@@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.
@@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.
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.
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"
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.
@@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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
Lou Reed said a lot of shit to provoke people, not because he necessarily believed hid own words. At one point or another, he pretty much ended up hating everything.
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.
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.
Probably not. That's an overstatement. Nil is the answer. Talk about jealousy. The Beatles 100th best song was better than these "stars" best song. The Beatles and Dylan will be sung in 100 years. Lou Reed, Velvet Underground - hell, can it get anymore slimy? About as much talent as my dog.
@@brianobrien3644 you base your opinion on more of a popularity contest, not talent. To many, the VU and Lou Reed are way more enjoyable than overrated, mainstream music like the Beatles et al.
@@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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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 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.
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. ^^
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.
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.
REM had one good song. Reznor will be forever known as the guy who wrote Johnny Cash's last hit and Quincy Jones is a Jazz snob. Lou Reed? I barely even know who he is.
@@rrj8q Agreed. Stipe just basically stated that The Beatles weren't 'his cup of tea' so to speak, but he wasn't insulting or disrespectful. And even tho' he's a rather strange dude, I've always respected him and have quite enjoyed much of REM's music ... these other rapscallions, not so much.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
I'm pretty much a lifelong musician and when I was younger I could not really understand why everyone slavishly followed The Beatles. Now that I'm older I still feel the same in some ways. I do LOVE Paul and feel that his songwriting is some of the best the world has ever known. HOWEVER now that more musicians have access to being able to create music via computers and the internet distribution systems, there is SO MUCH AMAZING MUSIC that I wonder if the Beatles would have been heard through the avalanche of other music nowadays. I mean, I'm a musician and I think my sh*t is pretty slammin'. But unlike the Beatles I did not have access until the age of the internet. Now my music has been licensed and used in movies and TV shows. Back in the day I would have had to worry about the expense of a recording studio and all the stuff you need to just be able to get an album out. Thank you Internet for helping out us musicians! PAUL STILL ROCKS!!
Music now a days is run through a computer for most artists for pitch correction...Many modern artists can't sing! Nor do they Write their Own music...or Play Their Own Instruments...nor are they Innovative!!! The Beatles Broke all the Barriers and Did All of That in the 7 Years they were making Albums 63-70!
@@artguti1551 Yes, but there were simply not the same amount of musicians at that time, and it was horrendously expensive to get access to a studio, or studio musicians. Many more people can be more creative with the help of computers. I'm not young so I remember how hard it was to create music before computers and I even put out an album before using any computers. There is so much more great music around nowadays because even those who play instruments can now record themselves instead of trying to afford studio sessions. Also computers have helped artists with distribution. And 'pitch correction' is just the tip of the iceberg of what has been improved. If you listen closely to old recordings it's easy to hear a lot of pitch problems. Anyhoo, I do love Paul!!
@@artguti1551 But The Beatles were innovative for sure, for their time. I recently was thinking about how cool it is that on so many Beatles songs that they change time and style right in the middle of the tune! My husband said it was from their immersion into Indian culture (in India). They learned a lot and of course it really shows in their songs. I feel sort of bad saying anything negative about them because I truly do love their music and Paul Mc Cartney and Wings was a huge influence for me and almost the first songs I ever heard as a child that made me love music were his. However, I do think that they would have had a lot more great competition in today's world.
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.
I totally get those who don't have any great enthusiasm for their work being irritated by the Fabs' "sacred cow" status. People should be left alone to be underwhelmed or even repelled by Beatle music. However, the Velvets have acquired a very similar position in the "sacred cow" stakes and in a way it's worse because their acolytes still hold onto the idea that being a VU devotee is somehow a really obscure and left-field stance; those days are long-gone.
There are a lot of artists I don't personally like, but at the same time can appreciate their talent and contributions to the musical world. I will add that Lou Reed is NOT one of them.
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.
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.
They're all jealous of their sense of comradery. The Beatles were a real band who grew up together. As Keith Richards said about Led Zep, you can see the joins.
If they genuinely don't like them then fair enough but sounds like their frustration is with media coverage which wasn't something that the Beatles had any control over so that sounds more like jealousy because they can't articulate what was supposedly bad about the Beatles as creative musicians
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
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.
Why do people keep repeating these brilliant insights as though anyone would be inspired by what the nearly famous have to say about The Beatles? I mean couldn't you find something from Roger Waters and Pete Townsend and make it a complete set of who cares? The shelf life on this kind of post has long since passed.
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
People perfectly at liberty to not like the Beatles and still accept their massive popularity and impact on modern music but when they come out with invective, you think "you're either jealous or you're anti-British or something like that".
I was born during the white album sessions. Their best music came after Rubber Soul. They overplayed the dumped boyfriend trope in their "silly love songs."
The Beatles gave licence for British and believe it or not American bands to experiment and many copied some of there ideas.thats how important they were.
Musically the Velvet Underground were pseudo classical/ avant garde rubbish. Most of there audience were niche and bohemian types who disliked mainstream rock music.
Lou Reed "I thought the Beatles were garbage". OK I didn't like them, maybe I didn't like one single thing they ever put out but "garbage"? How many records did the Beatles sell compared to Lou Reed / Velvet U? How many accolades did the Beatles music get over the years compared to Lo Reed/VU? One man's opinion, no problem but not important either.
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.
I'm the same way about hearing about how great The Beatles were. Zepp and other bands like The Who surpassed The Beatles by far in a lot of ways but often get lukewarm praise from mainstream commercial media.
If Lou Reed didn't think British people should play rock 'n' roll, why did he work with Welsh musician John Cale in the first edition of the Velvet Underground? And why did he go to Britain to record his first two solo albums, using Elton John's backup band for the first one and David Bowie's (with Bowie producing) for the second one, "Transformer," which included his biggest hit, "Walk on the Wild Side"? A lot of times musicians say things in interviews that exaggerate their feelings. Trent Reznor and Julian Casablancas probably denounced the Beatles because they came from the punk scene and punk-rock fans expected their heroes to dis The Beatles. The Sex Pistols fired their original bassist, Glen Matlock, because he'd given an interview in which he said he liked the Beatles. Then they had to bring him back for their records because his replacement, Sid Vicious, couldn't play for shit.
It's true that they weren't the greatest technical musicians, e.g. their timing wasn't tight or groovy. But they were the greatest artists, innovators, and songwriters.
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?
I think we must not confuse "don't like" something with saying something is rubbish, shit or of bad quality there're very different things nobody is forced to like a particular artist musician, singer or writer but we can recognise the quality of a good production .
Good comment. It's perfectly legitimate not to like the Beatles, and anyone identifying this as "wrong" is a bit pretentious. It's OK not to like the Beatles. They were a bit saccharine, Lennon was too cool for school, and they never had the Stones' endurance.
I'm not a Beatles fan, I don't find their music entertaining to me, but I have to admit that they were the most influential rock band of all times. Every band wanted to be popular as them.
Lou Reed has covered John Lennon songs Jealous Guy and Mother. Quincy Jones had Paul McCartney on the Thriller album. Trent Reznor was definitely influenced by The Beatles white album and that Charles Manson era.
Trent Reznor rented the Sharon Tate murder house and used it as a studio to do his second album. Sick SOB. I never liked his band and had no opinion on him until I found out he did that. Scumbag move all the way. So he doesn’t like The Beatles either. Charles Manson fanboy.
“ Garbage” but Mother is one of the greatest song I ever heard, pretty much illustrates how troubled Lou was. Quincy? Ringo’s drumming on Day in the life, blows away drummers Quincy used.
