“They were never quite there”: Keith Richards’ big problem with The Beatles
When thinking about the outspoken ways of Keith Richards, it is important to remember that we’re dealing with a man who once went nine days without sleep and literally didn’t bat an eyelid because he was “feeling great”, he learnt to ski while high on drugs and living as an exile because a “complete junkie” has to occupy themselves some way, and, of course, snorted his father’s ashes because his “dad wouldn’t have care”. The point is, he isn’t so much outspoken, it’s just that he’s never thought about anything long enough to be cautious about what comes out of his mouth.
Over the years, this has led to him espousing wildly dichotomous views on The Beatles. He says they are “obviously” one of the best bands of all time, and yet he has also called some of their work a “load of shit”. Given that rivalry also still colours the comments a touch green, you can take much of his flippant appraisal with a pinch of salt and come to the conclusion that he is, indeed, a great admirer of the ‘Fab Four’.
However, there is one criticism that has resonated throughout the years and may hold more than a grain of salt. “Musically, The Beatles had a lovely sound and great songs,” he told the Radio Times. “But the live thing? They were never quite there.” Richards has played 2045 shows to date with The Rolling Stones alone, whereas The Beatles only played live 1471 times with a whopping 391 of those coming in 1962. “They stopped touring in 1966 – they were done already. They were ready to go to India and shit.”
While for mere mortals it’s easy to see why this is the case as the height of Beatlemania essentially made the road untenable, for Richards, not playing live is decidedly un-rock ‘n’ roll. If music is about reaching new heights, he opines, then you can’t beat the exultancy of the live experience. As he told GQ: “Well, you’d have to be there, pal. To know what it’s like to be on a Stones stage with an audience. The exchange of energy that goes on. It’s immeasurable. In fact, they don’t have meters to do it. It’s better than drugs.” Comically adding: “And the fact that I’ve written a lot of music on drugs doesn’t negate that statement.”
Many would argue that The Beatles evoked a similar sense of primordial passion when they performed live despite the hinderance of tepid speaker systems in some of the unfit stadiums and huge spaces that they played, Richards evidently doesn’t agree. Furthermore, he thinks that quitting the live stage in favour of studio experimentation impacted the emotive vitality of their work. “I understand—the Beatles sounded great when they were the Beatles. But there’s not a lot of roots in that music. I think they got carried away. Why not? If you’re the Beatles in the ’60s, you just get carried away—you forget what it is you wanted to do.”
Richards. on the other hand, has always been clear about what he wanted to achieve, and that is to get out of his gourd in one spiritual way or another whether that’s through the potent fumes of live energy or some other means. And he’s never thought of turning that in for the confines of the studio, as he says: “The idea of retiring is like killing yourself.” Ultimately, you get the impression that for Richards, the winner of the age-old Beatles or Stones question comes down to the last band standing.
Never Miss A Beat
The Far Out Beatles Newsletter
All the latest stories about The Beatles from the independent voice of culture.
Straight to your inbox.