Well, I used to be a history teacher, so I am a historian.
And for a guy who was part of the "scene" back then, you don't know sh**. But, you were 11 back then, and the Beatles quit touring before you were old enough to buy a ticket, so I don't expect you to know better.
Yup, most of their stuff was recording vs playing live. It's a fact. They formed in 1960, played in Hamburg until 1962, put together their first album in 1963, quit touring in 1966, and broke up in 1970. So, during the time they were signed, they spent 3 years touring, and 4 years in the studio, not touring. They recorded 7 albums during the time they quit touring, while they did 5 when they were. Their stuff when they were touring was still copping Chuck Berry's style, but when they stopped touring is when they put together some groundbreaking songwriting and production, like Sgt Peppers. Most of the stuff the Beatles are renown for was when they stopped touring. I don't know if the Beatles could have made advances in songwriting, composition, producing, recording, etc. if they were touring for 1/2 the year or more instead of songwriting and recording.
Now, McCartney performed live alot. But it was with Wings, not the Beatles.
And I'll stand by what I said, because the majority of the Beatles body of work is their recordings, not their live performances. At their peak, they didn't play live shows. There's Beatles tribute bands that have performed more shows than the Beatles. On the other hand, Kiss and the Grateful Dead are known for their live performances, moreso than their recordings.
