@@marklamora885: Junkies usually have inflated opinions of themselves, while they're wiping puke off their chin. Reed could barely manage a few chords on guitar and couldn't sing Three Blind Mice in key. In my humble opinion, the only thing he ever produced worth listening to was Rock and Roll Animal with guitarists Dick Wagner and Steve Hunter who obviously are the ones responsible for the arrangements of Reed's duller-than-average material.
@@spacewurm I am more about specific songs: John-Mr Kite, Paul-Your Mother Should Know, George-Piggies (my sign in Chinese Astrology), Ringo-Yellow Submarine. How about you?
@@Moekoffee2001These people still don't realize that if it wasn't for the Beatles.there wouldn't have been any groups .All groups where inspired by the Beatles.every groups wanted to sound and be like the Beatles.
When Frank Sinatra said that Something was the best love song written in 50 to 100 yrs. When Leonard Bernstein talked about how cleverly structured some of the Lennon/McCartney songs were then it doesn’t matter what these guys think
When that little evil Austrian was doing his thing in Germany, every one stuck their hands up and said this is great. just because thousand of people think they were great doesn't mean they were..
@@ColtraneTaylor He said "if they can't find something they like" without the precursor of whether they have a doctorate in the construction of popular music. That does not seem a terribly high bar to me. Sometimes it is fashionable to be "edgy" and dismiss the popular mainstream but invariably this is borne out of either envy or immaturity. I wonder which one applies to you.
Exactly. I remember quite a few people claiming to hate the Beatles back in the day. We'd call them hipsters now. They're the same people who'd say "Guitar solos are stupid".
The reason they choose to go down the road of being “controversial” is because they feel inadequate when measuring up to the Beatles musical output. They can’t admit it but it is objectively true right in front of their faces.
Yes. I'm not the type of person that "goes with the flow" either, but in the case of the Beatles, I can't do otherwise. If they had written only good but "simple" songs like "Yesterday" and "Let It Be" and everybody was saying that they're the greatest band ever, then ok, maybe I would agree that they exaggerate, but no, having listened to all of their albums and seen their progress from "Please Please Me" to "Revolution 9", I have no other choice than to agree that there was no other band like them. I understand if people say that, for example, Pink Floyd was the greatest band of all time, but although they did more progressive stuff, they don't speak to my heart as the Beatles do.
Probably not. That's an overstatement. Nil is the answer. Talk about jealousy. The Beatles 100th best song was better than these "stars" best song. The Beatles and Dylan will be sung in 100 years. Lou Reed, Velvet Underground - hell, can it get anymore slimy? About as much talent as my dog.
@@brianobrien3644 you base your opinion on more of a popularity contest, not talent. To many, the VU and Lou Reed are way more enjoyable than overrated, mainstream music like the Beatles et al.
Lol. That genuinely made me chuckle. I always thought that The Strokes were pretentious and that the front man couldn't sing. I hated their music when it came out. Thankfully, I never hear it anymore.
Who cares what these dudes think of the Beatles? None of them can hold a candle to the Beatles. Sure, Quincy Jones is super talented but he has a very bad habit of knocking other artists. Not a very nice quality. Jealousy brings out the worst in people and these 5 are prime examples. The Beatles are awesome. Each of the four of them is talented in their own way.
@@cronejawford978 I really can't think of any. But, I do know he produced Michael Jackson's Thriller album and he also co-produced The We Are The World video, which is pretty awesome. But, as I said, I don't like the way he talks down to other artists.
@@sunnyskies-md5rk That was my point. Jones criticizing the Beatles' musicianship; It's the SONGS that matter. I predict very few will know who Jones is in a few decades. The Beatles will remain popular for much, much longer. Cheers!
@@cronejawford978 many, open minded people anyways. Naturally, people that presume popularity determines talent and any attention won’t know a single song of his.
I think Lou Reed forgot that John Cale, the co-founder of the Velvet Underground was British and the sound that the Velvet Underground got had a lot to do with Cale plus Bowie along with Mick Ronson, two more Brits produced Reeds best selling album, Transformer.
@@timcolivet7343 Reed was messing around when he said this. He said later in the same interview that the Brits should stick to learning to cook. He was notorious was trying to stir things up with journalists for a laugh. He collaborated with David Bowie afterall.
The fact that they are the only band to have a #1 hit 54 years later after they disbanded, proves that they are the greatest rock n roll band to ever walk the earth.
I had a feeling before watching this that whomever the people were not liking the Beatles were probably no one worth their comments anyways....... "I was right"
Your comment made me smile and laugh a little bit. I have some respect for Lou Reed, Michael Stipe and Quincy Jones. And, I like a few of their songs. The others, I’ve never cared for their music. But, on the other hand, The Beatles are my favorite band and have made tons of music that I like. I consider Paul McCartney my favorite musician of all time. I don’t pretend to like all of his music, either. We all have our own opinions.
None of these "artists" could ever measure up to the talent, influence on other artists, and accomplishments of the Beatles. 50 more years from now, people will still know of the Fab Four, but these others will be merely be footnotes in music history.
Velvet underground will only grow in status. Nine inch nails will be forgotten by all but music historians The Strokes are be forgotten but will have a couple of songs playing on classic rock stations in the future
More than 50 years after they split and we are still talking about The Beatles and listening to their music.and they are still attracting new fans..... Enough said
I think Quincy Jones might have had every right to say what he did about the Beatles when he said it. He was coming from the standpoint of having been a jazz musician. When you're listening to one style of music most of the time and hearing a minimum level of proficiency, people like John, Paul, George and Ringo who were not formally trained or educated, it kind of stands to reason that somebody like Quincy Jones wouldn't have the kindest words to say about their proficiency. What I would like to know is if Quincy had changed his mind about them by 1982 when Michael Jackson was recording the music from *Thriller* and they recruited Macca to duet with Michael on "The Girl is Mine".
"The Girl Is Mine" is a stupid song. QJ is a great studio cat, but he can't write great songs like the Beatles did. They have different approaches to making music, and both are legit. The best thing to do is just to shut the F up and make music.
I can understand if people wouldn't consider the Beatles as a great band if they had stopped making music in 1965. Although all their songs were very nice up to that point, and you just feel joy and nostalgia listening to them, I agree that they weren't something really groundbreaking. But after that, everything changed. If people, and especially musicians, listen to songs like "Eleanor Rigby", "Tomorrow Never Knows", "Within You, Without You", "Strawberry Fields Forever", "I Am The Walrus", to name just a handful of their masterpieces, and almost everything out of the "White Album", and say that they are overrated or nothing special, their out of their minds. Ok, yes, music has progressed miles since then, and more innovative and progressive stuff may have come out, like Pink Floyd, of course, but if they don't keep in mind in what era the Beatles created, and they don't acknowledge how within 3 years went from "Help" to "Helter Skelter", they're idiots. I love Lou Reed, the Velvet Underground is also one of the greatest and most influential bands ever (although short lived), but if he really meant what he said and he wasn't trolling, then there was something wrong with him. If someone can't enjoy listening to the Beatles and prefers more experimental stuff like, I don't know, Amon Duul II or Popol Vuh or whatever, fine, but saying that the Beatles were garbage or whatever, makes you an ignorant idiot. They sure were not the ONLY great band of the '60s, or the only innovative, but they sure made the biggest impact. No other band in the history of music made the transformation that they did from how they started to how they finished, all within about only 7 years. It's not an opinion, it's a fact, so stop making a fool of yourself.
It's ok to not like the Beatles, but some of these people sound maybe afraid or intimidated by the Beatles and their way of dealing with it is to write the Beatles off as just rubbish.
Not one of these people were involved in a musical relationship with another person where the art they created was greater than the sum of its parts. Let alone 3 other people! These people are egotists and feel inadequate by the high level the Beatles operated on compared to what they were capable of, given their own talent combined with the musical relationships they had with other people.
Lou Reed was a very unhappy person throughout his life. He came across as the prototype New York malcontent. Quincy? Just jealous and threatened. These other clowns should realized if it wasn't for the Beatles they wouldn't have had careers in music.
Who the hell are the first 2 nobodies? Lou Reed is grossly over-estimating his own qualities, Jones would be hard pushed to write a song like Penny Lane
Lou Reed is the biggest foooool of them all. Yes, Lou has two good song but it makes him think he was way better than he really was. The Beatles could not have had so many songs on so many albums for for many years that millions of people of all generations know word-for-word if they were not something special. "Silly Love Songs" by Paul has a great bass line so he has no clue what a bad bass player is. Lou Reed interviews are always more interesting than his songs and that really is the truth if you watch them you'll agree. If Lou didn't get the legendary bass player Herbie Flowers to play bass on "Walk On the Wildside" Lou would have half the fame he has. Herbie is the one that came up with the idea to use an electric bass and a double bass to double track on that song for the unique sound not Lou yet Herbie gets almost no credit. Lou didn't like any British groups but Herbie was from Sussex England was the player he used on his most famous song. Lou is a fake. If any bass players are reading this far look up "Serge Gainsbourg - Melody (Histoire de Melody Nelson 1/7)" on youtube and you'll love it. That is Herbie playing. It is one of the best bass song ever.
Lou Reed saying British people shouldn't play rock'n'roll is like saying Americans shouldn't read Shakespeare. Or speak English..Seriously, the guy wrote 2 good songs at best. The Beatles wrote hundreds.
Having grown up in the sixty’s seventies and eighties.The Beatles were one of the greatest song writing teams on the planet. I have to say what exactly did Lou Reed Offer up. Just saying.
I have no REM ..LOU REED..QUINCY JONES...NINE INCH NAILS and I have no idea who the 5th guy was....but I own 0 of the fives albums.. how's your math??????
It's just jealousy. How many #1 singles between them? Maybe 2 or 3? I don't consider Quincy Jones a musician, so fuck him. Lou Reed? His ego was oblivious. Michael Stipe? Shiny Happy People. That's all I have to say about him. Reznor? LOL. What a joke. The Strokes? Their name is what I consider their music.
@@tedwilliams8879 If you think Trent Reznor's comment (and pretty much all of the other comments) has anything to do with jealousy then you're as clueless as you're salty someone else isn't a fan of your favorite band. ^^
If they genuinely don't like them then fair enough but sounds like their frustration is with media coverage which wasn't something that the Beatles had any control over so that sounds more like jealousy because they can't articulate what was supposedly bad about the Beatles as creative musicians
@@radiojet1429 Petty was a bigger George Harrison fan than the group. Same with Dylan .. they all liked George (my favorite Beatle.) The fact that you needed to defend them and respond to my stupid comment is a bit precious, though.
@@ocan1033 George was my favorite, too. A bit precious? I think my defense and comment were outrageously, deliciously precious. Like when one of the Royals wave.
REM had one good song. Reznor will be forever known as the guy who wrote Johnny Cash's last hit and Quincy Jones is a Jazz snob. Lou Reed? I barely even know who he is.
@@rrj8q Agreed. Stipe just basically stated that The Beatles weren't 'his cup of tea' so to speak, but he wasn't insulting or disrespectful. And even tho' he's a rather strange dude, I've always respected him and have quite enjoyed much of REM's music ... these other rapscallions, not so much.
It all comes over as a little churlish. None of those artists are fit to tie the Beatles' shoelaces. Whatever someone's musical preferences it is ridiculous to doubt the revolution in popular music the Beatles created. As for Lou Reed's comments about British bands I doubt most people would name a single non British band in their top ten of all time. What a dick.
Lou Reed said a lot of shit to provoke people, not because he necessarily believed hid own words. At one point or another, he pretty much ended up hating everything.
It's true that they weren't the greatest technical musicians, e.g. their timing wasn't tight or groovy. But they were the greatest artists, innovators, and songwriters.
I was born during the white album sessions. Their best music came after Rubber Soul. They overplayed the dumped boyfriend trope in their "silly love songs."
Lou Reed was a genius, The Strokes, REM, NIN are great bands with brilliant music, Quincy is a top-notch producer, I like them all and their records, and their opinions are totally valid. But I love The Beatles, they're the best.
Yea and people commenting here are probably unaware that Lou Reed later declared being a fan of both solo Lennon and McCartney work. He also obviously dug Bowie’s work… Q indicated that he later learned to love what the Beatles were doing and was reacting initially from the jazz perspective … it is also no surprise someone like Julian or Stipe who came of age in later generations and play alternative music would have connected more with Waiting for The Man and Heroin than they would Sgt Pepper or Hey Jude
The common thread seems to be that they are Americans. The Beatles repackaged American music and sold it back to the USA. That will probably have been annoying or confusing to some Americans. There's quite a culture gap between the two countries despite the assumption that a common language helps us understand each other. Lou Reed's career was resuscitated by Bowie incidentally so his statement that Brits shouldn't play anything was particularly daft. He can go and boil his head frankly.
"They just make the songs up, bing, bing bing. They just have to be the most incredible songwriters ever - just amazingly talented. I don’t think people realise how sad it is that The Beatles broke up" Lou Reed
Musically the Velvet Underground were pseudo classical/ avant garde rubbish. Most of there audience were niche and bohemian types who disliked mainstream rock music.
Quincy Jones was used to studio musicians ( hired guns) who were just doing a job. It’s not fair to compare hired guns to people creating their own music.
good point. studio musicians, by definition, work as "studio musicians" because they're limited, incapable of writing their own music and they're incapable of singing their own music and they're incapable of arranging their own music. Otherwise they'd be performers. So to compare the pure musicianship of The Beatles to that of a studio musician is a ridiculous comparison because The Beatles will always come out on top even if a studio musician might theoretically play a particular instrument better than them. And anyway, how many studio musicians can play rhythm guitar, lead guitar, bass, drums and piano like Paul McCartney? And compose like him? And sing like him? You'd need to hire 10 different people to do what he does on his own.
In order to create your own music, you need to be able to read and write music. Quincey could do this. The Beatles at best could only wrote love songs. Most of their music was composed by George Martin.
@@bwana-ma-coo-bah425 what about their solo work? John Lennon would disagree with what you say about George Martin. As far as not being able to create music without knowing how to read it; what about Jimmy Page, Eric Clapton, Jimi Hendrix, Lionel Richie, Alex Lifeson, Eddie Van Halen, Prince, Steve Howe and the list goes on not to mention all of the blues artists who created music that’s still played today ,and don’t forget Errol Garner who “ wrote” the music for Misty even though he couldn’t read music.
@@bwana-ma-coo-bah425 in three lines, you managed to write something historically inaccurate, musically inaccurate, silly and ridiculous. quite an accomplishment. Lucy, the Walrus, Tomorrow, Taxman, birthday Blackbird, Gently Weeps, etc are . . . . . love songs? you obviously don't even know the Beatles catalogue. and as someone else has already commented, there are countless other accomplished musicians who can't read or write music.
The Beatles gave licence for British and believe it or not American bands to experiment and many copied some of there ideas.thats how important they were.
Lou loved to bait journalists. You can probably find him criticizing whatever sacred cow or flavor of the day that will cause the most discomfort in the interviewer for sport. While he may have actually hated the Beatles, it will not affect my love of the band or my love for Lou or the Velvet Underground.
One of the only objective and informed comments in a sea of uninformed Beatles simps. They think Lou Reed is a nobody and have no clue that he is one of the few that are as influential as the Beatles
Lou Reed has covered John Lennon songs Jealous Guy and Mother. Quincy Jones had Paul McCartney on the Thriller album. Trent Reznor was definitely influenced by The Beatles white album and that Charles Manson era.
I suppose compared to a jazz or classical bassist McCartney would not really be as proficient, but what an incredible song writer, and for me anyway, his bass lines were very appealing, especially on the white album.
I'm the same way about hearing about how great The Beatles were. Zepp and other bands like The Who surpassed The Beatles by far in a lot of ways but often get lukewarm praise from mainstream commercial media.
He was just being intentionally provocative and contrarian to get a reaction from journalists, as he often did. You're doing the same thing right now by dismissing his work, which is also very influential. He's also said many times that he loved the Beatles' songwriting.
'Who Loves the Sun' is very Beatley, harmonies, lyrical imagery and his chord patterns seem straight out the same well. If not from The Fabs, then from the Stones, indirectly. Detuning the guitar to drop D -as in Venus in Furs-also a British folk innovation most famously done by Beatles via Donovan.
The only one in this clip that had an iota of talent was probably Quincy Jones, and I even have my doubts how much of the material he's credited for was actually his.
Nothing wrong with disliking the Beatles. "Dear Prudence," "I Am The Walrus" .. not everybody's cup of tea. I agree with Stipe. Saying that you're not drawn to the Beatles isn't denying their significance. Beatles' fans, as a whole, are a bit too precious.
ahhh maybe poor Rezner realizes he will never even come close to be liked the way the Beatles were, awww poor thing: The Beatles , like the Stones put out music that will live forever
Fortunately, not everyone likes the same things and not everyone makes the same kind of music. How boring it would be. What the Beatles achieved is simply not for everyone, and it doesn't have to be. Envy is therefore not necessary and there is no arguing about taste. Just listen to something you like.
I totally get those who don't have any great enthusiasm for their work being irritated by the Fabs' "sacred cow" status. People should be left alone to be underwhelmed or even repelled by Beatle music. However, the Velvets have acquired a very similar position in the "sacred cow" stakes and in a way it's worse because their acolytes still hold onto the idea that being a VU devotee is somehow a really obscure and left-field stance; those days are long-gone.
The Beatles were the first completely manufactured band. Most of their songs were written for them, not by them, and studio musicians played on the majority of recordings and the lads just recorded the vocals. Mediocre musicians with a stellar PR team.
I think we must not confuse "don't like" something with saying something is rubbish, shit or of bad quality there're very different things nobody is forced to like a particular artist musician, singer or writer but we can recognise the quality of a good production .
Good comment. It's perfectly legitimate not to like the Beatles, and anyone identifying this as "wrong" is a bit pretentious. It's OK not to like the Beatles. They were a bit saccharine, Lennon was too cool for school, and they never had the Stones' endurance.
Lou Reed was a 20th Century White man living in the Western World with long hair. The Beatles are reason why long hair became fashionable among 20th Century White men(and effectively everyone else).
I think Paul McCartney singing "Let it Be" pretty much shuts down their criticism. All of them together couldn't write a song half as good as "Let it Be." Also, as much as I respect Quincy Jones, Paul McCartney was a musical genius.
It’s ok to dislike the Beatles. All the insecure and insulted Beatles “fans” and other assorted main streamers here just can’t think outside the box and presume popularity and record sales defines talent.
Wow, if these guys hate the Beatles, then id love to know what they think of ... literally .. ANY of the musicians/bands today. But in this bizarro world, I can only imagine they'll probably have flattering things to say.
though I love the Beatles I totally understand some people not enjoying their music because much of their music ("She loves you yeah yeah yeah") was very light weight.
Oddly, I liked the "light weight" stuff better. Songs like "Paperback Writer" were great .. great hook, great riff. It was the pretentious stuff .. the "genius" stuff .. that doesn't register for me.
I'm not a Beatles fan, I don't find their music entertaining to me, but I have to admit that they were the most influential rock band of all times. Every band wanted to be popular as them.
It was very trendy to be anti-Beatles in late 60s. All the anti-Beatles musicians bought all the Beatles albums same time and were very happy when they were called to meet some Beatle. No one declined.
It's odd that Lou Reed thought that British music was garbage considering his most successful album was produced by two Englishmen in London.
Well said
Lou Reed, ego much?
@@marklamora885:
Junkies usually have inflated opinions of themselves, while they're wiping puke off their chin.
Reed could barely manage a few chords on guitar and couldn't sing Three Blind Mice in key.
In my humble opinion, the only thing he ever produced worth listening to was Rock and Roll Animal with guitarists Dick Wagner and Steve Hunter who obviously are the ones responsible for the arrangements of Reed's duller-than-average material.
The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who, Led Zeppelin, Yes, ELP, Jethro Tull, The Moody Blues.... and on and on and on.
and he was crap lets face it put him on a stage with any top English band they would blow him off stage , jealous much Lou ?
Lou Reed saying British bands shouldn’t play rock n roll, what a c••k
Not sure how he would have coped with what's coming out Japan right now.
I mean you don't need to be a fan of the Beatles but Brits produce some terrific music....his words are truly ignorant
That's just one of the many stupid things Lou Reed has said. I've never understood the appeal of Lou Reed. Such a tool.
Yeah that's why the Beatles are the most influential band in the world not Lou Reed not Quincy Jones not 9-inch nails not REM but the fab 4
Lou was good in his own right but he was an arrogant asshole. A buddy of mines brother once met him and said he was a prick.
I love The Beatles but we all have their own opinion. I personally have no interest in Lou Reed mumbling through songs.
What is your favorite Beatles album and why?
@@spacewurm I am more about specific songs: John-Mr Kite, Paul-Your Mother Should Know, George-Piggies (my sign in Chinese Astrology), Ringo-Yellow Submarine. How about you?
I am sure John Lennon would have handled Lou Reed anywhere, and at anytime
@@Moekoffee2001These people still don't realize that if it wasn't for the Beatles.there wouldn't have been any groups .All groups where inspired by the Beatles.every groups wanted to sound and be like the Beatles.
@@Moekoffee2001 Lennon was an asshole and like the Beatles was overrated. Reed would have managed him fine.
Stipe didn't say he hated them, he just didn't identify with them. He also acknowledged their talent.
"[Someone] HATED [someone else]!!!" is a typical click-bait tactic. And it works. There's especially a whole Beatles sub-genre of it.
'Shiny happy people holding hands.' *vomit*
Stipe called the Beatles muzak in a 1992 interview, then 15 years later R.E.M. comes out with a version of Lennon's #9 Dream. Time changes everything
envy is a bad thing
100 % agreed
You got THAT right
Envy is fine.... it's jealousy that's bad!
When Frank Sinatra said that Something was the best love song written in 50 to 100 yrs. When Leonard Bernstein talked about how cleverly structured some of the Lennon/McCartney songs were then it doesn’t matter what these guys think
When that little evil Austrian was doing his thing in Germany, every one stuck their hands up and said this is great. just because thousand of people think they were great doesn't mean they were..
Many people belittle Elvis but the same Leonard Bernstein said otherwise.
These stupids...better said
That's enough for me !
Anyone who says they can’t find anything they like in the Beatles catalogue is a liar or a poseur.
I'll say Stipe, Reed and Reznor know more about music than you fanboys and girls.
@@ColtraneTaylor if they claim to know music I’ll stick with my comment.
@@ColtraneTaylor He said "if they can't find something they like" without the precursor of whether they have a doctorate in the construction of popular music. That does not seem a terribly high bar to me. Sometimes it is fashionable to be "edgy" and dismiss the popular mainstream but invariably this is borne out of either envy or immaturity. I wonder which one applies to you.
@@Kaiserbill99 Ok, fangirl.
@@ColtraneTaylor So the latter it is.
Personaly deep down inside i think there just trying to be " contriversial" ," different" " Go against the grain"
Exactly. I remember quite a few people claiming to hate the Beatles back in the day. We'd call them hipsters now. They're the same people who'd say "Guitar solos are stupid".
The reason they choose to go down the road of being “controversial” is because they feel inadequate when measuring up to the Beatles musical output. They can’t admit it but it is objectively true right in front of their faces.
Yes. I'm not the type of person that "goes with the flow" either, but in the case of the Beatles, I can't do otherwise. If they had written only good but "simple" songs like "Yesterday" and "Let It Be" and everybody was saying that they're the greatest band ever, then ok, maybe I would agree that they exaggerate, but no, having listened to all of their albums and seen their progress from "Please Please Me" to "Revolution 9", I have no other choice than to agree that there was no other band like them.
I understand if people say that, for example, Pink Floyd was the greatest band of all time, but although they did more progressive stuff, they don't speak to my heart as the Beatles do.
I am not a big Beatles fan but they are legendary for sure.
Lou Reed what a pr1ck
Indeed. At least the others gave a point of view, he wasjust trying to shock
Not gonna lie. I'm not sad that Lou Reed is dead and I was a little giddy when I heard the news.
Yeah, he trashed Zappa as well. But he was pretty sure he was a genius.
@@richardgrier8968 I can understand Zappa his music was crap
Just a troll.
The old saying. “Opinions are like assholes ,everyone has one”. Applies here.
5 massive assholes
And they all stink.
I expect in 100 years lots of people will know who the Beatles were. These other guy’s, probably not.
Guys, not guy's.
Paul banged Peggy Lipton before she Married old Quincy
Probably not. That's an overstatement. Nil is the answer. Talk about jealousy. The Beatles 100th best song was better than these "stars" best song. The Beatles and Dylan will be sung in 100 years. Lou Reed, Velvet Underground - hell, can it get anymore slimy? About as much talent as my dog.
@@brianobrien3644 you base your opinion on more of a popularity contest, not talent. To many, the VU and Lou Reed are way more enjoyable than overrated, mainstream music like the Beatles et al.
You’re pigheaded and presumptuous.
If all twelve people who bought The Strokes' albums refused to buy a Beatles record, I'm sure they'd survive.
Lol. That genuinely made me chuckle. I always thought that The Strokes were pretentious and that the front man couldn't sing. I hated their music when it came out. Thankfully, I never hear it anymore.
They sold a few million but point taken.
Who cares what these dudes think of the Beatles? None of them can hold a candle to the Beatles. Sure, Quincy Jones is super talented but he has a very bad habit of knocking other artists. Not a very nice quality. Jealousy brings out the worst in people and these 5 are prime examples. The Beatles are awesome. Each of the four of them is talented in their own way.
How many Quincy Jones songs can anybody think of?
@@cronejawford978 I really can't think of any. But, I do know he produced Michael Jackson's Thriller album and he also co-produced The We Are The World video, which is pretty awesome. But, as I said, I don't like the way he talks down to other artists.
@@sunnyskies-md5rk That was my point. Jones criticizing the Beatles' musicianship; It's the SONGS that matter. I predict very few will know who Jones is in a few decades. The Beatles will remain popular for much, much longer. Cheers!
@@cronejawford978 many, open minded people anyways. Naturally, people that presume popularity determines talent and any attention won’t know a single song of his.
@@cronejawford978 I totally agree!
I think Lou Reed forgot that John Cale, the co-founder of the Velvet Underground was British and the sound that the Velvet Underground got had a lot to do with Cale plus Bowie along with Mick Ronson, two more Brits produced Reeds best selling album, Transformer.
Exactly. Reed was joking when he made the statement in this video.
@@timcolivet7343 Reed was messing around when he said this. He said later in the same interview that the Brits should stick to learning to cook. He was notorious was trying to stir things up with journalists for a laugh. He collaborated with David Bowie afterall.
The fact that they are the only band to have a #1 hit 54 years later after they disbanded, proves that they are the greatest rock n roll band to ever walk the earth.
In a MILLION years from now THEY wiil be the BEST BAND of the history of Rock and Roll
@@rubencasares4167 Now that's possibly a bit of an exaggeration
I had a feeling before watching this that whomever the people were not liking the Beatles were probably no one worth their comments anyways....... "I was right"
Your comment made me smile and laugh a little bit. I have some respect for Lou Reed, Michael Stipe and Quincy Jones. And, I like a few of their songs. The others, I’ve never cared for their music. But, on the other hand, The Beatles are my favorite band and have made tons of music that I like. I consider Paul McCartney my favorite musician of all time. I don’t pretend to like all of his music, either. We all have our own opinions.
None of these "artists" could ever measure up to the talent, influence on other artists, and accomplishments of the Beatles. 50 more years from now, people will still know of the Fab Four, but these others will be merely be footnotes in music history.
Velvet underground will only grow in status.
Nine inch nails will be forgotten by all but music historians
The Strokes are be forgotten but will have a couple of songs playing on classic rock stations in the future
More than 50 years after they split and we are still talking about The Beatles and listening to their music.and they are still attracting new fans..... Enough said
All five of these artists i wouldnt cross the street to listen to....
If they played in my back yard, I'd close the curtains.
I think Quincy Jones might have had every right to say what he did about the Beatles when he said it. He was coming from the standpoint of having been a jazz musician. When you're listening to one style of music most of the time and hearing a minimum level of proficiency, people like John, Paul, George and Ringo who were not formally trained or educated, it kind of stands to reason that somebody like Quincy Jones wouldn't have the kindest words to say about their proficiency. What I would like to know is if Quincy had changed his mind about them by 1982 when Michael Jackson was recording the music from *Thriller* and they recruited Macca to duet with Michael on "The Girl is Mine".
good grief a reasoned response, take a bow.
The Beatles were not formally trained or educated! Thank god for that.
it's no excuse. whenever Quincy said it it was already an idiotic an arrogant comment. see my comment above.
"The Girl Is Mine" is a stupid song. QJ is a great studio cat, but he can't write great songs like the Beatles did. They have different approaches to making music, and both are legit. The best thing to do is just to shut the F up and make music.
Real suave, @@gregshirley-jeffersonboule6258.
I can understand if people wouldn't consider the Beatles as a great band if they had stopped making music in 1965. Although all their songs were very nice up to that point, and you just feel joy and nostalgia listening to them, I agree that they weren't something really groundbreaking.
But after that, everything changed. If people, and especially musicians, listen to songs like "Eleanor Rigby", "Tomorrow Never Knows", "Within You, Without You", "Strawberry Fields Forever", "I Am The Walrus", to name just a handful of their masterpieces, and almost everything out of the "White Album", and say that they are overrated or nothing special, their out of their minds. Ok, yes, music has progressed miles since then, and more innovative and progressive stuff may have come out, like Pink Floyd, of course, but if they don't keep in mind in what era the Beatles created, and they don't acknowledge how within 3 years went from "Help" to "Helter Skelter", they're idiots.
I love Lou Reed, the Velvet Underground is also one of the greatest and most influential bands ever (although short lived), but if he really meant what he said and he wasn't trolling, then there was something wrong with him.
If someone can't enjoy listening to the Beatles and prefers more experimental stuff like, I don't know, Amon Duul II or Popol Vuh or whatever, fine, but saying that the Beatles were garbage or whatever, makes you an ignorant idiot. They sure were not the ONLY great band of the '60s, or the only innovative, but they sure made the biggest impact. No other band in the history of music made the transformation that they did from how they started to how they finished, all within about only 7 years. It's not an opinion, it's a fact, so stop making a fool of yourself.
It's ok to not like the Beatles, but some of these people sound maybe afraid or intimidated by the Beatles and their way of dealing with it is to write the Beatles off as just rubbish.
Not one of these people were involved in a musical relationship with another person where the art they created was greater than the sum of its parts. Let alone 3 other people! These people are egotists and feel inadequate by the high level the Beatles operated on compared to what they were capable of, given their own talent combined with the musical relationships they had with other people.
A bunch of rich junkies that barely knew how to play their instruments were better than the Beatles. Sure Lou Reed, keep telling yourself that.
I have yet to hear one Lou Reed song where he sings in tune. Dude was tone deaf but I guess that makes it artistic.
Lou Reed was a very unhappy person throughout his life. He came across as the prototype New York malcontent. Quincy? Just jealous and threatened. These other clowns should realized if it wasn't for the Beatles they wouldn't have had careers in music.
LMFAO
He's dead.
@@celosemnexo: Best thing he ever did
1. Lou Reed
2. Trent Reznor
3. Some guy from a band called "The Strokes"
4. Michael Stipe
5. Quincy Jones
Who the hell are the first 2 nobodies? Lou Reed is grossly over-estimating his own qualities, Jones would be hard pushed to write a song like Penny Lane
Man i love Reed, REM,Strokes,etc, but nothing of them made of the Four guys did, they were from another GALAXY❤😂
Lou Reed is the biggest foooool of them all. Yes, Lou has two good song but it makes him think he was way better than he really was. The Beatles could not have had so many songs on so many albums for for many years that millions of people of all generations know word-for-word if they were not something special. "Silly Love Songs" by Paul has a great bass line so he has no clue what a bad bass player is. Lou Reed interviews are always more interesting than his songs and that really is the truth if you watch them you'll agree. If Lou didn't get the legendary bass player Herbie Flowers to play bass on "Walk On the Wildside" Lou would have half the fame he has. Herbie is the one that came up with the idea to use an electric bass and a double bass to double track on that song for the unique sound not Lou yet Herbie gets almost no credit. Lou didn't like any British groups but Herbie was from Sussex England was the player he used on his most famous song. Lou is a fake. If any bass players are reading this far look up "Serge Gainsbourg - Melody (Histoire de Melody Nelson 1/7)" on youtube and you'll love it. That is Herbie playing. It is one of the best bass song ever.
Walk on the wild side was good. That’s it for me though
Translation: I'm not really that good but saying this will get me attention. I'm so cool and edgy. Look at me. Look at me.
Lou Reed saying British people shouldn't play rock'n'roll is like saying Americans shouldn't read Shakespeare. Or speak English..Seriously, the guy wrote 2 good songs at best. The Beatles wrote hundreds.
Having grown up in the sixty’s seventies and eighties.The Beatles were one of the greatest song writing teams on the planet. I have to say what exactly did Lou Reed Offer up. Just saying.
Never been able to stand Reed.
Tonnes of great music. But that's the whole beauty about bias: it creates dialogue and debate
@@tedwilliams8879
thanks for your opinion
@@tedwilliams8879 he's a horses ass junkie
Heard he was good as a head coach
I have to believe that many of these opinions are an attempt to get attention!
I have no REM ..LOU REED..QUINCY JONES...NINE INCH NAILS and I have no idea who the 5th guy was....but I own 0 of the fives albums.. how's your math??????
Julian Casablancas, from The Strokes.
It's just jealousy. How many #1 singles between them? Maybe 2 or 3? I don't consider Quincy Jones a musician, so fuck him. Lou Reed? His ego was oblivious. Michael Stipe? Shiny Happy People. That's all I have to say about him. Reznor? LOL. What a joke. The Strokes? Their name is what I consider their music.
My math is just fine. And all of these musicians are as good as The Beatles to their respective fans
@@tedwilliams8879 If you think Trent Reznor's comment (and pretty much all of the other comments) has anything to do with jealousy then you're as clueless as you're salty someone else isn't a fan of your favorite band. ^^
@@celosemnexo stroke this bro
If they genuinely don't like them then fair enough but sounds like their frustration is with media coverage which wasn't something that the Beatles had any control over so that sounds more like jealousy because they can't articulate what was supposedly bad about the Beatles as creative musicians
What's the big deal, why can't someone dislike the Beatles.
Because Beatles' fans are a bit precious.
It's just pathetic click bait.
It's the REASON they dislike the Beatles, not the fact that they do.
@@radiojet1429 Petty was a bigger George Harrison fan than the group. Same with Dylan .. they all liked George (my favorite Beatle.) The fact that you needed to defend them and respond to my stupid comment is a bit precious, though.
@@ocan1033 George was my favorite, too. A bit precious? I think my defense and comment were outrageously, deliciously precious. Like when one of the Royals wave.
REM had one good song. Reznor will be forever known as the guy who wrote Johnny Cash's last hit and Quincy Jones is a Jazz snob. Lou Reed? I barely even know who he is.
Lou was a junkie that got into rock & roll (haha)
I wish I didn't know who he is
Trent Reznor is also known as the guy who Courtney LOve said should have called his band Three Inch Nail
Stipe didn’t even criticize The Beatles. Not sure why he was included in this.
@@rrj8q Agreed. Stipe just basically stated that The Beatles weren't 'his cup of tea' so to speak, but he wasn't insulting or disrespectful. And even tho' he's a rather strange dude, I've always respected him and have quite enjoyed much of REM's music ... these other rapscallions, not so much.
mind you, if I did not like he Beatles I wouldn't be shy in telling everyone, but it just so happens that I have always liked them.
It all comes over as a little churlish. None of those artists are fit to tie the Beatles' shoelaces. Whatever someone's musical preferences it is ridiculous to doubt the revolution in popular music the Beatles created. As for Lou Reed's comments about British bands I doubt most people would name a single non British band in their top ten of all time. What a dick.
Lou Reed was utter shit not even in the same league.
It’s a hipster image thing. Too cool for school.
The truth is most of those guys wouldn’t have been in bands if it wasn’t for the Beatles.
People today think Nine Inch Nails is something you find at Home Depot
And he absolutely ripped off gary numan.
Human envy is such a sad and ugly emotion.
Lou Reed said a lot of shit to provoke people, not because he necessarily believed hid own words. At one point or another, he pretty much ended up hating everything.
Music.is not nem.it is songs.it is love.
It's true that they weren't the greatest technical musicians, e.g. their timing wasn't tight or groovy. But they were the greatest artists, innovators, and songwriters.
I was born during the white album sessions. Their best music came after Rubber Soul. They overplayed the dumped boyfriend trope in their "silly love songs."
It is possible to appreciate what a band did for music, but not actually like their music. I think that's what several of these musicians are saying.
Lou Reed was a genius, The Strokes, REM, NIN are great bands with brilliant music, Quincy is a top-notch producer, I like them all and their records, and their opinions are totally valid. But I love The Beatles, they're the best.
Yea and people commenting here are probably unaware that Lou Reed later declared being a fan of both solo Lennon and McCartney work. He also obviously dug Bowie’s work… Q indicated that he later learned to love what the Beatles were doing and was reacting initially from the jazz perspective … it is also no surprise someone like Julian or Stipe who came of age in later generations and play alternative music would have connected more with Waiting for The Man and Heroin than they would Sgt Pepper or Hey Jude
The common thread seems to be that they are Americans. The Beatles repackaged American music and sold it back to the USA. That will probably have been annoying or confusing to some Americans. There's quite a culture gap between the two countries despite the assumption that a common language helps us understand each other. Lou Reed's career was resuscitated by Bowie incidentally so his statement that Brits shouldn't play anything was particularly daft. He can go and boil his head frankly.
Naw .. I never liked the Beatles but am a huge Stones fan.
"They just make the songs up, bing, bing bing. They just have to be the most incredible songwriters ever - just amazingly talented. I don’t think people realise how sad it is that The Beatles broke up"
Lou Reed
Lou has actually said that he thinks they are some of the greatest songwriters ever. But he flip flops often.
Other musicians who "hate" the Beatles, the term jealousy seems to be in order. The Beatles are the greatest ever, and in a class by themselves.
It's odd because it was in fact the Stones that shat on them from a great height.
Musically the Velvet Underground were pseudo classical/ avant garde rubbish. Most of there audience were niche and bohemian types who disliked mainstream rock music.
I love the beatles and like stuff by all these other artists. How lucky I am for being so eclectic.
Quincy Jones was used to studio musicians ( hired guns) who were just doing a job. It’s not fair to compare hired guns to people creating their own music.
good point. studio musicians, by definition, work as "studio musicians" because they're limited, incapable of writing their own music and they're incapable of singing their own music and they're incapable of arranging their own music. Otherwise they'd be performers. So to compare the pure musicianship of The Beatles to that of a studio musician is a ridiculous comparison because The Beatles will always come out on top even if a studio musician might theoretically play a particular instrument better than them. And anyway, how many studio musicians can play rhythm guitar, lead guitar, bass, drums and piano like Paul McCartney? And compose like him? And sing like him? You'd need to hire 10 different people to do what he does on his own.
Quincy Jones also had a stable of ghost-composers around L.A. composing "his" music for him. I knew a couple of them and heard them talk about it.
In order to create your own music, you need to be able to read and write music. Quincey could do this. The Beatles at best could only wrote love songs. Most of their music was composed by George Martin.
@@bwana-ma-coo-bah425 what about their solo work? John Lennon would disagree with what you say about George Martin.
As far as not being able to create music without knowing how to read it; what about Jimmy Page, Eric Clapton, Jimi Hendrix, Lionel Richie, Alex Lifeson, Eddie Van Halen, Prince, Steve Howe and the list goes on not to mention all of the blues artists who created music that’s still played today ,and don’t forget Errol Garner who “ wrote” the music for Misty even though he couldn’t read music.
@@bwana-ma-coo-bah425 in three lines, you managed to write something historically inaccurate, musically inaccurate, silly and ridiculous. quite an accomplishment. Lucy, the Walrus, Tomorrow, Taxman, birthday Blackbird, Gently Weeps, etc are . . . . . love songs? you obviously don't even know the Beatles catalogue. and as someone else has already commented, there are countless other accomplished musicians who can't read or write music.
The Beatles gave licence for British and believe it or not American bands to experiment and many copied some of there ideas.thats how important they were.
Lou loved to bait journalists. You can probably find him criticizing whatever sacred cow or flavor of the day that will cause the most discomfort in the interviewer for sport. While he may have actually hated the Beatles, it will not affect my love of the band or my love for Lou or the Velvet Underground.
One of the only objective and informed comments in a sea of uninformed Beatles simps. They think Lou Reed is a nobody and have no clue that he is one of the few that are as influential as the Beatles
LOL and the only reasons Lou Reed gets mentioned anymore is when discussing who hates the Beatles
Well there are people that hate dogs too, but like they say, never trust someone who hates dogs or the Beatles
Michael Stipe was being honest, Quincy Jones was jealous, and the rest were trying to seem edgy and unique for disliking The Beatles.
Lou Reed has covered John Lennon songs Jealous Guy and Mother. Quincy Jones had Paul McCartney on the Thriller album. Trent Reznor was definitely influenced by The Beatles white album and that Charles Manson era.
I suppose compared to a jazz or classical bassist McCartney would not really be as proficient, but what an incredible song writer, and for me anyway, his bass lines were very appealing, especially on the white album.
95% of these Beatles Stans have no idea who Lou Reed is and if they do have no clue on his massive influence. SHOCKING😂
John Lennon wrote a song about Lou Rude "Jealous Guy".
I'm the same way about hearing about how great The Beatles were. Zepp and other bands like The Who surpassed The Beatles by far in a lot of ways but often get lukewarm praise from mainstream commercial media.
Bunch of has beens that nobody will remember in 20 years
If not already forgotten ( Lou )
Beatles are forever
LOL Lou Reed always was so full of himself that he results amusing 😹
Lou Reed sucks, always did
Loud and long!
He was just being intentionally provocative and contrarian to get a reaction from journalists, as he often did. You're doing the same thing right now by dismissing his work, which is also very influential. He's also said many times that he loved the Beatles' songwriting.
hey lou let me piss on you junkie
If ya grin you in
'Who Loves the Sun' is very Beatley, harmonies, lyrical imagery and his chord patterns seem straight out the same well. If not from The Fabs, then from the Stones, indirectly. Detuning the guitar to drop D -as in Venus in Furs-also a British folk innovation most famously done by Beatles via Donovan.
The only one in this clip that had an iota of talent was probably Quincy Jones, and I even have my doubts how much of the material he's credited for was actually his.
I was born in the early '60s and, even to this day, I cringe any time I hear a beatles tune.
Simply not my cup of tea as my UK friends would say...
Lou Reed... during his SIgourney Weaver phase.
Nothing wrong with disliking the Beatles. "Dear Prudence," "I Am The Walrus" .. not everybody's cup of tea. I agree with Stipe. Saying that you're not drawn to the Beatles isn't denying their significance. Beatles' fans, as a whole, are a bit too precious.
Many of those names probably didn't like the Beatles because of Jealousy.
Lou Reed relied on David Bowie for his Transformer album so he's talking out of his dearly departed butt.
ahhh maybe poor Rezner realizes he will never even come close to be liked the way the Beatles were, awww poor thing: The Beatles , like the Stones put out music that will live forever
the idea behind this topic seems to be " let's you and him fight" I'm just passing through btw.. quickly
Fortunately, not everyone likes the same things and not everyone makes the same kind of music. How boring it would be. What the Beatles achieved is simply not for everyone, and it doesn't have to be. Envy is therefore not necessary and there is no arguing about taste. Just listen to something you like.
I totally get those who don't have any great enthusiasm for their work being irritated by the Fabs' "sacred cow" status. People should be left alone to be underwhelmed or even repelled by Beatle music. However, the Velvets have acquired a very similar position in the "sacred cow" stakes and in a way it's worse because their acolytes still hold onto the idea that being a VU devotee is somehow a really obscure and left-field stance; those days are long-gone.
Very true. The VU ironically became just not if not more lionized and it obscures the actual quality of the work
The one thing I like about the Beatles is that they did their own thing----nothing wrong with that.
The Beatles were the first completely manufactured band. Most of their songs were written for them, not by them, and studio musicians played on the majority of recordings and the lads just recorded the vocals. Mediocre musicians with a stellar PR team.
Who Lou Reed did for the music ? I dont know him, neither every other or their art who was interviewed on this video.
I think we must not confuse "don't like" something with saying something is rubbish, shit or of bad quality there're very different things nobody is forced to like a particular artist musician, singer or writer but we can recognise the quality of a good production .
Good comment. It's perfectly legitimate not to like the Beatles, and anyone identifying this as "wrong" is a bit pretentious. It's OK not to like the Beatles. They were a bit saccharine, Lennon was too cool for school, and they never had the Stones' endurance.
Who or what were Velvet Underground, Nine Inch Nails, and all that? If they ever were anything they have long faded into oblivian.
Lou Reed il racontait ou chantait ? mais il était nul
I’m not a big Beatles fan but these guys other than Jones and Reed are jokes and most people have never even heard of them
Why should they worry about the Beatles instead of concentrating on their progress? I've learned a lot from Beatles
Saying you hate the Beatles is like saying you think Shaq is the greatest basketball player ever. Okay.
Lou Reed was a 20th Century White man living in the Western World with long hair.
The Beatles are reason why long hair became fashionable among 20th Century White men(and effectively everyone else).
I think Paul McCartney singing "Let it Be" pretty much shuts down their criticism. All of them together couldn't write a song half as good as "Let it Be." Also, as much as I respect Quincy Jones, Paul McCartney was a musical genius.
Yeah, the Beatles never did for me either. If they come on a playlist, I'll go to next band
It’s ok to dislike the Beatles. All the insecure and insulted Beatles “fans” and other assorted main streamers here just can’t think outside the box and presume popularity and record sales defines talent.
correct.
Wow, if these guys hate the Beatles, then id love to know what they think of ... literally .. ANY of the musicians/bands today. But in this bizarro world, I can only imagine they'll probably have flattering things to say.
though I love the Beatles I totally understand some people not enjoying their music because much of their music ("She loves you yeah yeah yeah") was very light weight.
So was Something.
Oddly, I liked the "light weight" stuff better. Songs like "Paperback Writer" were great .. great hook, great riff. It was the pretentious stuff .. the "genius" stuff .. that doesn't register for me.
@@ocan1033 You're not alone there.
I never knew Lou Reed was that stupid, but hey, now I do! And I love the Velvets and his solo work.
5 twits, jealousy won't lead you nowhere.
I'm not a Beatles fan, I don't find their music entertaining to me, but I have to admit that they were the most influential rock band of all times. Every band wanted to be popular as them.
I love this comment. A sane voice on the internet just saying exactly and concisely how they feel. I love it.
It was very trendy to be anti-Beatles in late 60s. All the anti-Beatles musicians bought all the Beatles albums same time and were very happy when they were called to meet some Beatle. No one declined.