@@sarthak7964 They are very much influential. They even influence me but I gotta agree that the VU's influence is very apparent nowadays. Like we can hear it from the sound
@@yunarukami14 Every of their albums started the alternative in general. You can hear the foreshadows of dream pop, post-punk, drone rock, noise rock, indie pop, blah blah blah.....
I don’t have any problems with David’s statement about The Beatles, at least he’s being respectful, and he was friend of John and Paul. However, I think he’s confusing one thing: perhaps The Beatles were not HIS main influence, but they certainly were the main influence to an astonishing amount of bands and artists, past and present. As much as I love VU, hearing Lou Reed bashing on The Beatles when they pretty much laid the grounds for 60s rock environment, makes him sound like a resentful bitter dude, at least for me.
Totally. Ian Anderson does the same thing. There wouldn't have been any of these guys were it not for the Beatles creating the rock art as we know it today. No Beatles, no velvet underground.
yeah ! Lou Reed is like the underdog who didn't have much success in 1967 while the Beatles were at the top + he had a difficult childhood and he was the tortured kind. I can imagine he hated the Beatles right away when they arrived with their smiling faces, while he wanted to write about how NY is dirty with sex, violence, drugs etc... I mean if you create a band called "Velvet UNDERGROUND", you're not supposed to like the pop and mainstream Beatles who were singing about love and magical stuff. So I agree the VU was VERY influential and ahead of its time but I think we were all very lucky to have the Beatles with George Martin on the top of the popularity scale to create VERY good stuff for what pop is anyway. And when Lou Reed says "I don't respect any of those guys" we can see he is just taking it personally... he's a great artist tho and I love the VU
I think people forget they were creating simultaneously and were influenced by other music, not necessarily The Beatles. Not all the musical peers of The Beatles at that time were as taken by their trajectory as the world outside their musical prerequisite was. I certainly was. I love all 3 bands.. but I understand when people who were making music at the same time didn't think they were the best thing since sliced toast. It's understandable to think that the VU musicians would think that what they were doing was far more interesting and groundbreaking.. not everyone has to agree but it's valid.
The Beatles completely changed music, and they influenced almost everyone that came during or after them directly or indirectly whether they like it or not, and whether they admit to it or not. They are basically Songwriting 101.
The Beatles had very contemporary mindsets when they made their music. They weren’t necessarily “ahead of their time” because they invented the culture that became a part of their time. Why The Beatles had such a large influence is because the way they captured modern culture was incredibly unique, and it spoke to people in a way more powerful than any other band before or since. The Velvet Underground was thinking about the future when they made their music, not the present. And that makes sense. VU was postmodern music. It was about progression. In this sense, The Velvet Underground were ahead of their time because they were intentionally trying to go against the norms of the time they were in. The Beatles had an extraordinarily large influence on the 1960s music scene, and if it were not for that influence they had, the Velvet Underground wouldn’t have made the pushes forward that they did. Because what they were pushing forward against was the influence of the Beatles in the music around them everywhere. The Velvet Underground would’ve never had the influence on modern music if it wasn’t for the Beatles influence on earlier stuff.
I agree with your observation regarding these two bands and their individual influence on rock and pop. The Beatles created a musical and cultural revolution, but The VU were about pushing the envelope in rock music (at least until Loaded which I love) ...they truly were outside of their age and utterly unique
Another way of putting it would be to say that the Beatles were ace entertainers with mild fluorishes of "art" while the Velvets were ambitious artistes with passing entertainment ambitions. If that.
Tomorrow never knows? Strawberryfeilds? I am the Walrus, the BEatles and their engineer man INVENTED Double Track Looping Vocals other then that YEa the velet underground was better NOT at anything
Think of any edgy indie/alternative/grundge bands of the 80's and 90's. Most, if not all, are more similar and more influenced by the the Velvet underground (and the stooges). alternative music owes a huge debt to the VU, particularly their first album.
True. Bowie is on the money and I'm a big fan of the Beatles. American music owe to the VU than the Beatles. VU created a genre. The Beatles is still one of the greatest bands of all time but not the most influence. There is a lot of big hurt beatle fans in the comments
@@richybatty234 They both create alternative music. They made a sound for America rock. The Beatles are overrated. I don't see why many Americans are obsesse with these rock/ pop band from the U.k. without Geroge martin and mr. Emrick's genius on the engineering , the Beatles will not as big than right now. There are great American bands that you over look because too many people are sucking British rock's dick. Nirvana, Steely Dan,Bruce Springsteen, the Beach Boys, etc. Right now the influences of the Stooges and VU are overwhelming than the Beatles. Most people won't accept it.
I would consider the Beatles and the Velvet Underground to be equally influential. Anyway, whether he's right or wrong about this, his statement that "the artists make culture, not the critics" is still spot on.
Both were influential. The Beatles laid the foundation of modern songwriting that we STILL hear to this day and the Velvets combined avant garde with elevated lyrics to a literary level that you can still hear in many great muscial poets in this day and age.
I really like and respect David Bowie, he is a genius and I can understand the era when he actually said this statement; the Strokes, Franz Ferdinand and Arcade Fire were at their peak, bands that are clearly influenced by Velvet Underground. On the other hand, I think the Beatles influence can be perceived in every decade: It goes from - Electric Light Orchestra to Black Saabath 70s (just see what Osbourne and Lynne think about The Beatles, even though the different type of music they made) - from Stone Roses to Tears for Fears - from The Jam to Fleetwood Mac - from Flaming Lips to Wilco - from Oasis to Nirvana - from Arctic Monkeys to Animal Collective - from Belle and Sebastian to Bruno Mars - Tame Impala to Panda Bear - MGMT to Coldplay - U2 to Radiohead I know Bowie was quite influenced by The Beatles, specially from Lennon (just listen to Sexy Sadie and then Lady Stardust) and Lou Reed even if he wouldn’t ever admitted, is kind of influenced (listen to Candy Says). I really admire Velvet Underground, David Bowie and The Beatles. I think the influence of the three of them in today’s music is out of question.
Arguably the most influential band ever: Iggy & The Stooges, Nico, David Bowie, Patti Smith, Roxy Music, Brian Eno, Modern Lovers, Roky Erickson, Suicide, Sex Pistols, Ramones, Sham 69, Throbbing Gristle, Talking Heads, Siouxsie, Cabaret Voltaire, Joy Division, Bauhaus, The Fall, Echo & The Bunnymen, Sonic Youth, Jesus & Mary Chain, Psychic TV, Violent Femmes, Half Japanese, Teardrop Explodes, Julian Cope, Squeeze, Spacemen 3, Loop, Dead Can Dance, Japan, Dandy Warhols, Beck, Opal, Mazzy Star, Nick Cave, REM, U2, Björk, Radiohead, Happy Mondays, Screaming Trees, Mark Lanegan, Oasis, Red Hot Chilly Peppers, Monster Magnet, Pearl Jam, Queens Of The Stone Age, Steel Pole Bathtub, Jesus Lizard, Brian Jonestown Massacre, Jarvis Cocker, Trash Palace, Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, TV On The Radio, The Libertines, The Strokes, Yo La Tengo, Art Brut, Franz Ferdinand, Arcade Fire, Kurt Vile, Crystal Stilts, Black Angels, The Kills, MGMT, Animal Collective and surely plenty plenty more could sing a song about how The Velvet's inspired them.
@@marguskiis7711 Exactly my foughts, I think their guitar sound are a lot influenced by VOX and Gretsch/RB guitars of early Beatles albums and even Hey, Bulldog's riff and chorus sounds like FF
The Beatles were very nearly bigger than pop music and rock music. They are in their own celestial sphere. Hipper than thou folks will always knock them as not being a big deal. Those folks are just trying too hard to deny the undeniable… that The Beatles’ catalogue is unmatched and untouched by most other groups. Bowie is one of the few artists who got anywhere near what The Beatles achieved. He should really have known better.
Год назад+4
The Beatles are very infantile or for teenagers (even those who did not grow up). I prefer Lennon's solo more.
@ Turn off your mind, relax and float down stream It is not dying, it is not dying Lay down all thoughts, surrender to the void It is shining, it is shining Yet you may see the meaning of within It is being, it is being Love is all and love is everyone It is knowing, it is knowing... ... that ignorance and hates may mourn the dead It is believing, it is believing But listen to the colour of your dreams It is not living, it is not living So play the game "Existence" to the end... ... Of the beginning, of the beginning Of the beginning, of the beginning Of the beginning, of the beginning Of the beginning, of the beginning
One of David Bowie's more questionable takes. I agree 100% that artists on the fringe, like the VU, often have a greater influence on future generations than the mainstream, but the Beatles are a bad example. Bowie said this in 1996, right in between the releases of (What's the Story) Morning Glory and OK Computer, two albums which are HEAVILY Beatles-inspired, and even Gen-Z artists like Billie Eilish are musical descendants of the Beatles.
I also don't agree, in fact he picks yesterday, and when the interviewer says "Penny Lane" he's like "PENNY LANE! you know...well every british bands use trumpets every now and again, certainly Beatles influenced".. lol if you started to quote "Tomorrow Never Knows" "Helter Skelter" "Hey Bulldog" and so on he would be more like "I guess they were both great" Sill I think that his argument, especially in the end, was about how underground stuff also heavily inspiers culture "Have you heard this beatles amazing track?" "Yes, nice, but HAVE YOU HEARD THE VELVET UNDERGROUND?? ...so underground"
More examples (as if they're needed...) Chemical Brothers (UK number 1 in 1996) credit a single Beatles track as a template, Beetlebum by Blur (UK number 1 early '97), a deliberate tribute to the Beatles. Earlier in the 90s, Nirvana, Pixies, Breeders, they all covered Beatles songs. 80s: Smiths' last album was consciously Beatles-influenced. Basically any band with Rickenbackers and four members, from R.E.M. to the Bangles. Robyn Hitchcock has said the genre he works in should be described as 'Beatles Music'. The 70s: hardly necessary to bring up ELO, but also Roger Waters speaks of first hearing Sgt Pepper, stopping his car and sitting with his mouth open in astonishment, David Gilmour of wishing he'd been in the Beatles, how he learned everything from them, Queen's Brian May describes the Beatles as their "bible" for "composition, arrangement and production", and Bowie himself in 'Life On Mars?' slipped into a Lennon impersonation, mentioned Lennon in the lyrics... Problem is, when the influence of something is pretty much everywhere, sometimes it becomes hard to see. It kind of camouflages itself. But if you listen to what every generation of artists has been saying since 1963...
@@smellegantcode as for influencing punk/alternative music (including all subgenres), The Beatles are nowhere near The Velvets. Here's a list containing bands and artists connected to VU, either covering them, collaborating with ex-members, inserting musical elements into their music The Velvets created (such as the drone), sounding like them, or were produced/arranged by John Cale: Iggy & The Stooges, Nico, David Bowie, Patti Smith, Roxy Music, Brian Eno, Bryan Ferry, Modern Lovers, Nick Drake, Roky Erickson, Lowell George, Mick Ronson, Suicide, Sex Pistols, Ramones, Sham 69, Throbbing Gristle, Talking Heads, Siouxsie, Debbie Harry, Cabaret Voltaire, Joy Division, New Order, Bauhaus, The Fall, Sonic Youth, Jesus & Mary Chain, Clock DVA, Psychic TV, Echo & The Bunnymen, The Sound, The Soft Boys, Sisters Of Mercy, Laurie Anderson, Duran Duran, Simple Minds, Martin Gore, Violent Femmes, Half Japanese, Teardrop Explodes, Julian Cope, UK Subs, Slaughter And The Dogs, Wreckless Eric, Jim Carroll, Squeeze, Jools Holland, Spacemen 3, TV Personalities, Loop, Les Rita Mitsouko, Dead Can Dance, Japan, Dandy Warhols, Bettie Serveert, Beck, Opal, Mazzy Star, Nick Cave, Hole, Susanna Hoffs, James, Jarvis Cocker, Buffalo Tom, Jeff Buckley, Leonard Cohen, Rufus Wainwright, Christian Death, Maedievil Babes, REM, U2, OMD, Björk, Luna, Radiohead, Happy Mondays, Moby, Melvins, Screaming Trees, Mark Lanegan, Smashing Pumpkins, Mercury Rev, Suede, Pulp, Oasis, Red Hot Chilly Peppers, Monster Magnet, Nirvana, Metallica, Pearl Jam, Queens Of The Stone Age, Pavement, Alejandro Escovedo, Big Star, Steel Pole Bathtub, Jesus Lizard, Galaxie 500, The Feelies, Kula Shaker, Wedding Present, White Stripes, Brian Jonestown Massacre, Trash Palace, Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, TV On The Radio, The Libertines, The Strokes, The Kooks, Danger Mouse, Yo La Tengo, Wilco, Art Brut, Kurt Vile, Crystal Stilts, Cowboy Junkies, Throwing Muses, Belle And Sebastian, Black Angels, Beth Gibbons The Kills, The Killers, Bare Naked Ladies, Soap&Skin, Marissa Nadler, Amanda Palmer, MGMT, Animal Collective, Fat White Family, St. Vincent, Cate LeBon, Andrew Bird, Fontaines D.C., Courtney Barnett, Matt Berninger, Sharon Van Etten, Jeff Beck, Johnny Depp, Weyes Blood, Tei Shi, Actress, Laurel Halo and surely plenty plenty more. .
@@ForARide You're absolutely right that those artists were influenced by the VU but in a way you've confirmed my point. As John Cale tells it, the reason he abandoned classical avant-garde and wanted to form a rock band is because of what he called "the Beatles Invasion". The reason VU existed was the Beatles. This is not to deny VU's brilliant contributions (though it is wildly inaccurate to credit them with inventing the drone or even with introducing it into pop/rock.) But practically all of the groups on your list also took direct cues from the Beatles - there is overlap with my list! In some cases it's really striking: REM and Susanna Hoffs came out of a US college radio era that idolised them, that's why she and Buck play Rics. Also - Oasis?! But more often that influence is less visible, because it's so all pervasive, we mostly forget that it's there and only pick out the influences that differ from it. Music is full of influences from artists other than the Beatles, but the influence of the Beatles is so widespread that we forget it's there.
I think it's just super hard to both sound like the beatles and be good at it. At that time, in 1996, one of the biggest bands in the world -oasis - were trying to be the beatles. And they were constantly criticized for it by people who didnt think they could pull it off. And here we are 25 years later, and I gotta say, no one is trying to sound like the vu too much anymore. Maybe it was just a specific moment in time in when alt rock exploded in the 90s. And yet - in 2022, the beatles are getting 8 hr docs made about their throwaway album.
In addition to The Beatles and Velvet Underground, there’s other influential artists. The Beach Boys: “It's been said that, although hardly anyone bought the Velvet Underground's records, those who did ended up being inspired to start their own bands. In the case of the Beach Boys' 1966 opus Pet Sounds, it's likely that each of its 13 songs inspired its own subset of pop offspring ...” -Music critic Jeff Straton, 2000[410] Bob Dylan: Many would consider him the greatest songwriter, brought in a wider variety of subject matter and intellect into rock music by going electric. A lot of our biggest albums wouldn’t exist without Bob Dylan’s influence (Rubber Soul, the aforementioned Pet Sounds), he popularized a more unconventional way of singing, that it didn’t need to be a pretty voice.
I think the VU had their day in the 90’s because that’s what artists wanted to do at the time. But at the same time, The Beatles have such near-mythic grandeur that there would be an intense anxiety of influence for anyone who wants to learn from those records. VU were very DIY and lo-fi, so not as intimidating. But yes, contemporary artists output does state what music of the past is most relevant for today.
Listening to “After Hours” “Pale Blue Eyes” “Heroin” “Venus in Furs” without any knowledge of the band singing behind them and I wouldn’t think they have belonged to the same era as the Beatles. They still sound fresh and relevant. I grew up listening to the Beatles so I think they’re what I call classic pop music but as I get older and my musical knowledge expanded I think there have been far greater musicians out there that still carry more relevant body of work than them.
4 года назад+18
Pop trashes are selling more than Beatles nowadays, without their talent. Money or massification are not an argument for Art. Brian Eno once said: *"The first Velvet Underground album only sold 10000 copies, but everyone who bought it formed a band."*
4 года назад+10
@69StrawberryField Why Americans think numbers made something "better"? That's why your best-selling pop music is so bad, horrible in terms of vocal or musically. Your lack of education is the joke of the world. When we really talk about ARTISTS, writers, painters and etc. prefer jazz or bands like Velvet Underground, not The Beatles and their silly songs for POSERS (well, I like some of them, but this is it).
@69StrawberryField No. There is a lot of bands sound like VU than the Beatles. Name one band that is sound like the Beatles? Selling records is not important than being influence. I heard the Beatles are overrated.
@69StrawberryField Now you made the whole thing up. We are talking about MUSICALLY. Not all bands are not influenced by the Beatles. There are other influential bands like the Cream, the Stooges, the Knicks,the Zombies, Love, the Who, The Animals, the Bydrs, the Beach boys,etc. Their contributions are very heard in the rock genre and well as other genres like synth pop than the Beatles. The Rolling Stones songs were more critical acclaim by critics' best 60 songs of all time such as Pitchfork. Velvet Underground created a genre called Alternative or Indie music or other genres related to it. Majority of rock are alternative today (rip heavy rock). The all the indie\proto-punk\ alternative bands from the 70s until today has not exist without the Vevlet Underground. All of the albums are classics and the highest rated scores by critics. VU do not give a shit about sales or commerialism. They care about is art and expression. That is why sales are bs. Television self debut album did not sell well but it is the most influential and post punk albums all of time. Same goes Bowie's Low, Paul McCartney's Ram, and The Weezer's Pinkterson. Everybody thought that the album's all are too weird and less commercial. Years later, they are consider to be the greatest of all time. I like the Beatles but they are not Gods. Their recording techniques at the studio, songwriting( influence by other artists like Dylan), vocals, and catchy simply innovative riffs are make them so great. Of course Sir Geroge Martin is a damed good producer. Same compliment to Mr. Emmerck their main studio engineer . ( add to Mr. Norman on Rubber Soul before he left). The skiffle is a genre infused by rock/RB\and pop. That is what the Beatles are until st. Pepper. They are a great pop/rock group but also overrated because some make them like gods. The Beatles got lucky because other people around them at the studio were talented and professional. Velvet Underground did not need help. They did it themselves.
I love bowie, the velvet underground, and the Beatles. I just cant agree with this. I believe all 3 of them have helped shape the music. Industry all in their own ways. But i think the Beatles have done so the most of the 3. But you cant really compare the VU and the Beatles. There just very different and have contributed much differently.
@Anderson Cooper what do you mean? Okay i reread and i get it. Well you could ask the same qusestion with anything. Where do you hear velvet underground in todays music? I dont want anyone to mimic these great musicians. But take what they did and have there own new take on it. Its kinda how music works. I loooove led zeppelin but completly ignore greta van sleet . You dont hear influence in music. It should evolve. And the beatles like bowie and the vu have all influenced other musicians to evolve and make there music better.
4 года назад+10
In this interview (ruclips.net/video/Xt_4qO7-9N8/видео.html), George Harrison says (it was 1974) that every photo he saw of Bowie looked "stupid" or "dopey" to him. Lennon defended Bowie. So, Bowie had also personal reasons and artistic questions about this issue, but he covered "Try Some, Buy Some" (by Harrison) in this century ( ruclips.net/video/iSYb7IDRyAg/видео.html ). He was not next to McCartney neither. He certainly had preference for Lennon (watch this: ruclips.net/video/2nyvvDipNfA/видео.html).
Bowie is too smart and intelligent a person to throw such words just out of spite. Well, harrison is a fool, of course. Not only did beatles themselves seem like the last thing to connect with the mind, so it's definitely not one of them that should be talking about it, and as an artist compared to David, he's not even an empty space, and I don't know who it is
Why equate greatness with being influential? The Beatles’s greatness cannot and must not be measured in terms of its influence in simplistic terms as say - How many songs of today sound like Yesterday? Doesn’t the fact that no band in 50 years managed to craft a song as fine as Penny Lane make The Beatles even more deserving of the pedestal they’re on? Were The Velvet Underground influential? Yes. Are The Beatles untouched and unsurpassable? Double Yes. PS: I’m also a Bowie fan.
It's kind of unfair to cherry pick two songs to make a whole argument like this, especially when it comes to the Beatles who had such an expansive and diverse catalogue. If we're going to cherry pick, Helter Skelter is probably more influential than any VU song, it's arguably the first metal song ever. Think about how many metal/heavy metal bands were influenced directly or indirectly by that one song. Or the influence songs like strawberry fields and Lucy in the sky with diamonds had on psychedelic music
3 года назад+6
0:12 "influence they [Beatles] have", but who pushed the limits of art was Velvet Underground, outside the massive industry... This is his point. You didn't understand Bowie. In the time of this interview he wanted to vanished his past with Let's Dance (commercial prison) and experiment with the underground!
@ I understood his point and it's truthful to a certain degree. But to compare 2 Beatles songs which are good, but not necessarily influential, to one of the most influential songs of TVU isn't fair
John Foxx of Ultravox was galvanised by "Tomorrow Never Knows" which was a single chord drone work, released before the Velvets first album. The Beatles had genre changing music all the way through their career, they reinvented themselves more than the Velvets.
@@keriford54 OH YES. The Beatles are the only band of the era and even today that matters. ALL influence came from them. We should be loving, thanking, revering, and celebrating the BEATLES….and them alone. (sarcasm)
Music doesn’t have to be weird to be revolutionary, it just needs to be a joyful sound. Yesterday is a better song than Rebel Rebel or Heroes or Major Tom. Nobody studies the construct of Rebel Rebel but Yesterday is a classic still being studied. BTW, I’ve seen both of them live and McCartney gives a better performance.
Beatles was literally all style 😂 they’re pop at its finest. But I’d still listen to VU, Beach Boys, The Kinks over them more, especially as I got older.
The Beatles had an enormous influence on the world in general , not just the musicians . It's always fashionable to knock something , especially 50 yrs after the event !
Personally, I would say that by the 90s, there was, at the very least, as much the influence of the Beatles as there was the Velvet Underground. In the 90s, the guitar virtuosity was beginning to get extinct and it became more about mood and gritiness so in that sense, you could hear the Velvets' influence, but the Beatles' influence was everywhere in the 90s: Nirvana, Soundgarden, Oasis, the entire Britpop clan, and definitely Radiohead. Hell, just two years later The Chemical Brothers essentially redid Tomorrow Never Knows with Setting Sun. So I think this is one of the few times where I don't agree with David.
The question is not who the artists referred to, but in what coordinate system they existed. Without VU, with their almost religious worship of the spirit of old Rock & Roll, there would not even be an idea that it is possible to make new music on the foundation of the old one, combining the basics, in terms of thinking, all britpop groups are their offspring, and who they referred to, in this case does not matter
David Bowie might not have been the world’s #1 devotee when it came to The Fab Four. BUT he thought quite highly of them, especially John Lennon… a close friend. And, lo and behold, the feeling was mutual‼️ About Lennon, Bowie stated : “He was probably one of the brightest, quickest witted, earnestly socialist men I’ve ever met in my life. Socialist in true definition […]. [A] real humanist with a really spiteful sense of humour, which of course, being English, I adored.” As for Paul McCartney, he once claimed this about The Starman : “David was a great star, and I treasure the moments we had together. His music played a very strong part in British musical history, and I’m proud to think of the huge influence he has had on people all around the world.” 💚💫💙
@Kate You see, I honestly believe that those two were outstandingly smart fellows and highly brilliant entertainers ON AND OFF STAGE. And it was part of the show-business game to speak their minds. In fact, they were EXPECTED to do so by the media and by the public… worldwide.
@Kate I agree with you, Kate. Both were visionaries in many ways. Both were free spirits. Both were larger than life. Both left their mark on the 🌎 world. Never will they be forgotten.
I think vu influenced bands keep coming through every few years. The velvets were massive in influencing punk new wave and 80s alt/indie. The Beatles influence revived w britpop and vu influence then came back with likes of strokes libertines et al. Nirvana s an interesting case cos kurt cobain cites the Beatles and vu influences ... some RUclips videos mention parallels of Lennon and cobain songwriting. Worth checking out
@@egiptoantiguo punk can be traced way earlier than Helter Skelter like the Kinks for example or Dylan or even the Velvets who put their first record out before Helter Skelter
To be fair though, how influential is a song like "Black Angel Death song" or whatever lol. Love both bands, but no contest Beatles had larger influence. Really not fair to just pick and chose a couple random songs from each group
Exactly my thoughts. Why don't you compare it with helter Skelter instead of penny lane
3 года назад+2
0:12 "influence they [Beatles] have", but who pushed the limits of art was Velvet Underground, outside the massive industry... This is his point. You didn't understand Bowie. In the time of this interview he wanted to vanished his past with Let's Dance (commercial prison) and experiment with the underground!
Arguably the most influential band ever*: Iggy & The Stooges, Nico, David Bowie, Patti Smith, Roxy Music, Brian Eno, Bryan Ferry, Modern Lovers, Nick Drake, Roky Erickson, The Yardbirds, Terry Riley, Lowell George, Chris Spedding, Kevin Ayers, Allen Lanier, Phil Manzanera, Phil Collins, Jennifer Warnes, Mick Ronson, Suicide, Sex Pistols, Ramones, Sham 69, Throbbing Gristle, Talking Heads, Siouxsie, Debbie Harry, Cabaret Voltaire, Joy Division, New Order, Bauhaus, The Fall, Sisters Of Mercy, Sonic Youth, Jesus & Mary Chain, Clock DVA, Psychic TV, Echo & The Bunnymen, The Sound, The Soft Boys, Olli Halsall, Laurie Anderson, Bob Neuwirth, Duran Duran, Simple Minds, Martin Gore, Violent Femmes, Half Japanese, Teardrop Explodes, Julian Cope, UK Subs, Slaughter And The Dogs, Wreckless Eric, Jim Carroll, Spacemen 3, Squeeze, Jools Holland, Television Personalities, Billy Brag, Billy Idol, Revolting Cocks, Loop, Einstürzende Neubauten, Les Rita Mitsouko, Hector Zazou, The Jazz Butcher, Dead Can Dance, Japan, David Sylvian, Dandy Warhols, Bettie Serveert, Beck, Opal, Mazzy Star, Nick Cave, Hole, Susanna Hoffs, James, Jarvis Cocker, Buffalo Tom, Tom Tom Club, Christian Death, Maedievil Babes, Lio, Cristine, REM, U2, OMD, Björk, Penelope Houston, Luna, Radiohead, Happy Mondays, Manic Street Preachers, Super Furry Animals, Moby, Suzanne Vega, Melvins, Screaming Trees, Mark Lanegan, Smashing Pumpkins, Mercury Rev, Suede, Pulp, Oasis, Red Hot Chilly Peppers, Monster Magnet, Metallica, Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Queens Of The Stone Age, Alejandro Escovedo, Big Star, Steel Pole Bathtub, Jesus Lizard, Galaxie 500, Pavement, Manic Street Preachers, Super Furry Animals, Edwyn Collins, The Feelies, Kula Shaker, Teenage Fanclub, Wedding Present, White Stripes, Brian Jonestown Massacre, Human Drama, David J., Jeff Buckley, Leonard Cohen, Rufus Wainright, Trash Palace, Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, TV On The Radio, The Libertines, The Strokes, The Kooks, Kasabian, Danger Mouse, Yo La Tengo, Wilco, Art Brut, Kurt Vile, Crystal Stilts, Cowboy Junkies, Throwing Muses, Belle And Sebastian, Black Angels, Beth Gibbons The Kills, The Killers, Bare Naked Ladies, Soap&Skin, Marissa Nadler, Amanda Palmer, MGMT, Fat White Family, Animal Collective, St. Vincent, Anna Calvi, Cate LeBon, Agnes Obel, Andrew Bird, Fontaines D.C., Courtney Barnett, Matt Berninger, Sharon Van Etten, Jeff Beck, Johnny Depp, Weyes Blood, Actress, Laurel Halo, Tei Shi, Sylvan Esso and surely plenty plenty more could sing a song about how The Velvet's inspired them. * At least as far as Punk/Alternative music and all it's subgenres are concerned.
A huge portion of those were influenced by the Beatles and many of them I don't see any real influence by the VU. Also we could make a list of artists influenced by the Beatles and that would be hundreds of screens.
@@kevingilliam6807 lazy comment! I at least did my homework, as this list is based on facts and is a who is who of alternative/punk bands (including all subgenres). All these bands and artists are in one way or another connected to The Velvets: either covering them, collaborating with ex-members, inserting musical elements (such as the drone) The Velvets created into their music, sounding like them, or being produced/arranged by John Cale. Surely The Beatles had a larger reach, but when it comes to the alternative/punk complex, The Beatles are nowhere near The Velvets, their influence being quite marginal within this range. Back in the 70's and 80's The Beatles were considered as B(oring) O(ld) F(arts) among the punk/alternative community. Without uber manager Brian Eppstein and genius producer/arranger George Martin I doubt The Beatles would've reached that God like status.
@@kevingilliam6807 Maybe, BUT how many actually great are influenced by the Beatles compared to the VU? (This is only subjective to me, so take it with a grain of salt! 😂)
@@ForARide Just a couple of bands picked at random from your list. ruclips.net/video/yiCQN6u7lQ4/видео.html ruclips.net/video/kkZIz1H3_iQ/видео.html ruclips.net/video/tOXGQOBNYgk/видео.html Would she be about to faint if she was talking to Lou Reed?
The velvet underground are the most important band in rock history. They invented alternative music, basically half of rock music that came after. That's why they're so important
The VU's message was basically, you don't have to have talent to make passably good music so there is hope for all of you useless schleps out there. You might get lucky and not have to be janitors all your life.
What a load of rubbish. And David Bowie was talking crap as well. Beatles opened the door to singer songwriter, they inspired so many artists to pickup the pen and write.
They were The X Factor of their time, in that they provided lazy people with an easier path to stardom, without the need for any of that pesky and elusive talent and ability. Effectively it's like looking at Leonardo DaVinci's amazing work, knowing you can't do it, so you pretend that someone who just throws paint at a blank wall is just as good, so you can copy him and convince yourself you have some artistic ability. Bands like The Velvet Underground allow people who do not possess the abilities of Paul McCartney, to pretend that they would not want them anyway.
I think that velvet underground influenced a lot of bands from the 70s to the 90s. On the contrary the beatles re-emerged in 2000s with indie rock that used more trumpets and all this stuff (like Arcade Fire for example)
I don't remember a single band later than the ' 80s that had anything to do with the beatles, but of course you tactfully omitted the Strokes, which in fact gave birth to modern indie culture, and at the same time were absolutely direct followers of VU
@@II-xl7lj a lot of bands were influenced by the The Beatles... Radiohead (they were influenced by the ballads of the white album), Built to Spill, Melvins (their sound was influenced by the band 'Blue Cheer' and Helter Skelter) Nirvana (listen to Well Well Well by John Lennon), Porcupine Tree (their ballads were very beatlesque etc etc etc ) Some sounds of the 90s were experimented by George Harrison with his LP all things must pass.
i think critics have their place in culture, everything is art, taking in others art and digesting it and analyzing it down to small details, is their art -- you must accept this, even if it doesnt resonate with you, just like your art may not resonate with them -- so many different mediums and forms of art.. everything we do is art
The Beatles' music might not have influenced as much as the Velvet Underground because Beatle music seems to be made by extraterrestrial beings, I mean, almost everybody likes their music and how they progressed but trying to MAKE songs like Eleanor Rigby, Happiness is a Warm Gun or Because seems pretty hard. Whereas VU (and I love good alternative music) is more attainable in a way.
I agree. The Beatles were extremely creative, and their output was so varied and very melody-driven- writing good melodies is hard, and people try to go the easy route with a catchy rhythm instead.
david picking yesterday wasn't a fair lol the beatles white album and revolver are a lot more stylish than penny lane. Also nobody, can make such ridiculously iconic vocal melodies as the beatles. its much easier to imitate lou reeds vocal postures and sonic stylings and chord arrangments. pretty much anyone can do that in an attempt to sound cool. The beatles melodies are unreachable. if people could do it they would be doing it. any band can steal the sonic style of velvet under ground and make it work, but good luck trying to steal the stylings of magical mystery tour, and making it work, without the insane melodies, with their almost spiritual jubilant zeal, it's not possible. Beatles will always be untouchable because of this.. maybe they dont' influence the music people are making but everyone still looks at what they did and says wow, wtf.
and to say, the velvet underground (who were great) were real artists and not the beatles, is dumb. The beatles music is so powerful, strange and otherwordly that charles manson thought god (or was it the devil) was speaking to him through it. Take lsd or smoke a big ball of hash and listen to the white album and magical mystery tour. The beatles were the greatest recording artists of all time, the beatles vibe is otherworldly.
@lj That's what lou reeds parents said to him when he was a teenager, sent him off for electric shock therapy, I guess you're a proponent .... Thanks but, I'll stick with music
One reason why the Velvet was influential may have been how easy they were to imitate in terms of the simple harmonic language and crude playing, although this was combined with sophisticated lyrics. There's a certain art and vibe to that simplicity and "sonic landscape", but it's fairly easy to learn and execute compared with much of the Beatles' output.
@@joseneitor-eg4iy Yeah, well... Don't get me wrong, I like Lou Reed. I'm guitarist who started out playing blues but I play more jazz these days. My wife is a contemporary composer. I don't remember hearing much blues language or chops in Lou's playing. In the blues, the sophistication is in the nuance rather than in the harmonic material, as much of the blues is just the same three chords. Much of Lou Reed's work is also just three or four very basic chords, like your regular major or minor chords. The Beatles, by contrast, used a lot of 6ths, 7ths, minor 7ths, major 7ths, augmented, diminished, 9ths, 7#9, the Em7/A chord, etc., and their chord progressions could be pretty sophisticated. This makes it easier to learn an average Lou Reed song than an average Beatles song. Of course, some bands use fairly simple harmonic material but have a lot of chops and sophisticated nuance, like Led Zeppelin, which had great players. But this was not the case for the Velvet Underground, which had almost zero chops to begin with and gradually started sounding a bit like the Rolling Stones once their chops developed a bit. Their strengths were more conceptual and lyrical.
@@pallhe thats why the VU and the Stones are better rock and roll acts, they brought primal and even primitive ideas to a genre that was getting burgoise and marketed by the minute. Rock is defiance, the streets and harsh reality not yellow submarine candy coated trash.
@@joseneitor-eg4iy That's certainly a point of view, but my point was about the level of difficulty and complexity. Difficult and complex doesn't mean better, but I wouldn't shut my mind to the merits of the Beatles or even something as slick as, say, Steely Dan (whose influences include the VU, believe it or not). Steely Dan is an example of a band where everything is sophisticated, the compositions, the lyrics, the arrangements, the playing, the production -- everything. They sounded too slick to me on first hearing, but I later acquired a taste for them and it opened my mind up more to harmonic content in music. You can enjoy primitiveness as well as sophistication as long as you're open to both. But I agree with you that the Stones and the VU brought some new and valuable musical elements to the table. Of course, the Beatles could be very gritty and course too. "Helter Skelter" is one case in point.
@@joseneitor-eg4iy The Beatles were actually working class and of the streets. The Stones were middle-class students. The Beatles lived harsh realities. Mick Jagger wouldn't have swapped his childhood for John Lennon's in a million years. Citing one deliberately silly song as if it represents their entire output is idiotic. You're the one who has been fooled by marketing if you're buying into that phoney image of the VU and The Stones and of what rock is meant to be. I'm into good music, not posers with a preoccupation with appearing 'cool'. Paul McCartney wrote a silly song like Yellow Submarine because he wanted to, regardless of how uncool the self-appointed arbiters of 'cool' thought it was, and that to me is far cooler than those trying to get their approval. McCartney always does what he wants. They do what they think will get them approval.
i love the beatles but i agree with bowie 100% here. so many bands and artists these days have taken a page out of the velvet underground's book, be it their wild experimentation or the slow and dreamy sounds of their poppier albums, they basically created an entire culture of indie music and just music on the whole. i do think that the beatles are a big influence in all this too, so maybe he's underrated them in this interview a bit, but he's not entirely wrong either.
He’s definitely generalizing his opinion of the Beatles. I get it. And Lou Reed’s influence on Bowie seems pretty clear. But, he is pointing out that, in spite of the Beatles being the most popular band in the world, there were many serious British artists who were sort of ‘anti-Beatles’. Not necessarily hating them, but certainly not taking their music as serious as most. I think time has proven that the Beatles were on another level. Bowie, to me, was still finding himself in the late sixties. He was a very smart marketing person. ( space oddity at the time of the Apollo landing etc.) His body of work is adventurous and a few of his songs are some of my favorite of all time. Thank God he had different influences than the Beatles. It allowed another family of songs and sounds to emerge. I think he’s kind of riffing here, maybe just thinking out loud, but still good points. I think he’s making a point about 80’s music; it certainly didn’t sound very beatle-like. One last point; I think the Beatles took buddy holly, chuck berry and the everly brothers ( who were all writing their own songs) and took it one step farther and set the standard for the modern pop song. For Bowie not to see that influence in his songs is a bit ingenious. But I get it.
Comparing waiting for my man to penny lane is like comparing heroin to yellow Submarine. Early Beatles stuff like She loves you with its pounding drums and twangy guitars is closer to the rock n roll sound of the velvets. Both great bands.
Yellow Submarine isn’t in any level that VU makes, whether in songwriting or even subject matter. Heroin and Venus in Furs feels like even very contemporary in subject matter while the Beatles were still writing love themes what the rest of mainstream 60s were already doing much. For their contemporaries, I much even prefer the Kinks over the Beatles.
The first Velvet Underground and particularly second VU LPs are nothing like early Beatles (or later for that matter). They are far more interesting in my opinion. Not bothered by the rock n roll later VU LPs though.
Danjoker Well by saying It’s common sense you just prove that people follow trends, Beatles are great, but overrated at the same time, a lot of people who claim The Beatles are the greatest band or group of artists ever assembled, use that influental argument or just say ‘well It’s The Beatles’ but those aren’t really valid arguments
What Mr. B was stating(and quite rightly) is that the Velvet DID influence more young people to become recording artists than the Beatles. Hell, you could find more young artists influenced by the Monkees (at one point) than the Beatles. Why? Primitives(which the VU were, save the influence of Cale and even Reed) will ALWAYS lead the way first. Those first Presley records. The first Bowie records. Those early jazz and country recordings.
the VU is the only rock band worth listening in a greater scale, they had the sardonic rock attitude, the roars of street life and artistic decadence in general. Its more rock and roll than any mop top lullaby singer could ever be.
While I agree with Bowie that you hear more bands that sound like VU than sound like The Beatles, I think it has more to do with the fact its pretty easy to write a tuneless melody than it is to write melodic melodies that will be remembered for centuries. A lot easier to write Sweet Jane than to write A Day in the Life or Strawberry Fields Forever. I'm not a VU basher ( I'm a fan ) but it's kind of an absurd statement. My comment would have been, "Have you noticed, there's a lot less musical geniuses around than there use to be?" Can you deny Hendrix influence, just because people aren't talented enough to match his innovations?
Beach Boys make very beautiful melodies so it’s not entirely unique to the Beatles. The Beatles have more cult of personality behind them that magnifies their appeal but I find myself listening more to their contemporaries like the Beach Boys, Kinks, Velvet Underground over them as I got older.
@@ophanimangel3143 Well that's just you, according to official figures for things like downloads. Although, initially, I Listened to the more Commercial Beatles tracks, I don't listen to those anymore, but I'm always They Still listening to happiness is a warm gun, I want you, she's so heavy, across the universe, I've got a feeling, don't let me down, old brown shoe, Hey Bulldog, et *Bowie speaking in the 90sa here, so it means nothing in terms of today's listeners. According to Spotify the Beatles are the most listened to group from the 60s/70s - the Beach Boys Barely Get Any Attention
I'm not sure if Bowie is being deliberately provocative, if so I don't admire that. The Beatles reinvented Rock n Roll and basically ushered in the whole rock era. Also I don't admire the shade he is throwing on Yesterday, that is a master class in songwriting, I so wish more bands could produce songs as beautiful as that, I don't think Bowie has. But the Beatles from the excitement and electricity they produced with their early single and albums, and going on from there they were consistently reinventing themselves musically at a rate even Bowie wasn't able to do, they would have more stylistic diversity within an album than many bands would have across their entire career. Even obviously experimental works like Tomorrow Never Knows, Rain, A Day in the Life, Within You and Without You, Helter Skelter, Happiness is a Warm Gun, I want You (She's so Heavy). The Velvet Underground created a unique sound and they should be commended for that, but they did two albums where they sounded experimental (when John Cale was in the band) Then two albums where they had nice sounding songs (sounding quite Beatlesque). They did influence many bands but those bands were likely also influenced by the Beatles. I can think of no band that was as restlessly creative as the Beatles. Both critics and artists loved the Beatles.
2 года назад+4
Real artists prefer bands like Velvet Underground, which makes Beatles very simple, even teenager.
The UK was always very receptive to The Velvet Underground. Because The Velvet Underground is the band that represented those who felt like they didn't belong. The ones who were making a difference while no one cared about them. Jimi Hendrix, New York Dolls, and Iggy Pop were perfect examples of that.
I love Bowie but I disagree. His view is a bit too simplistic. The Beatles' body of work became subject of reverence and technical prowess to the point that it couldn't really be imitated without becoming pastiche. Not every band could draw from an album like Sgt. Pepper's without having access to orchestras and Abbey Road-like studios and advanced studio techniques. I'd say that bands like Velvet Underground became points of reference because what they did was simple, easier to recreate and still just as expressive as a lot of stuff The Beatles did.
Pretty crappy take from Bowie here, but it was the 90s, not long after Nirvana and when he was into (and collaborated with) Trent Reznor. Sure, the Velvet Underground had influence on art rock, on DIY music, on more alternative acts like Sonic Youth or Pixies, which in turn led to big successes that decade in the likes of grunge and edgy dark stuff like what Reznor and Manson did. the beatles however, had influence on pretty much EVERYTHING, and innovated in countless ways. from their clear influence on all pop music, to their concept albums and multi-part songs that lead to everything in progressive rock to acts like Queen and Bowie himself, to their psychedelic period that influenced everything psychedelic to follow, to their heavier music that was a clear root of everything metal. too much to list. both bands had influence, and Bowie is clearly doing the Beatles dirty here :).
I think completely disregarding the beatles influence was a bad move by Bowie here, i love both bands and i think both of them are as equally as influental as the next. While the beatles definitely influenced a lot of the more mainstream pop acts (like britpop etc.) and early metal, The Velvets influenced the more underground side of things which leads to the birth of punk, indie, and even ambient, post rock, and the more avant garde style bands as of right now. So why argue whats more influental when we can all enjoy these different breeds of genre that these artists have influenced
It was a comment of the times and Bowie like to see himself as a provocative changeling. Ask him the same question around 2010 and it would probably be completely different.
He's correct. VU were precursors of punk, glam rock, even shoegaze. Moreover, Velvet underground and Nico just aged so well in comparison to Beatles albums.. VU and Nico, and van morrison's Astral weeks are the two best albums of the 60s. Just my opinion clearly
@word great band too, personally I prefer Velvet underground but they were equally influent on the punk scene. I want to be your dog could easily be a track of VU and Nico
the beatles were the precursors of all pop, prog rock, glam rock, metal (obviously), psychedelic rock and most alternative and indie stuff. waaaaaay more influential than VU.
Influenced by the Beatles, they in turn influenced other fringe bands like the Velvets and even lesser known bands ie the garage bands of the 60s. 60s punk as we now label it who definitely influenced bands like the Ramones, New York Dolls etc Everyone influenced each other.
See, I don't disagree with Bowie's statement "Its the Artists not the Critics that shape the future".......... Up to a point. BUT (i) Its commercial demands or radio and streaming, right down to seconds of timing, which is restricting the culture of what music(?) gets airtime. (ii) Bowie *forgot* Beatles 'Tomorrow Never Knows' & Sgt Pepper (along with Dylan) were massive influences on Velevet underground. You don't believe it? Listen to Beatles 'Tomorrow Never Knows' the Velvet Underground's 'Venus in Furs' from 2 or 3 years later.
Essentially nothing about my own personal library of music contradicts what Bowie said about The Beatles vs Velvet Underground and who really makes the culture.
I think DB is wrong, and I'm not sure why he's even saying it. The fact is the Beatles output was so great in quantity, diversity and reach that it's influence is incalcuable. Whereas VU's niche and limited output stands out for being a one off.
@@rethink62 money or popularity doesn’t = talent If you wanna go by money then artists like niki Minaj, Beyoncé and spice girls would rival the Beatles and thats just ridiculous. Played yourself brotha.
@@gordianknot6867 Nice argument if you weren’t pulling artist out of you’re ass The Spice Girls , Beyoncé , whatever haven’t sold close to the Beatles How much you think they will sell 50 years after they break up ? Who decides the most talent ? You or the millions that buy the damn records ?
@@rethink62 its a perfectly logical argument, you’re the one who said money talks. Great artists sell a lot of records but so do crappy ones too and you cant omit them.
@@gordianknot6867 The Spice Girls do not sell like the Beatles nobody has , crappy artist may sell for a year or two but not 50 years after they break up Forget selling Who influenced more artist ( bands ) Underground or Beatles Sorry you may not like it Bowie may not like it (If) but it’s Beatles Talent Beatles are not great musicians but what they did in ten years innovation and writing no one will touch May not be you’re cup of tea but you’re in the minority David too (if)
Same as Pixies, Sonic Youth and New York Dolls. Didn't sell vast amounts of albums (Pixies were a bit better know here in Europe). No New York Dolls (or Iggy Pop), means no Ramones, sex pistols ect. No sex pistols means no Joy Division, Smiths, Buzzcocks ect ect. But then you've got to say Chuck Berry, Elvis and too many more to mention, made it possible for those groups.
This is rather shortsighted it seems. If Bowie and the interviewer pick Penny Lane and Yesterday to pit against I’m Waiting For The Man to gauge the two bands influence on modern music, it makes no sense. The Beatles perhaps have the most expansive catalogue of any band, which includes songs that are precursors to a variety of modern rock and pop genres. And the beauty of that catalogue is that there are songs like Yesterday and Penny Lane (which are legendary songs) in the mix too. I have two posters of VU in my room, and it goes without saying that their sound was without doubt revolutionary and like no other band, but you have to remember the EXTENT and DEPTH of the The Beatle’s influence on all music that followed till today in terms of vocal work, melody composition, harmonies, experimentation with song structure, using the studio as an instrument, albums with themes, bass, guitar, drums, and many more. What The Beatles contributed in both a strictly musical sense and in the sense of artistic exploration and experimentation is beyond any imaginable scale when put in the context of most other bands. The Beatles’ music is extremely creative and dynamic both across an album and within a single song. There’s a great deal of moving parts in a lot of Beatles songs, and the fact that they had the vision and hunger to attempt such extraordinary musical work is groundbreaking and fucking inspiring. Yes, I understand that phenomenon where listening to the VU for the first time caused young people to go out and form a band of their own, especially people that may have had a penchant for breaking traditional standards and notions of mainstream art. Being edgy, avant-garde, punk, and non-conforming were a central part of the VU. In that regard, VU as a band embodied that progressive spirit in their totality as opposed to the Beatles whose progressive sounding work may have seemed more of experimentation and branching out rather than anything central to them. However, it would be remiss to downplay The Beatles saying their influence is not felt as much because they had a good amount of non-traditional progressive music of their own, and stuff that was incredibly creative in terms of instrumentation. For example, think of the sound of Strawberry Fields, Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite, and Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds, A Day in the Life. Forget the melodies, just think of all the psychedelic sounds. The psychedelic work on these songs can hold their own in front of modern psychedelic music. Then you have songs like Julia which sounds like it could have influenced a whole lot of 90s indie, the likes of Elliott Smith and such. Perhaps what the VU had that the Beatles lacked was that rough, mean, discordant garage band sound, and that particular sound and the audacity to do it probably spurred the future punk rockers like no other sound of the past.
The Beatles had a sound, cadence and groove that was all their own and imitating it too closely would be obvious but all music assimilates into the collective cultural consciousness and influences everything after. Like Beethoven and Bach may have just as much influence. Or old American standards. Or Little Richard. Or Carol King. Or Bob Dylan. Or Broadway. Or gospel and bluegrass tunes. I mean once those songs get in your head and grace your ears, it is now in your musical language to use and create with.
Год назад+2
You must be artist or musician to understand what he said. You are in the same level in which he talked about the critics.
@ I am what you'd call a professional musician and have worked with many musicians, famous and or professional as well as producers, arrangers, engineers, instrumentalists and singers who talked a lot about and showed their Beatles influences. Bowie's opinion is shared by some but also not shared by many musicians. I'm not a critic, will never be, just because I may hold a different opinion than Bowie had in this particular moment. There are also critics who agree with his opinion by the way.
Love this guy. But, I don't agree about the Beatles influence not being felt. Tomorrow never knows is still heard today across many dance type songs. The list goes on and on.
This opens a few Qs. Where is economics in all this? Whoever the economy rewards has a big say on what artists 'make it' to a label to a gallery to a publisher. And if the economy is bent toward particular ideologies & not others, then some artists will always pitch to that. I don't know if Bowie realised - - because after all he 'made it', just like Beatles did - - but the last 50 years at least has shown this is not a meritocracy. If an artist has to work a f/t job & do art in his spare time, art is reduced from a way of life to a hobby, & the limited investment of time & effort will not fulfill the artist's potential in that environment. Sorry if yr a believer in the American Dream, but there it is.
Influence is very hard to measure. Is it the bands and artists who set in this broad foundation, or is it the artists who have influence that is easier to point out? I think Beatles influence is harder to point out because it’s so foundational: people don’t necessarily want to imitate the Beatles’ sound, but they motivated a lot of kids to start bands as a collective. Popularized the idea of writing your own songs. Popularized albums in rock as a cohesive statement rather than a collection of singles. Started using the studio as a tool rather than recreating live performances. Velvet Underground is undeniably influential on many different genres, but I wouldn’t try to argue that they were *more* influential. It’s just that their influence is easier to point out. It’s like with animation: A lot of people were more directly influenced by Looney Tunes or the Simpsons. But going further back, there’s Fleischers, Otto Messmer, Winsor McCay, Disney.
The Beatles were more influential across the board, BUT their influence was both for better and for worse. The Beatles didn’t influence nearly as many actually great bands as The Velvet Underground did, and I think that in and of itself is a victory for The Velvet Underground. 😎✊🏼
Mainstream marketing influence and artistic influence are two very distinct entities, sometimes they overlap but often times they are very independent.
@@Bati_ I agree they're distinct in certain ways. But I also don't think you can judge influence only by whether a band sounds like another band. I don't even disagree with Bowie that much on this. He's clearly trying to champion the artists that are often at the margins.
@@curly_wynAll depends on your idea of “truly great bands”. And why there can’t be an argument here and no one and every one is right at the same time. Give it up - you’ve run this comment section ragged. Go enjoy whatever you enjoy.
@@bill6886 you can bet your ass Pixies and Mercury Rev are greater than the Hollies or Gerry and the Pacemakers, truly great bands are not afraid to challenge their listeners through their artistic vision. beatle influenced bands are mostly corny bossanova sung in english compared to the hardcore and post punk influenced by the VU.
As they say: "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture", but for the sake of argument, the Velvet Underground aren't even worthy of being in one sentence with the Beatles (oops!)
abcdefgh1992 : 'Better' is in the ear of the beholder, so you're entitled to that one, but as far as the VU being more influential than the Beatles, i'm afraid the facts speak in favor of the latter: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_impact_of_the_Beatles And here's a list of innovations by the Beatles: listverse.com/2012/10/11/10-beatles-innovations-that-changed-music/ If the VU were responsible for any innovations, I'd like to know, but you'll have to provide them, because Google couldn't find any.
Reacting against something is still be influenced by it. The Beatles fill this huge space of music. Now artists desperate to be original are forced to jump into the small spaces that are left. That is being influenced gigantically. It's kind of like somebody deciding to go to Glacier National Park because Yellowstone is too crowded. If you're VU you have to find a little niche because the Beatles part of the music scene is too crowded.
He's very correct, fortunately. People think influence is quantified by the amount of artists influenced. It's about who is being influenced and to what degree they are being influenced. The Beatles didn't really do nearly as much as people are brainwashed into believing.
@Nathaniel Birthurth If your using this video as reasoning to your belief that lou reed was better at writing than lennon. Then you are way off my friend. Bowie considers Lennon one of the greatest.
I think the point is the velvet underground sound is very achievable, the Beatles productions are not . The formers chord progressions are simple the Beatles are often not. So reproducing or copying the songs is difficult. Not saying one is better than the other, just saying.
@@jamesmcavoy379 Beatles can be so imitative 😂 Every pop rock band in Asia can make Paul McCartney tunes because they’re basic melodious tunes that can be done easily.
Few artists are capable of writing original musical classics such as 'Yesterday' and 'Penny Lane' whereas they can create the less melodic pieces of unmelodic bands .
THANK YOU!!! Bowie demonstrated the dull, plodding, mechanical noise of today, saying that's what so many bands gravitate towards. They don't have any musical ideas other than rhythmic pounding against a melodic instrument. About as impressive as synchronized flatulence.
Motown music and Beach Boys have better melodic tunes than Yesterday and Penny Lane. Sorry. VU still sounds like they can exist in today’s contemporary musical sphere but Beatles always will sound retro.
I’ll be honest, I think David had lost the plot a bit during this period. But then so had Macca’s reputation at that point. That’s the thing with the Beatles - their cultural supremacy has always been so enormous that it is hard even for a mind like Bowie’s to gauge. The Velvets have long since gone from being a band that inspired bands to a band that is lauded as a museum piece and rock critic darling. You mist keep in mind that David wanted to move away from pop back to his rock roots here and the only thing he could equate with that was going back to the Velvets as if it was still 1972. No one doubts that people still pick up guitars because of the Beatles, and yes, still dream that one day they might record their own Penny Lane. This is that struggle that people used to have between “authentic rock” and the allure of pop music as art. In other words, David Bowie is being a hipster here. Oh my gosh, I can imagine his infectious charming laughter if someone told him that. He’d probably chime in with, “You might have something there.” I miss him so much.
How absurd! If the Beatles had just only come out with Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band they would have been one of the most influential bands of all time!
Bowie was a great artist but I don’t think the statement holds up really - unless he thought it was the critics buying all the Beatles records.😂 Their influence over their contemporaries and beyond is plain to see. It’s okay for people to not be fussed about them as well though, of course.
It's all completely subjective really. Penny Lane sounds like a children's song to me. Waiting For the Man isn't the best track on the first VU LP but is far more memorable I reckon.
@@nikhilchaudhari140 I’ve loved Beatles from when I was a young child then I got older I started to appreciate more of VU especially now in my 30s. Not surprising how this can resonate with many.
@@nikhilchaudhari140 yea since I was a kid my dad always played them so I’ve heard them my whole life practically but yea it was kinda silly of me to say my whole life.
"Tomorrow's culture is always dictated by the artists. The artists make culture, not the critics." David Bowie, 1996.
@@sarthak7964 They are very much influential. They even influence me but I gotta agree that the VU's influence is very apparent nowadays. Like we can hear it from the sound
@@sarthak7964 But this is just massification.
Now it is record companies
@@yunarukami14 Every of their albums started the alternative in general. You can hear the foreshadows of dream pop, post-punk, drone rock, noise rock, indie pop, blah blah blah.....
@@zackzallie8735 Indeed.. Good to see you, man
Bowie is one the most intelligent people you could meet. So interesting how he sums it up.
It was his opinion that he summed up though and don't you ever forget it 🙂
*you could've met
And Handsome
@@Talisman09 Amen to that
Heard “Pale Blue Eyes” the other day. It sounds so modern it’s kinda freaky in a way.
After hours by the velvet underground sounds even more modern than pale blue eyes
Yep its creepy, how can Lou predict nowadays music more than 50 years ago
@@finnianlloyd575 Just listened to it yesterday and yes it sounds like it could have been recorded today.
@@mifkamorphosis I don't think he predicted music from nowadays, he influenced it
I like to think Pale Blue Eyes is pretty damn close to pop music perfection
I don’t have any problems with David’s statement about The Beatles, at least he’s being respectful, and he was friend of John and Paul. However, I think he’s confusing one thing: perhaps The Beatles were not HIS main influence, but they certainly were the main influence to an astonishing amount of bands and artists, past and present. As much as I love VU, hearing Lou Reed bashing on The Beatles when they pretty much laid the grounds for 60s rock environment, makes him sound like a resentful bitter dude, at least for me.
Totally. Ian Anderson does the same thing. There wouldn't have been any of these guys were it not for the Beatles creating the rock art as we know it today. No Beatles, no velvet underground.
mayaadobe Exactly!
yeah ! Lou Reed is like the underdog who didn't have much success in 1967 while the Beatles were at the top + he had a difficult childhood and he was the tortured kind. I can imagine he hated the Beatles right away when they arrived with their smiling faces, while he wanted to write about how NY is dirty with sex, violence, drugs etc... I mean if you create a band called "Velvet UNDERGROUND", you're not supposed to like the pop and mainstream Beatles who were singing about love and magical stuff. So I agree the VU was VERY influential and ahead of its time but I think we were all very lucky to have the Beatles with George Martin on the top of the popularity scale to create VERY good stuff for what pop is anyway. And when Lou Reed says "I don't respect any of those guys" we can see he is just taking it personally... he's a great artist tho and I love the VU
@@CertifiedSlacker good way of looking at it. Yes VU were fantastic
I think people forget they were creating simultaneously and were influenced by other music, not necessarily The Beatles. Not all the musical peers of The Beatles at that time were as taken by their trajectory as the world outside their musical prerequisite was. I certainly was. I love all 3 bands.. but I understand when people who were making music at the same time didn't think they were the best thing since sliced toast. It's understandable to think that the VU musicians would think that what they were doing was far more interesting and groundbreaking.. not everyone has to agree but it's valid.
The Beatles completely changed music, and they influenced almost everyone that came during or after them directly or indirectly whether they like it or not, and whether they admit to it or not. They are basically Songwriting 101.
Beatles invented reggae and concept album
Indeed. So he picks out "Yesterday" and "Penny Lane"? Yeah, those two songs are representative of the Beatles entire catalog. LOL.
Without the influence of Bach, Chuck Berry, Brian Wilson, Buddy Holly, Little Richard, and many others, we wouldn't have The Beatles.
Paul said it himself ruclips.net/video/TK51TYP7I5A/видео.html
@@sharpvidtube Brian Wilson? Without "Rubber Soul" we wouldn't have "Pet Sounds".
Everyone is talking about what he said but I just love his laugh at the end
The Beatles had very contemporary mindsets when they made their music. They weren’t necessarily “ahead of their time” because they invented the culture that became a part of their time. Why The Beatles had such a large influence is because the way they captured modern culture was incredibly unique, and it spoke to people in a way more powerful than any other band before or since.
The Velvet Underground was thinking about the future when they made their music, not the present. And that makes sense. VU was postmodern music. It was about progression. In this sense, The Velvet Underground were ahead of their time because they were intentionally trying to go against the norms of the time they were in.
The Beatles had an extraordinarily large influence on the 1960s music scene, and if it were not for that influence they had, the Velvet Underground wouldn’t have made the pushes forward that they did. Because what they were pushing forward against was the influence of the Beatles in the music around them everywhere. The Velvet Underground would’ve never had the influence on modern music if it wasn’t for the Beatles influence on earlier stuff.
I agree with your observation regarding these two bands and their individual influence on rock and pop. The Beatles created a musical and cultural revolution, but The VU were about pushing the envelope in rock music (at least until Loaded which I love) ...they truly were outside of their age and utterly unique
Another way of putting it would be to say that the Beatles were ace entertainers with mild fluorishes of "art" while the Velvets were ambitious artistes with passing entertainment ambitions. If that.
@wayward_wyn Lou said that, what Lou used to say and what Lou thought were two very different things
Tomorrow never knows? Strawberryfeilds? I am the Walrus, the BEatles and their engineer man INVENTED Double Track Looping Vocals other then that YEa the velet underground was better NOT at anything
I saw an interview with Lou Reed when he was asked what he thought of the Beatles,typical Lou he just said "i thought they were shit"
Think of any edgy indie/alternative/grundge bands of the 80's and 90's. Most, if not all, are more similar and more influenced by the the Velvet underground (and the stooges). alternative music owes a huge debt to the VU, particularly their first album.
True. Bowie is on the money and I'm a big fan of the Beatles. American music owe to the VU than the Beatles. VU created a genre. The Beatles is still one of the greatest bands of all time but not the most influence.
There is a lot of big hurt beatle fans in the comments
Heh, bro, stooges themselves were one of the first direct followers of VU, I think you should not put them in the same row)
Why all the praise for the Velvets and the Stooges ?? Both overrated imo ... and not that good either
@@richybatty234 I'm very sorry for you, bro))
@@richybatty234
They both create alternative music. They made a sound for America rock. The Beatles are overrated. I don't see why many Americans are obsesse with these rock/ pop band from the U.k. without Geroge martin and mr. Emrick's genius on the engineering , the Beatles will not as big than right now.
There are great American bands that you over look because too many people are sucking British rock's dick.
Nirvana, Steely Dan,Bruce Springsteen, the Beach Boys, etc.
Right now the influences of the Stooges and VU are overwhelming than the Beatles. Most people won't accept it.
I would consider the Beatles and the Velvet Underground to be equally influential. Anyway, whether he's right or wrong about this, his statement that "the artists make culture, not the critics" is still spot on.
Both were influential. The Beatles laid the foundation of modern songwriting that we STILL hear to this day and the Velvets combined avant garde with elevated lyrics to a literary level that you can still hear in many great muscial poets in this day and age.
Actually both Reed and Cale were fans of Beatles. OK, Reed later denied it, as usual.
I really like and respect David Bowie, he is a genius and I can understand the era when he actually said this statement; the Strokes, Franz Ferdinand and Arcade Fire were at their peak, bands that are clearly influenced by Velvet Underground. On the other hand, I think the Beatles influence can be perceived in every decade:
It goes from
- Electric Light Orchestra to Black Saabath 70s (just see what Osbourne and Lynne think about The Beatles, even though the different type of music they made)
- from Stone Roses to Tears for Fears
- from The Jam to Fleetwood Mac
- from Flaming Lips to Wilco
- from Oasis to Nirvana
- from Arctic Monkeys to Animal Collective
- from Belle and Sebastian to Bruno Mars
- Tame Impala to Panda Bear
- MGMT to Coldplay
- U2 to Radiohead
I know Bowie was quite influenced by The Beatles, specially from Lennon (just listen to Sexy Sadie and then Lady Stardust) and Lou Reed even if he wouldn’t ever admitted, is kind of influenced (listen to Candy Says).
I really admire Velvet Underground, David Bowie and The Beatles. I think the influence of the three of them in today’s music is out of question.
Arguably the most influential band ever: Iggy & The Stooges, Nico, David Bowie, Patti Smith, Roxy Music, Brian Eno, Modern Lovers, Roky Erickson, Suicide, Sex Pistols, Ramones, Sham 69, Throbbing Gristle, Talking Heads, Siouxsie, Cabaret Voltaire, Joy Division, Bauhaus, The Fall, Echo & The Bunnymen, Sonic Youth, Jesus & Mary Chain, Psychic TV, Violent Femmes, Half Japanese, Teardrop Explodes, Julian Cope, Squeeze, Spacemen 3, Loop, Dead Can Dance, Japan, Dandy Warhols, Beck, Opal, Mazzy Star, Nick Cave, REM, U2, Björk, Radiohead, Happy Mondays, Screaming Trees, Mark Lanegan, Oasis, Red Hot Chilly Peppers, Monster Magnet, Pearl Jam, Queens Of The Stone Age, Steel Pole Bathtub, Jesus Lizard, Brian Jonestown Massacre, Jarvis Cocker, Trash Palace, Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, TV On The Radio, The Libertines, The Strokes, Yo La Tengo, Art Brut, Franz Ferdinand, Arcade Fire, Kurt Vile, Crystal Stilts, Black Angels, The Kills, MGMT, Animal Collective and surely plenty plenty more could sing a song about how The Velvet's inspired them.
Bowie wanted to be the Beatles.
Arcade Fire are so influenced by the Beatles. As are the Strokes and Franz Fedinand now that I think of it.
FF is into Beatles a lot.
@@marguskiis7711 Exactly my foughts, I think their guitar sound are a lot influenced by VOX and Gretsch/RB guitars of early Beatles albums and even Hey, Bulldog's riff and chorus sounds like FF
The Beatles were very nearly bigger than pop music and rock music.
They are in their own celestial sphere.
Hipper than thou folks will always knock them as not being a big deal.
Those folks are just trying too hard to deny the undeniable…
that The Beatles’ catalogue is unmatched and untouched by most other groups.
Bowie is one of the few artists who got anywhere near what The Beatles achieved.
He should really have known better.
The Beatles are very infantile or for teenagers (even those who did not grow up). I prefer Lennon's solo more.
@ See my previous post.
@What's infantile about them?
The Beatles were great but not very influential later on
@
Turn off your mind, relax and float down stream
It is not dying, it is not dying
Lay down all thoughts, surrender to the void
It is shining, it is shining
Yet you may see the meaning of within
It is being, it is being
Love is all and love is everyone
It is knowing, it is knowing...
... that ignorance and hates may mourn the dead
It is believing, it is believing
But listen to the colour of your dreams
It is not living, it is not living
So play the game "Existence" to the end...
... Of the beginning, of the beginning
Of the beginning, of the beginning
Of the beginning, of the beginning
Of the beginning, of the beginning
One of David Bowie's more questionable takes. I agree 100% that artists on the fringe, like the VU, often have a greater influence on future generations than the mainstream, but the Beatles are a bad example. Bowie said this in 1996, right in between the releases of (What's the Story) Morning Glory and OK Computer, two albums which are HEAVILY Beatles-inspired, and even Gen-Z artists like Billie Eilish are musical descendants of the Beatles.
I also don't agree, in fact he picks yesterday, and when the interviewer says "Penny Lane" he's like "PENNY LANE! you know...well every british bands use trumpets every now and again, certainly Beatles influenced".. lol if you started to quote "Tomorrow Never Knows" "Helter Skelter" "Hey Bulldog" and so on he would be more like "I guess they were both great"
Sill I think that his argument, especially in the end, was about how underground stuff also heavily inspiers culture
"Have you heard this beatles amazing track?"
"Yes, nice, but HAVE YOU HEARD THE VELVET UNDERGROUND?? ...so underground"
More examples (as if they're needed...) Chemical Brothers (UK number 1 in 1996) credit a single Beatles track as a template, Beetlebum by Blur (UK number 1 early '97), a deliberate tribute to the Beatles. Earlier in the 90s, Nirvana, Pixies, Breeders, they all covered Beatles songs. 80s: Smiths' last album was consciously Beatles-influenced. Basically any band with Rickenbackers and four members, from R.E.M. to the Bangles. Robyn Hitchcock has said the genre he works in should be described as 'Beatles Music'. The 70s: hardly necessary to bring up ELO, but also Roger Waters speaks of first hearing Sgt Pepper, stopping his car and sitting with his mouth open in astonishment, David Gilmour of wishing he'd been in the Beatles, how he learned everything from them, Queen's Brian May describes the Beatles as their "bible" for "composition, arrangement and production", and Bowie himself in 'Life On Mars?' slipped into a Lennon impersonation, mentioned Lennon in the lyrics... Problem is, when the influence of something is pretty much everywhere, sometimes it becomes hard to see. It kind of camouflages itself. But if you listen to what every generation of artists has been saying since 1963...
More like Kraftwerk m8
@@smellegantcode as for influencing punk/alternative music (including all subgenres), The Beatles are nowhere near The Velvets. Here's a list containing bands and artists connected to VU, either covering them, collaborating with ex-members, inserting musical elements into their music The Velvets created (such as the drone), sounding like them, or were produced/arranged by John Cale: Iggy & The Stooges, Nico, David Bowie, Patti Smith, Roxy Music, Brian Eno, Bryan Ferry, Modern Lovers, Nick Drake, Roky Erickson, Lowell George, Mick Ronson, Suicide, Sex Pistols, Ramones, Sham 69, Throbbing Gristle, Talking Heads, Siouxsie, Debbie Harry, Cabaret Voltaire, Joy Division, New Order, Bauhaus, The Fall, Sonic Youth, Jesus & Mary Chain, Clock DVA, Psychic TV, Echo & The Bunnymen, The Sound, The Soft Boys, Sisters Of Mercy, Laurie Anderson, Duran Duran, Simple Minds, Martin Gore, Violent Femmes, Half Japanese, Teardrop Explodes, Julian Cope, UK Subs, Slaughter And The Dogs, Wreckless Eric, Jim Carroll, Squeeze, Jools Holland, Spacemen 3, TV Personalities, Loop, Les Rita Mitsouko, Dead Can Dance, Japan, Dandy Warhols, Bettie Serveert, Beck, Opal, Mazzy Star, Nick Cave, Hole, Susanna Hoffs, James, Jarvis Cocker, Buffalo Tom, Jeff Buckley, Leonard Cohen, Rufus Wainwright, Christian Death, Maedievil Babes, REM, U2, OMD, Björk, Luna, Radiohead, Happy Mondays, Moby, Melvins, Screaming Trees, Mark Lanegan, Smashing Pumpkins, Mercury Rev, Suede, Pulp, Oasis, Red Hot Chilly Peppers, Monster Magnet, Nirvana, Metallica, Pearl Jam, Queens Of The Stone Age, Pavement, Alejandro Escovedo, Big Star, Steel Pole Bathtub, Jesus Lizard, Galaxie 500, The Feelies, Kula Shaker, Wedding Present, White Stripes, Brian Jonestown Massacre, Trash Palace, Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, TV On The Radio, The Libertines, The Strokes, The Kooks, Danger Mouse, Yo La Tengo, Wilco, Art Brut, Kurt Vile, Crystal Stilts, Cowboy Junkies, Throwing Muses, Belle And Sebastian, Black Angels, Beth Gibbons The Kills, The Killers, Bare Naked Ladies, Soap&Skin, Marissa Nadler, Amanda Palmer, MGMT, Animal Collective, Fat White Family, St. Vincent, Cate LeBon, Andrew Bird, Fontaines D.C., Courtney Barnett, Matt Berninger, Sharon Van Etten, Jeff Beck, Johnny Depp, Weyes Blood, Tei Shi, Actress, Laurel Halo and surely plenty plenty more. .
@@ForARide You're absolutely right that those artists were influenced by the VU but in a way you've confirmed my point. As John Cale tells it, the reason he abandoned classical avant-garde and wanted to form a rock band is because of what he called "the Beatles Invasion". The reason VU existed was the Beatles. This is not to deny VU's brilliant contributions (though it is wildly inaccurate to credit them with inventing the drone or even with introducing it into pop/rock.) But practically all of the groups on your list also took direct cues from the Beatles - there is overlap with my list! In some cases it's really striking: REM and Susanna Hoffs came out of a US college radio era that idolised them, that's why she and Buck play Rics. Also - Oasis?! But more often that influence is less visible, because it's so all pervasive, we mostly forget that it's there and only pick out the influences that differ from it. Music is full of influences from artists other than the Beatles, but the influence of the Beatles is so widespread that we forget it's there.
Have I mentioned lately how much I miss David Bowie?
Extraordinary sophistication of Mr. Bowie....
I think it's just super hard to both sound like the beatles and be good at it. At that time, in 1996, one of the biggest bands in the world -oasis - were trying to be the beatles. And they were constantly criticized for it by people who didnt think they could pull it off.
And here we are 25 years later, and I gotta say, no one is trying to sound like the vu too much anymore. Maybe it was just a specific moment in time in when alt rock exploded in the 90s. And yet - in 2022, the beatles are getting 8 hr docs made about their throwaway album.
But now 25 years later no one is trying to sound anything and sound garbage
25 years later, no one is trying to sound like the Beatles. I don't get your point
In addition to The Beatles and Velvet Underground, there’s other influential artists.
The Beach Boys:
“It's been said that, although hardly anyone bought the Velvet Underground's records, those who did ended up being inspired to start their own bands. In the case of the Beach Boys' 1966 opus Pet Sounds, it's likely that each of its 13 songs inspired its own subset of pop offspring ...”
-Music critic Jeff Straton, 2000[410]
Bob Dylan: Many would consider him the greatest songwriter, brought in a wider variety of subject matter and intellect into rock music by going electric. A lot of our biggest albums wouldn’t exist without Bob Dylan’s influence (Rubber Soul, the aforementioned Pet Sounds), he popularized a more unconventional way of singing, that it didn’t need to be a pretty voice.
Both have massively influenced rock music, just in different ways.
Pretty similar way actually.
I think the VU had their day in the 90’s because that’s what artists wanted to do at the time. But at the same time, The Beatles have such near-mythic grandeur that there would be an intense anxiety of influence for anyone who wants to learn from those records. VU were very DIY and lo-fi, so not as intimidating. But yes, contemporary artists output does state what music of the past is most relevant for today.
day in the 90s: D
The band that created the 70s, 80s and 2000s, but okay, you know better
@@II-xl7lj dude you mean the late 60's
@@YMCMB1982 shut up
Listening to “After Hours” “Pale Blue Eyes” “Heroin” “Venus in Furs” without any knowledge of the band singing behind them and I wouldn’t think they have belonged to the same era as the Beatles. They still sound fresh and relevant. I grew up listening to the Beatles so I think they’re what I call classic pop music but as I get older and my musical knowledge expanded I think there have been far greater musicians out there that still carry more relevant body of work than them.
Pop trashes are selling more than Beatles nowadays, without their talent. Money or massification are not an argument for Art. Brian Eno once said: *"The first Velvet Underground album only sold 10000 copies, but everyone who bought it formed a band."*
@69StrawberryField Why Americans think numbers made something "better"? That's why your best-selling pop music is so bad, horrible in terms of vocal or musically. Your lack of education is the joke of the world. When we really talk about ARTISTS, writers, painters and etc. prefer jazz or bands like Velvet Underground, not The Beatles and their silly songs for POSERS (well, I like some of them, but this is it).
@69StrawberryField
No. There is a lot of bands sound like VU than the Beatles. Name one band that is sound like the Beatles?
Selling records is not important than being influence.
I heard the Beatles are overrated.
@69StrawberryField
Now you made the whole thing up. We are talking about MUSICALLY. Not all bands are not influenced by the Beatles.
There are other influential bands like the Cream, the Stooges, the Knicks,the Zombies, Love, the Who, The Animals, the Bydrs, the Beach boys,etc.
Their contributions are very heard in the rock genre and well as other genres like synth pop than the Beatles.
The Rolling Stones songs were more critical acclaim by critics' best 60 songs of all time such as Pitchfork.
Velvet Underground created a genre called Alternative or Indie music or other genres related to it. Majority of rock are alternative today (rip heavy rock). The all the indie\proto-punk\ alternative bands from the 70s until today has not exist without the Vevlet Underground. All of the albums are classics and the highest rated scores by critics. VU do not give a shit about sales or commerialism. They care about is art and expression.
That is why sales are bs.
Television self debut album did not sell well but it is the most influential and post punk albums all of time. Same goes Bowie's Low, Paul McCartney's Ram, and The Weezer's Pinkterson.
Everybody thought that the album's all are too weird and less commercial. Years later, they are consider to be the greatest of all time.
I like the Beatles but they are not Gods. Their recording techniques at the studio, songwriting( influence by other artists like Dylan), vocals, and catchy simply innovative riffs are make them so great. Of course Sir Geroge Martin is a damed good producer. Same compliment to Mr. Emmerck their main studio engineer . ( add to Mr. Norman on Rubber Soul before he left).
The skiffle is a genre infused by rock/RB\and pop. That is what the Beatles are until st. Pepper.
They are a great pop/rock group but also overrated because some make them like gods. The Beatles got lucky because other people around them at the studio were talented and professional.
Velvet Underground did not need help. They did it themselves.
@@itsbeyondme5560 I am pretty sure The beatles are more critically acclaimed than every artist you mentioned above.
@@itsbeyondme5560 More artists have cited the beatles as an influence than any other artist you have mentioned here.
I love bowie, the velvet underground, and the Beatles. I just cant agree with this.
I believe all 3 of them have helped shape the music. Industry all in their own ways.
But i think the Beatles have done so the most of the 3. But you cant really compare the VU and the Beatles. There just very different and have contributed much differently.
agreed stevepafford.com/bowielennon/
@Anderson Cooper what do you mean? Okay i reread and i get it. Well you could ask the same qusestion with anything. Where do you hear velvet underground in todays music?
I dont want anyone to mimic these great musicians. But take what they did and have there own new take on it. Its kinda how music works.
I loooove led zeppelin but completly ignore greta van sleet .
You dont hear influence in music. It should evolve. And the beatles like bowie and the vu have all influenced other musicians to evolve and make there music better.
In this interview (ruclips.net/video/Xt_4qO7-9N8/видео.html), George Harrison says (it was 1974) that every photo he saw of Bowie looked "stupid" or "dopey" to him. Lennon defended Bowie. So, Bowie had also personal reasons and artistic questions about this issue, but he covered "Try Some, Buy Some" (by Harrison) in this century ( ruclips.net/video/iSYb7IDRyAg/видео.html ). He was not next to McCartney neither. He certainly had preference for Lennon (watch this: ruclips.net/video/2nyvvDipNfA/видео.html).
Bowie is too smart and intelligent a person to throw such words just out of spite. Well, harrison is a fool, of course. Not only did beatles themselves seem like the last thing to connect with the mind, so it's definitely not one of them that should be talking about it, and as an artist compared to David, he's not even an empty space, and I don't know who it is
Now Harrison is a fool ??? 🙄
But Bowie covered "Try Some, Buy Some" (by Harrison) in this century (ruclips.net/video/iSYb7IDRyAg/видео.html )...
The Beatles even influenced the counterculture. Their influence is undeniable...
They're overrated
Why equate greatness with being influential? The Beatles’s greatness cannot and must not be measured in terms of its influence in simplistic terms as say - How many songs of today sound like Yesterday?
Doesn’t the fact that no band in 50 years managed to craft a song as fine as Penny Lane make The Beatles even more deserving of the pedestal they’re on?
Were The Velvet Underground influential? Yes.
Are The Beatles untouched and unsurpassable?
Double Yes.
PS: I’m also a Bowie fan.
well said. :)
It's kind of unfair to cherry pick two songs to make a whole argument like this, especially when it comes to the Beatles who had such an expansive and diverse catalogue. If we're going to cherry pick, Helter Skelter is probably more influential than any VU song, it's arguably the first metal song ever. Think about how many metal/heavy metal bands were influenced directly or indirectly by that one song. Or the influence songs like strawberry fields and Lucy in the sky with diamonds had on psychedelic music
0:12 "influence they [Beatles] have", but who pushed the limits of art was Velvet Underground, outside the massive industry... This is his point. You didn't understand Bowie. In the time of this interview he wanted to vanished his past with Let's Dance (commercial prison) and experiment with the underground!
@ I understood his point and it's truthful to a certain degree. But to compare 2 Beatles songs which are good, but not necessarily influential, to one of the most influential songs of TVU isn't fair
John Foxx of Ultravox was galvanised by "Tomorrow Never Knows" which was a single chord drone work, released before the Velvets first album. The Beatles had genre changing music all the way through their career, they reinvented themselves more than the Velvets.
Yeah, but the VU influenced the most bands and genres that are actually good (for me personally anyways 😂)!
@@keriford54 OH YES. The Beatles are the only band of the era and even today that matters. ALL influence came from them. We should be loving, thanking, revering, and celebrating the BEATLES….and them alone. (sarcasm)
the Beatles made being in a band and writing/performing your own songs absolutely essential to entire generations...after that, it's all style...
Music doesn’t have to be weird to be revolutionary, it just needs to be a joyful sound. Yesterday is a better song than Rebel Rebel or Heroes or Major Tom. Nobody studies the construct of Rebel Rebel but Yesterday is a classic still being studied. BTW, I’ve seen both of them live and McCartney gives a better performance.
Beatles was literally all style 😂 they’re pop at its finest. But I’d still listen to VU, Beach Boys, The Kinks over them more, especially as I got older.
He got that completely right - because it’s true
The Beatles had an enormous influence on the world in general , not just the musicians . It's always fashionable to knock something , especially 50 yrs after the event !
Yes but cultural impact and musical impact are different. I'm not knocking VU 50 years later but I think the influence of The Beatles is overstated.
Personally, I would say that by the 90s, there was, at the very least, as much the influence of the Beatles as there was the Velvet Underground. In the 90s, the guitar virtuosity was beginning to get extinct and it became more about mood and gritiness so in that sense, you could hear the Velvets' influence, but the Beatles' influence was everywhere in the 90s: Nirvana, Soundgarden, Oasis, the entire Britpop clan, and definitely Radiohead. Hell, just two years later The Chemical Brothers essentially redid Tomorrow Never Knows with Setting Sun. So I think this is one of the few times where I don't agree with David.
The question is not who the artists referred to, but in what coordinate system they existed. Without VU, with their almost religious worship of the spirit of old Rock & Roll, there would not even be an idea that it is possible to make new music on the foundation of the old one, combining the basics, in terms of thinking, all britpop groups are their offspring, and who they referred to, in this case does not matter
David Bowie might not have been the world’s #1 devotee when it came to The Fab Four. BUT he thought quite highly of them, especially John Lennon… a close friend.
And, lo and behold, the feeling was mutual‼️
About Lennon, Bowie stated : “He was probably one of the brightest, quickest witted, earnestly socialist men I’ve ever met in my life. Socialist in true definition […]. [A] real humanist with a really spiteful sense of humour, which of course, being English, I adored.”
As for Paul McCartney, he once claimed this about The Starman : “David was a great star, and I treasure the moments we had together. His music played a very strong part in British musical history, and I’m proud to think of the huge influence he has had on people all around the world.” 💚💫💙
Lennon > Beatles.
@ I agree‼️ Best regards, Fernando.
@Kate You see, I honestly believe that those two were outstandingly smart fellows and highly brilliant entertainers ON AND OFF STAGE. And it was part of the show-business game to speak their minds. In fact, they were EXPECTED to do so by the media and by the public… worldwide.
@Kate Best regards to you, Kate.
@Kate I agree with you, Kate. Both were visionaries in many ways. Both were free spirits. Both were larger than life. Both left their mark on the 🌎 world. Never will they be forgotten.
Love his honesty
What a man!
I think vu influenced bands keep coming through every few years. The velvets were massive in influencing punk new wave and 80s alt/indie. The Beatles influence revived w britpop and vu influence then came back with likes of strokes libertines et al. Nirvana s an interesting case cos kurt cobain cites the Beatles and vu influences ... some RUclips videos mention parallels of Lennon and cobain songwriting. Worth checking out
But Heltek Skelter invented punk and heavy metal. End of the discusion.
@@egiptoantiguo punk can be traced way earlier than Helter Skelter like the Kinks for example or Dylan or even the Velvets who put their first record out before Helter Skelter
Oasis too.
Kurt Cobain didn’t say anything about liking or being influenced by the VU at all tho, only The Beatles.
Without "Meet The Beatles" album the VU was impossible. The strange start sound of "With" or "Meet" was the basis on Velvet Underground music.
To be fair though, how influential is a song like "Black Angel Death song" or whatever lol. Love both bands, but no contest Beatles had larger influence. Really not fair to just pick and chose a couple random songs from each group
Exactly my thoughts. Why don't you compare it with helter Skelter instead of penny lane
0:12 "influence they [Beatles] have", but who pushed the limits of art was Velvet Underground, outside the massive industry... This is his point. You didn't understand Bowie. In the time of this interview he wanted to vanished his past with Let's Dance (commercial prison) and experiment with the underground!
@Anderson Cooper ...is this a joke?
@Anderson Cooper can you invite me on CNN for a debate?
@Anderson Cooperdamn man you sure do know everything. I tried to end the convo on a silly joke, but damn u sure got me
He's so based and on point. The essentially non-corporate machine bands have always been the vanguards of expanding music.
Yes that is the main point here
Even if that's the point. I think David Bowie greatly underestimated the influence of the Beatles in all of that.
lou reed said he hated british rock, however, i think he liked bowie, so that must have been an exception.
Now you got Beatles Supremists in the comments who think British rock music is the only good music that there is.
It was fashionable to put the Beatles down back then. 2024 and the Beatles are still making music waves. “ now and then “
Arguably the most influential band ever*: Iggy & The Stooges, Nico, David Bowie, Patti Smith, Roxy Music, Brian Eno, Bryan Ferry, Modern Lovers, Nick Drake, Roky Erickson, The Yardbirds, Terry Riley, Lowell George, Chris Spedding, Kevin Ayers, Allen Lanier, Phil Manzanera, Phil Collins, Jennifer Warnes, Mick Ronson, Suicide, Sex Pistols, Ramones, Sham 69, Throbbing Gristle, Talking Heads, Siouxsie, Debbie Harry, Cabaret Voltaire, Joy Division, New Order, Bauhaus, The Fall, Sisters Of Mercy, Sonic Youth, Jesus & Mary Chain, Clock DVA, Psychic TV, Echo & The Bunnymen, The Sound, The Soft Boys, Olli Halsall, Laurie Anderson, Bob Neuwirth, Duran Duran, Simple Minds, Martin Gore, Violent Femmes, Half Japanese, Teardrop Explodes, Julian Cope, UK Subs, Slaughter And The Dogs, Wreckless Eric, Jim Carroll, Spacemen 3, Squeeze, Jools Holland, Television Personalities, Billy Brag, Billy Idol, Revolting Cocks, Loop, Einstürzende Neubauten, Les Rita Mitsouko, Hector Zazou, The Jazz Butcher, Dead Can Dance, Japan, David Sylvian, Dandy Warhols, Bettie Serveert, Beck, Opal, Mazzy Star, Nick Cave, Hole, Susanna Hoffs, James, Jarvis Cocker, Buffalo Tom, Tom Tom Club, Christian Death, Maedievil Babes, Lio, Cristine, REM, U2, OMD, Björk, Penelope Houston, Luna, Radiohead, Happy Mondays, Manic Street Preachers, Super Furry Animals, Moby, Suzanne Vega, Melvins, Screaming Trees, Mark Lanegan, Smashing Pumpkins, Mercury Rev, Suede, Pulp, Oasis, Red Hot Chilly Peppers, Monster Magnet, Metallica, Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Queens Of The Stone Age, Alejandro Escovedo, Big Star, Steel Pole Bathtub, Jesus Lizard, Galaxie 500, Pavement, Manic Street Preachers, Super Furry Animals, Edwyn Collins, The Feelies, Kula Shaker, Teenage Fanclub, Wedding Present, White Stripes, Brian Jonestown Massacre, Human Drama, David J., Jeff Buckley, Leonard Cohen, Rufus Wainright, Trash Palace, Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, TV On The Radio, The Libertines, The Strokes, The Kooks, Kasabian, Danger Mouse, Yo La Tengo, Wilco, Art Brut, Kurt Vile, Crystal Stilts, Cowboy Junkies, Throwing Muses, Belle And Sebastian, Black Angels, Beth Gibbons The Kills, The Killers, Bare Naked Ladies, Soap&Skin, Marissa Nadler, Amanda Palmer, MGMT, Fat White Family, Animal Collective, St. Vincent, Anna Calvi, Cate LeBon, Agnes Obel, Andrew Bird, Fontaines D.C., Courtney Barnett, Matt Berninger, Sharon Van Etten, Jeff Beck, Johnny Depp, Weyes Blood, Actress, Laurel Halo, Tei Shi, Sylvan Esso and surely plenty plenty more could sing a song about how The Velvet's inspired them.
* At least as far as Punk/Alternative music and all it's subgenres are concerned.
A huge portion of those were influenced by the Beatles and many of them I don't see any real influence by the VU. Also we could make a list of artists influenced by the Beatles and that would be hundreds of screens.
@@kevingilliam6807 lazy comment! I at least did my homework, as this list is based on facts and is a who is who of alternative/punk bands (including all subgenres). All these bands and artists are in one way or another connected to The Velvets: either covering them, collaborating with ex-members, inserting musical elements (such as the drone) The Velvets created into their music, sounding like them, or being produced/arranged by John Cale.
Surely The Beatles had a larger reach, but when it comes to the alternative/punk complex, The Beatles are nowhere near The Velvets, their influence being quite marginal within this range. Back in the 70's and 80's The Beatles were considered as B(oring) O(ld) F(arts) among the punk/alternative community.
Without uber manager Brian Eppstein and genius producer/arranger George Martin I doubt The Beatles would've reached that God like status.
Yep! Except take U2 an Oasis (both of whom are exclusively Beatles inspired bands) out and put Pavement and The Sound in! :)
@@kevingilliam6807 Maybe, BUT how many actually great are influenced by the Beatles compared to the VU? (This is only subjective to me, so take it with a grain of salt! 😂)
@@ForARide
Just a couple of bands picked at random from your list. ruclips.net/video/yiCQN6u7lQ4/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/kkZIz1H3_iQ/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/tOXGQOBNYgk/видео.html
Would she be about to faint if she was talking to Lou Reed?
The velvet underground are the most important band in rock history. They invented alternative music, basically half of rock music that came after.
That's why they're so important
The VU's message was basically, you don't have to have talent to make passably good music so there is hope for all of you useless schleps out there. You might get lucky and not have to be janitors all your life.
@@kevingilliam6807 you’ve definitely taken copious amounts of copium. Wth do you know?
What a load of rubbish. And David Bowie was talking crap as well. Beatles opened the door to singer songwriter, they inspired so many artists to pickup the pen and write.
All they invented was an alternative to good music.
They were The X Factor of their time, in that they provided lazy people with an easier path to stardom, without the need for any of that pesky and elusive talent and ability.
Effectively it's like looking at Leonardo DaVinci's amazing work, knowing you can't do it, so you pretend that someone who just throws paint at a blank wall is just as good, so you can copy him and convince yourself you have some artistic ability.
Bands like The Velvet Underground allow people who do not possess the abilities of Paul McCartney, to pretend that they would not want them anyway.
I like The Beatles (way) more than David Bowie. But I believe what Bowie said is 1000% correct. He's absolutely right.
I think that velvet underground influenced a lot of bands from the 70s to the 90s. On the contrary the beatles re-emerged in 2000s with indie rock that used more trumpets and all this stuff (like Arcade Fire for example)
and he covered them too stevepafford.com/bowielennon/
I don't remember a single band later than the ' 80s that had anything to do with the beatles, but of course you tactfully omitted the Strokes, which in fact gave birth to modern indie culture, and at the same time were absolutely direct followers of VU
@Anderson Cooper It depends on which bands you are speaking about ... I think both bands were very influential in a different way. I love both
@@II-xl7lj a lot of bands were influenced by the The Beatles... Radiohead (they were influenced by the ballads of the white album), Built to Spill, Melvins (their sound was influenced by the band 'Blue Cheer' and Helter Skelter) Nirvana (listen to Well Well Well by John Lennon), Porcupine Tree (their ballads were very beatlesque etc etc etc )
Some sounds of the 90s were experimented by George Harrison with his LP all things must pass.
@@markus2021 rather all the music
i think critics have their place in culture, everything is art, taking in others art and digesting it and analyzing it down to small details, is their art -- you must accept this, even if it doesnt resonate with you, just like your art may not resonate with them -- so many different mediums and forms of art.. everything we do is art
The Beatles' music might not have influenced as much as the Velvet Underground because Beatle music seems to be made by extraterrestrial beings, I mean, almost everybody likes their music and how they progressed but trying to MAKE songs like Eleanor Rigby, Happiness is a Warm Gun or Because seems pretty hard. Whereas VU (and I love good alternative music) is more attainable in a way.
I agree. The Beatles were extremely creative, and their output was so varied and very melody-driven- writing good melodies is hard, and people try to go the easy route with a catchy rhythm instead.
david picking yesterday wasn't a fair lol the beatles white album and revolver are a lot more stylish than penny lane. Also nobody, can make such ridiculously iconic vocal melodies as the beatles. its much easier to imitate lou reeds vocal postures and sonic stylings and chord arrangments. pretty much anyone can do that in an attempt to sound cool. The beatles melodies are unreachable. if people could do it they would be doing it. any band can steal the sonic style of velvet under ground and make it work, but good luck trying to steal the stylings of magical mystery tour, and making it work, without the insane melodies, with their almost spiritual jubilant zeal, it's not possible. Beatles will always be untouchable because of this.. maybe they dont' influence the music people are making but everyone still looks at what they did and says wow, wtf.
and to say, the velvet underground (who were great) were real artists and not the beatles, is dumb. The beatles music is so powerful, strange and otherwordly that charles manson thought god (or was it the devil) was speaking to him through it. Take lsd or smoke a big ball of hash and listen to the white album and magical mystery tour. The beatles were the greatest recording artists of all time, the beatles vibe is otherworldly.
You obviously could use a visit to a psychologist
@@II-xl7lj Is that suppose to be an intelligent response? Please dont respond, i have no time to waste on the brain dead.
Tin pan ally
@lj That's what lou reeds parents said to him when he was a teenager, sent him off for electric shock therapy, I guess you're a proponent .... Thanks but, I'll stick with music
One reason why the Velvet was influential may have been how easy they were to imitate in terms of the simple harmonic language and crude playing, although this was combined with sophisticated lyrics. There's a certain art and vibe to that simplicity and "sonic landscape", but it's fairly easy to learn and execute compared with much of the Beatles' output.
calling the Velvet Underground simple is deranged, Lou Reed knew the blues front to back and John Cale was raised as an avant garde musician
@@joseneitor-eg4iy Yeah, well... Don't get me wrong, I like Lou Reed. I'm guitarist who started out playing blues but I play more jazz these days. My wife is a contemporary composer. I don't remember hearing much blues language or chops in Lou's playing. In the blues, the sophistication is in the nuance rather than in the harmonic material, as much of the blues is just the same three chords. Much of Lou Reed's work is also just three or four very basic chords, like your regular major or minor chords. The Beatles, by contrast, used a lot of 6ths, 7ths, minor 7ths, major 7ths, augmented, diminished, 9ths, 7#9, the Em7/A chord, etc., and their chord progressions could be pretty sophisticated. This makes it easier to learn an average Lou Reed song than an average Beatles song. Of course, some bands use fairly simple harmonic material but have a lot of chops and sophisticated nuance, like Led Zeppelin, which had great players. But this was not the case for the Velvet Underground, which had almost zero chops to begin with and gradually started sounding a bit like the Rolling Stones once their chops developed a bit. Their strengths were more conceptual and lyrical.
@@pallhe thats why the VU and the Stones are better rock and roll acts, they brought primal and even primitive ideas to a genre that was getting burgoise and marketed by the minute. Rock is defiance, the streets and harsh reality not yellow submarine candy coated trash.
@@joseneitor-eg4iy That's certainly a point of view, but my point was about the level of difficulty and complexity. Difficult and complex doesn't mean better, but I wouldn't shut my mind to the merits of the Beatles or even something as slick as, say, Steely Dan (whose influences include the VU, believe it or not). Steely Dan is an example of a band where everything is sophisticated, the compositions, the lyrics, the arrangements, the playing, the production -- everything. They sounded too slick to me on first hearing, but I later acquired a taste for them and it opened my mind up more to harmonic content in music. You can enjoy primitiveness as well as sophistication as long as you're open to both. But I agree with you that the Stones and the VU brought some new and valuable musical elements to the table. Of course, the Beatles could be very gritty and course too. "Helter Skelter" is one case in point.
@@joseneitor-eg4iy The Beatles were actually working class and of the streets. The Stones were middle-class students. The Beatles lived harsh realities. Mick Jagger wouldn't have swapped his childhood for John Lennon's in a million years.
Citing one deliberately silly song as if it represents their entire output is idiotic.
You're the one who has been fooled by marketing if you're buying into that phoney image of the VU and The Stones and of what rock is meant to be. I'm into good music, not posers with a preoccupation with appearing 'cool'.
Paul McCartney wrote a silly song like Yellow Submarine because he wanted to, regardless of how uncool the self-appointed arbiters of 'cool' thought it was, and that to me is far cooler than those trying to get their approval.
McCartney always does what he wants. They do what they think will get them approval.
i love the beatles but i agree with bowie 100% here. so many bands and artists these days have taken a page out of the velvet underground's book, be it their wild experimentation or the slow and dreamy sounds of their poppier albums, they basically created an entire culture of indie music and just music on the whole. i do think that the beatles are a big influence in all this too, so maybe he's underrated them in this interview a bit, but he's not entirely wrong either.
He’s definitely generalizing his opinion of the Beatles. I get it. And Lou Reed’s influence on Bowie seems pretty clear. But, he is pointing out that, in spite of the Beatles being the most popular band in the world, there were many serious British artists who were sort of ‘anti-Beatles’.
Not necessarily hating them, but certainly not taking their music as serious as most. I think time has proven that the Beatles were on another level. Bowie, to me, was still finding himself in the late sixties. He was a very smart marketing person. ( space oddity at the time of the Apollo landing etc.) His body of work is adventurous and a few of his songs are some of my favorite of all time.
Thank God he had different influences than the Beatles. It allowed another family of songs and sounds to emerge. I think he’s kind of riffing here, maybe just thinking out loud, but still good points. I think he’s making a point about 80’s music; it certainly didn’t sound very beatle-like.
One last point; I think the Beatles took buddy holly, chuck berry and the everly brothers ( who were all writing their own songs) and took it one step farther and set the standard for the modern pop song. For Bowie not to see that influence in his songs is a bit ingenious. But I get it.
Comparing waiting for my man to penny lane is like comparing heroin to yellow Submarine. Early Beatles stuff like She loves you with its pounding drums and twangy guitars is closer to the rock n roll sound of the velvets. Both great bands.
Yellow Submarine isn’t in any level that VU makes, whether in songwriting or even subject matter. Heroin and Venus in Furs feels like even very contemporary in subject matter while the Beatles were still writing love themes what the rest of mainstream 60s were already doing much. For their contemporaries, I much even prefer the Kinks over the Beatles.
The first Velvet Underground and particularly second VU LPs are nothing like early Beatles (or later for that matter). They are far more interesting in my opinion. Not bothered by the rock n roll later VU LPs though.
The Beatles are the most influential band of all time, still are. It's just common sense. I love Bowie though
Danjoker Well by saying It’s common sense you just prove that people follow trends, Beatles are great, but overrated at the same time, a lot of people who claim The Beatles are the greatest band or group of artists ever assembled, use that influental argument or just say ‘well It’s The Beatles’ but those aren’t really valid arguments
@@pavlegrebenarevic382: If any band is overrated, it's The Velvet Underground.
@@ericforsyth Them as well
spitting facts
I’ve always said that the velvet underground are just as important as the Beatles
I think the Velvet Underground is in the same league as the Beatles. And Kraftwerk also btw.
No
Yes
Even more if we're looking at their influence on music, but Beatles have the far greater cultural and social importance so 🤷♂️
@@andocommando3071
No. Not the music. Maybe soical/culture impact.
What Mr. B was stating(and quite rightly) is that the Velvet DID influence more young people to become recording artists than the Beatles. Hell, you could find more young artists influenced by the Monkees (at one point) than the Beatles.
Why?
Primitives(which the VU were, save the influence of Cale and even Reed) will ALWAYS lead the way first.
Those first Presley records.
The first Bowie records.
Those early jazz and country recordings.
The Velvet Underground were the first "modern" band, they're still current
the VU is the only rock band worth listening in a greater scale, they had the sardonic rock attitude, the roars of street life and artistic decadence in general. Its more rock and roll than any mop top lullaby singer could ever be.
While I agree with Bowie that you hear more bands that sound like VU than sound like The Beatles, I think it has more to do with the fact its pretty easy to write a tuneless melody than it is to write melodic melodies that will be remembered for centuries. A lot easier to write Sweet Jane than to write A Day in the Life or Strawberry Fields Forever. I'm not a VU basher ( I'm a fan ) but it's kind of an absurd statement. My comment would have been, "Have you noticed, there's a lot less musical geniuses around than there use to be?" Can you deny Hendrix influence, just because people aren't talented enough to match his innovations?
Beach Boys make very beautiful melodies so it’s not entirely unique to the Beatles. The Beatles have more cult of personality behind them that magnifies their appeal but I find myself listening more to their contemporaries like the Beach Boys, Kinks, Velvet Underground over them as I got older.
@@ophanimangel3143 Well that's just you, according to official figures for things like downloads. Although, initially, I Listened to the more Commercial Beatles tracks, I don't listen to those anymore, but I'm always They Still listening to happiness is a warm gun, I want you, she's so heavy, across the universe, I've got a feeling, don't let me down, old brown shoe, Hey Bulldog, et
*Bowie speaking in the 90sa here, so it means nothing in terms of today's listeners. According to Spotify the Beatles are the most listened to group from the 60s/70s - the Beach Boys Barely Get Any Attention
When I see Bowie discussing other bands, I CLICK!
You skipped that: "I'm a simple Guy"-part.
I'm not sure if Bowie is being deliberately provocative, if so I don't admire that. The Beatles reinvented Rock n Roll and basically ushered in the whole rock era. Also I don't admire the shade he is throwing on Yesterday, that is a master class in songwriting, I so wish more bands could produce songs as beautiful as that, I don't think Bowie has. But the Beatles from the excitement and electricity they produced with their early single and albums, and going on from there they were consistently reinventing themselves musically at a rate even Bowie wasn't able to do, they would have more stylistic diversity within an album than many bands would have across their entire career. Even obviously experimental works like Tomorrow Never Knows, Rain, A Day in the Life, Within You and Without You, Helter Skelter, Happiness is a Warm Gun, I want You (She's so Heavy). The Velvet Underground created a unique sound and they should be commended for that, but they did two albums where they sounded experimental (when John Cale was in the band) Then two albums where they had nice sounding songs (sounding quite Beatlesque). They did influence many bands but those bands were likely also influenced by the Beatles. I can think of no band that was as restlessly creative as the Beatles. Both critics and artists loved the Beatles.
Real artists prefer bands like Velvet Underground, which makes Beatles very simple, even teenager.
The UK was always very receptive to The Velvet Underground. Because The Velvet Underground is the band that represented those who felt like they didn't belong. The ones who were making a difference while no one cared about them.
Jimi Hendrix, New York Dolls, and Iggy Pop were perfect examples of that.
Hanns Johst had the right idea regarding "Culture". Mission of Burma mad a happy song about it.
I love Bowie but I disagree. His view is a bit too simplistic. The Beatles' body of work became subject of reverence and technical prowess to the point that it couldn't really be imitated without becoming pastiche. Not every band could draw from an album like Sgt. Pepper's without having access to orchestras and Abbey Road-like studios and advanced studio techniques. I'd say that bands like Velvet Underground became points of reference because what they did was simple, easier to recreate and still just as expressive as a lot of stuff The Beatles did.
I think all artists (no matter how perfect you imagine that they are) are envious of others and are as capable of being petty as you or I
Curious that he should say this at the height of britpop which was massively influenced by the Beatles
Not by the Beatles. By the 60 in general. Also by the kinks rolling stones etc
It is curious that Brit pop itself is an offshoot of the alternative, which is a product of VU :)
Pretty crappy take from Bowie here, but it was the 90s, not long after Nirvana and when he was into (and collaborated with) Trent Reznor. Sure, the Velvet Underground had influence on art rock, on DIY music, on more alternative acts like Sonic Youth or Pixies, which in turn led to big successes that decade in the likes of grunge and edgy dark stuff like what Reznor and Manson did. the beatles however, had influence on pretty much EVERYTHING, and innovated in countless ways. from their clear influence on all pop music, to their concept albums and multi-part songs that lead to everything in progressive rock to acts like Queen and Bowie himself, to their psychedelic period that influenced everything psychedelic to follow, to their heavier music that was a clear root of everything metal. too much to list. both bands had influence, and Bowie is clearly doing the Beatles dirty here :).
I think completely disregarding the beatles influence was a bad move by Bowie here, i love both bands and i think both of them are as equally as influental as the next. While the beatles definitely influenced a lot of the more mainstream pop acts (like britpop etc.) and early metal, The Velvets influenced the more underground side of things which leads to the birth of punk, indie, and even ambient, post rock, and the more avant garde style bands as of right now. So why argue whats more influental when we can all enjoy these different breeds of genre that these artists have influenced
the beatles are way more influential. and they influenced many, many, many legendary indie acts, not just the mainstream.
It was a comment of the times and Bowie like to see himself as a provocative changeling. Ask him the same question around 2010 and it would probably be completely different.
He's correct. VU were precursors of punk, glam rock, even shoegaze. Moreover, Velvet underground and Nico just aged so well in comparison to Beatles albums.. VU and Nico, and van morrison's Astral weeks are the two best albums of the 60s. Just my opinion clearly
@word great band too, personally I prefer Velvet underground but they were equally influent on the punk scene. I want to be your dog could easily be a track of VU and Nico
@@ja_9568 fun fact John Cale produced the debut album of the Stooges and he played the one nite piano on that track
@@vassilyvodka2638 John cale is an amazing producer, also his work with nico is quite amazing
@@sarthak7964 bro I strongly suggest you to do not pay attention to what allmusic or rolling stone write
the beatles were the precursors of all pop, prog rock, glam rock, metal (obviously), psychedelic rock and most alternative and indie stuff. waaaaaay more influential than VU.
Influenced by the Beatles, they in turn influenced other fringe bands like the Velvets and even lesser known bands ie the garage bands of the 60s. 60s punk as we now label it who definitely influenced bands like the Ramones, New York Dolls etc Everyone influenced each other.
@@sarthak7964 will you shut the fuck up???
The Beatles have had a huge amount of influence. To deny that is to be oblivious to the fact. Both bands have been influential.
You must be artist or musician to understand what he said. You are in the same level in which he talked about the critics.
See, I don't disagree with Bowie's statement "Its the Artists not the Critics that shape the future".......... Up to a point.
BUT (i) Its commercial demands or radio and streaming, right down to seconds of timing, which is restricting the culture of what music(?) gets airtime.
(ii) Bowie *forgot* Beatles 'Tomorrow Never Knows' & Sgt Pepper (along with Dylan) were massive influences on Velevet underground.
You don't believe it?
Listen to Beatles 'Tomorrow Never Knows' the Velvet Underground's 'Venus in Furs' from 2 or 3 years later.
Sgt Peppers was released 4 months after VUN lol
@@emes9538 tomorrow never knows was on revolver lol
Essentially nothing about my own personal library of music contradicts what Bowie said about The Beatles vs Velvet Underground and who really makes the culture.
I think DB is wrong, and I'm not sure why he's even saying it. The fact is the Beatles output was so great in quantity, diversity and reach that it's influence is incalcuable. Whereas VU's niche and limited output stands out for being a one off.
The velvet underground’s music aged much better than the Beatles.
Money talks
Who sells more ?
@@rethink62 money or popularity doesn’t = talent
If you wanna go by money then artists like niki Minaj, Beyoncé and spice girls would rival the Beatles and thats just ridiculous. Played yourself brotha.
@@gordianknot6867
Nice argument if you weren’t pulling artist out of you’re ass
The Spice Girls , Beyoncé , whatever haven’t sold close to the Beatles
How much you think they will sell 50 years after they break up ?
Who decides the most talent ?
You or the millions that buy the damn records ?
@@rethink62 its a perfectly logical argument, you’re the one who said money talks. Great artists sell a lot of records but so do crappy ones too and you cant omit them.
@@gordianknot6867
The Spice Girls do not sell like the Beatles nobody has , crappy artist may sell for a year or two but not 50 years after they break up
Forget selling
Who influenced more artist ( bands )
Underground or Beatles
Sorry you may not like it Bowie may not like it (If) but it’s Beatles
Talent
Beatles are not great musicians but what they did in ten years innovation and writing no one will touch
May not be you’re cup of tea but you’re in the minority
David too (if)
Same as Pixies, Sonic Youth and New York Dolls. Didn't sell vast amounts of albums (Pixies were a bit better know here in Europe).
No New York Dolls (or Iggy Pop), means no Ramones, sex pistols ect.
No sex pistols means no Joy Division, Smiths, Buzzcocks ect ect.
But then you've got to say Chuck Berry, Elvis and too many more to mention, made it possible for those groups.
This is rather shortsighted it seems. If Bowie and the interviewer pick Penny Lane and Yesterday to pit against I’m Waiting For The Man to gauge the two bands influence on modern music, it makes no sense. The Beatles perhaps have the most expansive catalogue of any band, which includes songs that are precursors to a variety of modern rock and pop genres. And the beauty of that catalogue is that there are songs like Yesterday and Penny Lane (which are legendary songs) in the mix too. I have two posters of VU in my room, and it goes without saying that their sound was without doubt revolutionary and like no other band, but you have to remember the EXTENT and DEPTH of the The Beatle’s influence on all music that followed till today in terms of vocal work, melody composition, harmonies, experimentation with song structure, using the studio as an instrument, albums with themes, bass, guitar, drums, and many more. What The Beatles contributed in both a strictly musical sense and in the sense of artistic exploration and experimentation is beyond any imaginable scale when put in the context of most other bands. The Beatles’ music is extremely creative and dynamic both across an album and within a single song. There’s a great deal of moving parts in a lot of Beatles songs, and the fact that they had the vision and hunger to attempt such extraordinary musical work is groundbreaking and fucking inspiring. Yes, I understand that phenomenon where listening to the VU for the first time caused young people to go out and form a band of their own, especially people that may have had a penchant for breaking traditional standards and notions of mainstream art. Being edgy, avant-garde, punk, and non-conforming were a central part of the VU. In that regard, VU as a band embodied that progressive spirit in their totality as opposed to the Beatles whose progressive sounding work may have seemed more of experimentation and branching out rather than anything central to them. However, it would be remiss to downplay The Beatles saying their influence is not felt as much because they had a good amount of non-traditional progressive music of their own, and stuff that was incredibly creative in terms of instrumentation. For example, think of the sound of Strawberry Fields, Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite, and Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds, A Day in the Life. Forget the melodies, just think of all the psychedelic sounds. The psychedelic work on these songs can hold their own in front of modern psychedelic music. Then you have songs like Julia which sounds like it could have influenced a whole lot of 90s indie, the likes of Elliott Smith and such. Perhaps what the VU had that the Beatles lacked was that rough, mean, discordant garage band sound, and that particular sound and the audacity to do it probably spurred the future punk rockers like no other sound of the past.
Man the Beatles were shite bud overrated
@@abrarislam1193 they were the best😉
The Beatles had a sound, cadence and groove that was all their own and imitating it too closely would be obvious but all music assimilates into the collective cultural consciousness and influences everything after. Like Beethoven and Bach may have just as much influence. Or old American standards. Or Little Richard. Or Carol King. Or Bob Dylan. Or Broadway. Or gospel and bluegrass tunes. I mean once those songs get in your head and grace your ears, it is now in your musical language to use and create with.
You must be artist or musician to understand what he said. You are in the same level in which he talked about the critics.
@ I am what you'd call a professional musician and have worked with many musicians, famous and or professional as well as producers, arrangers, engineers, instrumentalists and singers who talked a lot about and showed their Beatles influences. Bowie's opinion is shared by some but also not shared by many musicians. I'm not a critic, will never be, just because I may hold a different opinion than Bowie had in this particular moment. There are also critics who agree with his opinion by the way.
Bowie Like: Well, I HAVE to Point that Out! A second later: silly thing. Don't take me so serious.
Yes, because it's easier to be Velvet Underground than the Beatles.
I feel like he was just looking for the most inoffensive way to say that The Velvet Underground are better than The Beatles lol.
I have never seen anyone being so wrong…so beautifully
Love this guy. But, I don't agree about the Beatles influence not being felt. Tomorrow never knows is still heard today across many dance type songs. The list goes on and on.
Sorry David, you're wrong about this.
He sure is.
No, he is right.
This opens a few Qs. Where is economics in all this? Whoever the economy rewards has a big say on what artists 'make it' to a label to a gallery to a publisher. And if the economy is bent toward particular ideologies & not others, then some artists will always pitch to that. I don't know if Bowie realised - - because after all he 'made it', just like Beatles did - - but the last 50 years at least has shown this is not a meritocracy. If an artist has to work a f/t job & do art in his spare time, art is reduced from a way of life to a hobby, & the limited investment of time & effort will not fulfill the artist's potential in that environment.
Sorry if yr a believer in the American Dream, but there it is.
Influence is very hard to measure. Is it the bands and artists who set in this broad foundation, or is it the artists who have influence that is easier to point out?
I think Beatles influence is harder to point out because it’s so foundational: people don’t necessarily want to imitate the Beatles’ sound, but they motivated a lot of kids to start bands as a collective. Popularized the idea of writing your own songs. Popularized albums in rock as a cohesive statement rather than a collection of singles. Started using the studio as a tool rather than recreating live performances.
Velvet Underground is undeniably influential on many different genres, but I wouldn’t try to argue that they were *more* influential. It’s just that their influence is easier to point out.
It’s like with animation: A lot of people were more directly influenced by Looney Tunes or the Simpsons. But going further back, there’s Fleischers, Otto Messmer, Winsor McCay, Disney.
The Beatles were more influential across the board, BUT their influence was both for better and for worse.
The Beatles didn’t influence nearly as many actually great bands as The Velvet Underground did, and I think that in and of itself is a victory for The Velvet Underground. 😎✊🏼
Mainstream marketing influence and artistic influence are two very distinct entities, sometimes they overlap but often times they are very independent.
@@Bati_ I agree they're distinct in certain ways. But I also don't think you can judge influence only by whether a band sounds like another band.
I don't even disagree with Bowie that much on this. He's clearly trying to champion the artists that are often at the margins.
@@curly_wynAll depends on your idea of “truly great bands”. And why there can’t be an argument here and no one and every one is right at the same time. Give it up - you’ve run this comment section ragged. Go enjoy whatever you enjoy.
@@bill6886 you can bet your ass Pixies and Mercury Rev are greater than the Hollies or Gerry and the Pacemakers, truly great bands are not afraid to challenge their listeners through their artistic vision. beatle influenced bands are mostly corny bossanova sung in english compared to the hardcore and post punk influenced by the VU.
As they say: "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture", but for the sake of argument, the Velvet Underground aren't even worthy of being in one sentence with the Beatles (oops!)
Wrong. I love the Beatles but the VU were more innovative, more influential, and their music was just better.
abcdefgh1992 : 'Better' is in the ear of the beholder, so you're entitled to that one, but as far as the VU being more influential than the Beatles, i'm afraid the facts speak in favor of the latter: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_impact_of_the_Beatles
And here's a list of innovations by the Beatles: listverse.com/2012/10/11/10-beatles-innovations-that-changed-music/
If the VU were responsible for any innovations, I'd like to know, but you'll have to provide them, because Google couldn't find any.
@@sarthak7964 Lol, you're spamming this all over this comments section like it means something. Stay mad.
i would give you my cat to have hair like that.
What sort of cat is it?
@@jacquelinemarypiper Norwegian Forest cat
Musical influence is way more complicated than can be communicated in 1:48.
Reacting against something is still be influenced by it. The Beatles fill this huge space of music. Now artists desperate to be original are forced to jump into the small spaces that are left. That is being influenced gigantically. It's kind of like somebody deciding to go to Glacier National Park because Yellowstone is too crowded. If you're VU you have to find a little niche because the Beatles part of the music scene is too crowded.
I love David Bowie, however i do not agree with his assessment of the Beatles influence on modern popular music.
He's very correct, fortunately. People think influence is quantified by the amount of artists influenced. It's about who is being influenced and to what degree they are being influenced. The Beatles didn't really do nearly as much as people are brainwashed into believing.
Agree!
@@nothingreally6680 Yeah your completely missing what Bowie is even saying, so your comment is a bit off
@Nathaniel Birthurth If your using this video as reasoning to your belief that lou reed was better at writing than lennon. Then you are way off my friend. Bowie considers Lennon one of the greatest.
mike bassett Howso? What misinterpretation did I make?
The bassline in 0:50 didn't sound like waiting for the man's 🤔
@@sarthak7964 ok but what does this have to do with what I said?
I think the point is the velvet underground sound is very achievable, the Beatles productions are not . The formers chord progressions are simple the Beatles are often not. So reproducing or copying the songs is difficult. Not saying one is better than the other, just saying.
Lol have you heard the first two VU albums? Sister Ray for example is not easily copied
@@williamberry2351 sister ray is a great song but from a production stand point...sure its easily copied. As opposed to anything on sgt peppers.
@@jamesmcavoy379 Beatles can be so imitative 😂 Every pop rock band in Asia can make Paul McCartney tunes because they’re basic melodious tunes that can be done easily.
Funny how VU pretty much copied Beatles early sound and their 1966 look.
I absolutely agree with Bowie on most of this, but PENNY LANE is one of my favourite songs EVER!
only David Bowie could say something like that and get away with it
Few artists are capable of writing original musical classics such as 'Yesterday' and 'Penny Lane' whereas they can create the less melodic pieces of unmelodic bands .
THANK YOU!!! Bowie demonstrated the dull, plodding, mechanical noise of today, saying that's what so many bands gravitate towards. They don't have any musical ideas other than rhythmic pounding against a melodic instrument. About as impressive as synchronized flatulence.
@@kennethlatham3133 lmao, what do you know?
@@curly_wyn Well, how much time do you have? Because I could talk your ear off.
Motown music and Beach Boys have better melodic tunes than Yesterday and Penny Lane. Sorry. VU still sounds like they can exist in today’s contemporary musical sphere but Beatles always will sound retro.
Bowie still angry at Paul for not wanting to listen to his music, lol.
I’ll be honest, I think David had lost the plot a bit during this period. But then so had Macca’s reputation at that point. That’s the thing with the Beatles - their cultural supremacy has always been so enormous that it is hard even for a mind like Bowie’s to gauge. The Velvets have long since gone from being a band that inspired bands to a band that is lauded as a museum piece and rock critic darling. You mist keep in mind that David wanted to move away from pop back to his rock roots here and the only thing he could equate with that was going back to the Velvets as if it was still 1972. No one doubts that people still pick up guitars because of the Beatles, and yes, still dream that one day they might record their own Penny Lane. This is that struggle that people used to have between “authentic rock” and the allure of pop music as art. In other words, David Bowie is being a hipster here.
Oh my gosh, I can imagine his infectious charming laughter if someone told him that. He’d probably chime in with, “You might have something there.” I miss him so much.
Yeah, but even the Velvets wore Beatle boots! 😊
Uh... how about Lennon making Bowie ?
How absurd! If the Beatles had just only come out with Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band they would have been one of the most influential bands of all time!
Bowie was a great artist but I don’t think the statement holds up really - unless he thought it was the critics buying all the Beatles records.😂
Their influence over their contemporaries and beyond is plain to see. It’s okay for people to not be fussed about them as well though, of course.
I love the velvet underground but it’s much easier to make a song like I’m waiting for the man than penny lane. That’s why people copy it more
It's all completely subjective really. Penny Lane sounds like a children's song to me. Waiting For the Man isn't the best track on the first VU LP but is far more memorable I reckon.
Perhaps because everyone was trying to get away from the Beatles. They were monolithic.
I started listening to the Velvet Underground recently after being a Beatles fan my whole life basically (I’m 18) and to me the VU is more interesting
Same here. Im 34, listened to them for 13 years. However Pale Blue Eyes by the VU sounds so modern it’s scary.
After being beatles fan your whole life?
You are 18 year old kid. How much of life you were a beatles fan anyway?
@@nikhilchaudhari140 I’ve loved Beatles from when I was a young child then I got older I started to appreciate more of VU especially now in my 30s. Not surprising how this can resonate with many.
@@nikhilchaudhari140 yea since I was a kid my dad always played them so I’ve heard them my whole life practically but yea it was kinda silly of me to say my whole life.