The Velvet Underground was, if I may say so, the second most influential band in rock history after the Beatles. But they offered a nihilistic counterpoint to the flower power movement of that time. The Beatles conveyed the sensations of recreational LSD use, while The Velvet Underground offered interesting perspectives and stories about cocaine and heroin use (on Sunday Morning, Lou sings about the morning after waking up from a night of cocaine use). The Velvet Underground was, if not the first, one of the first bands to talk about taboo topics such as sadomasochism or to create the first gothic rock song with All Tomorrow Parties. Each band with its own. What the Beatles did above, Velvet did below. On the streets They are bands that can only be compared by level of influence and merits, but not by styles. David Bowie himself was always a big fan of the band (even since 1966, because he received a copy of the first album (the one with the banana) before it was released in 1967). And since then, he has always recognized the musical influence and importance of the band.
Lou Reed a talentless git who was well known for venting from jealous and to put Bob Dillon above the Beatles is laughable. None of these guys are geniuses, they could beardly play proper chords on a guitar. The Beatles were far ahead of any other band and are still relevant today which speaks volumes. Nobody is listening to Lou Reed and Bob Dillon today.
Lou Reed said he loved the John Lennon song Mother. The mistake he made was trying to sing it. What an embarrassment. He also did it several times. He has the worst voice I ever heard. The man could not sing a lick. Listen to Lennon sing Mother and listen to Lou Reeds several versions. Let's not forget the Beatles have sold more records than any band or artist. CASE CLOSED !!!!!!!!!?
I don’t think anyone can disagree with what Lou said about Leonard Cohen, if you put Lou Reed, with Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan, you got the top 3 greatest lyricists of all time, in my opinion.
He didnt say a bad word about the stones. Yes he said the beatles were shit but I suspect he was mostly talking about the lyrics considering the context of the conversation. I tend to agree with him
Lou Reed was awesome. I slept on this dude for so long, and I thought he was a pompous dick from what little I did know, now as I've grown as a musician and as I've matured as a human being, I get it. Same with The Beatles, not quite there with Leonard Cohen yet, but maybe in time. The glorious part of growing older beyond your years is appreciating what your peers might take another 20 to grasp, or never grasp it at all.
I loved a fair bit of the music of Lou Reed solo & The Velvet Underground but why did Lou have to be such an unpleasant person? He's entitled to his opinions but to slam gifted artists in the crass vicious way he did done nothing except make himself look like a total obnoxious dick. Great music but a personality to be avoided.
Reed was always a hard man to interview because he didn't have a filter and he wasn't shy on being controversial. It's funny that he loved Dylan so much but then again who doesn't. Anyone with a sane mind and that understands poetry does.
😮😮😢... Beatles were garbage...😔 Wow, that's so radical, really hurts, is there a secret jalousy... Like Zappa... we have to forgive, he doesn't know what he's saying 😔
Inspite of it all seems LOU (as well as Bowie and Dylan) are on the Rolling Stones side and NOT on the Beatles. And those are not just 3 nobodys. More power for the stones and good rock.
@@user-dnf83n0s8sg9u yeah. And Daltrey and Townshend are friends with Page plant and Bonham and they always smashed Zeppelin musically ( crazy not to like Zeppelin but they didn't). One does not necessarily have 2 do with the other
@@Thin_Mercury yes but as a band as a whole Dylan's favorite band has always been the stones. Check it on his interviews. Dylan's (and Bowie's)first choice has always been the Stones. By a mile
Blown away, he mentioned my favorite Dylan song (lyrically) and favorite Lennon song. He once said something like "Don't have me tell you what to listen to, listen to what you like"
Lou Reed scoffing: "No, I never liked the Beatles. I thought they were garbage. I don't think Lennon did anything, till he went solo. When he went solo... but then, too, he was trying to play catch up." The problem with these clowns is that they take themselves too seriously; and they think too much of themselves. John Lennon and the Beatles were rock/pop. And within the confines of rock/pop they were GREAT. Dylan is a poet (and that's why they gave him the Nobel), but he's not pop nor rock, except in a few songs. The trademark of rock and pop is a clever simplicity, infused with a poetic sensibility that reaches out to the common people. Dylan and Velvet Underground were more artsy fartsy. Especially Velvet Underground, who were plain, snotty "underground". And, don't get me wrong, I dig their music, but their outlook on life, music and people doesn't amount to nothing...
Lou Reed. Well, Hey Babe, etc. but what did he write other than that? He married Laurie Anderson. I don't know if they collaborated. Never knew much about him.
Interesting that Lou obviously forgot that earlier in his life he loved The Beatles. In an article for 'Far Out' magazine, the author, Sam Kemp, writes that "Reed had nothing but praise for the Fab Four, stating: 'They just make the songs up, bing, bing bing,' he began, seeming to regard John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr as a sort of pop-song factory with a near 100% success rate. 'They just have to be the most incredible songwriters ever - just amazingly talented,' Reed continued. 'I don’t think people realise how sad it is that The Beatles broke up' ".
You can't compare Bob Dylan and the Beatles. Both are masters of their craft. To call the Beatles music "shit" is to completely miss the powerful impact their music had and CONTINUES to have. Bye.
I dig metal machine music and the raven, all the velvet's stuff - I'm more partial to John Cale. He should have fronted the band. His island records are soaked with heroine but genius every song of it
John Cale was the musical genius behind the Velvets groundbreaking sound. Cale should have been co-credited for the music, but Reed's enormous ego would have none of that.
Dylan was an out communist for his first records - in plain sight. I wouldn't touch that angel of death with my American right to choose freedom from such myopathy
I love Lou and the Underground, but he was a snarky contrarian and loved to say what would insult the most people for their tastes. He liked to perpetrate an artistic aloofness that, in my opinion, was undue and more of a put on. I love his idol Warhol similarly, his art said something ($), but his whole attitude, scene and sycophantic cult entourage was more his "art" than his paintings. Stuck on a desert island, I would take the Beatles catalogue over Lou's hands down. Not even sure anything of his would make it into my 10-20 albums to have to listen to forever. And he seems like he would have been a total drag to party with.
We tend to separate Poetry and Music today because we live in a tradition of the written word. But before 16th century, culture was marked by an oral tradition. If Homer existed, he was probably a bard playing an instrument similar to a lyre (I forgot the name) in the palaces of kings and festivities, and he was singing songs that later became _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ . Back then, poetry and music were the same thing, poems were supposed to be sung, Sappho wrote poems to be interpreted with a lyre or a harp. Bards, troubadours, rhapsodists play a very simple and repetitive song so that the audience can pay attention to the lyrics. Poetry is not just beautiful words written on a page meant to be read, you have to interpret it musically. Reading poetry is just half of the experience that this textual genre can produce. That's the importance of guys like Dylan and Reed: they represent a certain revival of the oral tradition, their work share a dialogue with the great poets and they tell stories that become immortal in people's minds, passing through the generations.
Lou Reed couldn't hold a candle to Bob Dylan, the Beatles, or the Rolling Stones. He is simply nowhere near their league. He wrote some good songs for the Velvets but in a solo career spanning 39 years he wrote maybe two or three decent songs. And furthermore, John Lennon's Beatles output is far superior to his solo career.
lr stupid guy trying to compare different types music i love apples therefore oranges cherries are so different there bad all fruits should have some apple taste i know its just his taste i think beatles more pure simple poetry touched you dylan more attacked you with words not with all his songs some smooth nice ones whats good ??? what you can listen to over and over beatles 4 60 yrs dylan? yes once in a while
"You don't actually want to listen to the lyrics of a rock 'n' roll record." That's his first line, and I already disagree. It's his opinion though, as is his opinion about Dylan, Costello, The Beatles, Lennon, and about whomever... he is asked questions and he gives honest answers. Not much wrong with that. Everyone who knows just a bit about Lou Reed would know that he never ever was a big crowd pleaser. I am a huge Beatles fan mysefl, and I'm fine with what he says about the Fab4. I love the Velvets very much too, btw. Reed's solo career, well, I consider it very uneven. But bless him for giving us (me!) a lot of great songs.
Love Lou seen him in Melbourne early seventies don't remember much. Still like him he was a smack head two good Albums that's about it if he didn't carry on like a f##kern idiot no one would talk to him RIP Lou
Exactly, but the Beatles sucked, right Lou? Consider his idol Andy. This guy pissed on canvases to screen print celebrities on and sell to rich and famous people. Wow, what moving art. Same sort of attitudes. Thank goodness for John Cale or Lou would have remained obscure.
I don't really like the Beatles either but I can appreciate them and the impact they had on music.. Without them some of my favourite bands might not exist at least in the same form.
This is just arrogant, egotistical bloviating. Okay, whatever, Lou; but the fact is that Mick Jagger was a very exceptional lyricist who did write some great lyrics to go along with the other great parts of the song. All of Jagger's songs? Hardly. Maybe only a small percentage (I would say an enormous amount running between Beggar's Banquet to Sticky Fingers and less before and after)? So what? For him to say things like 'zero respect' and 'it's all sh*t' just makes him sound like a self-absorbed prick. Musicians who don't have their heads up their own arses and feel like they are in competition with everybody else (because they are insecure?) LOVE other music. Listen to interviews with McCartney, Plant, Dylan, Neil Young etc. Listen to Alice Cooper, Iggy Pop, Bowie. Totally different story from a Lou Reed interview, or a Zappa interview for that matter (he's a lot like Reed in how he disses and dismisses other greats). Those guys talk respectfully about their counterparts because they are class acts and Reed was a vain and prideful ninny.
Oh yes Lou Reed the revolutionary ffs. He was not much better than Yoko Ono, he certainly could not sing as well as her. He sounds like a cleaner Bob Dylan but no where near as good and should not even mention the Beatles as their worst 50 songs are better than most of what be has ever done
I'll say this...I feel the Beatles are THE most influential band of all time (count the number of bands that sprang up after their Invasion), followed by the Velvet Underground (gave birth to punk and any avant-garde groups u care to mention) End of discussion lol
