No, in terms of being noticed, and garnering mass appeal, the Beatles had it much easier. The tech revolution that led to social media, has also made it very easy to make and upload tunes. It's enabled fans to split into millions of discrete echo chambers corresponding to numerous subgenres that didn't exist in the Beatles day. Because there is practically no barrier to entry, there are exponentially more people vying for attention and fans,. There is nothing like the common culture and mass audience that finite tv channels and radio stations fostered. When the Beatles famously appeared on Ed Sullivan, almost the entire US was watching because there were only two other choices in that time slot, and you wouldn't get another chance to see it if you didn't watch it when it was broadcast. There was a time when I could have named almost every show on television, and every big music act people were listening to or going to see. Those days are way over. It's remarkable when anyone becomes an enduring icon with mass appeal in all this noise, whether you like them or not.
@@MikeM-uy6qpthing is: internet is biased, and only a few artists are boosted nowadays. You have to be rich by default to get popular today. Back then, you survived through bought records.
@@CasinoConsti That's a good point, which helps me make mine. Because of. the content-saturated and culturally splintered environment, it's almost impossible to find a mass audience at all without hit-making songwriters, a superstar producer and an expensive, well-connected PR machine.
When was the last time you heard an artist having billion $ selling tour? Never! Taylor tour just grossed 2 billion in 150 shows , 1 billion alone in US. Biggest artist in history with 300 shows+ couldn't do it. To all the people yapping, the tour income is always adjusted to inflation and after drawing comparision to demand vs no of shows , Taylor Swift still win against beatles and Michael Jackson. Taylor did 50 shows in usa on eras tour, her demand was 900 shows, as cited by live nation music experts she is on par with beatlemania. Now don't use ur tiny brains too hard.
@@Flixtex The money that exists currently in the industry is incomparable to the money that used to exist in the industry. You wouldn't say the original MLB players were bad because they used wooden bats and therefore couldn't hit as far. Give the Beatles a metal bat and see how much they gross lol
@@Jordan-Ramses Your missing the point all these other people wouldn't of existed if The Beatles hadn't of happened. In the words of the great Keith Moon ' without the Beatles we would still be listening to Bobby Vee singing Rubber Ball ! '
@@Jordan-Ramses Most if not all the music today... would not exist today had it not been for the pioneers of each respective genre, and if I'm not wrong a lot of our music is derived in some capacity from rock music.
@@Jordan-Ramses I never said the Beatles invented music nor a genre of music. I said that without the pioneers of yesterday we wouldn't have the artists we have today. I'm just summing it up...
As somebody who grew up in the UK with the Beatles music, yes I am that old, they were more than just their songs. They were at the forefront of a generational change, both musically and culturally. Their legacy goes far beyond than just their music.
And the upper beatle (Macca) cited Hit Me Baby One more time, as one of the best pop songs in decades. I guess Britney was happy that day. What does that tell us?
of course, but that does not matter actually. I would bet a lot that if he would never have said that, most ranters here would call that song rubbish. I hope you understand what i'm saying.@@cianog
"As somebody who grew up in the UK with the Beatles music, yes I am that old, they were more than just their songs. " And there are the same equivalent youngsters today thinking exactly the same about Taylor Swift.
60 years later, young Russian kids know Beatles and can sing them in English, Japanese symphonies are still playing their melodies, Brazilian string quartets are playing their music. They wrote in the genres of Pop, Baroque, rock and roll, Rock-a-billy, Folk, Country & Western, Heavy metal, Chamber music, Ragtime, Vaudeville, Music hall, Tin Pan Slley, Twelve bar blues, Ballad, Piano roll, Showtunes, Eastern Indian, Psychedelic, Circus music & Children’s music... Wrote in dance styles - waltz, cha-cha, polka, jitterbug, two step The group is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Each member is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame individually Three members are in the Songwriters Hall of Fame They were such prolific song writers that they wrote 26 songs for other groups, Including the Rolling Stones’ first hit and 4 # 1 songs for those groups. Their song ,“Yesterday”, has been covered by more artists (an estimated 2500) than any song in history. AND WE'RE HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS????!!!!
Dont call yesterday THEIR song. Its HIS song, only. Beatles gave him flowers the first time he sang the song in a concert, and left the stage leaving him alone. Paul McCartney. The best british composer after Henry Purcell.
OH YEAH?! Well.... Taylor Swift revolutionized the genre of break up music!!! She's written literally 50 songs about how much better off she is now that every one of her boyfriends have left her!!! Did The Beatles ever do that?! Noooooo. 😂😂😂
The thing is... Even McCartney doesn't give a sh!t. He knows this is all just some marketing persons opinion. They will literally go into a town, and survey 100 people. 90% of those people will be Taylor Swift fans, so OF COURSE "they" are going to report that "90% of people think that Taylor Swift Is bigger than The Beatles."
+, some "music journalists" just never understood the difference between "Good" and "Genius". The distance from Good to Genius is 10x bigger then from Bad to Good.
So in the 80s I saw Paul McCartney in Tampa stadium. 60,000 people were mesmerized by a small band with no smoke/fireworks, backup dancers, and flashy costumes. You haven’t lived until you sing Hey Jude with McCartney and 60,000 people on a warm summer evening. Taylor Swift is a smart woman who has captured her audience. I admire her showmanship skills, her relationship with her fans and her style. I just watched her Eras tour video. I see why she is so popular. She’s a personal event storyteller. But she’s not the Beatles no matter how many records she sells. I don’t even think she wants to be anybody but Taylor. Good for her. Different times produce different artists. Opinion writers seem to feel the need for comparisons that are pointless. Like comparing Van Gogh and Jackson Pollock. I feel the Beatles legacy is safe.
Thank you for actually giving her the chance. As to the no backup dancers or flashy costumes, I don't think women popstars are so often given the luxury of doing low-key shows. They have to do the whole shabang. Taylor has done shows of this style before, but given the scale (and the hardship ppl went through to get these tickets) she wants to make sure people are seeing a full production show worthy of their money (not that low key shows aren't, but if you are Paul McCartney you can do that and people won't complain).
@@JuliaHilzI admire her tremendously. She’s an intelligent, talented performer. I’m thrilled she’s found success in an incredibly tough business. I see most music performers have the flashier shows. Gaga, Elton John etc. That’s what is expected. I’m almost 70 so my preference for less is more is partly my age. I have younger friends who just have the best time at today’s music shows. I think it’s great. We all set our expectations and feel the experience of music in a different way. Music is such a personal choice. What impacts one person deeply will bore another to tears. I’m glad there is something for everyone.
THISSS AHHHH. times are different. music is going to change with the times. taylor happens to be one of the best of our time. however, the beatles are what you would consider the best of **all time**
I’m from the Netherlands, The Beatles are inside our high school history curriculum. They are a mandatory thing we need to know about for our history exams, that is the extent of the cultural impact they’ve had. Who cares if Taylor Swift has more streams, her name will turn to dust in 100 years or so. The Beatles, like many of composers of old, such as Beethoven or Mahler, are here to stay. Immortalized in the history books.
@@MrEliwankenobi 100 years or so? You're being generous, I think. I hear David Cassidy was huge in the early 70's. But if humans are still spinning around with this planet in 500 years, the Beatles may be even bigger than they are now. Van Gogh's been gone for nearly 150 years, and he failed to sell even one painting while alive.
I agree. I think both The Beatles and also Led Zeppelin will still be regularly listened to in 100 years. I'm not sure if much else will be, although I think it's possible that almost everything from the Big Band/Sinatra days, up until the early 90s or so, will live on in some fashion for a long, long time.
Being an Australian from that time I have to say that I preferred and still do prefer Radar Love by Golden Earing to the Beatles. In fact, I think I'll listen to it now!
I read the NYT article and their number-crunching nonsense. They should have dialed up Rick and asked for a comment. This video is the best response to it I've seen.
First of all NYT readers are not going to deep dive into music knowledge and try and differentiate the two. They will just read the superficial stats the NYT prints out and run with it. To know surprise most newspaper readers are seniors, but having this article online would generate more eyes from Taylor Swift fans reading it, not a bad scheme.
Agree, like their lying polling numbers, they are fudging the numbers and cooking the books. Kissing ass/catering is what's happening here. I don't believe a word that say. Irrelevant publication.
You nailed it Rick. Most of today's pop music is boring, repetitive, and simplistic. Most of it repeats a simple three or four note melody ad infinitum and then throw in a hook after maybe 45 seconds or so. I agree the Beatles music had an amazing variety of complex sounds and melodies. Even the best of today's pop artists sound repetitive by comparison. The fact that the Beatles did it all in six or seven years is mind boggling. Their music is still the gold standard today. Unbelievably talented!!
In my opinion the Beatles were a hell of a lot more talented than Taylor Swift. Swift might be a talented songwriter and singer, but is she really that good? Or are there a lot of songwriters out there who probably have better voices and songs than she does. She's just lucky and got good promotion on all those magazine covers. Hype, hype hype. Swift also has a lot songwriters and doesn't even need to be writing a lot of the songs she sings.
And remember, Rick, the Beatles would have had MORE number 1 songs in '64, but songs like Please, Please Me and Twist and Shout were blocked from hitting number 1 by...other Beatles songs!
What happened to the Beatles in the US charts in 1964 was like a dam breaking. Much of what they had already done in England the year before came pouring out suddenly in a single stream, along with what they were adding that year. It was something never seen before in music history and has never been repeated again.
I understand what you're saying, but if we're going down that route, Taylor has occupied the whole billboard hot 100 top 10, twice. So she could've had 18 more number 1s
@@manuelcunharocha8889 you're comparing apples and oranges. The Beatles had to get people to go out and buy singles. The Billboard chart these days is a broken mess where an album release by a popular artist will cause every single song on the album to chart, because it's based on people listening to the tracks. It's a song chart, not a singles chart now. If the chart had worked like this when Sgt Pepper was released, no doubt the entire top 10 would be full of tracks from that. But, as it was, no songs from that album were released as singles. Many famous Beatles songs would never have charted on the Hot 100 to start with.
Another important factor to take into account is that the world's population has more than doubled since the 60-70s and when you couple that with the changes in how people listen to music and how accessible it is nowadays, you start to realize that it's impossible to make a proper comparison
Music has also become more accessible. I somehow doubt that people in some remote village in China (or other countries) in the 60s would've bought Beatles LPs but they probably have Spotify now. And TikTok. Listening to music back then also had a social aspect, you met with friends who owned the latest LP and listened together. The calculations for Charts are completely different nowadays when every stream counts.
For what it’s worth I was 10 years old in 1963 and I can tell you without question that the Beatles were massively more powerful in terms of the attention and influence of the moment. And of course then there’s the influence on music itself over the rest of the decade and thereafter which was again a quantum leap and pervasive. Taylor Swift seems to have a huge following and is very influential (I can’t say her music speaks to me but that doesn’t matter), but wow...not the Beatles, not even close. That was sociological phenomenon of epic proportions.
Not only has the population doubled, the music is now accessible in markets it wasn't in the 60s. The Beatles may have been the biggest band in the world, but the "world" at the time amounted to North and South America, Europe, Japan and Australia. But no Russia, China, India, Africa, Eastern Europe or any of Asia but Japan, which meant the Beatles were never actually heard by most people living during their heyday. Strange, but true.
Rick, I'm 60 yoa and music has always been at the top of my interests. I play guitar and try to sing. I love many genres of music. Ever since I was a kid, I promised myself that I would never be close minded to new music. But back in 1982, I never could imagine auto tune, looping, sampling and rapping. I'm right where I didn't want to be at 60. I despise today's hip-hop, pop and country genres. It's repetitious and flat to my ear. There are no musicians, no creativity anymore in popular music. It's very sad.
You are not an idiot. I remember the Beatles back then. The hype. How they changed the music and culture of a generation. I remember what music was like before them. You are spot on.
I remember a video from Ozzy stating that: "Everything used to be black and white, with shades of grey, they brought color to the world" or something like that. You just can't compare.
great quote from ozzy. also, the touring schedule the beatles maintained from 63 thru 66, an album a year, a couple of singles, a couple of movies, tv appearances. the beatles didnt put out sgt pepper and wait for another two or three years later to put out another album. they were consistent, and continued to improve.
This is like: Fast food vs. Quality Food cooked by a chef. Obviously convenience always wins. Consumers still have the power to decide what they buy --- but unfortunately....... That said, I'm still amazed that Ricks channel is as popular as it is with in depth and quality. I love this channel and don't care about mass production; keep on rockin' 😉
By which argument, The Beatles, could be some ugly colors, compared to Symphony/Jazz/Metal/Opera/Musicals. I don't like Taylor Swift's music, or The Beatles music, nor do I think The Beatles really innovated, unless you throw in the caveat, innovated in the pop music sphere. All the elitist arguments, used to prop up The Beatles, can be used against the Beatles, by fans of other genre's of music, which is a wonderful irony to me. But I am not a commie, so I do think things from the past can be good, I don't need a "ruthless criticism of all that exists" like Marx, or to call old culture, and old idea's "death loving" like Paulo Freire. But The Beatles were commies, so when I see people typing "ok boomer" when The Beatles are defended, that's hilarious.
Bang on video Rick. I watched your live stream on the Carpenters. TS would never be able to do what these very talented artists have done. Call them out!
When I think of the variety of melodies from the Beatles, I'm just blown away, 60 years after I first sat up, listening to the radio and saying to my 12 year old self, "What the hell was THAT? - "I wanna hold your hand" There was NOTHING like it. Meet the Beatles was the first LP I ever owned - an Easter present from my parents. And then it didn't stop for years, all through highschool. The world changed, and they changed with it, along with me. I'm eternally greatful to the universe that i have been in it at the same time as the Beatles.
@redheadguy - Well said! The Beatles have accompanied me through all the various seasons of my life. There will never be anyone that can compare to them.
By my calculation, you're 72. I'm 56. I like The Beatles a lot, and totally respect their place in music history, but for me age 12 was the discovery of Led Zeppelin, and I continue to believe that they belong right up there with The Beatles in terms of influence and quality of output. And no, I don't want to get into the plagiarism thing, for two reasons. First, their versions were orders of magnitude better, and second, back in their day, everybody sort of borrowed from everybody else. I had a classical music teacher tell me that a huge number of ELP tunes were based on obscure classical music, as in note for note motifs and small passages, stuff nobody but a Keith Emerson type would ever have heard before. (He also said YES did *not* do that; Rick Wakeman, Steve Howe and Chris Squire really were that good.)
My unusual experience was very similar. My mother who was pretty religiously oriented, played a great deal of classical music for her children when we were growing up. Then, on Valentine's Day (February 14th) 1964, she gave me (age 15) and my sister (age 12) a copy of Meet the Beatles. I had not seen their performance on Ed Sullivan 5 days earlier, and never even heard of the Beatles before. We thanked my Mother for the strange gift of the album, although my silent thought at the time was 'What in the hell is this?' It just all seemed so odd at the time, as she'd never bought any music for us before. Looking back later, it blows my mind. What did she know, that we had no clue about at the time? P.S. I could not agree more with Rick Beato's assessment. The Beatles turned out to be stunningly talented!
Once I went to a band's concert, They had made video that went viral getting 3M views but the venue was empty. That's when I realized you tube numbers could give a fake perception of what success really means.
Exactly, I sing in a video that went viral years ago and gained its 1.2M views with the original uploader (it's in Russian and mostly was popular for obscene lyrics sung in a semi-operatic voice). My cultural influence amounts to about zero, no matter what the numbers say ) And yes, we all bow down to Beatles despite the views on TH-cam.
What you're saying is true... But not for Taylor Swift at all. She is on a billion dollar grossing most successful tour of all time. The demand for her tickets is insane. People are ready to buy her ticket for even 20,000 USD on resale.
@@EF-fc4du Isn't that because you can just listen to the original now that everything is digital? Back in the 60's singles were not in print anymore a year after their initial release.
I remember back in 67 listening to the car radio (AM) and the disc jockey said "And here is the group that is going to replace The Beatles - THE MONKEES". Then The White album gets released and that put an end to all that nonsense.
Your explanation of "I Am The Walrus" gave me goose bumps. I never realized that opening chord was B. What a strange progression, no wonder it blew me away when I was a kid in 1967.
The better question is who will be continued to be listened to and covered by all genres of music in 50 years? Pop music "beds" reminds me of the music I search for on music libraries for TV shows.
One has to realize that classic stations often don't play the real Billboard hits, but the cream of the time period. I suspect that people will still be covering acts such as Beth Hart, Adele, Eminem, and Tool on the international level. Beth Hart already has a couple of cover bands and has had at least one song translated into another language (Vietnamese) so it could be sung by contestants on a TV singing program. When she was a contestant on Star Search in 1993, Beth Hart sang an original song called Am I The One which is still being sung by TV singing contestants. Beth hart has also written songs in several genres.
I have teenage kids and am blown away by how much "classic rock" and 60s-80s pop they listen to. That stuff does not seem like it's going away. Hell I am 51 and I listened to 60s and 70s stuff and it was before my time and thought I was listening to "old stuff" when I was younger.
@@Mindphaser1 where did you get the impression that I didn't listen to music past the 80s? In fact music prior to 1990 is probably my least listened to time period. Maybe you read a different comment?
@@PeteQuad i'm in my late 20s and listen predominately to music from the 70s/80s, it feels like such a breath of fresh air in comparison to what's in the pop culture zeitgeist right now. its' like the difference between wholefoods and fodder. but if all you've ever had is fodder you'll have no idea what you're really missing, which is why i'm hugely grateful my dad gave me a great musical education, sounds like you've afforded your kids the same privilege.
When the Beatles came back to Liverpool for a premier for the movie 'Help' i was one of 100,000 people in the city to see them pass in the limo and go into the Odeon cinema!
Modern artists can not comprehend the way artists of yesterday swept the world. There will never be a comparison. The Beatles, Elvis, Frank Sinatra, Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd. There is something about them that lives on today, as if they never left. Something ethereal. Taylor Swift will fade away... yes she's talented and impactful, but I will happily place her in the shadow of these artists. She's a trend, not a world altering phenomenon. The echo of her music will not ring so powerful as The Beatles when 60 years has come and gone.
She definitely is a phenomenon, one that could be considered world altering. It’s just not in the ways that the Beatles were a phenomenon and world altering. She’s a different kind of success, but like Rick said, she could more closely be related to a content creator like Mr. Beast.
The Beatles is still being discovered. I read a book about the Beatles in 4th grade (2020) for school work and was amazed by how popular they are. So I told my Alexa and said to play their most popular songs and I started listening to them daily on my Amazon Alexa while playing video games. Then when I got a phone a year later the first app I got was Spotify so I could listen to the Beatles. My friends thought I was weird for listening to the Beatles until one really liked the song Hey Bulldog. And he got into music and now loves The Beatles. And another one of my frineds isnt really a Beatles fan but started listening to rock and older music. The Beatles are still being discovered amd loved in new technologies and generations and it will probably stay like that. Also i listened to The Beatles for 32,000 minutes on spotify
"32,000 minutes" So you listened to Beatles songs like....10,000 times (if we consider that each song is like 3 minutes)?? According to my calculation, that means that you listened to EACH one of their songs, like 65 times (unless you listened to the same song...10,000 times :p). Dude, I've been listening to the Beatles for 34 years, and even I don't think that I've listened to their songs so many times! :p
@@Dreamcatcher9000 I’d like imagine that about 20% of that time is dedicated to listening to Hey Jude, It’s All Too Much, You Know My Name (Look Up the Number), Revolution #9 and I Want You (She’s So Heavy) at least once a day. 😇
The Beatles arrived in the middle of high school days and completely altered my appreciation of rock music. It was their memorable lyrics, melodies and complex chord progressions that caught my attention. People in my generation can still sing their songs even after 60 years which demonstrates their impact. When I listen to Swift, I am totally amazed and confused at her popularity. I’m so glad I was born when I was, and lived in the sixties and seventies during the greatest rock period ever.
Although I wasn't really into Beatles music until they're later Rubber Soul era, I can't deny their the GOAT. They rigorously created an unbelievable amount of quality music in a relatively short period of time. They are too pioneering & musically versatile to not be the greatest.
I wasn't even alive then, and I do not understand Swift's popularity. She is really a generic teeny-bopper "pop artist", and her lyrics strike me as a whinny spoiled narcissist with nothing to sing about besides all her failed relationships. A lot of her tracks sound downright depressing and I would hesitate to even call them "pop".
Today’s popular music is 99.9% garbage as are most things. I feel badly for my nephews who are surrounded by garbage games, tv and music. I’ll do my best to help them escape the bad stuff.
As a music teacher, I love everything you say in this video and your insight as far as the history of music and the production of music is spot on, but I worry that it doesn't matter to this generation that is so driven by Tik Tok and other social media. They don't seem to care about any of the history and seem to fail to recognize the limitations of past technology and how bands like the Beatles over came those things and still accomplished what they did. I have a real concern for the future of music because of a lack of understanding of how music has developed, to them "Streaming" has always been a thing, and they don't realize how epic a band like the Beatles was and they did it with out all that Tech. Keep up the good work, I love your content.
"They don't seem to care about any of the history and seem to fail to recognize the limitations of past technology and how bands like the Beatles over came those things and still accomplished what they did." I understand and agree with some of what you are saying, but is it possible they accomplished what they did because the limited technology didn't distract them from being together in the real world to create great music? Do you think Paul, John and George would have composed the songs they did if their faces were buried in their phones watching Tik Tok videos? Would George Martin have produced Sgt. Pepper's if he had Pro Tools and a limitless number of tracks, plug-ins, VST's, etc.? In the book, The Beatles Recording Sessions, I found it amusing to learn how many of the sounds were created. For example, in For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite: "After a great deal of unsuccessful experimentation, Martin instructed recording engineer Geoff Emerick to chop the tape into pieces with scissors, throw them up in the air, and re-assemble them at random."
this is not true, i recently took a history of jazz to rock class at my university and a vast array of kids who are tiktok influenced people engaged with the music so well along with the history of it all. it was really cool to see.
taking what you have said here to Ricks point, because of the Tick Tock, quick in out of all that, no one will care much for Taylor in 60 years but here we are 60 years on still in love with the Beatles.
If you are really a music teacher then i advice you to take a look at "Taylor Swift NOW Listening Session with Taylor Grammy Museum" here on YT. In it she shows how her songs changed from the initial voicemail idea and she describes the rest of the proces and then she performs them without all the production. It am sure it will be informative because you seem to have some pretty strong pre conceived notions about her.
@@mikedebruyn Just wondering, where did you get your degree in music? Since you seem to know a lot about music, and are advising a music teacher here, I could use some advice on which university to send my talented son to. Looking at Julliard, Manhattan School of Music etc.; perhaps you have insight into these or other college's 4-year bachelor of music programs? He will likely go on to a masters and doctorate after that, if you have insight into those advanced degree programs, but first things first!
Reminds me of 1989, when a guy named Robert Pilatus said in an interview that he had done more to music than Elvis, Bob Dylan and the Beatles … had to give his Grammy back after it was revealed that he and his „bandmate“ where just lip syncing 😂😂😂
@@franklinblack2716if you made an all-time talent list these „knuckleheads“ would be bottom feeders … the Beatles, queen or Led Zeppelin would be in the middle, while guys like John Williams or Hans Zimmer would be in the upper third … but no living talent would reach the great classical composers like Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Verdi and Mozart
Dude, local mom and pop restaurants suck. Its food you can literally cook at home. I wouldn't know because I've never listened to Taylor Swift, but then I havent listened to the Beatles since I was 16 either. Love love me do, you know I love you. Seems like the Beatles set a lot of templates, not all so laudable. Rick is really starting to sound like the old guy in the park yelling at pigeons.
I’m nearly 70 now the Beatles were the soundtrack to my early life,nothing but nothing will ever match what the Beatles were and did and still are, proof? Still talking and playing their music over 60 years later .So glad I was born when I was 🎶🎸🎶🎸
I'm turning 70 in a few months, so I'm about the same age. For most of my like I liked the Beatles, but honestly, I don't get much out of their music anymore.
I just turned 77 and the Beatles were and are one of the biggest influences in growing up-I evenpped drugs and started meditating in 1968 and went from there. There are some artists who are beyond comparisons: the Beatles, Billie Holliday, Ray Charles......
It's basically like when a car company outsources all the components and assembles the car as opposed to the company that builds everything in house. Swift outsources the talent where as the Beatles were the talent
Rick, your TSwift v Beatles analysis is spot on…like most rock, the Beatles songs can be traced to the Blues. But their ability to transform styles of other musical structures into rock that was both a critical and commercial success, is unequaled.
Im from Cuba, I've been living in the US for about a year now, never heard of Taylor before moving to the US. I think you can find Beatles fans or people that know of the Beatles and their songs around the globe.
I cant name any song from her. But i can make a list of songs from Leo Brower and others amazing Cuba musicians that i love. I hope Cuba can be free from US sanctions one day.
@@ride5000 ok on that, im just saying my experience. And totally agree with Rick here: Taylor is never gonna be that influential music wise as The Beatles, i mean pick up almost anything now a days and there’s something from The Beatles there, or there’s something from The Beatles that influenced that
@@l.a.s8274 I know the US has played a part in it, but it’s only our government to blame: they had 60 years to get their things together: they just don’t want to.
This is a clear narrative of the difference of how music is made of then and now, using the Beatles and TS as examples. Well done Rick for approaching this without bias and with clear, real information.
when this kind of comparison comes up with the beatles, i say "lets compare who their competition was/is" - and that tells you why the beatles are still being discussed today as the GOAT. beatles competition for top spot on the charts - the rolling stones, the beach boys, the who, stevie wonder, neil diamond, bob dylan, simon and garfunkle, the motown artists, the stax artists, some of the most beautiful and memorable music was created during the time the beatles reigned. who are taylor swifts' competition? beyonce? bruno mars?
Great point. The Kinks, The Doors, Jimi Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane, The Byrds, The Rascals, The Buffalo Springfield, Cream, Traffic, Steppenwolf, Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young. The list could go on and on.... So much competition that didn't all sound the same.
I agree Rick. Also, as you. pointed out when "Get Back" was released, when the Beatles called it quits, the entirity of the Beatles catalog was written before any of them had reached their 30th birthday. A fact that just astounds me and is hard to fathom.
I like to point that fact out as well. But even that doesn't tell the whole story. Consider that less than five passed between when the Beatles first appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show and the "rooftop concert" - just think about how their music changed over that short a time, and how they changed music.
Genius is fleeting. Most groups wrote all their best songs before age 25, it's no accident. Well known in the mathematics and scientific community, if you don't get it done by age 25 most likely you won't. Beautiful Mind.
I'd say they were in decline and it was a good thing. They'd done some ground-breaking albums that I still love and still stand the test of time today, but the last couple of albums, while recognizable, seemed to lack total enthusiasm. Apart from All Things Must Pass, nothing much happened afterwards. Not to denigrate the members, but they weren't The Beatles.
And as we all know, Taylor Swift did absolutely nothing before her 30th birthday. No worldwide number 1s, no record breaking, no songs an entire generation knows the lyrics too.... nothing...
You have to remember…in the 60’s, when a publication wrote an article with an opinion, it was because they backed that belief and wanted to spread that opinion to its readers. When they do it now, that’s not their goal. They do not care. Their only goal is to get you to click so they immediately make the ad revenue. They want you to click and scroll. That’s it. So of course an inflammatory headline will do that.
Exactly why the creator posted this video. Everything with Taylpr in it will result in clicks by people who love her and people who love to hate her even more.
Hey Rick ! As a German musician who learnt almost everything by dissecting every Beatles Song in the 70's ( born 1957) I can only say : you nailed it !!!! Just bought your books ! Keep the fight for meaningful music alive ! Reinhard
Reinhard, da geb ich dir und Rick recht. Man muß sich mal überlegen wie lange man schon über die Beatles spricht. Das ist jetzt fast 60 Jahre her. Wer wird noch über diese Taylor Songs in 10 Jahren sprechen, bzw. sie noch im Radio spielen?? Niemand mehr. Ich selbst habe mich als Hörer und Musiker schon Anfang der 2000der Jahre v. der neuen "Musik" verabschiedet und höre lieber meine alten Schallplatten als dieses seiche Gedudel im Radio, das sich für mich wie Fahrstuhlmusik anhört...nach 30 Sekunden vergessen!
Amazing that they still compare anyone who's had any musical success to a 60 year old band, that was done and dusted by about 1970. I'm just reading a fantastic Paul McCartney book and he constantly talks about the face to face, two guitar songwriting sessions with John, in bedrooms, hotel rooms, studios, on planes, in cars whatever, they wrote everything and recording everything themselves. Then I saved up and queued up in the rain and snow to buy the single or the album and still have them. Nice article Rick.
That's exactly what I was thinking... you know you're dealing with a different breed when the man pulls out a number one record from some nondescript corner of the room and says they're not hard to get!!! hehehe.....
He is talking in context of being a big fish in a small pond. He has a number one country song, but not a number one pop song. You can get a number one is rock, country, comedy, or some smaller genre much easier than having the number one song in the US on the pop charts. Every Beatles hit was a number one on the pop charts. A third of Taylor's hits do not even qualify by that measure. That reduces the number of number one hits she has.
@@BreetaiZentradi Rock isn't a small genre, though, and neither is country - especially in the US. Plus, Beato isn't the performer of that song. *No one* bought it because of him. Even most fans of the band didn't know he worked on this song. Imagine Jack Antonoff claiming that he has number one songs. Would you believe him? Because he doesn't. Taylor Swift does, even though he is the one with the actual technical skills there.
love your take on this. As someone that lived through the Beatles era ( 1963- now ) i love when someone like yourself can decipher and analyze through the BS that accompanies the occasional false statement or argument that some artist is better than the Beatles. The list of music that these men made is nothing short of astonishing.
Hey Rick The Beatles officially arrived in 1962. They disbanded in 1969 but officially 1970. That’s 7 years of recording. The impact that they made to the world in those 7 years no one will ever repeat. How many years has Taylor been around. That sums up everything. Listen to She Loves you from 1963 then Tomorrow Never knows from 1966 it’s like WOW.
It was at a moment when music was ready to change the world. Pop music isn't having that moment now. Picasso changed the world too but people have long since stopped caring about painters.
"That sums up everything." Um OK. Taylor Swift's first album came out in October, 2006. That's nearly 18 years ago. She was 17 and has songwriting credit on each track. You don't have to like her music and the Beatles will very likely go down as having much greater cultural impact, but don't pretend she's a flash in the pan or doesn't have massive reach and impact in her time.
The point about the Beatles music being so varied is so valid. Look at the I, V, vi, IV progression. It’s literally used in 100s, probably even thousands of pop songs. Plenty of artists use that progression in multiple songs, even from one album. The Beatles used it once, in the song let it be. All of those hits, and they used one of the most common chord progressions only one time
I have no idea how true that is, but off the top of my head I recall Oh! Darling also contains a prominent I - V - vi - IV, although it leads into it with that very nice V7(#5)
And Beatles did that way before it became the axis of awesome chord progression 😂 My point is even when they had the same idea they didn't do it due to lack of creativity rushing into next album, they are masterpieces
Totally agree. I'm 29 but fell in love with the Beatles music when I learned to play guitar as a kid - the way the Beatles shift the underlying chords & melody, leading you somewhere whilst keeping the end result accessible and catchy...it is just complete genius & mastery of songwriting that fully reveals itself when you sit at a piano or with a guitar and play/sing the song. By comparison, if you play a modern pop song on acoustic guitar, it is exactly what Rick describes - the same sequence repeated, with a narrow, often repeated melody. If it changes it all, its predictable. It's just not the same thing, and it kinda falls to bits without the production
Just found this. No, Rick, you are not wrong; that was heartfelt and right. It's asemblyline music, the new muzak...Spent my teen years growing up to the Beatles soundtrack with all its changes. There's simply no comparison.
Thank you, Rick Beato! I am going back to the Beatles right now, and it is unbelievable how advanced they are and how great their compositions are. I am truly happy for living my life in a generation, being here through the beginning and the story of pop music 60-70-80-90. That's where everything happened. I saw the Beatles on stage in Stockholm as a very young boy, and that was and probably still is the greatest moment in my life. It was hypnotizing! And then every record that came out - one after another was a completely new experience! The combination of these 4 guys was a miracle.
totally agree on what you're saying Rick!! and I am very happy you made this video to make it very clear!! I think the journalist who wrote that in NYT should be fired directly. How can they possibly think that Taylor Swift is bigger than the Beatles!!!! Probably if you look at it only from a business point of view, yes she is much smarter business wise than the Beatles, but that is because the Beatles were too busy making incredible music and being REAL TALENTED ARTISTS!!! Taylor Swift is just a very good business women, leading a multinational in a very good way, but it does not have to do anything with art nor being an artist... show business. Completely crazy to say TS is bigger than the Beatles!!
@@leosan2173do you think T Swift will be inspiring people to write songs 60 years from now? I highly highly doubt it. And yet the Beatles are still inspiring new generations 60 years after they played the Ed Sullivan show.
I have 3 grown daughters and 2 granddaughters, and they all still listen to The Beatles. Their music lives on in this family - we listen to albums!!! As you said, their music has always been diverse in many ways. Yes, Taylor sells out with huge concerts, but to be honest with you, at my age back then, we didn’t have the kind of money for big concert tickets and merchandise that’s available like now to support musicians- I had to babysit to buy a pack of Beatles bubblegum cards! My girls went through the ‘*NSYNC phase, and I went with them to concerts, and they, in turn, have seen Paul And Ringo with me numerous times. I’m proud of that. Now I think I’ll go listen to my Rubber Soul album!
I've been a musician most of my life, at 65 years old, I still listen to all kinds of good music, from jazz to rock, pop,blues, country, classical, classic rock, heavy rock, etc. to this date , I don't know what Taylor swift sounds like, have not listened to a single song of hers anywhere!
My response is: time will tell. As a kid, I remember watching in awe The Beatles premier performance on the Ed Sullivan Show. The next day at school, all us kids were buzzing about them. Our teacher said, "Twenty years from now someone is going to say The Beatles and you are going to say 'Who?' ". We all know how that went.
@bruce9531 Swift has been around long enough now that I think we're in a better position to be able to judge the likely longevity of her work than your teacher was with the Beatle's, and there's little to suggest it has the qualities to remain relevant or inspiring...to the extent that if her work does actually remain a cultural force 3 or 4 decades from now that'll stand as an indictment of the culture rather than a reflection of the depth and originality of her output.
@@sierrabianca as Rick said, she's a content creator. Constant output to remain relevant, without regard to actualy quality. Just release, release, release.
@@hugoku 11 original albums in 20 years. How exactly is that “release, release, release” and “constant output”? And btw, The Beatles released 13 albums in 7 years. That’s twice the output that Taylor has 😂
@@sierrabianca “If she sticks around it’s an indictment of the culture”. And the teacher (and everyone else of the same opinion) would have said the EXACT same thing. Older generations always complain how the youths are degenerating culture. Existential angst that one is aging out to be the primary driver of culture as younger generations take the wheel often makes one bitter and petty. People say history doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme. In some cases though, it actually just does repeat. Also I wonder how it is that people can laud Paul McCartney as one of the greatest songwriters of all time, but at the same time dismiss his opinion that Taylor is actually good. He either has a good musical sense or he doesn’t.
"Nobody says this Beatles song sounds like this other Beatles song", you used them as an example but that's something to be said about many old "pop" (as in popular) artist. Nowdays I even found myself confused as to which artist is singing the songs cause many of them sound so alike, I also end up starting the songs with the lyrics from a completely different song when listening to it on the radio only to dind out is a different song that just happened to sound almost identical but with different lyrics. I also realized that many songs from the same album many times are so alike that you can listen to them one after the other and the transition is sooo smooth mostly cause the instrumental is pretty similar. I could go on 😂 Love your video as always
I have to ask, are these therefore actually songs or just clips and ideas as a collagen of reformation of say at best, a Warhol in essence and not great musical art?
In the case of Taylor Swift, the game that some like to play, is which song did Jack Antonoff recycle to make the new Taylor Swift song and did he even bother to change the key?
There were many older bands that did have the same-sounding songs. Gary Puckett and the Union Gap immediately comes to mind. George Thorogood has a couple of repeats. Many artists followed up a #1 hit with essentially a remake with different chord progression, as the Righteous Brothers (reluctantly) did with Soul and Inspiration. I bring that up only to point out how different and innovative the Beatles were at that time.
You’re right Rick. Another point is that TS doesn’t break any new ground. It’s all safe. The Beatles broke new ground on every album. People heard Pepper for the first time and were stunned. Another great episode. Love your channels.
I recall listening to radio one in my car on the way home from work ,the DJ with pure excitement in his voice stated that the band take that would be a bigger band than the Beatles had ever been I recall laughing for some time ,& watching your upload brought my long forgotten memory flooding back
Let's not forget, The beatles did everything back then WITHOUT the help of the internet. Nowadays, artists RELY on the internet whether it streams, views and music videos. The beatles had all of that popularity without the internet and even invented the concept of the music video
* Artists have relied on the current technology of their times; Les Paul comes to mind. Had the Beatles had the Internet, they would have used it, just as they used the tape and synthesizer technologies of their era to produce new sounds. * Music videos (films) were around at least since the 1940s. Theatre audiences enjoyed them before the main feature. ~
@@SharonMacVicar-o9g The Carpenters used the technology of Les Paul and overdubbing to tremendous effect, but Richard Carpenter was at least a phenomenal arranger and composer. Today, it won't take much talent to create a prompt for the AI to take over. That's the big difference.
No doubt great lyricists! So is Swift - "I didn't have it in myself to go with grace/ cause when I fight you used to tell me I was brave/ and if I'm dead to you, why are you at the wake?/ cursing my name, wishing I stayed, look at how my tears ricochet" "While you were out building other worlds, where was I?/ Where's that man who threw blankets over my barbed wire?/ I made you my temple, my mirror, my sky/now I'm begging for footnotes in the story of your life/ drawing hearts in the byline" "And I won't confess that I waited/ but I let the lamp burn/ while the men masqueraded/ I hoped you'd return with your feet on the ground/ tell me all that you'd learned/ cause love's never lost when perspective is earned/ and you said you'd come and get me but you were 25/ and the shelf life of those fantasies has expired/ lost to the lost boys chapter of your life/ forgive me Peter please know that I tried to hold on to the days when you were mine/ but the woman who sits by the window has turned out the light" literally just a couple beautiful lyrics from her. Hope this sheds some light on her talent for those unaware.
Love both channels, rock. One thing that no one ever mentions is the difference in how many record sales it took to have a #1 single in the 1960s and and how few record/streaming sales it takes in the current era. The beatles had to sell WAY more records to achieve a #1 thsn taylor swift has to today. This is not taking away anything from her talent,or the quality of her songs, but the chart landscape is completely different now in contrast to then.
Its not only the music that changed in the years after the Beatles.... The audience has changed from music lovers to clickers...the music is on the background and doesn't seem to matter as much as it had in the past, we bought and listened to music because we loved music... nowadays its on a video in the background and some buy it or stream it afterwards. In other words, lots of streams but less people really listen to the music
Also, music was more expensive in the Beatles era, not only monetarily, but in terms of convenience. One had to go to a store to buy a single, unless one was a member of a record club or ordered from a catalog, all of which required much more effort than using Spotify.
And dont forget the social media marketing around the music. Back in the day, there was only media: magazines, radio and TV interviews. Thats it. If you missed it, you were outta luck. Today, artists have a team of social media chimps feeding the hype to the fans 24/7.
I’m 58 years old & proudly wear my Beatle album tees throughout the summer. The Beatles were often imitated but never duplicated. Nobody can touch what they accomplished in six years.
@@tidalcliff2202 Who are you, the moderator? You get to tell people what's relevant? Everyone's entitled to their opinion, not just you. If you had an intellect you would have a proper discussion with people, not just make snide comments.
Being a Beatles fan, and with complete respect for Taylor's talent, I must say there is no comparison. Simply ask yourself, how many of Taylor's songs do you believe will be covered by other superstars and orchestras, and how many will still be getting airplay 50 or even 60 years from now. The answer is ZERO! The Lennon-McCartney compositions have been, and will continue to be covered by the worlds greatest artists and orchestras for decades because the melodies are timeless, beautiful and joyful. Taylor is a great commercial success, but musically, she's not in the same universe as the Beatles.
Great video Rick Wholeheartedly agree , too add what people forget is to buy The Beatles records in those days you had to physically go to a record store Now you can click & buy from your phone or computer The Beatles phenomenon will never be topped
Yeah, because when Taylor sold-out three back-to-back 96K-seat stadiums in the same city three nights in a row, those almost 300K people wouldn't have gone to a record store to buy her album. Good call 😂 There are just too many variables that are different today to make a fair comparison. Up until the 90's, labels would get behind an artist and shovel it down everyone's throats because no one really had a choice - only the ones they gave to you. Today, the market is saturated and an artist gets one crack to prove their worthiness after they've pushed through the field. The real issue here, as Rick couldn't hide too well, is that the Beatles were better writers and musicians and people get but hurt that some generic pop singer is crushing it.
@@ev25zv Beatles would sell out more than three back to back concerts at a city if they were alive today for a reunion. Millionaires would be lining up to pay a fortune for a ticket in the bleachers. Networks would be throwing money at them for broadcast rights, and billionaires would be paying a million bucks each to sit next to Taylor Swift in the front row seats, so they could all watch one of the greatest moments in history. People aren't getting butt hurt that she's smashing it, but if you make a call that she's bigger than the Beatles then you're asking for a slapdown from half the Western world's population, just like Lennon got a slapdown for suggesting the Beatles were bigger than Jesus. Swift would be at the bottom of that trio.
@@joe-s5r Dude, that's 96,000 people per show in the same city three nights in a row, not just three shows in a city. A Beatles reunion wouldn't be much more popular than McCartney on his own. Today is way different. There are not enough boomers. Your estimate is way off. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know... I don't want to hear about a young relative of yours that likes the Beatles, lmao.
@@ev25zv Taylor Swift has done amazing having a phenomenal career and suddenly gone massive in the last few years. Like Rick no one is disputing her talent as an artist My wife and daughter went to see her this year in Singapore and said it was amazing The Beatles is a different beast these had no template to follow , they created the band template a cultural phenomenon the world will never see again. There artistry as musicians, writers and innovators is unparalleled
@@ev25zv have to disagree on your the market today is saturated It’s full of very very average music I’m not a boomer by the way but grew up in an age of global artists and bands now deemed greats or legends Very few from today will be classed that . Taylor Swift is Greatness isn’t measured by record sales or tours . Drake has sold millions is he a great not to most people You can’t compare stadium attendance to record sales The Beatles played the biggest concert ever at Shea Stadium they created again, innovated this concept It was in its infancy The Beatles toured today trust me it would be the biggest tour ever
I would say Taylor playing guitar and piano and singing makes her a musician. And when I think about it The Beatles and Taylor are content creators too.
Yep, nailed it. Granted, she can strum a guitar a bit and she sings and I'm sure you comes up with a melody line now and again . . . but to compare these automatons the Taylor's of the music INDUSTRY) to the real deal is so incredibly stupid. Just shows how big-money-'music' lobotomized the vast majority of the sheople to believe they're listening to actual music. Crying shame if you ask me. Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against the person Taylor Swift . . . but it is indeed content; not art.
@@adamp108 Bit of a fan aren't you? Musically/quality wise The Beatles are Rembrandt and Taylor Swift is a MacDonald placemat. Within the current placemat-universe she's probably the best and brightest. Granted. But mainstream radio-music devolved since the 90's. As a professional musician - you said something about 'no clue of art or process', funny - I'm sure I know what I'm talking about. Do you? It's fine you like Taylor Swift, please enjoy, but don't make it more than it is; musac for the current generation, made by slick producers and boring as fuck. That's okay, there's plenty of real art out there which is boring as fuck as well . . . but it's art at least. Swift is not.
Rick... Your just so so so right! The bottom line is the amount of raw human creativity along with the musicality, variation based on the artist is that she's barely a thimble full of the talent of The Beatles! Also, to me a high level view of their music in also considering the time is the sheer level of their development in their music, their keen sense of uniqueness and variety, not just song to song, or album to album, but even within individual songs, and individual albums, and lastly they were highly innovative in all facets of their music! One last thing a bit of topic... I think that all-in-all they were much better together than apart!
There was a computer study done recently which concluded that the Beatles had less influence on pop music than other bands because their style wasn't emulated. I thought, what? Their "style" couldn't be emulated because they HAD no signature style - practically every song they put out had a DIFFERENT style! That's what made them so unique. One day it would be Lady Madonna, the next All You Need is Love. One day Penny Lane, the next Strawberry Fields. One day Birthday, the next Blackbird. And so on. I have never bothered listening to Swift, but just a few days ago, decided I would have to make the effort because she has become such a huge cultural phenomenon. So I started out by listening to the first two tracks from Folklore. And what I immediately noticed was that the songs have no PROGRESSION, there are only rudimentary chord changes - scarcely any changes at all save to the vocal line. They remind me more of Indian ragas than Western popular music - but they don't even have the virtue of being played live. The first song - called "The 1" from memory - halfway through I found myself thinking "this track DESPERATELY needs a saxophone solo in the middle - where IS it?" Just no variety at all. So like Beato says, these are basically just looped bed tracks over which Swift superimposes her lyrics and vocals. They do not remotely compare to the musical sophistication of The Beatles. In fact, I consider this kind of mass-produced music to be a kind of anti-music, because apart from the lyrics, the human element has been almost entirely excised. And that is true of so much pop music these days. The real art of songwriting - of complementary verse and chorus, of creative chord and key changes, of fitting words like a glove to the music - has been largely lost, replaced by this empty one-dimensional pap. I've believed for a long time, actually, that most people actually have very little appreciation of music per se, what they gravitate toward primarily are lyrics that reflect their own feelings, and/or artists who embody some personal quality they find attractive. I guess there must still be some good new music out there, but judging by the little I have heard of Swift, I have doubts about finding it there.
If you want to listen to some great modern bands, then Black Midi and Black Country, New Road are fantastic. I'd also check out the album Madvillany by MF DOOM and Madlib. It's a hip-hop album, but I'd compare it to The Beatles in that it's constantly hopping from one idea to the next across a lot of short songs.
I think Swift has a lot of songs which are very strong lyrically, but you're correct that the music is fairly simple compared to what the Beatles were doing, especially in later works.
There's a great movie called Yesterday where some unexplained event makes a timeline where The Beatles never existed and only the protagonist (a "failed" musician) remembers them. He only figures this out when he's sitting with his friends one day and starts playing and singing Yesterday on his guitar. All the conversation stops and they look at him with amazement.
Yes just recently saw that movie and realized the same thing - extract Beatles and input some other artist?? Who no one would or can compare to the world wide phenom - I still can't sing you a Swift song - don't know any. And I'm way younger than the Beatles by 25 years but know all of their songs by heart.
@@Hollyberry-no-you-didntlook I agree with everyone here and prefer the Beatles but people saying they don’t know a single Taylor Swift song have to be joking lol, telling me you haven’t even heard Shake it Off? Do you listen to the radio?
@@EjayT06not that radio. I've never heard TS song or seen even a clip of her performance but I do admire her,she is obviously a smart business brain at Dolly Parton level.
@@ScottPetro-tc3jn It's not about being like the beatles or a quality comparison. Taylor moves entire economies when she tours, she absolutely is as big or bigger than the beatles. There are more people alive today, there are more people into music today, there is more widespread exposure for big artists today, it's really not a stretch to say this guys.
What I learned is that Taylor Swift barely writes her own songs and her songs still suck. Every contributor mentioned writes better songs for themselves-They’re pitching her their C game.
The Beatles were like the ‘big bang’ of creativity in music. So many things done for the first time and as you put it ‘set the vocabulary for what came after’ you can’t possibly say a modern artist is bigger or better than that. You can have a preference, sure. But you can’t disregard the originals. Especially when all of these producers will likely cite the Beatles as an influence.
Check on TH-cam what Bernstein had to say about the Beatles... it's called - Leonard Bernstein talks about the Beatles - I think most of us would agree that a classical conductor and composer has a pretty good understanding of music.
The Beatles were like that once in a 100 year Point Break wave. And the fun of it all, was that in 1964, we knew it was that once in 100 year wave. It was glorious to ride THAT wave.
I've been diving deeper and deeper into the Beatles discography for well over a decade and have never reached a bottom. The emotional depth, theoretical complexity, and production innovation are so far above anything that's ever happened that only the people who get it get it.
I agree. The more I listen to the Beatles, the more I learn about them, read about them, etc, the more I love their music and what they did. I mean, many songs they considered simple and "throw away" are still beloved classics.
Which is the reason I stop listening to pop music. Back in the old days of rock ‘n’ roll, R&B and other genres, to be a star you had to be an artist who brought their “A” game musically, sure the labels were always about the bottom line, which was the almighty buck, however, they always recognized merit and knew the artist had to bring it and bring it hard. Now, one can be a clown with absolutely no musical talent. I’m not saying Taylor has no musical talent but she’s no John, Paul or George. It reminds me of an episode of the Brady Bunch when the kids formed the group and two talent scouts looked at Greg and created a computerized sound for him and rebranded him as Johnny Bravo, Greg didn’t like it, they said it didn’t matter because as they put it he “ fit the suit”. That’s what we’re seeing today in pop music.
One thing to remember about the Beatles was that they would crowd the charts. They would have a #1 song, but had other songs stuck in the top ten fighting it out. They had to compete against themselves. That does not happen anymore.
Taylor swift in 2022 broke a record at one point because she occupied ALL TEN SPOTS on the billboard top 100. People absolutely still do this, you just don't follow them so you pay no attention to how popular they are.
Yes, and let's not forget that one of the Beatles songs was even competing against itself! Strawberry Fields wasn't a #1 because it was a double-A-side with Penny Lane. So some stores reported selling one song, and other stores reported selling the other, meaning neither A side got enough 'sales' to make it #1 in the weeks after it came out.
The world population has tripled since I was born: 1955, 2.7 billion; 2023, 8.1 billion. When the Beatles broke up in 1969, 4.5 billion potential Swifties were not yet born. It looks like apples and oranges no matter how you slice it.
Well said! I was born in 1952. I sure do miss the 50s and 60s. It was so affordable to go to live concerts back in the 60s. When The Fillmore West opened up in 1968 in San Francisco, it was $3.00 to see 3 bands. If you were first in line, you got the best seat in the house. Back then the population of California was around 16 million and now it's over 40 million. Too many people now.
I mean it should be relatively doable to ballpark how many "fans" there are of each during the relevant years, and then find as a % of the population. % is what is relevant to who is bigger, not overall number. And there is plenty of data with which to do this and get a rough estimate of the % of people who voluntarily choose to listen to the artists' music, aka "fans". We're talking huge numbers in both cases so even if you are off by a few million it wouldn't make much of a difference for the overall comparison. I would wager that a higher % of the world population is Taylor Swift fans than there were Beatles fans in the peak of Beatles' heyday. Even if you were to limit it to the English-speaking world, probably Swift wins. You could say Taylor has an advantage because of the way music is put out, but that's still not relevant to who is "bigger." Advantage or not, one of them is definitively more popular than the other one. And I would wager that is Swift. It's the way of the world. People will get grumpy about the new age and say it is all not as good as it once was but every generation says that about younger stuff.
The Beatles are magical. They followed no rules. Imagine taking “Blackbird” to a music theorist as an amateur, and saying: listen to this.” The key modulation in their songs, the whimsical lyrics-pure magic.
"They followed no rules." Geezus, I'm not for taking apart the Beatles, but the first few years of the Beatles were about 1/3rd covers. Jazz musicians HATED them. How am I the only one who knows this?
The Beatles did not by any stretch do that level of covers, even at the start of their career. Look at their early albums. Leonard Bernstein was a fan. Ella sang their songs as did Sinatra.
For those of us that lived in the time of the Beatles remembers that they changed more than music. The complete social structure was impacted. They were the sixties……
Popular Music has a “Before the Beatles” and “After the Beatles” mark. That’s how important and impactful they were to music. You may like them, o may hate them, but no one can’t deny their impact and influence afterwards.
I do agree. However, I think you can also say that about Led Zeppelin. In fact, there are STILL LZ-type bands out there, whereas I don't know of any Beatles-type bands making original music today.
![ลองสุ่มไอโฟน 990 โกงมั้ย? [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.101 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bfsWe0j492k/mqdefault.jpg)
The fact that the Beatles did what they did without social media, streaming and all the instant platforms out there tells you how big they were.
No, in terms of being noticed, and garnering mass appeal, the Beatles had it much easier. The tech revolution that led to social media, has also made it very easy to make and upload tunes. It's enabled fans to split into millions of discrete echo chambers corresponding to numerous subgenres that didn't exist in the Beatles day.
Because there is practically no barrier to entry, there are exponentially more people vying for attention and fans,. There is nothing like the common culture and mass audience that finite tv channels and radio stations fostered. When the Beatles famously appeared on Ed Sullivan, almost the entire US was watching because there were only two other choices in that time slot, and you wouldn't get another chance to see it if you didn't watch it when it was broadcast.
There was a time when I could have named almost every show on television, and every big music act people were listening to or going to see. Those days are way over. It's remarkable when anyone becomes an enduring icon with mass appeal in all this noise, whether you like them or not.
Man ❤❤❤❤
@@MikeM-uy6qpthing is: internet is biased, and only a few artists are boosted nowadays. You have to be rich by default to get popular today. Back then, you survived through bought records.
can u believe there was actually a world "without social media, streaming and all the instant platforms"????!!!?!?!?!?!
@@CasinoConsti That's a good point, which helps me make mine. Because of. the content-saturated and culturally splintered environment, it's almost impossible to find a mass audience at all without hit-making songwriters, a superstar producer and an expensive, well-connected PR machine.
*"[Blank] artist/band is now bigger than the Beatles."*
We've heard that over, and over, and over through the decades.
When was the last time you heard an artist having billion $ selling tour? Never! Taylor tour just grossed 2 billion in 150 shows , 1 billion alone in US. Biggest artist in history with 300 shows+ couldn't do it.
To all the people yapping, the tour income is always adjusted to inflation and after drawing comparision to demand vs no of shows , Taylor Swift still win against beatles and Michael Jackson. Taylor did 50 shows in usa on eras tour, her demand was 900 shows, as cited by live nation music experts she is on par with beatlemania. Now don't use ur tiny brains too hard.
We at least know the check cleared for the editorial.
@@Flixtex Complete hyperbole. IF......if the Beatles toured like that now, at today's prices - no competition.
@@Flixtex The money that exists currently in the industry is incomparable to the money that used to exist in the industry. You wouldn't say the original MLB players were bad because they used wooden bats and therefore couldn't hit as far. Give the Beatles a metal bat and see how much they gross lol
Yeah. How well did Oasis age?
the Beatles had a ton of #1 when the competition was: the Stones, Hendrix, the Beach Boys, etc, etc.
The Beatles also had to compete with Motown at its peak!!!
True, the competition was overwhelming in those days.
The closest competition in number was Diana Ross and the Supremes.
Same with film. The fact Oppenheimer got the nod says more about the state of Hollywood than the quality of that film. I mean, it was OK mostly.
Plus: no internet back in those days. It was all word-of-mouth, television and appearances, and DJs being paid to promote songs.
" Tomorrow Never knows" 1966, listen to today and it sounds like it was written in the future.
Wonderful thought
It is a kind of avant-garde challenge to the conventions of popular music. But it's also so damn beautiful.
"Don't confuse the size of your paycheck with the size of your talent". Marlon Brando
The best analogy
@@Jordan-Ramses Your missing the point all these other people wouldn't of existed if The Beatles hadn't of happened.
In the words of the great Keith Moon ' without the Beatles we would still be listening to Bobby Vee singing Rubber Ball ! '
@@Jordan-Ramses Most if not all the music today... would not exist today had it not been for the pioneers of each respective genre, and if I'm not wrong a lot of our music is derived in some capacity from rock music.
@@Jordan-Ramses I never said the Beatles invented music nor a genre of music. I said that without the pioneers of yesterday we wouldn't have the artists we have today. I'm just summing it up...
@@Jordan-Ramses Good one.. Boomer boy band. lol
As somebody who grew up in the UK with the Beatles music, yes I am that old, they were more than just their songs. They were at the forefront of a generational change, both musically and culturally. Their legacy goes far beyond than just their music.
And the upper beatle (Macca) cited Hit Me Baby One more time, as one of the best pop songs in decades. I guess Britney was happy that day. What does that tell us?
taylors boyfriend did a commercial for 2 in 1. they are trying to make out these creeps are respectable people. there is excess mortality. 😡
@@gilh3947 You know she didn't write that song.
of course, but that does not matter actually. I would bet a lot that if he would never have said that, most ranters here would call that song rubbish. I hope you understand what i'm saying.@@cianog
"As somebody who grew up in the UK with the Beatles music, yes I am that old, they were more than just their songs. " And there are the same equivalent youngsters today thinking exactly the same about Taylor Swift.
60 years later, young Russian kids know Beatles and can sing them in English, Japanese symphonies are still playing their melodies, Brazilian string quartets are playing their music. They wrote in the genres of Pop, Baroque, rock and roll, Rock-a-billy, Folk, Country & Western, Heavy metal, Chamber music, Ragtime, Vaudeville, Music hall, Tin Pan Slley, Twelve bar blues, Ballad, Piano roll, Showtunes, Eastern Indian, Psychedelic, Circus music & Children’s music...
Wrote in dance styles - waltz, cha-cha, polka, jitterbug, two step
The group is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
Each member is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame individually
Three members are in the Songwriters Hall of Fame
They were such prolific song writers that they wrote 26 songs for other groups, Including the Rolling Stones’ first hit and 4 # 1 songs for those groups.
Their song ,“Yesterday”, has been covered by more artists (an estimated 2500) than any song in history.
AND WE'RE HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS????!!!!
The big big mistake is to call them a rock and roll band. If Bill Haley was rock and roll we need another word for the Beatles.
Dont call yesterday THEIR song. Its HIS song, only. Beatles gave him flowers the first time he sang the song in a concert, and left the stage leaving him alone. Paul McCartney. The best british composer after Henry Purcell.
You know, ignorant people are often ignorant fo a reason ,this Is the case 🤷
OH YEAH?! Well.... Taylor Swift revolutionized the genre of break up music!!! She's written literally 50 songs about how much better off she is now that every one of her boyfriends have left her!!! Did The Beatles ever do that?! Noooooo.
😂😂😂
The thing is... Even McCartney doesn't give a sh!t. He knows this is all just some marketing persons opinion.
They will literally go into a town, and survey 100 people. 90% of those people will be Taylor Swift fans, so OF COURSE "they" are going to report that "90% of people think that Taylor Swift Is bigger than The Beatles."
Taylor Swift may be talented but who would know? She's a product, a point of sale, a cash register where sales happen.
I think the artistic effect of the Beatles is incomparable, and their importance cannot be measured by statistics.
+, some "music journalists" just never understood the difference between "Good" and "Genius". The distance from Good to Genius is 10x bigger then from Bad to Good.
Beatles are so basic tbh. But they were legends in their time
It can be, and is
Beatles are a phenomenon, Swift will be quickly forgotten!
@@shaharazad.” Beatles basic ! “ Time you put your earbuds in, and listen to Taylor.
Even in my country in Kazakhstan, Almaty we have a statue of the Beatles
Waouh! I love it!
i found a beatle in my apatrment today
Very nice!
🤣
I've seen this monument. It's...horrific but a nice thought.
So in the 80s I saw Paul McCartney in Tampa stadium. 60,000 people were mesmerized by a small band with no smoke/fireworks, backup dancers, and flashy costumes. You haven’t lived until you sing Hey Jude with McCartney and 60,000 people on a warm summer evening.
Taylor Swift is a smart woman who has captured her audience. I admire her showmanship skills, her relationship with her fans and her style. I just watched her Eras tour video. I see why she is so popular. She’s a personal event storyteller.
But she’s not the Beatles no matter how many records she sells. I don’t even think she wants to be anybody but Taylor. Good for her. Different times produce different artists. Opinion writers seem to feel the need for comparisons that are pointless. Like comparing Van Gogh and Jackson Pollock. I feel the Beatles legacy is safe.
Big agree. She’s great but her music isn’t changing the game she’s just the best at it.
Thank you for actually giving her the chance. As to the no backup dancers or flashy costumes, I don't think women popstars are so often given the luxury of doing low-key shows. They have to do the whole shabang. Taylor has done shows of this style before, but given the scale (and the hardship ppl went through to get these tickets) she wants to make sure people are seeing a full production show worthy of their money (not that low key shows aren't, but if you are Paul McCartney you can do that and people won't complain).
@@JuliaHilzI admire her tremendously. She’s an intelligent, talented performer. I’m thrilled she’s found success in an incredibly tough business. I see most music performers have the flashier shows. Gaga, Elton John etc. That’s what is expected.
I’m almost 70 so my preference for less is more is partly my age. I have younger friends who just have the best time at today’s music shows. I think it’s great. We all set our expectations and feel the experience of music in a different way.
Music is such a personal choice. What impacts one person deeply will bore another to tears.
I’m glad there is something for everyone.
very well said
THISSS AHHHH. times are different. music is going to change with the times. taylor happens to be one of the best of our time. however, the beatles are what you would consider the best of **all time**
The value and appreciation of well written music in people has gone down significantly in the US since the 50s-90s, it’s a muzak machine now.
I’m from the Netherlands, The Beatles are inside our high school history curriculum. They are a mandatory thing we need to know about for our history exams, that is the extent of the cultural impact they’ve had. Who cares if Taylor Swift has more streams, her name will turn to dust in 100 years or so. The Beatles, like many of composers of old, such as Beethoven or Mahler, are here to stay. Immortalized in the history books.
I love this comment
@@MrEliwankenobi 100 years or so? You're being generous, I think. I hear David Cassidy was huge in the early 70's. But if humans are still spinning around with this planet in 500 years, the Beatles may be even bigger than they are now. Van Gogh's been gone for nearly 150 years, and he failed to sell even one painting while alive.
I agree. I think both The Beatles and also Led Zeppelin will still be regularly listened to in 100 years. I'm not sure if much else will be, although I think it's possible that almost everything from the Big Band/Sinatra days, up until the early 90s or so, will live on in some fashion for a long, long time.
Well said! And I’m so glad they are teaching their music in schools.
Being an Australian from that time I have to say that I preferred and still do prefer Radar Love by Golden Earing to the Beatles. In fact, I think I'll listen to it now!
Listening to you, I'd like to sum it up like this: The Beatles was art, and Taylor Swift is industry.
Nailed it...
Taylor is a created idol, not a talent.
Agreed….and the industry is total crap.
I agree, the music industry needs something for profit. Until the next big thing comes along.
Well said 👍
I read the NYT article and their number-crunching nonsense. They should have dialed up Rick and asked for a comment. This video is the best response to it I've seen.
First of all NYT readers are not going to deep dive into music knowledge and try and differentiate the two. They will just read the superficial stats the NYT prints out and run with it. To know surprise most newspaper readers are seniors, but having this article online would generate more eyes from Taylor Swift fans reading it, not a bad scheme.
Agree, like their lying polling numbers, they are fudging the numbers and cooking the books. Kissing ass/catering is what's happening here. I don't believe a word that say. Irrelevant publication.
The Beatles trump her in the only category that actually matters: the music. The premise of the article says a lot about our current society.
These articles don't deserve an answer, just point a them and laugh.
In all fairness to the young lady, I do not believe Taylor Swift has ever compared herself to the Beatles.
You nailed it Rick. Most of today's pop music is boring, repetitive, and simplistic. Most of it repeats a simple three or four note melody ad infinitum and then throw in a hook after maybe 45 seconds or so. I agree the Beatles music had an amazing variety of complex sounds and melodies. Even the best of today's pop artists sound repetitive by comparison. The fact that the Beatles did it all in six or seven years is mind boggling. Their music is still the gold standard today. Unbelievably talented!!
In my opinion the Beatles were a hell of a lot more talented than Taylor Swift. Swift might be a talented songwriter and singer, but is she really that good? Or are there a lot of songwriters out there who probably have better voices and songs than she does. She's just lucky and got good promotion on all those magazine covers. Hype, hype hype. Swift also has a lot songwriters and doesn't even need to be writing a lot of the songs she sings.
@@thomasromano9321 She's a good songwriter and a very mediocre singer.
And remember, Rick, the Beatles would have had MORE number 1 songs in '64, but songs like Please, Please Me and Twist and Shout were blocked from hitting number 1 by...other Beatles songs!
No1 songs had to sell a lot more records than now.
What happened to the Beatles in the US charts in 1964 was like a dam breaking.
Much of what they had already done in England the year before came pouring out suddenly in a single stream, along with what they were adding that year.
It was something never seen before in music history and has never been repeated again.
I understand what you're saying, but if we're going down that route, Taylor has occupied the whole billboard hot 100 top 10, twice. So she could've had 18 more number 1s
@@Nickel1147 they don't have to sell any now. Just has to be played on a loop in someone's bedroom.
@@manuelcunharocha8889 you're comparing apples and oranges. The Beatles had to get people to go out and buy singles. The Billboard chart these days is a broken mess where an album release by a popular artist will cause every single song on the album to chart, because it's based on people listening to the tracks. It's a song chart, not a singles chart now. If the chart had worked like this when Sgt Pepper was released, no doubt the entire top 10 would be full of tracks from that. But, as it was, no songs from that album were released as singles. Many famous Beatles songs would never have charted on the Hot 100 to start with.
Another important factor to take into account is that the world's population has more than doubled since the 60-70s and when you couple that with the changes in how people listen to music and how accessible it is nowadays, you start to realize that it's impossible to make a proper comparison
Music has also become more accessible. I somehow doubt that people in some remote village in China (or other countries) in the 60s would've bought Beatles LPs but they probably have Spotify now. And TikTok. Listening to music back then also had a social aspect, you met with friends who owned the latest LP and listened together. The calculations for Charts are completely different nowadays when every stream counts.
For what it’s worth I was 10 years old in 1963 and I can tell you without question that the Beatles were massively more powerful in terms of the attention and influence of the moment. And of course then there’s the influence on music itself over the rest of the decade and thereafter which was again a quantum leap and pervasive. Taylor Swift seems to have a huge following and is very influential (I can’t say her music speaks to me but that doesn’t matter), but wow...not the Beatles, not even close. That was sociological phenomenon of epic proportions.
Not only has the population doubled, the music is now accessible in markets it wasn't in the 60s. The Beatles may have been the biggest band in the world, but the "world" at the time amounted to North and South America, Europe, Japan and Australia. But no Russia, China, India, Africa, Eastern Europe or any of Asia but Japan, which meant the Beatles were never actually heard by most people living during their heyday. Strange, but true.
Couldn't have said it any better!
Hilarious.
Rick, I'm 60 yoa and music has always been at the top of my interests. I play guitar and try to sing. I love many genres of music. Ever since I was a kid, I promised myself that I would never be close minded to new music. But back in 1982, I never could imagine auto tune, looping, sampling and rapping. I'm right where I didn't want to be at 60. I despise today's hip-hop, pop and country genres. It's repetitious and flat to my ear. There are no musicians, no creativity anymore in popular music. It's very sad.
You are not an idiot. I remember the Beatles back then. The hype. How they changed the music and culture of a generation. I remember what music was like before them. You are spot on.
I believe eveyone knows this but if they removed the TH-cam videos that cover stuff that's obvious, what would be left?
Stopped video at 3.19 because you started playing a Taylor Swift song and my personal claim to fame is that I've never heard a Taylor Swift song.
@@carlatate7678the fact that you consider never hearing a Taylor Swift song to be a “personal claim to fame” is exactly why we’re talking about this.
@@pickles224 shrug
@@pickles224Taylor swift is loved by so many people yet many of us have never heard of a single song of hers. Meanwhile everyone knows Beatles songs 😂
I remember a video from Ozzy stating that: "Everything used to be black and white, with shades of grey, they brought color to the world" or something like that.
You just can't compare.
Read that in his voice and it was hilarious
I saw the Beatles on Ed Sullivan and never got why they were so big.
great quote from ozzy. also, the touring schedule the beatles maintained from 63 thru 66, an album a year, a couple of singles, a couple of movies, tv appearances. the beatles didnt put out sgt pepper and wait for another two or three years later to put out another album. they were consistent, and continued to improve.
@der_jannik_0115 - But… as soon as I read that back in Ozzy’s voice I can no longer understand it. LOL.
Ozzy's a huge Beatles fan!
Lemmy's too.
It's like comparing a Diet Coke to a Chardonnay based on their selling results.
Nothing more to say 😂
Bingo
Diet coke is way better a drink. All major soft drinks are better than alcoholic drinks. Idiotic comparison.
@@AminTheMystic missed the point, sheesh man.
@@kickenwing30 It's almost like its a preference thing... hmmm
This is like: Fast food vs. Quality Food cooked by a chef. Obviously convenience always wins. Consumers still have the power to decide what they buy --- but unfortunately.......
That said, I'm still amazed that Ricks channel is as popular as it is with in depth and quality. I love this channel and don't care about mass production; keep on rockin' 😉
I don't understand the comparisons. The Beatles are part of the palette we use to paint, it's beyond chart positions and sales.
Beautifully expressed! 🤟
Precisely.
Brilliant 🎉
. . . Taylor Swift is the bubble gum that a child ruins our canvas with 😂
By which argument, The Beatles, could be some ugly colors, compared to Symphony/Jazz/Metal/Opera/Musicals. I don't like Taylor Swift's music, or The Beatles music, nor do I think The Beatles really innovated, unless you throw in the caveat, innovated in the pop music sphere. All the elitist arguments, used to prop up The Beatles, can be used against the Beatles, by fans of other genre's of music, which is a wonderful irony to me. But I am not a commie, so I do think things from the past can be good, I don't need a "ruthless criticism of all that exists" like Marx, or to call old culture, and old idea's "death loving" like Paulo Freire. But The Beatles were commies, so when I see people typing "ok boomer" when The Beatles are defended, that's hilarious.
My dad listened to The Beatles, I listen to The Beatles, my daughter listens to The Beatles.
Family of homosexuals
@@heinrichwolfenstein7303Huh??? Please explain.
@@heinrichwolfenstein7303 that would be anyone listening modern rubbish songs with confused artists.
@@heinrichwolfenstein7303I see your a Rolling Stones fan
Same here. Twenty years from now, Taylor Swift will be a footnote… and my grandchildren will be listening to the Beatles.
Nailed it, Rick. And you’ve been extremely kind in your analysis. The Beatles and Taylor Swift are “completely different universes.”
I think he meant different galaxies. There is only a single universe. That's why it starts with "Uni"
I can’t help but wonder how the Swifties would react if she quipped that she’s “bigger than Jesus Christ.”
They are both manufactured and heavily marketed. So not all that different.
Maybe but some Beatles members themselves like Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr have praised Taylor
@@johnkesich8696 exactly what I was thinking! Would they start burning records or bibles.
Bang on video Rick. I watched your live stream on the Carpenters. TS would never be able to do what these very talented artists have done. Call them out!
When I think of the variety of melodies from the Beatles, I'm just blown away, 60 years after I first sat up, listening to the radio and saying to my 12 year old self, "What the hell was THAT? - "I wanna hold your hand" There was NOTHING like it. Meet the Beatles was the first LP I ever owned - an Easter present from my parents. And then it didn't stop for years, all through highschool. The world changed, and they changed with it, along with me. I'm eternally greatful to the universe that i have been in it at the same time as the Beatles.
Same here my friend! Blessed beyond belief to have been there for all of it!
@redheadguy - Well said! The Beatles have accompanied me through all the various seasons of my life. There will never be anyone that can compare to them.
By my calculation, you're 72. I'm 56. I like The Beatles a lot, and totally respect their place in music history, but for me age 12 was the discovery of Led Zeppelin, and I continue to believe that they belong right up there with The Beatles in terms of influence and quality of output. And no, I don't want to get into the plagiarism thing, for two reasons. First, their versions were orders of magnitude better, and second, back in their day, everybody sort of borrowed from everybody else. I had a classical music teacher tell me that a huge number of ELP tunes were based on obscure classical music, as in note for note motifs and small passages, stuff nobody but a Keith Emerson type would ever have heard before. (He also said YES did *not* do that; Rick Wakeman, Steve Howe and Chris Squire really were that good.)
Almost the exact experience!
My unusual experience was very similar. My mother who was pretty religiously oriented, played a great deal of classical music for her children when we were growing up. Then, on Valentine's Day (February 14th) 1964, she gave me (age 15) and my sister (age 12) a copy of Meet the Beatles. I had not seen their performance on Ed Sullivan 5 days earlier, and never even heard of the Beatles before. We thanked my Mother for the strange gift of the album, although my silent thought at the time was 'What in the hell is this?' It just all seemed so odd at the time, as she'd never bought any music for us before. Looking back later, it blows my mind. What did she know, that we had no clue about at the time? P.S. I could not agree more with Rick Beato's assessment. The Beatles turned out to be stunningly talented!
Once I went to a band's concert, They had made video that went viral getting 3M views but the venue was empty. That's when I realized you tube numbers could give a fake perception of what success really means.
Exactly, I sing in a video that went viral years ago and gained its 1.2M views with the original uploader (it's in Russian and mostly was popular for obscene lyrics sung in a semi-operatic voice). My cultural influence amounts to about zero, no matter what the numbers say ) And yes, we all bow down to Beatles despite the views on TH-cam.
Not sure how that's relevant to taylor swift who sells out massive stadiums nightly.
You will find thousands outside the stadiums Taylor sells within minutes, because they just want to be there.
What you're saying is true... But not for Taylor Swift at all. She is on a billion dollar grossing most successful tour of all time. The demand for her tickets is insane. People are ready to buy her ticket for even 20,000 USD on resale.
@@Natalia_Belenkaya Especially knowing that YT strips views away from channels that don't buy in to their advertising packages.
The true test of time is how many of her songs get picked up and played by other artists and orchestras in the future.
Thing is, no songs get covered anymore. I can't think of a song over the past 20 years that has had a major cover.
@@EF-fc4du True. Songs get sampled but not covered.
@@EF-fc4du Isn't that because you can just listen to the original now that everything is digital? Back in the 60's singles were not in print anymore a year after their initial release.
Ryan Adam’s covered her album 1989 - it’s excellent
@@barbaramonaco105 Weezer did Toto - Africa and Disturbed did The Sound of Silence.
I remember back in 67 listening to the car radio (AM) and the disc jockey said "And here is the group that is going to replace The Beatles - THE MONKEES". Then The White album gets released and that put an end to all that nonsense.
Your explanation of "I Am The Walrus" gave me goose bumps. I never realized that opening chord was B. What a strange progression, no wonder it blew me away when I was a kid in 1967.
One of my two favorite Beatles songs.
better yet, listen to Dennis Elsas "Song Evolution" on the Beatles channel/Sirius
"I AM HE" a tenant of Crowley who graces Pepper cover,,TWICE
The better question is who will be continued to be listened to and covered by all genres of music in 50 years?
Pop music "beds" reminds me of the music I search for on music libraries for TV shows.
There’s gonna be more way more pop fans than 60s rock fans by then.
One has to realize that classic stations often don't play the real Billboard hits, but the cream of the time period. I suspect that people will still be covering acts such as Beth Hart, Adele, Eminem, and Tool on the international level. Beth Hart already has a couple of cover bands and has had at least one song translated into another language (Vietnamese) so it could be sung by contestants on a TV singing program. When she was a contestant on Star Search in 1993, Beth Hart sang an original song called Am I The One which is still being sung by TV singing contestants. Beth hart has also written songs in several genres.
I have teenage kids and am blown away by how much "classic rock" and 60s-80s pop they listen to. That stuff does not seem like it's going away. Hell I am 51 and I listened to 60s and 70s stuff and it was before my time and thought I was listening to "old stuff" when I was younger.
@@Mindphaser1 where did you get the impression that I didn't listen to music past the 80s? In fact music prior to 1990 is probably my least listened to time period. Maybe you read a different comment?
@@PeteQuad i'm in my late 20s and listen predominately to music from the 70s/80s, it feels like such a breath of fresh air in comparison to what's in the pop culture zeitgeist right now. its' like the difference between wholefoods and fodder. but if all you've ever had is fodder you'll have no idea what you're really missing, which is why i'm hugely grateful my dad gave me a great musical education, sounds like you've afforded your kids the same privilege.
Im from Argentina and i study in the music conservatory, we study Bach, Mozart, Piazzolla, Monteverdi (etc) and The Beatles. So, there's that...
When the Beatles came back to Liverpool for a premier for the movie 'Help' i was one of 100,000 people in the city to see them pass in the limo and go into the Odeon cinema!
Modern artists can not comprehend the way artists of yesterday swept the world. There will never be a comparison. The Beatles, Elvis, Frank Sinatra, Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd. There is something about them that lives on today, as if they never left. Something ethereal. Taylor Swift will fade away... yes she's talented and impactful, but I will happily place her in the shadow of these artists. She's a trend, not a world altering phenomenon. The echo of her music will not ring so powerful as The Beatles when 60 years has come and gone.
Elvis was a thief and not that great. He was just stealing from black artists his whole career.
I still see kids walking around in Led Zeppelin t-shirts.
She definitely is a phenomenon, one that could be considered world altering. It’s just not in the ways that the Beatles were a phenomenon and world altering. She’s a different kind of success, but like Rick said, she could more closely be related to a content creator like Mr. Beast.
Rick pulling out his No 1 Country song plaque had me rolling 😂😂😂
You could say you got rick rolled
@@guywiesel2380 And he's just hitting his stride, there could be many more! More Billionaire songs, less Taylor vs da whole wide woild ;-)
Got to check Rick's hit out now. 😂
@@MeYou-yz2yzyeah, somehow I completely missed it
@@MeYou-yz2yz honestly not missing much lol, it's just your standard 2010s country hit. Cool that he's a part of it though
The Beatles is still being discovered. I read a book about the Beatles in 4th grade (2020) for school work and was amazed by how popular they are. So I told my Alexa and said to play their most popular songs and I started listening to them daily on my Amazon Alexa while playing video games. Then when I got a phone a year later the first app I got was Spotify so I could listen to the Beatles.
My friends thought I was weird for listening to the Beatles until one really liked the song Hey Bulldog. And he got into music and now loves The Beatles. And another one of my frineds isnt really a Beatles fan but started listening to rock and older music.
The Beatles are still being discovered amd loved in new technologies and generations and it will probably stay like that.
Also i listened to The Beatles for 32,000 minutes on spotify
You are a genuine soul my man ❤
@johnabbotphotography
"32,000 minutes"
So you listened to Beatles songs like....10,000 times (if we consider that each song is like 3 minutes)??
According to my calculation, that means that you listened to EACH one of their songs, like 65 times (unless you listened to the same song...10,000 times :p).
Dude, I've been listening to the Beatles for 34 years, and even I don't think that I've listened to their songs so many times! :p
@@Dreamcatcher9000 I’d like imagine that about 20% of that time is dedicated to listening to Hey Jude, It’s All Too Much, You Know My Name (Look Up the Number), Revolution #9 and I Want You (She’s So Heavy) at least once a day. 😇
The greatness of many Beatles songs is hardly repeatable and at the same time utterly necessary. It's like finding a 12 carat diamond.
The Beatles were custom made , today's music is assembly line, but it's unfair to compare any and all to the Beatles.
The Beatles arrived in the middle of high school days and completely altered my appreciation of rock music. It was their memorable lyrics, melodies and complex chord progressions that caught my attention. People in my generation can still sing their songs even after 60 years which demonstrates their impact. When I listen to Swift, I am totally amazed and confused at her popularity. I’m so glad I was born when I was, and lived in the sixties and seventies during the greatest rock period ever.
Well, at least the most military-intelligence influenced, according to INSIDE THE LC by Dave McGowan. Conspiracy First site has tons more on this.
Although I wasn't really into Beatles music until they're later Rubber Soul era, I can't deny their the GOAT. They rigorously created an unbelievable amount of quality music in a relatively short period of time. They are too pioneering & musically versatile to not be the greatest.
I wasn't even alive then, and I do not understand Swift's popularity. She is really a generic teeny-bopper "pop artist", and her lyrics strike me as a whinny spoiled narcissist with nothing to sing about besides all her failed relationships. A lot of her tracks sound downright depressing and I would hesitate to even call them "pop".
She may be bigger than the Beatles now. But will she bigger than the Beatles in 10 years? @OhhhBugger
Today’s popular music is 99.9% garbage as are most things. I feel badly for my nephews who are surrounded by garbage games, tv and music. I’ll do my best to help them escape the bad stuff.
As a music teacher, I love everything you say in this video and your insight as far as the history of music and the production of music is spot on, but I worry that it doesn't matter to this generation that is so driven by Tik Tok and other social media. They don't seem to care about any of the history and seem to fail to recognize the limitations of past technology and how bands like the Beatles over came those things and still accomplished what they did. I have a real concern for the future of music because of a lack of understanding of how music has developed, to them "Streaming" has always been a thing, and they don't realize how epic a band like the Beatles was and they did it with out all that Tech. Keep up the good work, I love your content.
"They don't seem to care about any of the history and seem to fail to recognize the limitations of past technology and how bands like the Beatles over came those things and still accomplished what they did."
I understand and agree with some of what you are saying, but is it possible they accomplished what they did because the limited technology didn't distract them from being together in the real world to create great music? Do you think Paul, John and George would have composed the songs they did if their faces were buried in their phones watching Tik Tok videos? Would George Martin have produced Sgt. Pepper's if he had Pro Tools and a limitless number of tracks, plug-ins, VST's, etc.? In the book, The Beatles Recording Sessions, I found it amusing to learn how many of the sounds were created. For example, in For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite:
"After a great deal of unsuccessful experimentation, Martin instructed recording engineer Geoff Emerick to chop the tape into pieces with scissors, throw them up in the air, and re-assemble them at random."
this is not true, i recently took a history of jazz to rock class at my university and a vast array of kids who are tiktok influenced people engaged with the music so well along with the history of it all. it was really cool to see.
taking what you have said here to Ricks point, because of the Tick Tock, quick in out of all that, no one will care much for Taylor in 60 years but here we are 60 years on still in love with the Beatles.
If you are really a music teacher then i advice you to take a look at "Taylor Swift NOW Listening Session with Taylor Grammy Museum" here on YT. In it she shows how her songs changed from the initial voicemail idea and she describes the rest of the proces and then she performs them without all the production. It am sure it will be informative because you seem to have some pretty strong pre conceived notions about her.
@@mikedebruyn Just wondering, where did you get your degree in music? Since you seem to know a lot about music, and are advising a music teacher here, I could use some advice on which university to send my talented son to. Looking at Julliard, Manhattan School of Music etc.; perhaps you have insight into these or other college's 4-year bachelor of music programs? He will likely go on to a masters and doctorate after that, if you have insight into those advanced degree programs, but first things first!
Taylor Swift and Beatles? How are they even in the same conversation? Love the channel. Awesome interviews and content, knowledge and expertise.
These knuckleheads should make a GENERATIONAL talent/s list..Swift not..
Reminds me of 1989, when a guy named Robert Pilatus said in an interview that he had done more to music than Elvis, Bob Dylan and the Beatles … had to give his Grammy back after it was revealed that he and his „bandmate“ where just lip syncing 😂😂😂
@@franklinblack2716if you made an all-time talent list these „knuckleheads“ would be bottom feeders … the Beatles, queen or Led Zeppelin would be in the middle, while guys like John Williams or Hans Zimmer would be in the upper third … but no living talent would reach the great classical composers like Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Verdi and Mozart
Of course there in the same conversation also nobody mention about Coldplay and the Beatles
@@franklinblack2716lol Taylor Swift is an amazing artist, you are just bitter
I love it, rick! When you hit that beatles chord that was so beatle ish the smile on ricks face was priceless!
The Beatles' later albums = Michelin-rated restaurants.
Taylor Swift's later albums = McDonald's or Taco Bell.
Sales does not equal quality.
😂
@@jacobferrera1777 you must be delirious from all that corporate processed sugar and salt😂
Dude, local mom and pop restaurants suck. Its food you can literally cook at home. I wouldn't know because I've never listened to Taylor Swift, but then I havent listened to the Beatles since I was 16 either. Love love me do, you know I love you. Seems like the Beatles set a lot of templates, not all so laudable.
Rick is really starting to sound like the old guy in the park yelling at pigeons.
Perfectly said
@@mikearchibald744 I should have specified the Beatles' last 8 albums rather than their first. Cheers!
I’m nearly 70 now the Beatles were the soundtrack to my early life,nothing but nothing will ever match what the Beatles were and did and still are, proof? Still talking and playing their music over 60 years later .So glad I was born when I was 🎶🎸🎶🎸
I'm turning 70 in a few months, so I'm about the same age. For most of my like I liked the Beatles, but honestly, I don't get much out of their music anymore.
@@martymcfly1776 sorry to hear that I still enjoy them and listen to them most days.
I just turned 77 and the Beatles were and are one of the biggest influences in growing up-I evenpped drugs and started meditating in 1968 and went from there. There are some artists who are beyond comparisons: the Beatles, Billie Holliday, Ray Charles......
It's basically like when a car company outsources all the components and assembles the car as opposed to the company that builds everything in house. Swift outsources the talent where as the Beatles were the talent
In simple layman's language, your annalise was spot on.👏
Except in that scenario taylor swift is the house and creates everything on her own. Beatles had 4 people in an assembly line pumping out songs
You nailed it.
Rick, your TSwift v Beatles analysis is spot on…like most rock, the Beatles songs can be traced to the Blues. But their ability to transform styles of other musical structures into rock that was both a critical and commercial success, is unequaled.
Im from Cuba, I've been living in the US for about a year now, never heard of Taylor before moving to the US. I think you can find Beatles fans or people that know of the Beatles and their songs around the globe.
I cant name any song from her. But i can make a list of songs from Leo Brower and others amazing Cuba musicians that i love. I hope Cuba can be free from US sanctions one day.
i mean, there's that 60 year head start...
Exactly.
@@ride5000 ok on that, im just saying my experience. And totally agree with Rick here: Taylor is never gonna be that influential music wise as The Beatles, i mean pick up almost anything now a days and there’s something from The Beatles there, or there’s something from The Beatles that influenced that
@@l.a.s8274 I know the US has played a part in it, but it’s only our government to blame: they had 60 years to get their things together: they just don’t want to.
This is a clear narrative of the difference of how music is made of then and now, using the Beatles and TS as examples. Well done Rick for approaching this without bias and with clear, real information.
On point! Thank you! In Germany we have a saying: When the sun of culture stands low, even dwarfs throw long shadows ;)
Ausgezeichnet!
Gesundheit !!!
First time I’ve found myself agreeing with a Germ in a while. If only your country wasn’t determined to help that sun set!
I think I might steal this phrase and use it here in CA...sooooo great! Very descriptive.
Nice!
4:19 sounds like I'm on-hold..
when this kind of comparison comes up with the beatles, i say "lets compare who their competition was/is" - and that tells you why the beatles are still being discussed today as the GOAT. beatles competition for top spot on the charts - the rolling stones, the beach boys, the who, stevie wonder, neil diamond, bob dylan, simon and garfunkle, the motown artists, the stax artists, some of the most beautiful and memorable music was created during the time the beatles reigned. who are taylor swifts' competition? beyonce? bruno mars?
Agreed. Such an incredible era for talented musicians. These artists invented a lot of the rock/pop vocabulary.
Well said.
Great point. The Kinks, The Doors, Jimi Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane, The Byrds, The Rascals, The Buffalo Springfield, Cream, Traffic, Steppenwolf, Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young. The list could go on and on.... So much competition that didn't all sound the same.
BAM!!!!!
You think TS music would be analyzed and studied in music schools?
I agree Rick. Also, as you. pointed out when "Get Back" was released, when the Beatles called it quits, the entirity of the Beatles catalog was written before any of them had reached their 30th birthday. A fact that just astounds me and is hard to fathom.
I like to point that fact out as well. But even that doesn't tell the whole story. Consider that less than five passed between when the Beatles first appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show and the "rooftop concert" - just think about how their music changed over that short a time, and how they changed music.
Genius is fleeting. Most groups wrote all their best songs before age 25, it's no accident. Well known in the mathematics and scientific community, if you don't get it done by age 25 most likely you won't. Beautiful Mind.
And George Harrison was just 25 when they broke up
I'd say they were in decline and it was a good thing. They'd done some ground-breaking albums that I still love and still stand the test of time today, but the last couple of albums, while recognizable, seemed to lack total enthusiasm. Apart from All Things Must Pass, nothing much happened afterwards. Not to denigrate the members, but they weren't The Beatles.
And as we all know, Taylor Swift did absolutely nothing before her 30th birthday. No worldwide number 1s, no record breaking, no songs an entire generation knows the lyrics too.... nothing...
You have to remember…in the 60’s, when a publication wrote an article with an opinion, it was because they backed that belief and wanted to spread that opinion to its readers. When they do it now, that’s not their goal. They do not care. Their only goal is to get you to click so they immediately make the ad revenue. They want you to click and scroll. That’s it. So of course an inflammatory headline will do that.
It kind of sounds like neither you nor Rick read the article that you have strong opinions about.
Exactly why the creator posted this video. Everything with Taylpr in it will result in clicks by people who love her and people who love to hate her even more.
Hey Rick !
As a German musician who learnt almost everything by dissecting every Beatles Song in the 70's ( born 1957) I can only say : you nailed it !!!!
Just bought your books !
Keep the fight for meaningful music alive !
Reinhard
Reinhard, da geb ich dir und Rick recht. Man muß sich mal überlegen wie lange man schon über die Beatles spricht. Das ist jetzt fast 60 Jahre her. Wer wird noch über diese Taylor Songs in 10 Jahren sprechen, bzw. sie noch im Radio spielen?? Niemand mehr. Ich selbst habe mich als Hörer und Musiker schon Anfang der 2000der Jahre v. der neuen "Musik" verabschiedet und höre lieber meine alten Schallplatten als dieses seiche Gedudel im Radio, das sich für mich wie Fahrstuhlmusik anhört...nach 30 Sekunden vergessen!
Amazing that they still compare anyone who's had any musical success to a 60 year old band, that was done and dusted by about 1970. I'm just reading a fantastic Paul McCartney book and he constantly talks about the face to face, two guitar songwriting sessions with John, in bedrooms, hotel rooms, studios, on planes, in cars whatever, they wrote everything and recording everything themselves. Then I saved up and queued up in the rain and snow to buy the single or the album and still have them. Nice article Rick.
Rick pulls out a framed certification for a number one song -- "It's not hard to get". I think I hear the cries of thousands of songwriters.
I know he was being humble but that Parmalee song is one of the better country songs of the past 15 years.
I got a buddy who used to be a rock band leader - he was one of many that didn't make it- He has sold 10 country songs
That's exactly what I was thinking... you know you're dealing with a different breed when the man pulls out a number one record from some nondescript corner of the room and says they're not hard to get!!! hehehe.....
He is talking in context of being a big fish in a small pond. He has a number one country song, but not a number one pop song. You can get a number one is rock, country, comedy, or some smaller genre much easier than having the number one song in the US on the pop charts. Every Beatles hit was a number one on the pop charts. A third of Taylor's hits do not even qualify by that measure. That reduces the number of number one hits she has.
@@BreetaiZentradi Rock isn't a small genre, though, and neither is country - especially in the US. Plus, Beato isn't the performer of that song. *No one* bought it because of him. Even most fans of the band didn't know he worked on this song.
Imagine Jack Antonoff claiming that he has number one songs. Would you believe him? Because he doesn't. Taylor Swift does, even though he is the one with the actual technical skills there.
love your take on this. As someone that lived through the Beatles era ( 1963- now )
i love when someone like yourself can decipher and analyze through the BS that accompanies the occasional false statement or argument that some artist is better than the Beatles. The list of music that these men made is nothing short of astonishing.
Hey Rick The Beatles officially arrived in 1962. They disbanded in 1969 but officially 1970. That’s 7 years of recording. The impact that they made to the world in those 7 years no one will ever repeat. How many years has Taylor been around. That sums up everything. Listen to She Loves you from 1963 then Tomorrow Never knows from 1966 it’s like WOW.
It was at a moment when music was ready to change the world. Pop music isn't having that moment now. Picasso changed the world too but people have long since stopped caring about painters.
"That sums up everything." Um OK. Taylor Swift's first album came out in October, 2006. That's nearly 18 years ago. She was 17 and has songwriting credit on each track. You don't have to like her music and the Beatles will very likely go down as having much greater cultural impact, but don't pretend she's a flash in the pan or doesn't have massive reach and impact in her time.
In the 60's in ten years the music in general changed drastically in the 2010's and 2020-2024 the music doesn't change so much
The point about the Beatles music being so varied is so valid. Look at the I, V, vi, IV progression. It’s literally used in 100s, probably even thousands of pop songs. Plenty of artists use that progression in multiple songs, even from one album. The Beatles used it once, in the song let it be. All of those hits, and they used one of the most common chord progressions only one time
I have no idea how true that is, but off the top of my head I recall Oh! Darling also contains a prominent I - V - vi - IV, although it leads into it with that very nice V7(#5)
They are all stealing from Bach.... He invented "Pop" music
And Beatles did that way before it became the axis of awesome chord progression 😂
My point is even when they had the same idea they didn't do it due to lack of creativity rushing into next album, they are masterpieces
@@AnthonyFlack I guess you’re right but even that song, not the whole verse is just that progression
@@themayor3263 You can't steal from Bach. You merely receive his blessing and his bounty.
Totally agree. I'm 29 but fell in love with the Beatles music when I learned to play guitar as a kid - the way the Beatles shift the underlying chords & melody, leading you somewhere whilst keeping the end result accessible and catchy...it is just complete genius & mastery of songwriting that fully reveals itself when you sit at a piano or with a guitar and play/sing the song.
By comparison, if you play a modern pop song on acoustic guitar, it is exactly what Rick describes - the same sequence repeated, with a narrow, often repeated melody. If it changes it all, its predictable. It's just not the same thing, and it kinda falls to bits without the production
Just found this. No, Rick, you are not wrong; that was heartfelt and right. It's asemblyline music, the new muzak...Spent my teen years growing up to the Beatles soundtrack with all its changes. There's simply no comparison.
....you cannot compare anyone to the beatles.....people today accept dishwasher as music
That's a bit sexist
:D good so kiddo !
CALLING IT DISHWATER IS CORRECT BECAUSE IT ALL BELONGS IN THE SEWER
Let it be was the only best song ive heard from them
It's called ASMR! Gosh!
Thank you, Rick Beato! I am going back to the Beatles right now, and it is unbelievable how advanced they are and how great their compositions are. I am truly happy for living my life in a generation, being here through the beginning and the story of pop music 60-70-80-90. That's where everything happened. I saw the Beatles on stage in Stockholm as a very young boy, and that was and probably still is the greatest moment in my life. It was hypnotizing! And then every record that came out - one after another was a completely new experience! The combination of these 4 guys was a miracle.
You are right on! They were different because they wanted to be. No formulaic pablum.
Me too I've been there also
Nonsense! It started in the 1950’s with Elvis Presley. How can you not know this? How can you think that the Big Bang was in the 1960’s?
I'm not a Beatles fan but even then, I can at least hum all the songs Rick mentioned. Yet I can't tell a Taylor's song from one another.
Yep, and in addition it is difficult to hum her songs, because basically they have no distinct melody.
In terms of number of good songs released, Linkin Park is better than Swift.
I can't even tell you more than 2 of her songs. SORRY NOT SORRY.
Beatles were literally cookie cutter when they came out.
@@mpls1982 They were and than they got a lot more experemintal and creative as they want on
totally agree on what you're saying Rick!! and I am very happy you made this video to make it very clear!!
I think the journalist who wrote that in NYT should be fired directly. How can they possibly think that Taylor Swift is bigger than the Beatles!!!! Probably if you look at it only from a business point of view, yes she is much smarter business wise than the Beatles, but that is because the Beatles were too busy making incredible music and being REAL TALENTED ARTISTS!!! Taylor Swift is just a very good business women, leading a multinational in a very good way, but it does not have to do anything with art nor being an artist... show business.
Completely crazy to say TS is bigger than the Beatles!!
Yes. I am old-ish at 60, but music today cannot compare in any way to music of the 19060s-1990.
With the exception of John Mayer.
Editing was so important back then. ; )
@@ctown6592john’s a one in a million 🎸 an endangered species 😔
19060s?
@@THEKARAOKEDUDE you know what they mean.
Nailed it. Look at impact not just to music as a whole, but to MUSICIANS. The Beatles are historic.
To be fair, they will both be historic.
Yes but The Beatles are the benchmark and TS is a footnote.
@@leosan2173 we'll see about that, and if it does, it'd for different reasons, talent is certainly not the reason for Taylor.
@@leosan2173do you think T Swift will be inspiring people to write songs 60 years from now? I highly highly doubt it. And yet the Beatles are still inspiring new generations 60 years after they played the Ed Sullivan show.
@@stealthbastard8837 Exactly; she is bereft of any.
I have 3 grown daughters and 2 granddaughters, and they all still listen to The Beatles. Their music lives on in this family - we listen to albums!!! As you said, their music has always been diverse in many ways. Yes, Taylor sells out with huge concerts, but to be honest with you, at my age back then, we didn’t have the kind of money for big concert tickets and merchandise that’s available like now to support musicians- I had to babysit to buy a pack of Beatles bubblegum cards! My girls went through the ‘*NSYNC phase, and I went with them to concerts, and they, in turn, have seen Paul And Ringo with me numerous times. I’m proud of that. Now I think I’ll go listen to my Rubber Soul album!
Awesome!! Proud of you!
Good call!
this is lovely
I've been a musician most of my life, at 65 years old, I still listen to all kinds of good music, from jazz to rock, pop,blues, country, classical, classic rock, heavy rock, etc. to this date , I don't know what Taylor swift sounds like, have not listened to a single song of hers anywhere!
My response is: time will tell. As a kid, I remember watching in awe The Beatles premier performance on the Ed Sullivan Show. The next day at school, all us kids were buzzing about them. Our teacher said, "Twenty years from now someone is going to say The Beatles and you are going to say 'Who?' ". We all know how that went.
@bruce9531 Swift has been around long enough now that I think we're in a better position to be able to judge the likely longevity of her work than your teacher was with the Beatle's, and there's little to suggest it has the qualities to remain relevant or inspiring...to the extent that if her work does actually remain a cultural force 3 or 4 decades from now that'll stand as an indictment of the culture rather than a reflection of the depth and originality of her output.
@@sierrabianca right, so you're predicting the future exactly the same as the teacher from OP's story. Got it.
@@sierrabianca as Rick said, she's a content creator. Constant output to remain relevant, without regard to actualy quality. Just release, release, release.
@@hugoku 11 original albums in 20 years. How exactly is that “release, release, release” and “constant output”?
And btw, The Beatles released 13 albums in 7 years. That’s twice the output that Taylor has 😂
@@sierrabianca “If she sticks around it’s an indictment of the culture”. And the teacher (and everyone else of the same opinion) would have said the EXACT same thing. Older generations always complain how the youths are degenerating culture. Existential angst that one is aging out to be the primary driver of culture as younger generations take the wheel often makes one bitter and petty. People say history doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme. In some cases though, it actually just does repeat.
Also I wonder how it is that people can laud Paul McCartney as one of the greatest songwriters of all time, but at the same time dismiss his opinion that Taylor is actually good. He either has a good musical sense or he doesn’t.
"Nobody says this Beatles song sounds like this other Beatles song", you used them as an example but that's something to be said about many old "pop" (as in popular) artist. Nowdays I even found myself confused as to which artist is singing the songs cause many of them sound so alike, I also end up starting the songs with the lyrics from a completely different song when listening to it on the radio only to dind out is a different song that just happened to sound almost identical but with different lyrics. I also realized that many songs from the same album many times are so alike that you can listen to them one after the other and the transition is sooo smooth mostly cause the instrumental is pretty similar. I could go on 😂 Love your video as always
On point !
I have to ask, are these therefore actually songs or just clips and ideas as a collagen of reformation of say at best, a Warhol in essence and not great musical art?
4 chord songs.
In the case of Taylor Swift, the game that some like to play, is which song did Jack Antonoff recycle to make the new Taylor Swift song and did he even bother to change the key?
There were many older bands that did have the same-sounding songs. Gary Puckett and the Union Gap immediately comes to mind. George Thorogood has a couple of repeats. Many artists followed up a #1 hit with essentially a remake with different chord progression, as the Righteous Brothers (reluctantly) did with Soul and Inspiration.
I bring that up only to point out how different and innovative the Beatles were at that time.
You’re right Rick. Another point is that TS doesn’t break any new ground. It’s all safe. The Beatles broke new ground on every album. People heard Pepper for the first time and were stunned.
Another great episode.
Love your channels.
Right. It’s new ground for Swifties…like when they finally hear Bon Iver.
I recall listening to radio one in my car on the way home from work ,the DJ with pure excitement in his voice stated that the band take that would be a bigger band than the Beatles had ever been
I recall laughing for some time ,& watching your upload brought my long forgotten memory flooding back
Let's not forget, The beatles did everything back then WITHOUT the help of the internet. Nowadays, artists RELY on the internet whether it streams, views and music videos. The beatles had all of that popularity without the internet and even invented the concept of the music video
Next it'll be all AI.
* Artists have relied on the current technology of their times; Les Paul comes to mind. Had the Beatles had the Internet, they would have used it, just as they used the tape and synthesizer technologies of their era to produce new sounds.
* Music videos (films) were around at least since the 1940s. Theatre audiences enjoyed them before the main feature.
~
@@SharonMacVicar-o9g The Carpenters used the technology of Les Paul and overdubbing to tremendous effect, but Richard Carpenter was at least a phenomenal arranger and composer. Today, it won't take much talent to create a prompt for the AI to take over. That's the big difference.
They did it WITH the help of TV and radio. It was a different time, so not a fair comparison.
@@Mindphaser1 _But The Beatles also has a much smaller competition_
lol.
"living is easy with eyes closed / misunderstanding all you see / it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out / it doesn't matter much to me"
No doubt great lyricists! So is Swift -
"I didn't have it in myself to go with grace/ cause when I fight you used to tell me I was brave/ and if I'm dead to you, why are you at the wake?/ cursing my name, wishing I stayed, look at how my tears ricochet"
"While you were out building other worlds, where was I?/ Where's that man who threw blankets over my barbed wire?/ I made you my temple, my mirror, my sky/now I'm begging for footnotes in the story of your life/ drawing hearts in the byline"
"And I won't confess that I waited/ but I let the lamp burn/ while the men masqueraded/ I hoped you'd return with your feet on the ground/ tell me all that you'd learned/ cause love's never lost when perspective is earned/ and you said you'd come and get me but you were 25/ and the shelf life of those fantasies has expired/ lost to the lost boys chapter of your life/ forgive me Peter please know that I tried to hold on to the days when you were mine/ but the woman who sits by the window has turned out the light"
literally just a couple beautiful lyrics from her. Hope this sheds some light on her talent for those unaware.
The first song I ever learned to play properly on guitar was 'Blackbird' and it's the only one I still remember 40 years later.
Love both channels, rock. One thing that no one ever mentions is the difference in how many record sales it took to have a #1 single in the 1960s and and how few record/streaming sales it takes in the current era. The beatles had to sell WAY more records to achieve a #1 thsn taylor swift has to today. This is not taking away anything from her talent,or the quality of her songs, but the chart landscape is completely different now in contrast to then.
Its not only the music that changed in the years after the Beatles.... The audience has changed from music lovers to clickers...the music is on the background and doesn't seem to matter as much as it had in the past, we bought and listened to music because we loved music... nowadays its on a video in the background and some buy it or stream it afterwards. In other words, lots of streams but less people really listen to the music
Also, music was more expensive in the Beatles era, not only monetarily, but in terms of convenience. One had to go to a store to buy a single, unless one was a member of a record club or ordered from a catalog, all of which required much more effort than using Spotify.
And dont forget the social media marketing around the music. Back in the day, there was only media: magazines, radio and TV interviews. Thats it. If you missed it, you were outta luck. Today, artists have a team of social media chimps feeding the hype to the fans 24/7.
Two albums per year and two or three singles
I’m 58 years old & proudly wear my Beatle album tees throughout the summer. The Beatles were often imitated but never duplicated. Nobody can touch what they accomplished in six years.
Not the question old man
@@tidalcliff2202 Damn, dude. You're mean for no good reason.
@@daydoe40s Was a reference to a show, but still you guys are bringing up things that are irrelevant to the conversation.
@@tidalcliff2202 Who are you, the moderator? You get to tell people what's relevant? Everyone's entitled to their opinion, not just you. If you had an intellect you would have a proper discussion with people, not just make snide comments.
@@daydoe40s He's not mean, just a punk hiding behind his keyboard.
Being a Beatles fan, and with complete respect for Taylor's talent, I must say there is no comparison. Simply ask yourself, how many of Taylor's songs do you believe will be covered by other superstars and orchestras, and how many will still be getting airplay 50 or even 60 years from now. The answer is ZERO! The Lennon-McCartney compositions have been, and will continue to be covered by the worlds greatest artists and orchestras for decades because the melodies are timeless, beautiful and joyful. Taylor is a great commercial success, but musically, she's not in the same universe as the Beatles.
Great video Rick
Wholeheartedly agree , too add what people forget is to buy The Beatles records in those days you had to physically go to a record store
Now you can click & buy from your phone or computer
The Beatles phenomenon will never be topped
Yeah, because when Taylor sold-out three back-to-back 96K-seat stadiums in the same city three nights in a row, those almost 300K people wouldn't have gone to a record store to buy her album. Good call 😂
There are just too many variables that are different today to make a fair comparison. Up until the 90's, labels would get behind an artist and shovel it down everyone's throats because no one really had a choice - only the ones they gave to you. Today, the market is saturated and an artist gets one crack to prove their worthiness after they've pushed through the field.
The real issue here, as Rick couldn't hide too well, is that the Beatles were better writers and musicians and people get but hurt that some generic pop singer is crushing it.
@@ev25zv Beatles would sell out more than three back to back concerts at a city if they were alive today for a reunion. Millionaires would be lining up to pay a fortune for a ticket in the bleachers. Networks would be throwing money at them for broadcast rights, and billionaires would be paying a million bucks each to sit next to Taylor Swift in the front row seats, so they could all watch one of the greatest moments in history.
People aren't getting butt hurt that she's smashing it, but if you make a call that she's bigger than the Beatles then you're asking for a slapdown from half the Western world's population, just like Lennon got a slapdown for suggesting the Beatles were bigger than Jesus. Swift would be at the bottom of that trio.
@@joe-s5r Dude, that's 96,000 people per show in the same city three nights in a row, not just three shows in a city. A Beatles reunion wouldn't be much more popular than McCartney on his own. Today is way different. There are not enough boomers. Your estimate is way off. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know... I don't want to hear about a young relative of yours that likes the Beatles, lmao.
@@ev25zv Taylor Swift has done amazing having a phenomenal career and suddenly gone massive in the last few years. Like Rick no one is disputing her talent as an artist
My wife and daughter went to see her this year in Singapore and said it was amazing
The Beatles is a different beast these had no template to follow , they created the band template a cultural phenomenon the world will never see again. There artistry as musicians, writers and innovators is unparalleled
@@ev25zv have to disagree on your the market today is saturated
It’s full of very very average music
I’m not a boomer by the way but grew up in an age of global artists and bands now deemed greats or legends
Very few from today will be classed that . Taylor Swift is
Greatness isn’t measured by record sales or tours . Drake has sold millions is he a great not to most people
You can’t compare stadium attendance to record sales
The Beatles played the biggest concert ever at Shea Stadium they created again, innovated this concept
It was in its infancy
The Beatles toured today trust me it would be the biggest tour ever
What a clever, intelligent human being. Thank you Rick, Chris
@@ChrisOneil-vg5wo kiss his feet
Taylor Swift is a content creator. The Beatles are musicians. - the nail couldn't have been hit squarer in the head than that.
I would say Taylor playing guitar and piano and singing makes her a musician. And when I think about it The Beatles and Taylor are content creators too.
Yep, nailed it. Granted, she can strum a guitar a bit and she sings and I'm sure you comes up with a melody line now and again . . . but to compare these automatons the Taylor's of the music INDUSTRY) to the real deal is so incredibly stupid. Just shows how big-money-'music' lobotomized the vast majority of the sheople to believe they're listening to actual music. Crying shame if you ask me.
Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against the person Taylor Swift . . . but it is indeed content; not art.
@@adamp108 Bit of a fan aren't you? Musically/quality wise The Beatles are Rembrandt and Taylor Swift is a MacDonald placemat. Within the current placemat-universe she's probably the best and brightest. Granted. But mainstream radio-music devolved since the 90's. As a professional musician - you said something about 'no clue of art or process', funny - I'm sure I know what I'm talking about. Do you?
It's fine you like Taylor Swift, please enjoy, but don't make it more than it is; musac for the current generation, made by slick producers and boring as fuck. That's okay, there's plenty of real art out there which is boring as fuck as well . . . but it's art at least. Swift is not.
Lol. How do you define "musician"?
She literally wrote whole album alone. You all need to stop discrediting her artistry.
Rick... Your just so so so right! The bottom line is the amount of raw human creativity along with the musicality, variation based on the artist is that she's barely a thimble full of the talent of The Beatles! Also, to me a high level view of their music in also considering the time is the sheer level of their development in their music, their keen sense of uniqueness and variety, not just song to song, or album to album, but even within individual songs, and individual albums, and lastly they were highly innovative in all facets of their music! One last thing a bit of topic... I think that all-in-all they were much better together than apart!
There was a computer study done recently which concluded that the Beatles had less influence on pop music than other bands because their style wasn't emulated. I thought, what? Their "style" couldn't be emulated because they HAD no signature style - practically every song they put out had a DIFFERENT style! That's what made them so unique. One day it would be Lady Madonna, the next All You Need is Love. One day Penny Lane, the next Strawberry Fields. One day Birthday, the next Blackbird. And so on.
I have never bothered listening to Swift, but just a few days ago, decided I would have to make the effort because she has become such a huge cultural phenomenon. So I started out by listening to the first two tracks from Folklore. And what I immediately noticed was that the songs have no PROGRESSION, there are only rudimentary chord changes - scarcely any changes at all save to the vocal line. They remind me more of Indian ragas than Western popular music - but they don't even have the virtue of being played live. The first song - called "The 1" from memory - halfway through I found myself thinking "this track DESPERATELY needs a saxophone solo in the middle - where IS it?" Just no variety at all.
So like Beato says, these are basically just looped bed tracks over which Swift superimposes her lyrics and vocals. They do not remotely compare to the musical sophistication of The Beatles. In fact, I consider this kind of mass-produced music to be a kind of anti-music, because apart from the lyrics, the human element has been almost entirely excised. And that is true of so much pop music these days. The real art of songwriting - of complementary verse and chorus, of creative chord and key changes, of fitting words like a glove to the music - has been largely lost, replaced by this empty one-dimensional pap. I've believed for a long time, actually, that most people actually have very little appreciation of music per se, what they gravitate toward primarily are lyrics that reflect their own feelings, and/or artists who embody some personal quality they find attractive.
I guess there must still be some good new music out there, but judging by the little I have heard of Swift, I have doubts about finding it there.
If you want to listen to some great modern bands, then Black Midi and Black Country, New Road are fantastic. I'd also check out the album Madvillany by MF DOOM and Madlib. It's a hip-hop album, but I'd compare it to The Beatles in that it's constantly hopping from one idea to the next across a lot of short songs.
I think Swift has a lot of songs which are very strong lyrically, but you're correct that the music is fairly simple compared to what the Beatles were doing, especially in later works.
You are 100% correct with everything you stated. You summed up my thoughts perfectly on here. Thank you! 🙏🏼
Taylor Swift has amazing lyrics, but I agree the production lacks.
Spot on analysis and absolutely correct.
There's a great movie called Yesterday where some unexplained event makes a timeline where The Beatles never existed and only the protagonist (a "failed" musician) remembers them. He only figures this out when he's sitting with his friends one day and starts playing and singing Yesterday on his guitar. All the conversation stops and they look at him with amazement.
Yes just recently saw that movie and realized the same thing - extract Beatles and input some other artist?? Who no one would or can compare to the world wide phenom - I still can't sing you a Swift song - don't know any. And I'm way younger than the Beatles by 25 years but know all of their songs by heart.
Loved that movie. It was wonderful and amazing to be reminded or just how many wonderful songs they created.
@@Hollyberry-no-you-didntlook I agree with everyone here and prefer the Beatles but people saying they don’t know a single Taylor Swift song have to be joking lol, telling me you haven’t even heard Shake it Off? Do you listen to the radio?
Imaginative concept
@@EjayT06not that radio. I've never heard TS song or seen even a clip of her performance but I do admire her,she is obviously a smart business brain at Dolly Parton level.
The mere comparison is ABSURD.
Exactly
I agree. There will never be another band like the Beatles and people just need to get over it.
The fact it comes from the New York Times tells you all you need to know.
@@ScottPetro-tc3jn It's not about being like the beatles or a quality comparison. Taylor moves entire economies when she tours, she absolutely is as big or bigger than the beatles. There are more people alive today, there are more people into music today, there is more widespread exposure for big artists today, it's really not a stretch to say this guys.
What I learned is that Taylor Swift barely writes her own songs and her songs still suck.
Every contributor mentioned writes better songs for themselves-They’re pitching her their C game.
It's so fun as a Swiftie to listen to him 'cause we know her songs aren't that detailed, but we still like it.
To this day, I could not name one of Taylor's songs.
So fix that
I was gonna say that 🤠🤠 But I can name 2 dozens of beatles songs
I bet you could name one now you've watched this.
what song?
Me too, I know all Beatle songs, I never heard Swift. (I never listen to the radio, only YT, Spotify and LP/CD's)
The Beatles were like the ‘big bang’ of creativity in music. So many things done for the first time and as you put it ‘set the vocabulary for what came after’ you can’t possibly say a modern artist is bigger or better than that. You can have a preference, sure. But you can’t disregard the originals. Especially when all of these producers will likely cite the Beatles as an influence.
Check on TH-cam what Bernstein had to say about the Beatles... it's called - Leonard Bernstein talks about the Beatles - I think most of us would agree that a classical conductor and composer has a pretty good understanding of music.
The Beatles were like that once in a 100 year Point Break wave. And the fun of it all, was that in 1964, we knew it was that once in 100 year wave. It was glorious to ride THAT wave.
I've been diving deeper and deeper into the Beatles discography for well over a decade and have never reached a bottom. The emotional depth, theoretical complexity, and production innovation are so far above anything that's ever happened that only the people who get it get it.
I agree. The more I listen to the Beatles, the more I learn about them, read about them, etc, the more I love their music and what they did. I mean, many songs they considered simple and "throw away" are still beloved classics.
Which is the reason I stop listening to pop music. Back in the old days of rock ‘n’ roll, R&B and other genres, to be a star you had to be an artist who brought their “A” game musically, sure the labels were always about the bottom line, which was the almighty buck, however, they always recognized merit and knew the artist had to bring it and bring it hard. Now, one can be a clown with absolutely no musical talent. I’m not saying Taylor has no musical talent but she’s no John, Paul or George.
It reminds me of an episode of the Brady Bunch when the kids formed the group and two talent scouts looked at Greg and created a computerized sound for him and rebranded him as Johnny Bravo, Greg didn’t like it, they said it didn’t matter because as they put it he “ fit the suit”. That’s what we’re seeing today in pop music.
One thing to remember about the Beatles was that they would crowd the charts. They would have a #1 song, but had other songs stuck in the top ten fighting it out. They had to compete against themselves. That does not happen anymore.
Taylor swift in 2022 broke a record at one point because she occupied ALL TEN SPOTS on the billboard top 100. People absolutely still do this, you just don't follow them so you pay no attention to how popular they are.
Yes, and let's not forget that one of the Beatles songs was even competing against itself! Strawberry Fields wasn't a #1 because it was a double-A-side with Penny Lane. So some stores reported selling one song, and other stores reported selling the other, meaning neither A side got enough 'sales' to make it #1 in the weeks after it came out.
Really? Because Taylor Swift was 1-10 on the charts and her last album. And no one had ever done that.
@@adam_renfro I mean easily predictable music with similar melodies sticks, especially when you're a big name like Taylor.
@@theonebreadlord You mean like Can't Buy Me Love, Help!, Eight Days a Week, I Want to Hold Your Hand, She Loves You, . . . .
The world population has tripled since I was born: 1955, 2.7 billion; 2023, 8.1 billion.
When the Beatles broke up in 1969, 4.5 billion potential Swifties were not yet born. It looks like apples and oranges no matter how you slice it.
Also, way more discretionary money, way more affluence. Way more convenience to streaming and DLing. It's an infantile, comical comparison...
Well said! I was born in 1952. I sure do miss the 50s and 60s. It was so affordable to go to live concerts back in the 60s. When The Fillmore West opened up in 1968 in San Francisco, it was $3.00 to see 3 bands. If you were first in line, you got the best seat in the house. Back then the population of California was around 16 million and now it's over 40 million. Too many people now.
More like apples and road apples
I mean it should be relatively doable to ballpark how many "fans" there are of each during the relevant years, and then find as a % of the population. % is what is relevant to who is bigger, not overall number. And there is plenty of data with which to do this and get a rough estimate of the % of people who voluntarily choose to listen to the artists' music, aka "fans". We're talking huge numbers in both cases so even if you are off by a few million it wouldn't make much of a difference for the overall comparison.
I would wager that a higher % of the world population is Taylor Swift fans than there were Beatles fans in the peak of Beatles' heyday. Even if you were to limit it to the English-speaking world, probably Swift wins. You could say Taylor has an advantage because of the way music is put out, but that's still not relevant to who is "bigger." Advantage or not, one of them is definitively more popular than the other one. And I would wager that is Swift. It's the way of the world. People will get grumpy about the new age and say it is all not as good as it once was but every generation says that about younger stuff.
Not to mention a dollar was worth more 60 years ago.
The Beatles are magical. They followed no rules. Imagine taking “Blackbird” to a music theorist as an amateur, and saying: listen to this.” The key modulation in their songs, the whimsical lyrics-pure magic.
So many of their little songs are magical, The harmonies in If I fell are remarkable
Imagine taking “I am the Walrus” though 🤯
"They followed no rules."
Geezus, I'm not for taking apart the Beatles, but the first few years of the Beatles were about 1/3rd covers.
Jazz musicians HATED them.
How am I the only one who knows this?
The Beatles did not by any stretch do that level of covers, even at the start of their career. Look at their early albums. Leonard Bernstein was a fan. Ella sang their songs as did Sinatra.
^ what you said. Sinatra reportedly called "Something" the most beautiful love song of all time.
For those of us that lived in the time of the Beatles remembers that they changed more than music. The complete social structure was impacted. They were the sixties……
Popular Music has a “Before the Beatles” and “After the Beatles” mark. That’s how important and impactful they were to music. You may like them, o may hate them, but no one can’t deny their impact and influence afterwards.
Absolutely true. They changed everything, and all at once.
I do agree. However, I think you can also say that about Led Zeppelin. In fact, there are STILL LZ-type bands out there, whereas I don't know of any Beatles-type bands making original music today.
"Popular Music has a “Before the Beatles” and “After the Beatles” mark." BC- AD? Maybe Lennons "Bigger than Jesus" comment wasn't that far off.