Lou Reed saying British people shouldn't play rock'n'roll is like saying Americans shouldn't read Shakespeare. Or speak English..Seriously, the guy wrote 2 good songs at best. The Beatles wrote hundreds.
Well they _shouldn't_ I've never read Shakespear and don't aspire to. I am getting tired of English for all the damn "exceptions" throwing me off. I refuse to pronounce "Hyperbole" as HI-PER-BOLEY"
@@marklamora885: Junkies usually have inflated opinions of themselves, while they're wiping puke off their chin. Reed could barely manage a few chords on guitar and couldn't sing Three Blind Mice in key. In my humble opinion, the only thing he ever produced worth listening to was Rock and Roll Animal with guitarists Dick Wagner and Steve Hunter who obviously are the ones responsible for the arrangements of Reed's duller-than-average material.
Lou Reed said a lot of shit to provoke people, not because he necessarily believed his own words. At one point or another, he pretty much ended up hating everything.
lou reed did say that he thought lennon's "mother" was a great song and rem covered "#9 dream" so maybe they just hated the other 3 beatles. i like the artists mentioned here but they are filled to the sky with crap.
Lol. That genuinely made me chuckle. I always thought that The Strokes were pretentious and that the front man couldn't sing. I hated their music when it came out. Thankfully, I never hear it anymore.
The Beatles had a huge range.. and they were well received in nearly every genre they tried.. even if you don’t like them, it’s impossible to dismiss them.
@@SPINNINGMYWHEELS777 : Absolute bollox! And Yellow Submarine wasn’t even an album! It was cobbled together by Capitol Records for the American market!
@@fletcherchristian5996 That was a goof, though they were running out of songs. I revere the work John did with the Beatles, not so much Paul who is way too shiny.
I think Lou Reed forgot that John Cale, the co-founder of the Velvet Underground was British and the sound that the Velvet Underground got had a lot to do with Cale plus Bowie along with Mick Ronson, two more Brits produced Reeds best selling album, Transformer.
@@timcolivet7343 Reed was messing around when he said this. He said later in the same interview that the Brits should stick to learning to cook. He was notorious was trying to stir things up with journalists for a laugh. He collaborated with David Bowie afterall.
When Frank Sinatra said that Something was the best love song written in 50 to 100 yrs. When Leonard Bernstein talked about how cleverly structured some of the Lennon/McCartney songs were then it doesn’t matter what these guys think
When that little evil Austrian was doing his thing in Germany, every one stuck their hands up and said this is great. just because thousand of people think they were great doesn't mean they were..
Lou Reed? Endlessly(and tunelessly) examining the dark side of humanity: Drug addiction, prostitution, underbelly of society, obsession, death, yawn, yawn, yawn. As for Michael Stipe, I hope he doesn't include the Byrds in his rather snooty dismissal of 60s music; it would surely be a bit of a nerve, considering that REM ripped off the Byrds almost shamelessly throughout their career.
@@goat9629 Do you know I'm really not, honestly. But I do think Lou Reed was very jealous of the Beatles's success; Reed also took pot shots at Frank Zappa, a dazzlingly creative musician, composer and satirist, whose best work overshadowed anything Lou Reed ever produced. What do you think?
I've met a lot of musicians who think that shitting on the Beatles makes them seem edgier than others. To me, it always spotlighted their arrogance and ignorance. They're also insanely jealous of the massive success of The Beatles.
@@ColtraneTaylor He said "if they can't find something they like" without the precursor of whether they have a doctorate in the construction of popular music. That does not seem a terribly high bar to me. Sometimes it is fashionable to be "edgy" and dismiss the popular mainstream but invariably this is borne out of either envy or immaturity. I wonder which one applies to you.
@@spacewurm I am more about specific songs: John-Mr Kite, Paul-Your Mother Should Know, George-Piggies (my sign in Chinese Astrology), Ringo-Yellow Submarine. How about you?
@@Moekoffee2001These people still don't realize that if it wasn't for the Beatles.there wouldn't have been any groups .All groups where inspired by the Beatles.every groups wanted to sound and be like the Beatles.
Who cares what these dudes think of the Beatles? None of them can hold a candle to the Beatles. Sure, Quincy Jones is super talented but he has a very bad habit of knocking other artists. Not a very nice quality. Jealousy brings out the worst in people and these 5 are prime examples. The Beatles are awesome. Each of the four of them is talented in their own way.
@@cronejawford978 I really can't think of any. But, I do know he produced Michael Jackson's Thriller album and he also co-produced The We Are The World video, which is pretty awesome. But, as I said, I don't like the way he talks down to other artists.
@@sunnyskies-md5rk That was my point. Jones criticizing the Beatles' musicianship; It's the SONGS that matter. I predict very few will know who Jones is in a few decades. The Beatles will remain popular for much, much longer. Cheers!
@@cronejawford978 many, open minded people anyways. Naturally, people that presume popularity determines talent and any attention won’t know a single song of his.
Lou Reed was a minor rock figure with little in the way of melodic structure and lyrics that sounded like they were written by a 10 year old.Quincy Jones was always jealous of the Beatles success and in a an attempt to discredit them he always spoke of their musical limitations, never crediting them with the wealth of songwriting talent they possessed.
Well Velvet Underground and NIN have nothing in common with them, And yet their influences are from American artists who were there before the Fab Four.
Bands existed in rock music long before the Beatles. And not just "vocal groups" or "doo wop" groups, either. The Beach Boys, for example, owe nothing to the Beatles in that respect. They played and sung harmonies four years before they knew anything about the Beatles
Lou Reed was a very unhappy person throughout his life. He came across as the prototype New York malcontent. Quincy? Just jealous and threatened. These other clowns should realized if it wasn't for the Beatles they wouldn't have had careers in music.
Indeed.....it's very possible to not LIKE the Beatles, but RESPECT them....I kinda feel the same way about ROlling Stones, LEd Zeppelin and Pink Floyd. Difference is that if you played the Beatles' 240 songs, you'd find 5 or 6 different styles - I mean the same band that made Helter Skelter made Yesterday, the same band that made Love Me Do made Tomorrow Never Knows (4 years later FFS !!!) - simply not true of the others here. The Beatles stand head and shoulders above ALL other bands - but you don't have to LIKE them.
I am but it works the same way with me for Queen. Undeniably talented and with an unrivalled frontman. Although the presence of an 'enigmatic' frontman isn't vital for making a great band.
@@apathyintheuk265 Back in 2000, we had a 'Britain's Favourite Band' TV prog and Beatles were top,and Queen 2nd. I like Queen - but for 95% of their songs, everything is turned up to 11 !
@@rjw4762 dunno . To actually not LIKE the Beatles takes a special kind of stupid. No shortage of that these days. Make no mistake, I was never a Beatles fanboy, but seriously. Now, I despise RUSH and Dream Theater, posers, who deserve hatred.
I’ve been a Rolling Stones’ fan since 1965 and I say that anyone who says that the Beatles were overrated or no good is a self-absorbed and envious Capitalist A-Hole.
@@pauls7803 It depends on what the subject in question is. I don't think a musician's opinion on politics or archaeology is more valid than the average person's, but I do think their opinion on music is more valid than the average person's. Just as I think the opinions of any professional about their profession are likely more valid than the average person's opinions about that profession.
@@PotrzebieConolly You are wrong then. What constitutes good music is entirely a matter of personal taste. Learning to play an instrument or write songs has no bearing on this.
I had a feeling before watching this that whomever the people were not liking the Beatles were probably no one worth their comments anyways....... "I was right"
Your comment made me smile and laugh a little bit. I have some respect for Lou Reed, Michael Stipe and Quincy Jones. And, I like a few of their songs. The others, I’ve never cared for their music. But, on the other hand, The Beatles are my favorite band and have made tons of music that I like. I consider Paul McCartney my favorite musician of all time. I don’t pretend to like all of his music, either. We all have our own opinions.
The fact that they are the only band to have a #1 hit 54 years later after they disbanded, proves that they are the greatest rock n roll band to ever walk the earth.
@@bobbystereo936 Come on. The Stones are still touring selling out stadiums and released a new album. Don't get Angry with me for them still being around
He was just being intentionally provocative and contrarian to get a reaction from journalists, as he often did. You're doing the same thing right now by dismissing his work, which is also very influential. He's also said many times that he loved the Beatles' songwriting.
Really? The Velvet Underground are not that far behind theg Beatles in terms of their influence on music. And I say that despite not really being a fan of either.
@@Morphstock The Velvet Underground are one of these bands that critics always say were a big deal but really don't have much to offer musically. It was more of a fashion thing. I think it's a bit like modern art. This is crap and everyone knows it's crap but pretentious critics keep saying it's great and anyone who doesn't appreciate it is an idiot. Then eventually people start to believe it's good. Lou Reed was terrible.
@@Morphstock How hard is it to 'produce' Michael Jackson in his prime. What made those albums great was having a musical legend and a team of the best session musicians in the world. All Quincy Jones had to do was press record and then pick out the best takes. You easily could have found someone else to produce those albums and they would have been just as successful.
Lou Reed is the biggest foooool of them all. Yes, Lou has two good song but it makes him think he was way better than he really was. The Beatles could not have had so many songs on so many albums for for many years that millions of people of all generations know word-for-word if they were not something special. "Silly Love Songs" by Paul has a great bass line so he has no clue what a bad bass player is. Lou Reed interviews are always more interesting than his songs and that really is the truth if you watch them you'll agree. If Lou didn't get the legendary bass player Herbie Flowers to play bass on "Walk On the Wildside" Lou would have half the fame he has. Herbie is the one that came up with the idea to use an electric bass and a double bass to double track on that song for the unique sound not Lou yet Herbie gets almost no credit. Lou didn't like any British groups but Herbie was from Sussex England was the player he used on his most famous song. Lou is a fake. If any bass players are reading this far look up "Serge Gainsbourg - Melody (Histoire de Melody Nelson 1/7)" on youtube and you'll love it. That is Herbie playing. It is one of the best bass song ever.
Check out these beautiful Lou Reed songs from the VU era: Sunday Morning Femme Fatale Venus in Furs I'll Be Your Mirror Stephanie Says Coney Island Steeplechase What Goes On She's My Best Friend That's The Story Of My Life Sister Ray Murder Mystery Pale Blue Eyes Sweet Jane Rock n Roll Candy Says Here She Comes Great songwriting and performance. You'll find in them the blueprint for Indie music that followed which is why those Indie bands quote VU as influences a lot more than The Beatles. It's much cooler to like thay VU sound than say, Penny Lane or When I'm 64. You'll also find a timeless quality to these songs that transcend their era and stand outside it. Coney Island Steeplechase or Stephanie Says sound as fresh and as if they were written recently, not in 1969! In these songs, there is also a fine balance between discord and harmony, tenderness and harshness, ballad and proto punk, the latter being an influence on actual punk which came later. Just ask Iggy Pop or Mark E Smith of The Fall..and esp. see what Bowie says about it. Gainsbourg is great too, I have all his albums. He was another unique genius like Lou Reed.
@@TheMLMGold I only liked "Femme Fatale" when Tom Tom Club did it. I also like the version of "Sweet Jane" he does at the end of a concert film. "Walk On the Wildside" is good. I also liked "No Money Down". I tried to like Lou Reed and I think I gave him a fair chance but his music not really for me. I like his interviews more than his music. Did you ever hear the Jonathan Richman song "velvet underground"? I liked that song so I tried see what he saw in VU and I just could not find anything I liked.
@@funny0000000 Did you listen to Sunday Morning or Stephanie Says and I'll Be Your Mirror? They have so much melodic beauty and timelessness. Well if you don't even like those then perhaps their music is wasted on you...but a thousand Indie bands and music icons can't be wrong.
Having grown up in the sixty’s seventies and eighties.The Beatles were one of the greatest song writing teams on the planet. I have to say what exactly did Lou Reed Offer up. Just saying.
Huh?? Is this a joke? It talks about himself making his girlfriend cry. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-wADRRYNHhOA.html&ab_channel=johnlennon
I think Paul McCartney singing "Let it Be" pretty much shuts down their criticism. All of them together couldn't write a song half as good as "Let it Be." Also, as much as I respect Quincy Jones, Paul McCartney was a musical genius.
Lou Reed was a genius, The Strokes, REM, NIN are great bands with brilliant music, Quincy is a top-notch producer, I like them all and their records, and their opinions are totally valid. But I love The Beatles, they're the best.
Yea and people commenting here are probably unaware that Lou Reed later declared being a fan of both solo Lennon and McCartney work. He also obviously dug Bowie’s work… Q indicated that he later learned to love what the Beatles were doing and was reacting initially from the jazz perspective … it is also no surprise someone like Julian or Stipe who came of age in later generations and play alternative music would have connected more with Waiting for The Man and Heroin than they would Sgt Pepper or Hey Jude
Exactly. I remember quite a few people claiming to hate the Beatles back in the day. We'd call them hipsters now. They're the same people who'd say "Guitar solos are stupid".
The reason they choose to go down the road of being “controversial” is because they feel inadequate when measuring up to the Beatles musical output. They can’t admit it but it is objectively true right in front of their faces.
Yes. I'm not the type of person that "goes with the flow" either, but in the case of the Beatles, I can't do otherwise. If they had written only good but "simple" songs like "Yesterday" and "Let It Be" and everybody was saying that they're the greatest band ever, then ok, maybe I would agree that they exaggerate, but no, having listened to all of their albums and seen their progress from "Please Please Me" to "Revolution 9", I have no other choice than to agree that there was no other band like them. I understand if people say that, for example, Pink Floyd was the greatest band of all time, but although they did more progressive stuff, they don't speak to my heart as the Beatles do.
The only one who seems to be sincere is Michael Stipe. I think the others just want to sound edgy and provocative. Quincy Jones comes across as a narrow minded elitist.
Quincy's comments on Paul's bass playing are as weird today as the day he made them. Countless, leading bass players, across genres, regard McCartney as one of the most melodic bass players ever, and some even regard him as underrated as a bass player. So who would you rather believe... one record producer who can play the trumpet, or an army of bass players?
Who the hell are the first 2 nobodies? Lou Reed is grossly over-estimating his own qualities, Jones would be hard pushed to write a song like Penny Lane
My brothers wife said a long time ago that she 'hated the beatles'. I countered that it was a bit of a trendy view to hold. I can't remember her verbalised response to my claim but I do recall her making a noise like a severely wounded animal looking for an escape from the pain. Fast forward a few years and me and our kid had one of our (by now rare) nights out which involved seeing a live beatles tribute act. Guess which ball and chain came in tow?
It's ok to not like the Beatles, but some of these people sound maybe afraid or intimidated by the Beatles and their way of dealing with it is to write the Beatles off as just rubbish.
Some people don't care for the Beatles, so what? Very, very many people do; again, so what? The fact that a single band is the topic of "There are actually people who don't like this band?!" says enough to me.
None of these "artists" could ever measure up to the talent, influence on other artists, and accomplishments of the Beatles. 50 more years from now, people will still know of the Fab Four, but these others will be merely be footnotes in music history.
Velvet underground will only grow in status. Nine inch nails will be forgotten by all but music historians The Strokes are be forgotten but will have a couple of songs playing on classic rock stations in the future
More than 50 years after they split and we are still talking about The Beatles and listening to their music.and they are still attracting new fans..... Enough said
Lou Reed and Quincy Jones footnotes? Not really. There are other influential artists beyond the Beatles, and they don't necessarily have to like each other!
@@petersmith7126 The band that defined alternative rock music and had a hand in creating punk, glam, gothic, new and no-wave. They predicted the next 30 years of rock music from the Stooges to Bowie to Television to Joy division to Sonic Youth to Radiohead to the Strokes
Those people could disappear tonight and never be missed The Beatles on the other hand changed everything significantly and inspired so much that much of what good came after them and some of the musicians in this clip even wouldn't even be in music had it not been for the Beatles.
Respectfully, I disagree. I love The Beatles to the moon and back. I also think Paul's bass work is catchy and sublime. Nevertheless, Quincy Jones has contributed to some of the finest music made in my lifetime. The musical world would be less rich without his superb work. I have a feeling it's just a matter of Paul's pop style lacking any appeal to QJ. Honestly, if he can't perceive the wonder of it, it's his loss and I'm sad for him.
@@lissabell3620I think you misunderstood. I was just stating that the op was generalizing about other bands like The Velvet Underground. I personally think The Beatles are overrated but that wasn't what I was talking about.
I think Quincy Jones might have had every right to say what he did about the Beatles when he said it. He was coming from the standpoint of having been a jazz musician. When you're listening to one style of music most of the time and hearing a minimum level of proficiency, people like John, Paul, George and Ringo who were not formally trained or educated, it kind of stands to reason that somebody like Quincy Jones wouldn't have the kindest words to say about their proficiency. What I would like to know is if Quincy had changed his mind about them by 1982 when Michael Jackson was recording the music from *Thriller* and they recruited Macca to duet with Michael on "The Girl is Mine".
"The Girl Is Mine" is a stupid song. QJ is a great studio cat, but he can't write great songs like the Beatles did. They have different approaches to making music, and both are legit. The best thing to do is just to shut the F up and make music.
I saw REM back in the day. Not too bad, but after awhile all their songs started to sound the same. I also saw McCartney that same year, and it was an incredible show. So here’s one man’s opinion anyway.
R.E.M . is amazing in himself they give body to the alternative rock... Beatles created his stuff and inspired a lot ... but is impossible beloved for everyone
Lou loved to bait journalists. You can probably find him criticizing whatever sacred cow or flavor of the day that will cause the most discomfort in the interviewer for sport. While he may have actually hated the Beatles, it will not affect my love of the band or my love for Lou or the Velvet Underground.
One of the only objective and informed comments in a sea of uninformed Beatles simps. They think Lou Reed is a nobody and have no clue that he is one of the few that are as influential as the Beatles
@@bobma6342 All through the 70s, the music industry was begging the Beatles to get back together, they would have made centillions. However, Lennon said no, he was the obstacle and they never forgave him.
@@radiojet1429 Petty was a bigger George Harrison fan than the group. Same with Dylan .. they all liked George (my favorite Beatle.) The fact that you needed to defend them and respond to my stupid comment is a bit precious, though.
@@ocan1033 George was my favorite, too. A bit precious? I think my defense and comment were outrageously, deliciously precious. Like when one of the Royals wave.
The common thread seems to be that they are Americans. The Beatles repackaged American music and sold it back to the USA. That will probably have been annoying or confusing to some Americans. There's quite a culture gap between the two countries despite the assumption that a common language helps us understand each other. Lou Reed's career was resuscitated by Bowie incidentally so his statement that Brits shouldn't play anything was particularly daft. He can go and boil his head frankly.
Funny how the 5 famous musicians are american. I think the US have given us some of the greatest musicians to ever walked this Earth but most americans tend to think they are the greatest or the only country in the world, which is obviously wrong. The Beatles were so good and so big even americans couldn't ignore them. As a cultural icon and music standard the british are unmatched even to this day. Fun fact though: as many brits the Beatles were very much into american blues and R&R, at least at the beginning.
As an American I agree with your statement about them being a cultural icon and music standard. I'm one of the biggest Beatles fans you'd meet. I disagree with your statement about most Americans tend to think they are the greatest or the only country in the world. We are a very large country of over 300 million people, and I don't think most of us feel that way. I think it's the obnoxious and outspoken ones that make other countries think that we do. Most of us are just working stiffs trying to make a living and worrying about what's going to happen next. BTW, my top 3 favorite bands are British, although I do give tons of credit to the US musicians who were the early pioneers of rock!
I have no REM ..LOU REED..QUINCY JONES...NINE INCH NAILS and I have no idea who the 5th guy was....but I own 0 of the fives albums.. how's your math??????
It's just jealousy. How many #1 singles between them? Maybe 2 or 3? I don't consider Quincy Jones a musician, so fuck him. Lou Reed? His ego was oblivious. Michael Stipe? Shiny Happy People. That's all I have to say about him. Reznor? LOL. What a joke. The Strokes? Their name is what I consider their music.
@@tedwilliams8879 If you think Trent Reznor's comment (and pretty much all of the other comments) has anything to do with jealousy then you're as clueless as you're salty someone else isn't a fan of your favorite band. ^^
It all comes over as a little churlish. None of those artists are fit to tie the Beatles' shoelaces. Whatever someone's musical preferences it is ridiculous to doubt the revolution in popular music the Beatles created. As for Lou Reed's comments about British bands I doubt most people would name a single non British band in their top ten of all time. What a dick.
Exactly, Lou Reed is just a difficult person because he knows he's not a good looking person and has the voice of a crow with a stick up his ass so he masks it all with this false intellectual avant-garde "I'm better than you bullshit" If it weren't for the Beatles, there wouldn't be any Pink Floyd or hardly as many prog rock bands that came after Sergeant Pepper.
Some musicians are much younger and have no idea what the Beatles were, their influence and the entire musical and social scene of the 60s. Others don't like them out of pure envy and jealousy. I'm 64 years old and I know very well what the music world was like in the 60s and especially after the Revolver album. The Beatles are still bigger than all those mentioned. The influence of the Beatles and Bob Dylan is immeasurable. Of course, others were also important, such as Motown, Elvis, George Martin, Phil Spector, blues musicians, Carole King, girl groups, Fender, Gibson, wah-wah and all the studio technologies, fashion, etc.
@@djtrendsetta5766 You must have problems with interpreting texts. My argument has nothing to do with popularity or media exposure. If you are under 60 you are forgiven, otherwise I must say you were an accident of nature.
The Strokes ?!? NIN ?!? I STILL hear The Beatles EVERY-SINGLE-DAY somewhere on the radio. I can’t even remember when I last heard The Strokes or the Nails on the airwaves. Anyways, who the f*ck cares what these, at best, “B - listers” think ? Collectively, these ‘barely-even’ artists probably sold less music than just the Sgt. Pepper album alone. Lou Reed on a different level ?!? Puh-leeze. Spare me. Besides “Wild Side” and then a distant “Sweet Jane” and MAYBE “Dirty Boulevard”, that’s all he brought to the table. Day In The Life, Eleanor Rigby and Fool On The Hill blow any of those artists’ songs out of the water in terms of craftsmanship and relevance; even 55-ish years later. The Beatles weren’t virtuosos. Quincy’s right about that, but just cuz it ain’t Motown don’t mean it ain’t good. It’s either hubris or some alternate reality to deny that The Beatles’ contribution to music is the ‘modern’ equivalent to Mozart’s contribution to classical music.
None of these people have ever done anything even remotely close to what The Beatles as a group or individually have achieved. They're just jealous that it wasn't them.
To say something isn't to your taste is fine - we all have differing tastes. But to suggest that the Beatles were anything other than amazing composers and musicians really is ridiculous. I don't enjoy modern jazz. But I can accept that there are many great jazz musicians who are innovative and technically-brilliant. As for Lou Reed's comments... how silly.
Quincy Jones was used to studio musicians ( hired guns) who were just doing a job. It’s not fair to compare hired guns to people creating their own music.
good point. studio musicians, by definition, work as "studio musicians" because they're limited, incapable of writing their own music and they're incapable of singing their own music and they're incapable of arranging their own music. Otherwise they'd be performers. So to compare the pure musicianship of The Beatles to that of a studio musician is a ridiculous comparison because The Beatles will always come out on top even if a studio musician might theoretically play a particular instrument better than them. And anyway, how many studio musicians can play rhythm guitar, lead guitar, bass, drums and piano like Paul McCartney? And compose like him? And sing like him? You'd need to hire 10 different people to do what he does on his own.
In order to create your own music, you need to be able to read and write music. Quincey could do this. The Beatles at best could only wrote love songs. Most of their music was composed by George Martin.
@@bwana-ma-coo-bah425 what about their solo work? John Lennon would disagree with what you say about George Martin. As far as not being able to create music without knowing how to read it; what about Jimmy Page, Eric Clapton, Jimi Hendrix, Lionel Richie, Alex Lifeson, Eddie Van Halen, Prince, Steve Howe and the list goes on not to mention all of the blues artists who created music that’s still played today ,and don’t forget Errol Garner who “ wrote” the music for Misty even though he couldn’t read music.
@@bwana-ma-coo-bah425 in three lines, you managed to write something historically inaccurate, musically inaccurate, silly and ridiculous. quite an accomplishment. Lucy, the Walrus, Tomorrow, Taxman, birthday Blackbird, Gently Weeps, etc are . . . . . love songs? you obviously don't even know the Beatles catalogue. and as someone else has already commented, there are countless other accomplished musicians who can't read or write music.
Not one of these people were involved in a musical relationship with another person where the art they created was greater than the sum of its parts. Let alone 3 other people! These people are egotists and feel inadequate by the high level the Beatles operated on compared to what they were capable of, given their own talent combined with the musical relationships they had with other people.
Hilarious. What was it Brian Eno said about the first Velvet Underground album? Something like "it only sold 10,000 copies but everyone who bought it formed a band". They may have sold peanuts compared to the Beatles, but the influence on future musicians was as deep as that of the Fab Four.
I can understand if people wouldn't consider the Beatles as a great band if they had stopped making music in 1965. Although all their songs were very nice up to that point, and you just feel joy and nostalgia listening to them, I agree that they weren't something really groundbreaking. But after that, everything changed. If people, and especially musicians, listen to songs like "Eleanor Rigby", "Tomorrow Never Knows", "Within You, Without You", "Strawberry Fields Forever", "I Am The Walrus", to name just a handful of their masterpieces, and almost everything out of the "White Album", and say that they are overrated or nothing special, their out of their minds. Ok, yes, music has progressed miles since then, and more innovative and progressive stuff may have come out, like Pink Floyd, of course, but if they don't keep in mind in what era the Beatles created, and they don't acknowledge how within 3 years went from "Help" to "Helter Skelter", they're idiots. I love Lou Reed, the Velvet Underground is also one of the greatest and most influential bands ever (although short lived), but if he really meant what he said and he wasn't trolling, then there was something wrong with him. If someone can't enjoy listening to the Beatles and prefers more experimental stuff like, I don't know, Amon Duul II or Popol Vuh or whatever, fine, but saying that the Beatles were garbage or whatever, makes you an ignorant idiot. They sure were not the ONLY great band of the '60s, or the only innovative, but they sure made the biggest impact. No other band in the history of music made the transformation that they did from how they started to how they finished, all within about only 7 years. It's not an opinion, it's a fact, so stop making a fool of yourself.
But there is a nagging doubt that their more experimental stuff was so well received because they were already the most famous band in the world from their early 60s boy band phase, not because it was so great. Late 60s vands like Can and VU did not have the ealier more radio friendly output so were largely ignored. I personally never really liked any of the Beatles stuff. Just a matter of personal taste I suppose.
@@pauls7803 Yes, personal taste is personal taste. If you don't like listening to them, if they don't give you anything personally, ok. But you agree that no other band in the history of Rock made the transformation that they did, right? Within just a few years. You acknowledge that going from "Help!" to "Tomorrow Never Knows" in just a year is not something to ignore. And they were the first that did something like that, at least in such a big impact. Subjectively saying that you don't like them, fine, but objectively saying that they were nothing special in the history of Rock, it's 100% biased. p.s.: And yes, even if they weren't that global boy band phenomenon and had started their career from "Sgt. Pepper's", they would still make a big impact, I guarantee you that. p.s.2: Bands like Can are great for their own genre, and yes, of course they were more evolved than the Beatles (since they came after them, for one reason), but there is a reason why the Beatles they have been universally loved by billions of people for the last 60 years, but Can haven't. It's because their music speaks both to the heart and mind, whereas the music of Can or King Crimson or whatever speaks mostly to the mind. It's good to be cerebral, but if you don't also have a heart, makes you an incomplete person. And I'm not talking about you, I'm talking who whoever snubs the Beatles and says "pfff, the Beatles are lame, I'm cool and intelligent because I listen to Einstürzende Neubauten". Nothing wrong with Einstürzende Neubauten (much better than NSYNC, that's for sure), but it's the kind of music constructed to impress by its innovations and by being "weird". And that's the problem with some people, they think they're something special because they know everything about experimental music, and snub and spit to whatever is "simple". But sometimes, most of the times I should say, the simple stuff are more intelligent than whatever complicated experimental crap. For example, Einstürzende Neubauten will forever be incapable to write something like "Bridge Over Troubled Water", which as a piece of art is 100 times better and more important than anything they have done.
Even The Beatles admitted that they weren’t the best musicians out there, nor could they read sheet music. They also weren’t the only band from the “British Invasion”. They came out around the same time as the Dave Clark Five (who had a similar frenzy when they came to the US), Jerry and the Pacemakers, The Rolling Stones and others. Still, they hit at just the right time, played music which fit the times but also felt timeless, were great at marketing themselves, had albums that sounded different from each other and didn’t overstay their welcome. They left while the audiences still wanted more and to this day whenever a new Beatles project is announced, it’s big news. They crossed genres and generations.
It’s ok to dislike the Beatles. All the insecure and insulted Beatles “fans” and other assorted main streamers here just can’t think outside the box and presume popularity and record sales defines talent.
@@TheDude0fLife Why not. Seems a bit coincidental that an initially dull rock n roll boy band later became the best band ever. They were helped by the fact they were already household names.
In the 80s I played with a keyboard player that said that the Beatles had absolutely no influence on him at all. I then asked him which bands did have a big influence in him and he said "Genesis". I later saw Phil Collins being interviewed and he was asked the same question and he said "The Beatles" and that the whole band was extremely influenced by them. So some of the younger guys in this video, may have had musicians that they love, that were influenced by the Beatles. Lou Reed, wouldn't admit it, if he had been influenced by them.
Quincy Jones is the man who produced Thriller and a whole other slew of albums. If you honestly if you don't know who he is you nust be living under a rock :D
@@Annihilation_0f_The_Wicked9066 Dya mean Quincy jones the man with the metal plate in his head? Who had the same condition as Bruce Lee and survived. Michael Jackson wrote and produced most of his own work. He probably looked on. Quincy Jones, the man who stated, "I would never date an old woman"!
@@TheHandsomeman Actually you are wrong. Jackson wrote only 4 songs, the rest were written by other people and both Jones and Jackson produced the album. Jackson alone didn't produce it
By the end of 1970 the four members of the Beatles had written a total of about 255 songs (not including the score for two movies). Have you listened to all of this music?
