 and 1978, and there you are !

[doctorstonesblog.blogspot.com]

I think it’s correct to think the Stones were the more formidable live act, but if you saw The Beatles at the Star Club in Hamburg in 1960-1962, would you be thinking the same thing? They were five leather clad rockers belting out rock 'n' roll classics during amphetamine fuelled boozy sets in front of drunken sailors and prostitutes

I think the Beatles would have had the offical headliners spot. But I also think they'd have had a problem getting the crowd to stop chanting We Want The Stones for long enough to let them get on stage and play...