Lou is entitled to his opinion on the Beatles. I've met people who were 'of the right age' in the 60s and didn't like the Beatles either! It's almost taboo to say you don't like them. Lou Reed wasn't a young teenager when the Beatles came out, so his perspective would have been of a slightly older person who perhaps couldn't relate to 'She loves' you'. Dylan was Lou's big influence and as Lou was a 'serious lyricist' you can understand why. Lou was also more interested in rock n roll as a form of music to explore and take it to its extremes as the Velvet Underground did. That someone was doing stuff like 'White light white heat' in 1968 is just incredible. Lou could be a very opinionated awkward person but he was definitely a major artist in terms of his work and influence. I don't think many would disagree with that.
I still enjoy Rubber Soul , Revolver , Sgt. Peppers & the white album . The Beatles' earlier stuff , not so much any more . I LOVED ALL of the V Underground albums !
@@paulgerkin2851 For me, it's hard to hate The Beatles, the earlier stuffs too. I know the earlier works are just silly love songs comparing to the later works, silly maybe, but those are just good melodies and wonderful tunes. Like "And I Love Her", "I Want to Hold Your Hand", and "I'll Follow the Sun" You can't say it's bad or it hurts the ear or anything. In the other hand, for the VU, they have some of the hardest songs for listeners to sit through, with all the noises and backing voices. Those are incredible ideas I know, but for common audiences, they are not just as good as The Beatles, because they could be extremely commercial and artistic.
I have a friend who was a teen in the 1960's and she couldn't stand the Beatles. She was into Soul music by Black and White artists. But, especially the Black artists.
@@paulgerkin2851 I mean, you cover a LOT of rock music greatness with those Beatles albums that you named. How many albums does Velvet Underground have? That's right, that's why you liked them all, because it's not that many...
Blown away, he mentioned my favorite Dylan song (lyrically) and favorite Lennon song. He once said something like "Don't have me tell you what to listen to, listen to what you like"
Amazing how people who left comments here just don't get it, although Reed's point is quite clear. Reed here was talking only of the artists he mentioned in regard to their songs' lyrics standing up as poetry/literature. Of course Reed appreciated and understood that The Beatles opened doors for people like him; he even performed Lennon's Mother live as a tribute to Lennon. Likewise, Reed's always been a Stones fan, musically he has plenty in common with them, his own guitar style is similar to Keith Richards' as they're both rooted in 1950s' Rock'n'Roll. Reed has spoken and written about these things many times; he was the first to write about taboo subjects in R&R songs, he had a university degree in literature & journalism, studied with the great poet Delmore Schwartz, wrote and published poetry and prose himself, took a lot from writers like William Burroughs, Hubert Selby Jr, etc., aspired to be the "Baudelaire of Rock'n'Roll" (which he definitely was).. his main point (among others) was to write R&R songs that had "adult" lyrics, since up to The Velvet Underground all R&R songs had been about "boy meets girl", except for Bob Dylan. Many of the opinions expressed in the comments miss the point of this interview completely (not to mention other heresies like McCartney's Helter Skelter being a "Punk" record, when it was McCartney's poor attempt to sound like early/proto Hard Rock, the "power trio" sound of Cream, Jimi Hendrix, etc.., and like all of McCartney's songs - from Lou Reed's aesthetic standpoint - totally negligible and lyrically meaningless). Most people seem to know how to talk but not how to listen. Never mind. Thanks for posting this
If Lou’s statement is solely focused in lyrics, I somewhat agree. Specially in the early years, The Beatles lyrics were mostly filler, it’s not that there was not intention in them, it’s simply they didn’t care to make something lyrically relevant. “I give her all my love, that’s all I do, and if you saw my love, you’d love her too, and I love her”. However, music is made of melody, harmony and rhythm. Lyrics are optional. And if we talk about music exploration, The Beatles work is way better than Lou’s or even Dylan themselves. Don’t get me wrong, they’re both amazing artists, but I’ve never heard a song from them remotely close to the beauty of some of the best Lennon-McCartney gems. True: Lennon’s lyrics got way better around 1967 and McCa became at fairly decent lyricist as well, but not to the level of John. In short: in lyrics Dylan and Reed > The Beatles; in music: The Beatles>Reed and Dylan. My humble opinion, feel free to disagree. And Helter Skelter was more inspired in The Who than Cream’s or Hendrix work. In any case, I don’t think The Beatles needed to prove anything to others at that point. The whole White Album is full of songs completely disconnected, not one of them a # 1. In any case, I don’t disrespect Reed’s work but even when he has a point to some extent about the lyrics, his position seemed a little narrow minded, in my opinion, considering the huge impact of The Beatles presence in culture, and the body of their work, and not finding a single good song? Seriously? Not even one? Not recognizing the impact of The British Invasion in their generation and the later success of The Velvet Underground?
Beatles did some great things that I love and have fond memories growing up listening to them, but Bob Dylan and Lou Reed actually illuminate the mind in a way that the beatles and especially the rolling stones never could.
I have come to the conclusion that Reed was indeed opinionated, but he was also a provocateur. He liked to dismiss people's heroes, because he resented hero worship. But I have also come to the conclusion that it depended on when, and what day, the interview was, because Lou gave different opinions at different times (back to the provocateur).
Tony C. bluestate69 tony depth is a generic term , if you mean writing complex musical harmonies and melodies, I would completely agree, but his influential depth on other top songwriters in so many diff genres is uncanny.. most non musicians def didn't enjoy him,his sales prove that.. but it's common knowledge among artists that he influenced top songwriters for decades since the 60s. Your right About his music it was simple 2chord poetry with a strange voice, but the beauty of it is that other great musical minds listened to and used as fuel from a emotional stand point to harness talent and create music with serious depth. blue state You are spot on about his persona. You can never really know what he believes because of contradictions.. I think it stems from severe ADHD and OCD and Social anxiety plus drugs amplifying all of them.. but I think you hit the nail on the head..
Reed had depth in his poetry/lyrics. All of his songs are mostly simple though. Sometimes simple music is really good when it’s done right. (Hence the Beatles) Though stylistically, he had incredible depth. Most velvet underground stuff was sonically genius. But the root was always simple. You could almost play their entire first album with 4 chords. Hell, heroin is just 2 chords, but it’s genius
@Tony C absolutely, ive heard him go from hero worshipping, to trashing to praising again in interviews - and that's just in the sixties. have the courage of your convictions, man unfortunately loose contrarian talk from the likes of reed bred a generation of nme types who think it clever to take shots at the avowed greats whom in terms of songwriting lou reed isnt even in the same universe as for me, i like who i like regardless and wont swerve from that for anyone. abba for instance i consider to be one of the greatest pure pop songwriters there has ever been and i dont give a toss what anyone else has to say on whether they pass the cool bar. to hell with style over substance. that needs to die. give me brian jonestown massacre over the velvet 'overlong, noisy mediocrity' underground any day
Facts?! What an asinine, moronic, utterly brain dead comment. Lou Reed was a rock and roll pioneer and shook the very foundations of music. While bands like the Grateful Dead and Love were spouting hippy claptrap in the sunshine of love, Lou Reed’s music was dark, gritty, nihilistic, raw and years ahead of its time. Never before had a band ventured into such sinister and experimental territory. No one has ever made a song remotely like Heroin or Venus in Furs and I doubt if anyone will. Therefore you saying how he didn’t have much depth only exposes your ignorance. Sure, he didn’t have a brilliant voice. Neither did Dylan, Cohen, Cave, Waits, etc. By your judgement, does that make their music bad? I don’t know how old you are, but I would suggest l doing a little research and finding out why Lou Reed and Velvets were an essential part of musical history then come back and reevaluate your imbecilic remark.
Lou loves any kind of PR, like in this interview, the next day he most likely say the Beatles were great! The reason being Americans especially New Yorkers don’t see further than their fence. I love Lou Reed as much as my favourite band the Beatles! The Velvet Underground are also up there, superb stuff in that environment. People had different opinions about that sort of sound, like Heroin, so ahead of its time. Think Lou’s glam stuff was also a starting point for change. Bowie, another mentor. But without the Beatles they’d be nothing, they roughed it and roughed it, smashed the doors open! And everyone followed. British bands are different to US bands. Lennon wrote some amazing stuff with the fab 4 - and later claimed it was junk! The first solo album he did Plastic Ono Band, which Lou points out the track Mother, as being exceptionally fantastic is right! The whole album is a Primal Therapy album only one ever made. What Lou went through as a child could have similarities with John’s, - but John did something about it - Lou kept it all inside…xx
Right, he always acted like being interviewed was a drag and some corporate bullsh*t he was obliged to do, to great annoyance, but it's easy enough to see that he loved having the captive audiences of journalists and interviewers, the ones who actually had to be there, to be enigmatic and aloof toward. He seemed to care more for reactions than being earnest.
Interesting that Lou obviously forgot that earlier in his life he loved The Beatles. In an article for 'Far Out' magazine, the author, Sam Kemp, writes that "Reed had nothing but praise for the Fab Four, stating: 'They just make the songs up, bing, bing bing,' he began, seeming to regard John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr as a sort of pop-song factory with a near 100% success rate. 'They just have to be the most incredible songwriters ever - just amazingly talented,' Reed continued. 'I don’t think people realise how sad it is that The Beatles broke up' ".
I find honest and talented people with a completely different opinion to mine really fascinating. Lou Reed would be someone I´d love to have a conversation with about how he rates lyrics, respectively their poetic quality. I´m sure he has some valid points.
Lou’s just saying his opinion. Why should he lie? The Beatles are the best selling group of all time, they don’t don’t need their egos protected. Nobody has to like anything and if someone asks you a question, the best you can do is answer it and the worst you can do is be evasive or dismissive of it if it’s a fair one. I never really understood his reputation for being an asshole during interviews. The only ones I’ve seen where he was rude was when he was being personally attacked by the media about doing drugs, being gay or being asked about statements he never made. I’m actually surprised that he kept his cool so well if anything. It’s also really interesting how he ALWAYS has an answer or a non answer for non questions immediately. Whereas, someone like Iggy Pop really did come off as a dick at times or even worse - self conscious and petty. Lou truly didn’t give a fuck and was well versed in it.
Yes, he is entitled to his opinion. But other people's opinions (including mine) is that the words he chooses suggests he is threatened or jealous of the Beatles when he praises Dylan. I was at an interview with him in the late 70's. My opinion of him is scarred by how rude and arrogant and bullying he was to a couple of the reporters there. I'm not a fan of his whiny music either. I did try. I bought 2 of his albums, and played them a lot before I gave up on it. The only hit he had - and I liked it - I found out later had more Bowie input than Lou's. I give Lou credit for hanging in there, and that's about it.
Yeah, I mean he very well could've been jealous, I don't think it's much of a secret that Lou really did care about how his work did commercially and was apparently extremely upset about 'Berlin' being panned by some critics when it came out. He very well could've been jealous of the Beatles, but I think that he can still be jealous AND not like them for separate legitimate reasons. A lot of musicians of that time, like Zappa as well, skirted those lines it seems like. I never met the guy or saw any interviews in person, if you say he was actually a dick than I believe you. From the interviews I have seen though, those particular ones in question I think the interviewers kind of deserved his shitty mood though. He also softened a lot with age iy seems like. With a lot of artists, especially Lou, it seems like he was pretty caught up in being on one hand commercial and a public figure and on the flip side making experimental music and not seeming like he gave a fuck. Some of his 70's work and actions really shows a very self conscious attempt at going in either direction to the extreme. As for his music, that's personal taste. I like a lot of his solo stuff for what it is, but none of it can touch his work with VU and I think that stuff is better than most music period. Also, I don't really care about what was or wasn't a hit personally, but if you're referring to the record transformer, Bowie And Ronson had a lot to do with it but definitely not more than Lou did. They couldn't have because most of those songs were written when he was still in VU.
Just listened to some Dylan. And Lou is right about lyrics. Dylan has no peer with his lyrics. His music is good but basic, imo. But his lyrics carry the day. jmo, but the Beatles had no peer as far as musical output. I agree with what Brian Wilson said about them. And both he and the Beatles were all about sound and melody. But their lyrics just went with their music for the most part. Lou is big on the lyrics first and foremost and a lot of his music is not far from spoken word. I think that is his interest. If that's right, I can see why he doesn't rate the Beatles. One song that rattles me from Dylan is Hey Mr Tamborine Man. And its the lyrics that get me. Wandering down a near empty road late late at night after a festival. From the Beatles it was I am The Walrus. That sound freaked me out when I first heard that song. Its like an uneasy dream taking you somewhere you aren't sure you want to be. And funnily enough, the lyrics are meaningless.
Lou at times gave great interviews. But re belittling the Beatles I think its like bluestate69 says, he was trying to provoke. There is no way Lou did not know how important the Beatles were, and what their song writing did. But one can never deny his right to say "its not for me". What it sounds like to me is that what he was really wanting to praise is that Dylan has the power to transcend by word alone. He is a poet. There are many, many top lyricists out there; but they are words that need a song. Dylan stands alone, unencumbered. Maybe that is what Lou was saying. Lou Reed for about 20 albums was fantastic. I was not a big fan of his final period. Because IMO Lou was the same thing Dylan is: an underrated writer of gorgeous melodies. Towards the end he sort of gave that up.
I do think it's perfectly reasonable to acknowledge their hugely significant contribution to popular music but say their music just isn't really your thing. I am sympathetic to that argument, though I do love a lot of their songs.
I agree....sometimes repetitive, but they both could write simple, yet beautiful accessible melodies. Ex: "Tambourine Man" by Dylan or "Sweet Jane" by Lou
The Velvet Underground was, if I may say so, the second most influential band in rock history after the Beatles. But they offered a nihilistic counterpoint to the flower power movement of that time. The Beatles conveyed the sensations of recreational LSD use, while The Velvet Underground offered interesting perspectives and stories about cocaine and heroin use (on Sunday Morning, Lou sings about the morning after waking up from a night of cocaine use). The Velvet Underground was, if not the first, one of the first bands to talk about taboo topics such as sadomasochism or to create the first gothic rock song with All Tomorrow Parties. Each band with its own. What the Beatles did above, Velvet did below. On the streets They are bands that can only be compared by level of influence and merits, but not by styles. David Bowie himself was always a big fan of the band (even since 1966, because he received a copy of the first album (the one with the banana) before it was released in 1967). And since then, he has always recognized the musical influence and importance of the band.
LR seems here to crave Dylan's approval and doesn't care what anyone else thinks (though, for an individualist, he does read the critics). He's right about "Brownsville Girl." Tremendous lyrics.
"You don't actually want to listen to the lyrics of a rock 'n' roll record." That's his first line, and I already disagree. It's his opinion though, as is his opinion about Dylan, Costello, The Beatles, Lennon, and about whomever... he is asked questions and he gives honest answers. Not much wrong with that. Everyone who knows just a bit about Lou Reed would know that he never ever was a big crowd pleaser. I am a huge Beatles fan mysefl, and I'm fine with what he says about the Fab4. I love the Velvets very much too, btw. Reed's solo career, well, I consider it very uneven. But bless him for giving us (me!) a lot of great songs.
My favorite people in music history are Bob Dylan and the Beatles so I’m confused because in a side bob Dylan is my personal genius for his lyrics and poetics songs, for his strong personality and his creation of something innovant and new. In another part we got the Beatles who revolutionized the story for ever ever with their new and melodic songs which touched the 3/4 of the world. So I love Lou Reed so much. But he can’t compare Dylan and the Beatles!
I mean, Beatles and Dylan are the foundation upon which everything that came after was built upon which is why I dont think it's fair to compare Lou (as influential as he was) to figures of that importance.
Reed was always a hard man to interview because he didn't have a filter and he wasn't shy on being controversial. It's funny that he loved Dylan so much but then again who doesn't. Anyone with a sane mind and that understands poetry does.
Nobody cares ...each to their own....I'm sure if Lennon was still alive he'd have said something similar about Lou but for mere mortals the music speaks for itself doesn't matter what they thought or said...
Lou Reed obviously had a lot going on, music wise, throughout his life. He probably just missed the boat on the Beatles. It can happen, there was so much going on during the 60's and beyond. The Beatles obviously were a lot more heavy, dark, artistic, poetic, powerful, beautiful, and weird than Lou was giving them credit for.
@deadvoguestar You can go toss off for all I care. If you think the Beatles were soft, tame, vanilla bullshit then that is your opinion and I'll stick with mine of them having plenty of darkness to indulge in. The White Album is evidence alone. And it's on the grand scale culturally.
I think Lou was just envious that things that came so easily to Lennon/McCartney ie the catchiest hooks, sublime melodies, musical progress and popular success didn't come as easy to him. He had to work harder at that (hence VU's 3rd album & Loaded) but prose and good, sometimes great lyrics came naturally to him
I like Lou Reed's music and respect that he has a right to his opinions (hey, we all do) but it is unfortunate (though unsurprising) to hear him dismiss the Beatles as "garbage". I understand the desire to want to break the mold and tear yourself away from the hero worship of a band so universally loved like the Beatles, but though they're not everyone's taste, their artistry should be respected at the very least. It's especially disappointing because I get the feeling that Lou's dislike stems from a over critical and pretentious consciousness rather than a genuine dislike of the music. I just think due to his idea of what a 'true artist' is, he wrote them off before he even gave them a chance. Unfortunately, this seems to be a prevalent attitude among many artists; this sort of pretentious idea of what makes a 'real artist' and which of those artists get to be in the 'cool kids club' (the generally lauded Beatles obviously not making the cut and definitely not that "hack McCartney"). It's painfully obvious to me when he mentions how John Lennon only ever did anything of merit solo and even then implying too little too late. While I love John Lennon that pretentiousness is highlighted when people discuss him as the only saving grace of the Beatles, and while he was certainly an amazing artist, it's usually at the expense of the 'uncool' McCartney who's just as talented in his own right. Basically, the Beatles were brilliant and you don't have to love them to acknowledge that, and sometimes in an effort to be 'different' and 'real' you actually come across as a 'try hard'. Okay end of rant lol. Still love Lou but I just disagree with a lot of what he says here.
Yeah, the garbage comment was excessively hostile towards the Beatles. What I took from it was that he thought they were not only bad, but that their music should be disposed of, like trash, seems like jealousy to me. But I still like VU.
Well “all you need is love” is just wishy washy bs. All the hippies wanting “peace for all” is such an unattainable goal due to common differences in that we all share. A lot of what the Beatles did was amazing works with well crafted music and lyrics, but other times, like “Yellow Submarine” was just complete nonsense that has no meaning but everyone tries to dive so far into everything they said back then that they ended up creating their own stories for the nonsense and regarding it as “deep”.
@@Rippd_Bagel Paul wrote a lot of sing-along kind of songs, because he liked that sort of thing very much. They had fun doing what they were doing.. he was an admirer of melody and is one of the best to ever write them. Yellow Submarine is a catchy tune. Not every song has to be some grand statement piece like ' Blowin in the wind'. It's not their fault that some listeners took everything too far. Again, All you need is love is a well-written arrangement, and the sentiment isn't 'peace for all'
I always thought Lou Reed's greatest talent was his driving, insatiable thirst to be different and to not settle for the status quo in pop music. The first Velvet Underground album was definitely ground breaking and influenced many bands/musicians over the ensuing years but as a songwriter, I think he had marginal ability. And to me, his often petty, sarcastic disdain for the Beatles and other English bands of the 60's was thinly disguised jealousy. Even if he sat down and tried(and I doubt he did) to write melodies on the level of Lennon/McCartney/Harrison, he would discover what most musicians do- it's close to impossible. You accept it, admit the Beatles were brilliant songwriters and you move on. At least that's what most musicians over the years have done, while acknowledging their respect and admiration for that kind of genius.
Dana James You do realize The Beatles were constantly dropping acid Lsd. The album Revolver hints to this as well as them admitting to it. The Beatles are overrated white boy cheesy music. Come back to reality. Most of the the biggest stars in the 60's are overrated.
Lou reed was raw and real. That's why I respect him. He wouldn't give two shits about your opinion. He said how he felt not caring what anybody thought
Jason Uriel ~ This is not the purpose of music, to be constantly angry or depressed all the time... Music is meant to lift us up, not to tear us down...That's what a great songwriter does...There should be an emotional connection between the lyricist,the song and also the listener...If you can't relate to what's being said, what's the point...That being said, Lou Reed, and The Beatles, are not that far apart,except Lou & The VU wrote about subject matter that not everyone could relate to...The Beatles were universally admired...The Velvets were initially admired, and had their niche in NYC,and then reached beyond to a larger audience...But never to the degree of the BEATLES...The VU were not commercially successful...Andy Warhol backed them financially, because of this fact...at the beginning of the group , and throughout The VU's time as a band... Lou Reed became more successful as a solo artist...
People do say things when they are messed up which they later regret. I can see that happening. The funny thing is, wasn't Reed Jewish too? Thanks for filling me in on that.
Bob dylans writing will always be on a shelf that i aspire to reach for. And when lou reed validates my thoughts.well i just feel like i was right all along and All the naysayers can kiss my ass....cuz yall dont get it. Long live dylan
The amount of butt hurt beetles fans in the comments is a little absurd. He doesn’t like the Beatles, why does that matter? He’s more into writing than melody, pretty much as simple as that.
shouldve found a different job then because nobody seemed to like him or his work. only nme hipster trash decades later because their fanboy adoration is inversely proportional to the band's quality. load of noisy, pretentious shite 😁
You know what's funny,I'll get caught into a whirlpool of comments sometimes like this thread of comments,until I see one like yours and it just kind of snaps me out of it.
Definitely. It's the substance of it. The stuff that's gritty and cuts at deep places. I think that's what he was meaning more so. The words, feeling, flow of thought.
jonnysongs I wondered the same thing until I heard his speech (short, to the point & he quoted a few lines of L.C.'s lyrics, calling them brilliant) when L.C. was inducted into the R&R Hall of Fame
L.C. hung out with (for a few yrs) Lou, Bowie, Warhol...because he was crazy in love with Nico. She finally had to tell a broken hearted Leonard that she liked younger men. L.C. was only 4 yrs older than her. At the time she was with Iggy Pop who was 9 yrs younger than she was.
I've met more street fighter poet hustlers with their hands on their six guns shootin holes through the midnight sun than you've had hot dinners, son . . .
We tend to separate Poetry and Music today because we live in a tradition of the written word. But before 16th century, culture was marked by an oral tradition. If Homer existed, he was probably a bard playing an instrument similar to a lyre (I forgot the name) in the palaces of kings and festivities, and he was singing songs that later became _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ . Back then, poetry and music were the same thing, poems were supposed to be sung, Sappho wrote poems to be interpreted with a lyre or a harp. Bards, troubadours, rhapsodists play a very simple and repetitive song so that the audience can pay attention to the lyrics. Poetry is not just beautiful words written on a page meant to be read, you have to interpret it musically. Reading poetry is just half of the experience that this textual genre can produce. That's the importance of guys like Dylan and Reed: they represent a certain revival of the oral tradition, their work share a dialogue with the great poets and they tell stories that become immortal in people's minds, passing through the generations.
Love Lou seen him in Melbourne early seventies don't remember much. Still like him he was a smack head two good Albums that's about it if he didn't carry on like a f##kern idiot no one would talk to him RIP Lou
Exactly, but the Beatles sucked, right Lou? Consider his idol Andy. This guy pissed on canvases to screen print celebrities on and sell to rich and famous people. Wow, what moving art. Same sort of attitudes. Thank goodness for John Cale or Lou would have remained obscure.
This whole interview reminds me why I don't always listen to rock critics -- many of them can't dance. It's a misguided idea to discuss "rock lyrics as poetry" because the intent of rock is to rock, not make your English professor happy. On that note, Reed was a great lyricist, but not all of his melodies danced, and "Perfect Day" is literally one of the most grotesques failed melodies I've ever heard. It doesn't surprise me he liked Dylan so much -- neither guy could really sing but they both were masters at wordplay. And "Mother"? C'mon, that's up there with "Imagine" in vomit-inducing rock songs. Music is supposed to make you dance and feel -- thinking is like fourth and fifth on the list of things it's supposed to make you do. I love Lou Reed both with and without the VU, but I have to say he's never really impressed me as a thinker about other people's art. He makes the mistake many egotistical artists make -- confusing their unique talent with all talent -- Lennon wrote some of the best melodies supported by some of the best lyrics in history AND got the public to listen to them. Reed was more of an acquired taste -- I love him, but he definitely lacked self awareness. Frank Zappa was another such artist like this -- always negatively reacting to others. Brilliant guitarist, not the world's greatest melody writer and sometimes funny, sometimes juvenile as a lyricist. I also like hearing Zappa, you never know what he's going to surprise you with, but no one but Zappa really wants to hear Zappa 24-7, and that's what Reed, Zappa and other "edgy" artists never seem to get.
@balorama. Oh there's a place for poetry in rock and other forms of popular music -- my problem with Reed's comments is he seems to be dismissing the value of melody as melody, and, like a lot of intellectuals, thinks the only art of value is sort of this lecturing hectoring stuff -- you can change a person's life with a good shimmy as much as you can with a great lyric -- and he seriously thinks the Beatles are garbage? C'mon, that's nonsensical and makes me question his opinions in general. He literally picks one of Lennon's most boring songs (admittedly one that meant a lot to Lennon) and places that above "A Day in the Life"? Let's get real.
Inspite of it all seems LOU (as well as Bowie and Dylan) are on the Rolling Stones side and NOT on the Beatles. And those are not just 3 nobodys. More power for the stones and good rock.
I love Lou Reed, but to call the Beatles garbage, to dismiss them like that, when they actually opened the door to guys like him is errant nonsense. Go listen to the White Album, listen to Heller Skelter and then tell me that's not a punk record. Not to mention Happiness Is A Warm Gun, Revolution 9, Green Onion, Why Don't We Do It In The Road. The Beatles went from I Wanna Hold Your Hand to Strawberry Fields in less than two and a half years, a level of artistic growth not seen before or since. After The Beatles, any band worth a dime had to write their own stuff, had to be fully open to the possibilities of the recording studio and could draw influences and instrumentation from any genre. On their first US tour The Beatles refused to play to segregated audiences. In America, in 1964, this was a highly radical act.
Lou didn't like the Beatles get over it. I understand why he didnt too. His music just came from a different place. Beatles sang kumbya from their ivory towers while velvet underground were in the gritty scene making music nobody had ever heard before. Music that came from real experiences. The Beatles could string up decent lyrics once a while but they couldn't write poetry like the stones or Lou reed
0bbpoison - gritty scene? You do know the Beatles came from post WW2 austerity Liverpool, and got their chops in Hamburg, on the Reeperbahn? How gritty do you want it? Sure, they were presented as clean scrubs, but in 1962 the musical landscape was completely different to what it was in 1968! The fact that a band like the Velvet Underground could even exist was BECAUSE of The Beatles. They created that whole scene, where self-respecting bands had to write their own stuff. Music nobody had heard before? Eleanor Rigby, Tomorrow Never Knows, A Day In The Life, I Am The Walrus, Strawberry Fields Forever....nothing like that had ever been heard before! Both Lennon & McCartney lost their mothers in their teens. Go listen to Julia & tell me that's not about 'real' experiences. On top of that, when they first toured America in 64, they refused to play to segregated audiences. They used their cultural power in the most positive way imaginable!
I'm talking about the scene in New york. Street life drugs poverty violence gangs politics, war, racism, this is the backdrop to lous work. He didn't find any appeal in what the Beatles represented
0bbpoison - The Beatles eventually fell apart because Lennon felt they were restricting each other's artistic growth, maybe not reacting fast enough to how the world was changing. But if you look beneath the veneer of their fame, and the musical approach which opened the door to their fame, they were as radical as any band has ever been, and their extraordinary artistic growth, especially between 1964-67, has never been equalled. The Beatles were enabled by the 60's, they could not have happened a decade earlier, but they also enabled the 60's. It would have been an entirely different scene without them. They were the first art-school band, like so many that followed: Bowie, Roxy Music, etc. That was an important distinction from most of their peers. They came from that perspective. Unless you get that you'll never get the thinking behind a lot of their tunes. Look at the titles : In My Life, I'm A Loser, We Can Work It Out, Nowhere Man. Lennon was in the middle of a major depression when he wrote Help! This is not Tin Pan Alley pop subject matter. I totally get that Reed was from and wrote about the underbelly of New York City, but that grittiness is there in the Beatles work if you look for it. 'It's getting better all the time (it couldn't get much worse)' And they were the first band to sing : 'I'd love to turn you on' ! (Sgt Pepper IS a drug album). Hats off to Lou, but to dismiss The Beatles as 'garbage' is just stupid. He went through the door that was opened by them and others a few years earlier. He just pushed it open a little wider is all!
You are being to polite when you say that his Beatles comment is nonsense. I would, if I felt like taking the time, tell Mr. Reed why he is a fuckin idiot! Instead Lou compare your legacy versus the Beatles. LOL
I dig metal machine music and the raven, all the velvet's stuff - I'm more partial to John Cale. He should have fronted the band. His island records are soaked with heroine but genius every song of it
John Cale was the musical genius behind the Velvets groundbreaking sound. Cale should have been co-credited for the music, but Reed's enormous ego would have none of that.
I love and have listened to Lou reed and velvet underground since the 70's. But do not under any circumstance put the Beatles and the rolling stones down. I think i heard a wee bit of jealousy creeping in there. How can you compare David bowie and Brian ferry. Both great performers. R.I.P. LOU REED.
Lou's output was mostly shit, I love the live albums and New York is one of the greatest recordings in rock history, other than that, either crapola or pure pop which Lou would hate if another band recorded it.
well no one ever came close to JOHN LENNON or will ever be. Even Dylan admire John. Only a John fan will realize his lyrical ability, his melody, his song writing craft, his wit and playfulness in the words/lyrics, his presence...He is the most honest song writer I can think of and most music lover who digs into the details will agree. Lennon after all created the Best band the world will ever see!
lmao Dylan blows Lennon out of the water as a songwriter and Lennons songwriting only started to get decent when he decided to copy Dylan’s style. Lou was right when he said that Lennon was playing catch up
Zappa thought the Beatles were only in it for the $. . and Lou Reed says absolute crap.... .... .. praises Dylan. . .. .. l try to get a skew on how he thought..... ... .
I don't really like the Beatles either but I can appreciate them and the impact they had on music.. Without them some of my favourite bands might not exist at least in the same form.
I love the Velvet Underground and Lou Reed but he was so full of himself is ridiculous!! Probably hiding a deep insecurity about the quality of his own work maybe, I don't know. He says: I don't want to come off as being snide; then goes on to say: I have no respect for those people at all. Really?!! These are fellow musicians that also did a lot for music. Independent of personal taste, you should at least respect them.
Lou does something that's very hard-he talks raps in his songs and when he's on...he's as good as anyone America ever produced and makes Dylan sound pompous at times...
@ironcurtainsteve The Velvets sound was mainly down to John Cale on their first two lps TVU&N and White Light/White Heat. He brought those menacing and sinister soundscapes into the Velvets and should have been co-credited for the music, but Reed's enormous ego would have none of that. After Cale's departure from the Velvets, he went on to produce and arrange Nico's album triology The Marble Index, Desertshore and The End, laying the foundations of postpunk and goth. Furthermore he also produced the debut albums by The Stooges, Patti Smith and The Modern Lovers, all of them milestone recordings in the early sculpturing of punk and alternative music. John Cale's solo career is possibly the most diverse of any musician on this planet, ranging from rock to punk, avantgarde, industrial, electronica, jazz, pop, country, classical or whatever. And then there's also Cale's live performances, always rearranging his music so no gig is the same. Between the mid 70's and 80s Cales live performances could be unpredictable and chaotic, but with such intensity ghat would be mind blowing. Back in 1977 while headlining a tour with The Clash and Subway Sect, Cale beheaded s chicken on stage, throwing the hesd and the carcass into the bewildered and shocked audience. Two of his bandmembers who were vegetarians walked straight out, so thag was the end to the tour.
At no point does LR say what he means by poetry or what is poetic'. He's being entirely subjective. Fine, fine, but it's somewhat a destitute summary of his preferences without any qualification.
I love Lou and the Underground, but he was a snarky contrarian and loved to say what would insult the most people for their tastes. He liked to perpetrate an artistic aloofness that, in my opinion, was undue and more of a put on. I love his idol Warhol similarly, his art said something ($), but his whole attitude, scene and sycophantic cult entourage was more his "art" than his paintings. Stuck on a desert island, I would take the Beatles catalogue over Lou's hands down. Not even sure anything of his would make it into my 10-20 albums to have to listen to forever. And he seems like he would have been a total drag to party with.
He had a view which I understand. Not everyone thinks the Beatles are the best. Bands contemporary to them like the Stones, the Kinks and the Doors were also brilliant, arguably better in fact. In many ways the Beatles were a boy band of their era, in comparison to say the Stones and definitely compared to Lou Reed and Bob Dylan. Personally I think some Beatles stuff is great but I would rather listen to most of the above I mention and many alternative bands. Indeed in terms of the pop style the Beatles championed, the Beach Boys are arguably as good or better at that particular genre.
You can't compare Bob Dylan and the Beatles. Both are masters of their craft. To call the Beatles music "shit" is to completely miss the powerful impact their music had and CONTINUES to have. Bye.
Lou is right. Compare Sgt. pepper and the Velvet's second album. More meaning in the line "don't Che do that that you'll stain the carpet" than the entire Beatles rock opera. But I do love the Beatles.
It's easy to say that now but you're losing sight of the power that music had when first released, which is the same for all great, transformative art ; the shock of the new! You can critique Sgt Pepper in that way now but you forget that nothing like that had existed before. Mr Kite, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, A Day In The Life, Within You Without You....these are not songs to be dismissed as 'pop' music, let alone garbage!
Yes they are; compared to the Level Mr. Reed is talking about here The Beatles are/were embarrassingly bad as "writers". There just isn't a kinder way of putting it; for the hero worshiping masses, however, this is absolutely verboten and cannot be tolerated for a scintilla of a second. Tough. What most people call Art is actually infantile drivel or just dog shit. Get used to it. And then grow up.
Zettel 9016 - you've obviously never played an instrument, written a song or spent time in a recording studio. Another clueless wonder who thinks the only things that are relevant in music come from the underbelly of a city, in Reed's case New York. The first VU album inspired a lot of people who couldn't play to play, the last one (Loaded, with Reed) was a sell out. Transformer was a truly great record but that was largely to do with the power of Bowie & Ronson's production, two 'pop' artists you no doubt despise as much as you do the Beatles. And that was it. What did Reed do after Transformer? Berlin was lazy, amateur night out shoddy, Coney Island Baby was a sad attempt to re-capture the vibe (and success) of Walk On The Wild Side. Reed can talk a good game but his output was meagre compared to many of his contemporaries (Bowie for one) and the idea that John Lennon wrote nothing before Mother is just some crap he said on the day which he probably wouldn't say a week later. Go listen to Happiness Is A Warm Gun, then go listen to Waiting For My Man and then ask yourself, in all seriousness, which track is more worthy of being called 'art'?
"than the entire" How much "meaning" did Lennon's autobiographical "I used to be cruel to my woman, I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved" have?
great to hear Reed, an artist and a poet, trash all that Beatle bilge. Hes an honest man- not a pr man- and he is direct about the sitch: of course the Beatles etc. ad infinitum- and Reed the other side of that conundrum. Darker, more alert, and infinitely more on track -.
"How can a chord be 'wanky'?" Paul McCartney taught his friend Elvis Costello to take out extra chords the song doesn't really need. Costello would likely call those extra chords "wanky chords," although Andy Partridge more likely would.
@@b.3066 Yeah, Revolver came out before the VUG was formed -- and has basically all the same elements of VUG: druggy existentialism and nihilism even in regards to sex -- blended with drone like music of Far East\ Middle East -- adult themed personal gritty autobiographical music. VUG just retreaded that and went a tad darker and more explicit. The Beatles were involved in the same avante guard counter culture in London as existed in NYC at that time. So the two albums are built around much the same outlook except that the Beatles were first to translate it into rock and pop music -- with VUG riding on their coat tales. Iggy was doing hippy trippy nihilistic sound montage stuff around that time very much like Revolver. Have to remember too that most of the world heard the North American release Revolver which was more stripped down and hard core with less pop elements.
Funny how he mentions the Stones and how they're missing that extra element. Mick Jagger is an excellent, underrated lyricist and as good as anything Lou ever wrote.
Mick Jagger was underrated - he could be a great lyricist at times, sometimes almost the equal of Reed, but his philosophy was to not sing the lyrics too clearly. He said as much. Lou Reed, being much more of a word man than a melody man, could never bring himself to squander a chance to get people to hear his lyrics. Compare the diction of the two men. I say: if you want words, read a book. I can't make out 99% of the lyrics to "Louie Louie" but it makes no difference, I still love it. I don't even want to look 'em up - it might spoil the effect! Nice to hear Lou Reed mention Elvis Costello - criminally underrated lyricist. One more thing - I could have sworn I once saw a quote from Reed that said "They (Lennon/McCartney) have to be the best songwriters ever".
James France Wasn't it American-as-apple-pie Pete Seeger that tried to cut the cable with an axe at the Newport Folk Festival when Dylan came on with an electric guitar, though? He was probably a bit pissed off to do that. There was stupidity both sides of the pond, I'd say.
Wow I find it hard to think of 4 Lou Reed songs from his entire catalogue yet I can think of every single song off "Revolver" & he call's the beatles Garbage!! Rock and Roll should be felt not pondered so fuck engaging your mind Lou Reed!
Dylan is without doubt the best lyricist . On another level , Leonard Cohen and Peter Hammill command similar attention and respect .
In YOUR opinion.
@@randalclarke5487 Not even no one has ever came close to Dylans songwriting not reed not Cohen no one has
Ray Davies is better imho
John Lennon too. Not doubt. Regardless of what Lou said, who is putting on a character.
Alex Turner's lyrics on 'tranquility base Hotel and casino' eclipse Dylan n Reed.
The irony about all this is that Lou Reeds greatest idol Bob Dylan had huge admiration for what The Beatles achieved as a band
The Beatles met him in a hotel in New York in 1964.
Lou is entitled to his opinion on the Beatles. I've met people who were 'of the right age' in the 60s and didn't like the Beatles either! It's almost taboo to say you don't like them. Lou Reed wasn't a young teenager when the Beatles came out, so his perspective would have been of a slightly older person who perhaps couldn't relate to 'She loves' you'. Dylan was Lou's big influence and as Lou was a 'serious lyricist' you can understand why. Lou was also more interested in rock n roll as a form of music to explore and take it to its extremes as the Velvet Underground did. That someone was doing stuff like 'White light white heat' in 1968 is just incredible. Lou could be a very opinionated awkward person but he was definitely a major artist in terms of his work and influence. I don't think many would disagree with that.
I still enjoy Rubber Soul , Revolver , Sgt. Peppers & the white album . The Beatles' earlier stuff , not so much any more . I LOVED ALL of the V Underground albums !
@@paulgerkin2851 For me, it's hard to hate The Beatles, the earlier stuffs too. I know the earlier works are just silly love songs comparing to the later works, silly maybe, but those are just good melodies and wonderful tunes. Like "And I Love Her", "I Want to Hold Your Hand", and "I'll Follow the Sun" You can't say it's bad or it hurts the ear or anything. In the other hand, for the VU, they have some of the hardest songs for listeners to sit through, with all the noises and backing voices. Those are incredible ideas I know, but for common audiences, they are not just as good as The Beatles, because they could be extremely commercial and artistic.
I have a friend who was a teen in the 1960's and she couldn't stand the Beatles. She was into Soul music by Black and White artists. But, especially the Black artists.
@@paulgerkin2851 I mean, you cover a LOT of rock music greatness with those Beatles albums that you named. How many albums does Velvet Underground have? That's right, that's why you liked them all, because it's not that many...
@@paulgerkin2851even squeeze?
Blown away, he mentioned my favorite Dylan song (lyrically) and favorite Lennon song. He once said something like "Don't have me tell you what to listen to, listen to what you like"
I remember reading somewhere where Lou said after the Beatles broke up, that they were needed.
Amazing how people who left comments here just don't get it, although Reed's point is quite clear. Reed here was talking only of the artists he mentioned in regard to their songs' lyrics standing up as poetry/literature. Of course Reed appreciated and understood that The Beatles opened doors for people like him; he even performed Lennon's Mother live as a tribute to Lennon. Likewise, Reed's always been a Stones fan, musically he has plenty in common with them, his own guitar style is similar to Keith Richards' as they're both rooted in 1950s' Rock'n'Roll. Reed has spoken and written about these things many times; he was the first to write about taboo subjects in R&R songs, he had a university degree in literature & journalism, studied with the great poet Delmore Schwartz, wrote and published poetry and prose himself, took a lot from writers like William Burroughs, Hubert Selby Jr, etc., aspired to be the "Baudelaire of Rock'n'Roll" (which he definitely was).. his main point (among others) was to write R&R songs that had "adult" lyrics, since up to The Velvet Underground all R&R songs had been about "boy meets girl", except for Bob Dylan. Many of the opinions expressed in the comments miss the point of this interview completely (not to mention other heresies like McCartney's Helter Skelter being a "Punk" record, when it was McCartney's poor attempt to sound like early/proto Hard Rock, the "power trio" sound of Cream, Jimi Hendrix, etc.., and like all of McCartney's songs - from Lou Reed's aesthetic standpoint - totally negligible and lyrically meaningless). Most people seem to know how to talk but not how to listen. Never mind. Thanks for posting this
Thanks, you killed it, every word true. My feelings exactly...though I was too pissed to get that out.
Subbed, great channel
Yaaaawwwwn.
good lord you talk some guff. go back to being contrary with your poshboy nme lou failure reed bollocks
If Lou’s statement is solely focused in lyrics, I somewhat agree. Specially in the early years, The Beatles lyrics were mostly filler, it’s not that there was not intention in them, it’s simply they didn’t care to make something lyrically relevant. “I give her all my love, that’s all I do, and if you saw my love, you’d love her too, and I love her”.
However, music is made of melody, harmony and rhythm. Lyrics are optional. And if we talk about music exploration, The Beatles work is way better than Lou’s or even Dylan themselves. Don’t get me wrong, they’re both amazing artists, but I’ve never heard a song from them remotely close to the beauty of some of the best Lennon-McCartney gems. True: Lennon’s lyrics got way better around 1967 and McCa became at fairly decent lyricist as well, but not to the level of John. In short: in lyrics Dylan and Reed > The Beatles; in music: The Beatles>Reed and Dylan. My humble opinion, feel free to disagree. And Helter Skelter was more inspired in The Who than Cream’s or Hendrix work. In any case, I don’t think The Beatles needed to prove anything to others at that point. The whole White Album is full of songs completely disconnected, not one of them a # 1.
In any case, I don’t disrespect Reed’s work but even when he has a point to some extent about the lyrics, his position seemed a little narrow minded, in my opinion, considering the huge impact of The Beatles presence in culture, and the body of their work, and not finding a single good song? Seriously? Not even one? Not recognizing the impact of The British Invasion in their generation and the later success of The Velvet Underground?
Beatles did some great things that I love and have fond memories growing up listening to them, but Bob Dylan and Lou Reed actually illuminate the mind in a way that the beatles and especially the rolling stones never could.
John Lennon solo career is much more similar to Dylan and Reed in terms of the introspective. Dylan greatly admired Lennon, his entire career.
Check out Lennon’s first proper solo album Plastic Ono Band. It’s one of the best albums I’ve ever heard
@@octagonseventynine1253 It's a lovely, lovely album, thanks for spreading the word.
I think that the Stones got there with Aftermath.
@@richardporter9829 the stones never get the credit their due. Better songwriters then the beatles and dylan
I have come to the conclusion that Reed was indeed opinionated, but he was also a provocateur. He liked to dismiss people's heroes, because he resented hero worship. But I have also come to the conclusion that it depended on when, and what day, the interview was, because Lou gave different opinions at different times (back to the provocateur).
Tony C. bluestate69
tony depth is a generic term , if you mean writing complex musical harmonies and melodies, I would completely agree, but his influential depth on other top songwriters in so many diff genres is uncanny.. most non musicians def didn't enjoy him,his sales prove that..
but it's common knowledge among artists that he influenced top songwriters for decades since the 60s. Your right About his music it was simple 2chord poetry with a strange voice, but the beauty of it is that other great musical minds listened to and used as fuel from a emotional stand point to harness talent and create music with serious depth.
blue state
You are spot on about his persona. You can never really know what he believes because of contradictions.. I think it stems from severe ADHD and OCD and Social anxiety plus drugs amplifying all of them.. but I think you hit the nail on the head..
Reed had depth in his poetry/lyrics. All of his songs are mostly simple though. Sometimes simple music is really good when it’s done right. (Hence the Beatles) Though stylistically, he had incredible depth. Most velvet underground stuff was sonically genius. But the root was always simple. You could almost play their entire first album with 4 chords. Hell, heroin is just 2 chords, but it’s genius
@Tony C absolutely, ive heard him go from hero worshipping, to trashing to praising again in interviews - and that's just in the sixties. have the courage of your convictions, man
unfortunately loose contrarian talk from the likes of reed bred a generation of nme types who think it clever to take shots at the avowed greats whom in terms of songwriting lou reed isnt even in the same universe as
for me, i like who i like regardless and wont swerve from that for anyone. abba for instance i consider to be one of the greatest pure pop songwriters there has ever been and i dont give a toss what anyone else has to say on whether they pass the cool bar.
to hell with style over substance. that needs to die. give me brian jonestown massacre over the velvet 'overlong, noisy mediocrity' underground any day
Facts?! What an asinine, moronic, utterly brain dead comment. Lou Reed was a rock and roll pioneer and shook the very foundations of music. While bands like the Grateful Dead and Love were spouting hippy claptrap in the sunshine of love, Lou Reed’s music was dark, gritty, nihilistic, raw and years ahead of its time. Never before had a band ventured into such sinister and experimental territory. No one has ever made a song remotely like Heroin or Venus in Furs and I doubt if anyone will. Therefore you saying how he didn’t have much depth only exposes your ignorance. Sure, he didn’t have a brilliant voice. Neither did Dylan, Cohen, Cave, Waits, etc. By your judgement, does that make their music bad? I don’t know how old you are, but I would suggest l doing a little research and finding out why Lou Reed and Velvets were an essential part of musical history then come back and reevaluate your imbecilic remark.
Well, ‐--------------- he was only human under a magnifying glass of the public because of his musically poetically and universally really strong
Lou loves any kind of PR, like in this interview, the next day he most likely say the Beatles were great! The reason being Americans especially New Yorkers don’t see further than their fence. I love Lou Reed as much as my favourite band the Beatles! The Velvet Underground are also up there, superb stuff in that environment. People had different opinions about that sort of sound, like Heroin, so ahead of its time.
Think Lou’s glam stuff was also a starting point for change. Bowie, another mentor. But without the Beatles they’d be nothing, they roughed it and roughed it, smashed the doors open! And everyone followed. British bands are different to US bands. Lennon wrote some amazing stuff with the fab 4 - and later claimed it was junk! The first solo album he did Plastic Ono Band, which Lou points out the track Mother, as being exceptionally fantastic is right! The whole album is a Primal Therapy album only one ever made. What Lou went through as a child could have similarities with John’s, - but John did something about it - Lou kept it all inside…xx
I liked them all . I prefer the Beatles earlier stuff .
Right, he always acted like being interviewed was a drag and some corporate bullsh*t he was obliged to do, to great annoyance, but it's easy enough to see that he loved having the captive audiences of journalists and interviewers, the ones who actually had to be there, to be enigmatic and aloof toward. He seemed to care more for reactions than being earnest.
Interesting that Lou obviously forgot that earlier in his life he loved The Beatles.
In an article for 'Far Out' magazine, the author, Sam Kemp, writes that "Reed had nothing but praise for the Fab Four, stating: 'They just make the songs up, bing, bing bing,' he began, seeming to regard John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr as a sort of pop-song factory with a near 100% success rate. 'They just have to be the most incredible songwriters ever - just amazingly talented,' Reed continued. 'I don’t think people realise how sad it is that The Beatles broke up' ".
Makes me wonder where Lou would place himself on the whole rock spectrum, if he's being so completely honest...
Lou would let you know he's the greatest song writer ever.
I find honest and talented people with a completely different opinion to mine really fascinating. Lou Reed would be someone I´d love to have a conversation with about how he rates lyrics, respectively their poetic quality. I´m sure he has some valid points.
Lou Reed was always an iconoclast. And considering he's pissed an immense amount of people off, I guess he got it right.
Non sequitur
😮😊... there's no right or wrong in these matters
When I was a young kid I never was fond of the Beatles it had to be constantly pounded into my head to get into its genius.
They suck. Most overrated band of all time along with Led Zeppelin
@@clc-gl4jn You're such a mean old man
@@EBthere I’m 25 boomer
@@clc-gl4jn Well happy birthday!
Btw my previous reply is from 'Mean Mr Mustard'
Enjoy your day!
@@clc-gl4jn facts. The velvets outsold anyday
Lou’s just saying his opinion. Why should he lie? The Beatles are the best selling group of all time, they don’t don’t need their egos protected. Nobody has to like anything and if someone asks you a question, the best you can do is answer it and the worst you can do is be evasive or dismissive of it if it’s a fair one. I never really understood his reputation for being an asshole during interviews. The only ones I’ve seen where he was rude was when he was being personally attacked by the media about doing drugs, being gay or being asked about statements he never made. I’m actually surprised that he kept his cool so well if anything. It’s also really interesting how he ALWAYS has an answer or a non answer for non questions immediately. Whereas, someone like Iggy Pop really did come off as a dick at times or even worse - self conscious and petty. Lou truly didn’t give a fuck and was well versed in it.
Yes, he is entitled to his opinion. But other people's opinions (including mine) is that the words he chooses suggests he is threatened or jealous of the Beatles when he praises Dylan. I was at an interview with him in the late 70's. My opinion of him is scarred by how rude and arrogant and bullying he was to a couple of the reporters there. I'm not a fan of his whiny music either. I did try. I bought 2 of his albums, and played them a lot before I gave up on it. The only hit he had - and I liked it - I found out later had more Bowie input than Lou's. I give Lou credit for hanging in there, and that's about it.
Yeah, I mean he very well could've been jealous, I don't think it's much of a secret that Lou really did care about how his work did commercially and was apparently extremely upset about 'Berlin' being panned by some critics when it came out. He very well could've been jealous of the Beatles, but I think that he can still be jealous AND not like them for separate legitimate reasons. A lot of musicians of that time, like Zappa as well, skirted those lines it seems like. I never met the guy or saw any interviews in person, if you say he was actually a dick than I believe you. From the interviews I have seen though, those particular ones in question I think the interviewers kind of deserved his shitty mood though. He also softened a lot with age iy seems like. With a lot of artists, especially Lou, it seems like he was pretty caught up in being on one hand commercial and a public figure and on the flip side making experimental music and not seeming like he gave a fuck. Some of his 70's work and actions really shows a very self conscious attempt at going in either direction to the extreme.
As for his music, that's personal taste. I like a lot of his solo stuff for what it is, but none of it can touch his work with VU and I think that stuff is better than most music period. Also, I don't really care about what was or wasn't a hit personally, but if you're referring to the record transformer, Bowie And Ronson had a lot to do with it but definitely not more than Lou did. They couldn't have because most of those songs were written when he was still in VU.
Just listened to some Dylan. And Lou is right about lyrics. Dylan has no peer with his lyrics. His music is good but basic, imo. But his lyrics carry the day. jmo, but the Beatles had no peer as far as musical output. I agree with what Brian Wilson said about them. And both he and the Beatles were all about sound and melody. But their lyrics just went with their music for the most part. Lou is big on the lyrics first and foremost and a lot of his music is not far from spoken word. I think that is his interest. If that's right, I can see why he doesn't rate the Beatles. One song that rattles me from Dylan is Hey Mr Tamborine Man. And its the lyrics that get me. Wandering down a near empty road late late at night after a festival. From the Beatles it was I am The Walrus. That sound freaked me out when I first heard that song. Its like an uneasy dream taking you somewhere you aren't sure you want to be. And funnily enough, the lyrics are meaningless.
Lou was a genius
No talent on _New York_? What kind of lyrics do you respect?
Jan Green and so am i
"I wouldn't go that far." Lyrics to _New York_ are better than Walt Whitman.
"Dylan even had the audacity, to talk down about Neil Young. So, that is the final straw." Troll, huh?
"Early Roman Kings"' lyrics seem like genius poetry to me. But what do I know compared to a troll.
Lou at times gave great interviews. But re belittling the Beatles I think its like bluestate69 says, he was trying to provoke. There is no way Lou did not know how important the Beatles were, and what their song writing did. But one can never deny his right to say "its not for me". What it sounds like to me is that what he was really wanting to praise is that Dylan has the power to transcend by word alone. He is a poet. There are many, many top lyricists out there; but they are words that need a song. Dylan stands alone, unencumbered. Maybe that is what Lou was saying. Lou Reed for about 20 albums was fantastic. I was not a big fan of his final period. Because IMO Lou was the same thing Dylan is: an underrated writer of gorgeous melodies. Towards the end he sort of gave that up.
I do think it's perfectly reasonable to acknowledge their hugely significant contribution to popular music but say their music just isn't really your thing. I am sympathetic to that argument, though I do love a lot of their songs.
Lou wasn't the kinda person that does the same thing for years
I agree....sometimes repetitive, but they both could write simple, yet beautiful accessible melodies. Ex: "Tambourine Man" by Dylan or "Sweet Jane" by Lou
Why are there dmt visuals?
Brownsville Girl is so underrated
The Velvet Underground was, if I may say so, the second most influential band in rock history after the Beatles. But they offered a nihilistic counterpoint to the flower power movement of that time. The Beatles conveyed the sensations of recreational LSD use, while The Velvet Underground offered interesting perspectives and stories about cocaine and heroin use (on Sunday Morning, Lou sings about the morning after waking up from a night of cocaine use).
The Velvet Underground was, if not the first, one of the first bands to talk about taboo topics such as sadomasochism or to create the first gothic rock song with All Tomorrow Parties.
Each band with its own. What the Beatles did above, Velvet did below. On the streets
They are bands that can only be compared by level of influence and merits, but not by styles.
David Bowie himself was always a big fan of the band (even since 1966, because he received a copy of the first album (the one with the banana) before it was released in 1967). And since then, he has always recognized the musical influence and importance of the band.
LR seems here to crave Dylan's approval and doesn't care what anyone else thinks (though, for an individualist, he does read the critics). He's right about "Brownsville Girl." Tremendous lyrics.
"You don't actually want to listen to the lyrics of a rock 'n' roll record."
That's his first line, and I already disagree.
It's his opinion though, as is his opinion about Dylan, Costello, The Beatles, Lennon, and about whomever... he is asked questions and he gives honest answers. Not much wrong with that. Everyone who knows just a bit about Lou Reed would know that he never ever was a big crowd pleaser. I am a huge Beatles fan mysefl, and I'm fine with what he says about the Fab4. I love the Velvets very much too, btw. Reed's solo career, well, I consider it very uneven. But bless him for giving us (me!) a lot of great songs.
Super Lou!
Chuck Berry, Lou...
Great lyricist...
Rock’n’Roll had a great lyricist before you, Dylan or Lennon...
If I were Lou Reed I would also "gnawe myself out" of envy and jealousy of The Beatles...
Scaruffi has entered the chat
My favorite people in music history are Bob Dylan and the Beatles so I’m confused because in a side bob Dylan is my personal genius for his lyrics and poetics songs, for his strong personality and his creation of something innovant and new.
In another part we got the Beatles who revolutionized the story for ever ever with their new and melodic songs which touched the 3/4 of the world.
So I love Lou Reed so much. But he can’t compare Dylan and the Beatles!
@deadvoguestar who care ?
To me it is like comparting Apples to Oranges. And you can love both and for different reasons obviously
I mean, Beatles and Dylan are the foundation upon which everything that came after was built upon which is why I dont think it's fair to compare Lou (as influential as he was) to figures of that importance.
Lou speaks truthfully and from the heart. Listen people
Joe Nicholls pfft fuck him
Listen to his shit? No thanks.
@@rickallen6378
if he said the beatles were good would you listen to him?
@@DTheAustralian I already know that.
@@rickallen6378
...that makes no sense.
Epilepsy warning please
The best lyricists in no order
Bob Dylan
Lou Reed
Leonard Cohen
Ian Curtis
Jackson Browne
Tom Waits
David Bowie
Iggy Pop
No argument from me about that list. But I'd probably add Nick Cave.
@@kanashiimurakamisan Good shout, Nick is underrated af
Love this fucking list we got the same list I would also add joey Ramone , nick cave and Robert smith
Bla blah blah... nonsense... I like oranges, pomegranate and bananas, therefore they're the best fruits...😁 They're geniuses too😂
Great list, but I'd also throw in Ray Davies.
Reed was always a hard man to interview because he didn't have a filter and he wasn't shy on being controversial.
It's funny that he loved Dylan so much but then again who doesn't. Anyone with a sane mind and that understands poetry does.
I guess he wouldn't think much of the Beach Boys either.
He greatly admired Brian Wilson
Algonac9 He really loved Brian Wilson as an artist so I think he liked the Beach Boys...
@@alvaboy4982 thing is Brian Wilsom admired Paul McCartney as well, and he happens to be a Beatle
Nobody cares ...each to their own....I'm sure if Lennon was still alive he'd have said something similar about Lou but for mere mortals the music speaks for itself doesn't matter what they thought or said...
Lennon wishes his finger was as creative as lou
@@comedownmachine4682 the rest of him was ...in spades...
Lou Reed obviously had a lot going on, music wise, throughout his life. He probably just missed the boat on the Beatles. It can happen, there was so much going on during the 60's and beyond. The Beatles obviously were a lot more heavy, dark, artistic, poetic, powerful, beautiful, and weird than Lou was giving them credit for.
@Ciaran Moran213 it says go to therapy bro
@deadvoguestar You can go toss off for all I care. If you think the Beatles were soft, tame, vanilla bullshit then that is your opinion and I'll stick with mine of them having plenty of darkness to indulge in. The White Album is evidence alone. And it's on the grand scale culturally.
I think Lou was just envious that things that came so easily to Lennon/McCartney ie the catchiest hooks, sublime melodies, musical progress and popular success didn't come as easy to him. He had to work harder at that (hence VU's 3rd album & Loaded) but prose and good, sometimes great lyrics came naturally to him
@@eargasm1072 Beatles were epitome of pop, velvet underground were anti pop proto punk lol...the song heroin proves my theory
I like Lou Reed's music and respect that he has a right to his opinions (hey, we all do) but it is unfortunate (though unsurprising) to hear him dismiss the Beatles as "garbage". I understand the desire to want to break the mold and tear yourself away from the hero worship of a band so universally loved like the Beatles, but though they're not everyone's taste, their artistry should be respected at the very least. It's especially disappointing because I get the feeling that Lou's dislike stems from a over critical and pretentious consciousness rather than a genuine dislike of the music. I just think due to his idea of what a 'true artist' is, he wrote them off before he even gave them a chance. Unfortunately, this seems to be a prevalent attitude among many artists; this sort of pretentious idea of what makes a 'real artist' and which of those artists get to be in the 'cool kids club' (the generally lauded Beatles obviously not making the cut and definitely not that "hack McCartney"). It's painfully obvious to me when he mentions how John Lennon only ever did anything of merit solo and even then implying too little too late. While I love John Lennon that pretentiousness is highlighted when people discuss him as the only saving grace of the Beatles, and while he was certainly an amazing artist, it's usually at the expense of the 'uncool' McCartney who's just as talented in his own right. Basically, the Beatles were brilliant and you don't have to love them to acknowledge that, and sometimes in an effort to be 'different' and 'real' you actually come across as a 'try hard'. Okay end of rant lol. Still love Lou but I just disagree with a lot of what he says here.
Yeah, the garbage comment was excessively hostile towards the Beatles. What I took from it was that he thought they were not only bad, but that their music should be disposed of, like trash, seems like jealousy to me. But I still like VU.
+Pulp_Reserve Yeah right.
Well “all you need is love” is just wishy washy bs. All the hippies wanting “peace for all” is such an unattainable goal due to common differences in that we all share. A lot of what the Beatles did was amazing works with well crafted music and lyrics, but other times, like “Yellow Submarine” was just complete nonsense that has no meaning but everyone tries to dive so far into everything they said back then that they ended up creating their own stories for the nonsense and regarding it as “deep”.
@@Rippd_Bagel Paul wrote a lot of sing-along kind of songs, because he liked that sort of thing very much. They had fun doing what they were doing.. he was an admirer of melody and is one of the best to ever write them. Yellow Submarine is a catchy tune. Not every song has to be some grand statement piece like ' Blowin in the wind'. It's not their fault that some listeners took everything too far. Again, All you need is love is a well-written arrangement, and the sentiment isn't 'peace for all'
lou is a hero of mine. that said, he was fond of saying some really stupid stuff.
I always thought Lou Reed's greatest talent was his driving, insatiable thirst to be different and to not settle for the status quo in pop music. The first Velvet Underground album was definitely ground breaking and influenced many bands/musicians over the ensuing years but as a songwriter, I think he had marginal ability. And to me, his often petty, sarcastic disdain for the Beatles and other English bands of the 60's was thinly disguised jealousy. Even if he sat down and tried(and I doubt he did) to write melodies on the level of Lennon/McCartney/Harrison, he would discover what most musicians do- it's close to impossible. You accept it, admit the Beatles were brilliant songwriters and you move on. At least that's what most musicians over the years have done, while acknowledging their respect and admiration for that kind of genius.
Dana James The kinks did everything the melodious beatles did but better. Not that hard
Dana James You do realize The Beatles were constantly dropping acid Lsd. The album Revolver hints to this as well as them admitting to it. The Beatles are overrated white boy cheesy music. Come back to reality. Most of the the biggest stars in the 60's are overrated.
Lou reed was raw and real. That's why I respect him. He wouldn't give two shits about your opinion. He said how he felt not caring what anybody thought
Jason Uriel You mention Revolver and you say The Beatles were "overrated white boy cheesy music". Funny, because Revolver is the opposite of that.
Jason Uriel ~ This is not the purpose of music, to be constantly
angry or depressed all the time... Music is meant to lift us up, not to tear us down...That's what a great songwriter does...There should be an emotional connection between the lyricist,the song and also the listener...If you can't relate to what's being said, what's the point...That being said, Lou Reed, and The Beatles, are not that far apart,except Lou & The VU wrote about subject matter that not everyone could relate to...The Beatles were universally admired...The Velvets were initially
admired, and had their niche in NYC,and then reached beyond to a larger audience...But never to the degree of the BEATLES...The VU were not commercially successful...Andy Warhol backed them financially, because of this fact...at the beginning of the group ,
and throughout The VU's time as a band... Lou Reed became more successful as a solo artist...
Speed kills ... especially when immersed in Scotch ...
He and Bob were friends, yet I couldn't find anything from Bob about Lou's passing.
I wonder if they had a falling out.
People do say things when they are messed up which they later regret. I can see that happening. The funny thing is, wasn't Reed Jewish too? Thanks for filling me in on that.
Bowie has talked about how Velvet Underground left a much bigger cultural footprint than the Beatles, so there is some currency to what Lou is saying.
Bob dylans writing will always be on a shelf that i aspire to reach for. And when lou reed validates my thoughts.well i just feel like i was right all along and All the naysayers can kiss my ass....cuz yall dont get it. Long live dylan
The amount of butt hurt beetles fans in the comments is a little absurd. He doesn’t like the Beatles, why does that matter? He’s more into writing than melody, pretty much as simple as that.
shouldve found a different job then because nobody seemed to like him or his work. only nme hipster trash decades later because their fanboy adoration is inversely proportional to the band's quality. load of noisy, pretentious shite 😁
You know what's funny,I'll get caught into a whirlpool of comments sometimes like this thread of comments,until I see one like yours and it just kind of snaps me out of it.
Cause his music is boring and he's a twat. Typical arrogant yank. Dylan? Great lyrics and writer, voice sounds like rubbish.
Definitely. It's the substance of it. The stuff that's gritty and cuts at deep places. I think that's what he was meaning more so. The words, feeling, flow of thought.
Lou cracks me up.His cynical observations are a pleasure to listen to lol.
Jiminy Crint: Glass Onion.
Wonder if he rated Leonard Cohen (lyrics equal to Dylan imo)
jonnysongs it was Lou Reed who inducted Leonard Cohen into the RRHOF so I'm sure he loved him dearly.
Lou was a big Cohen fan. Said he was in the highest echelon of songwriting
jonnysongs I wondered the same thing until I heard his speech (short, to the point & he quoted a few lines of L.C.'s lyrics, calling them brilliant) when L.C. was inducted into the R&R Hall of Fame
L.C. hung out with (for a few yrs) Lou, Bowie, Warhol...because he was crazy in love with Nico. She finally had to tell a broken hearted Leonard that she liked younger men. L.C. was only 4 yrs older than her. At the time she was with Iggy Pop who was 9 yrs younger than she was.
rick cole +yes, a song like the partisan definitely makes one think. I really don’t care what Lou reed thinks and I’m a fan...
lou was a street fighter poet hustler with his hands on his six guns shootin holes through the midnight sun
John Lennon probably saw more back streets than Lou and Cale put together.
I've met more street fighter poet hustlers with their hands on their six guns shootin holes through the midnight sun than you've had hot dinners, son . . .
Lyrics with a song are different than poetry, you can't compare the two and they both can take you there.
We tend to separate Poetry and Music today because we live in a tradition of the written word. But before 16th century, culture was marked by an oral tradition. If Homer existed, he was probably a bard playing an instrument similar to a lyre (I forgot the name) in the palaces of kings and festivities, and he was singing songs that later became _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ . Back then, poetry and music were the same thing, poems were supposed to be sung, Sappho wrote poems to be interpreted with a lyre or a harp. Bards, troubadours, rhapsodists play a very simple and repetitive song so that the audience can pay attention to the lyrics. Poetry is not just beautiful words written on a page meant to be read, you have to interpret it musically. Reading poetry is just half of the experience that this textual genre can produce. That's the importance of guys like Dylan and Reed: they represent a certain revival of the oral tradition, their work share a dialogue with the great poets and they tell stories that become immortal in people's minds, passing through the generations.
Love Lou seen him in Melbourne early seventies don't remember much. Still like him he was a smack head two good Albums that's about it if he didn't carry on like a f##kern idiot no one would talk to him RIP Lou
Exactly, but the Beatles sucked, right Lou? Consider his idol Andy. This guy pissed on canvases to screen print celebrities on and sell to rich and famous people. Wow, what moving art. Same sort of attitudes. Thank goodness for John Cale or Lou would have remained obscure.
My man ripping into the Beatles even though ‘who loves the sun’ is the most Beatles influence song I’ve ever heard. Shit
Lou is the ultimate troll, but when he's serious he comes out with smart ass shit
That persona is ahead of time on its own
@@codeytherex5954 oh for sure. I think he really pioneered the troll aspect more so than anyone in media.
This whole interview reminds me why I don't always listen to rock critics -- many of them can't dance. It's a misguided idea to discuss "rock lyrics as poetry" because the intent of rock is to rock, not make your English professor happy. On that note, Reed was a great lyricist, but not all of his melodies danced, and "Perfect Day" is literally one of the most grotesques failed melodies I've ever heard. It doesn't surprise me he liked Dylan so much -- neither guy could really sing but they both were masters at wordplay. And "Mother"? C'mon, that's up there with "Imagine" in vomit-inducing rock songs. Music is supposed to make you dance and feel -- thinking is like fourth and fifth on the list of things it's supposed to make you do. I love Lou Reed both with and without the VU, but I have to say he's never really impressed me as a thinker about other people's art. He makes the mistake many egotistical artists make -- confusing their unique talent with all talent -- Lennon wrote some of the best melodies supported by some of the best lyrics in history AND got the public to listen to them. Reed was more of an acquired taste -- I love him, but he definitely lacked self awareness. Frank Zappa was another such artist like this -- always negatively reacting to others. Brilliant guitarist, not the world's greatest melody writer and sometimes funny, sometimes juvenile as a lyricist. I also like hearing Zappa, you never know what he's going to surprise you with, but no one but Zappa really wants to hear Zappa 24-7, and that's what Reed, Zappa and other "edgy" artists never seem to get.
mistake many egotistical artists make -- confusing their unique talent with all talent
best thing I read in I don't know how long
I never got Reed Or Zappa.....I like feel good music..
@balorama. Oh there's a place for poetry in rock and other forms of popular music -- my problem with Reed's comments is he seems to be dismissing the value of melody as melody, and, like a lot of intellectuals, thinks the only art of value is sort of this lecturing hectoring stuff -- you can change a person's life with a good shimmy as much as you can with a great lyric -- and he seriously thinks the Beatles are garbage? C'mon, that's nonsensical and makes me question his opinions in general. He literally picks one of Lennon's most boring songs (admittedly one that meant a lot to Lennon) and places that above "A Day in the Life"? Let's get real.
Lou words...
che storia si son sempre fatti la corte ma poi non hanno mai collaborato insieme...
Inspite of it all seems LOU (as well as Bowie and Dylan) are on the Rolling Stones side and NOT on the Beatles. And those are not just 3 nobodys. More power for the stones and good rock.
No Lou. The Beatles are not garbage ffs😂😂
I am sure the Beatles often wonder what Lou Reed thinks about. Like hell.
lo u Reed y bib Dylan juntos
In My Life… from Rubber Soul
I love Lou Reed, but to call the Beatles garbage, to dismiss them like that, when they actually opened the door to guys like him is errant nonsense. Go listen to the White Album, listen to Heller Skelter and then tell me that's not a punk record. Not to mention Happiness Is A Warm Gun, Revolution 9, Green Onion, Why Don't We Do It In The Road.
The Beatles went from I Wanna Hold Your Hand to Strawberry Fields in less than two and a half years, a level of artistic growth not seen before or since.
After The Beatles, any band worth a dime had to write their own stuff, had to be fully open to the possibilities of the recording studio and could draw influences and instrumentation from any genre.
On their first US tour The Beatles refused to play to segregated audiences. In America, in 1964, this was a highly radical act.
Lou didn't like the Beatles get over it. I understand why he didnt too. His music just came from a different place. Beatles sang kumbya from their ivory towers while velvet underground were in the gritty scene making music nobody had ever heard before. Music that came from real experiences. The Beatles could string up decent lyrics once a while but they couldn't write poetry like the stones or Lou reed
0bbpoison - gritty scene? You do know the Beatles came from post WW2 austerity Liverpool, and got their chops in Hamburg, on the Reeperbahn? How gritty do you want it? Sure, they were presented as clean scrubs, but in 1962 the musical landscape was completely different to what it was in 1968! The fact that a band like the Velvet Underground could even exist was BECAUSE of The Beatles. They created that whole scene, where self-respecting bands had to write their own stuff.
Music nobody had heard before? Eleanor Rigby, Tomorrow Never Knows, A Day In The Life, I Am The Walrus, Strawberry Fields Forever....nothing like that had ever been heard before!
Both Lennon & McCartney lost their mothers in their teens. Go listen to Julia & tell me that's not about 'real' experiences.
On top of that, when they first toured America in 64, they refused to play to segregated audiences. They used their cultural power in the most positive way imaginable!
I'm talking about the scene in New york. Street life drugs poverty violence gangs politics, war, racism, this is the backdrop to lous work. He didn't find any appeal in what the Beatles represented
0bbpoison - The Beatles eventually fell apart because Lennon felt they were restricting each other's artistic growth, maybe not reacting fast enough to how the world was changing. But if you look beneath the veneer of their fame, and the musical approach which opened the door to their fame, they were as radical as any band has ever been, and their extraordinary artistic growth, especially between 1964-67, has never been equalled.
The Beatles were enabled by the 60's, they could not have happened a decade earlier, but they also enabled the 60's. It would have been an entirely different scene without them. They were the first art-school band, like so many that followed: Bowie, Roxy Music, etc. That was an important distinction from most of their peers. They came from that perspective. Unless you get that you'll never get the thinking behind a lot of their tunes.
Look at the titles : In My Life, I'm A Loser, We Can Work It Out, Nowhere Man. Lennon was in the middle of a major depression when he wrote Help! This is not Tin Pan Alley pop subject matter.
I totally get that Reed was from and wrote about the underbelly of New York City, but that grittiness is there in the Beatles work if you look for it. 'It's getting better all the time (it couldn't get much worse)' And they were the first band to sing : 'I'd love to turn you on' ! (Sgt Pepper IS a drug album).
Hats off to Lou, but to dismiss The Beatles as 'garbage' is just stupid. He went through the door that was opened by them and others a few years earlier. He just pushed it open a little wider is all!
You are being to polite when you say that his Beatles comment is nonsense. I would, if I felt like taking the time, tell Mr. Reed why he is a fuckin idiot! Instead Lou compare your legacy versus the Beatles. LOL
The beatles and the rolling stones are the two best bands known to mankind.Lou has got that so wrong.
Is anybody else trippin from the video?
I dig metal machine music and the raven, all the velvet's stuff - I'm more partial to John Cale. He should have fronted the band. His island records are soaked with heroine but genius every song of it
John Cale was the musical genius behind the Velvets groundbreaking sound. Cale should have been co-credited for the music, but Reed's enormous ego would have none of that.
John the Baptist talking about Christ 🎩
he should´ve listened townes van zandt. Maybe the greatest of all time
I love and have listened to Lou reed and velvet underground since the 70's. But do not under any circumstance put the Beatles and the rolling stones down. I think i heard a wee bit of jealousy creeping in there. How can you compare David bowie and Brian ferry. Both great performers. R.I.P. LOU REED.
To be fair, he didn't put the Stones down. He said they were different and visceral.
Lou's output was mostly shit, I love the live albums and New York is one of the greatest recordings in rock history, other than that, either crapola or pure pop which Lou would hate if another band recorded it.
yeah ok Lou
Love Lou, and prefer him to Lennon, but McCartney was the better songwriter in the Beatles and the Beatles at their best were far from "rubbish'.
well no one ever came close to JOHN LENNON or will ever be. Even Dylan admire John. Only a John fan will realize his lyrical ability, his melody, his song writing craft, his wit and playfulness in the words/lyrics, his presence...He is the most honest song writer I can think of and most music lover who digs into the details will agree. Lennon after all created the Best band the world will ever see!
Dylan is much better than lenon so is lou reed
Lennon just wrote boyband songs until he started copying Dylan with Norwegian Wood, Walrus, etc. Heavy imagery songs.
lmao Dylan blows Lennon out of the water as a songwriter and Lennons songwriting only started to get decent when he decided to copy Dylan’s style. Lou was right when he said that Lennon was playing catch up
Lou Reeds music is music for middle class white hipsters. He could never connect with everybody , all colours and from all walks of like The Stones do
You dont know shit!
Zappa thought the Beatles were only in it for the $. . and Lou Reed says absolute crap.... .... .. praises Dylan. . .. .. l try to get a skew on how he thought..... ... .
Jim Morrison is pretty great too
I don't care about Jim's voice too much, but as "rock poetry" goes, he actually wrote poetry.
Some of it was alright but it’s a bit pretentious at times
Would You Look At That! Comment Number 365 As At March 1, 2021^^
Lou had a way with words.But lets not forget had made alot of drugged out rubbish.
I don't really like the Beatles either but I can appreciate them and the impact they had on music.. Without them some of my favourite bands might not exist at least in the same form.
I second that
Poor Lou..it must have been really hard to know that you could never be as great as the Beatles.. hmm..
Lol
You're butthurt
You're joking right
The beatles music was "music for children" as one or more of them came out and said, and i was a child at that moment.
😂😂😅😮..music for children ⁉️ Michelle, A day in the Life, Paperback writer, Polythene Pam, Savoy Truffle⁉️ very amusing... nonsense 😊
I love the Velvet Underground and Lou Reed but he was so full of himself is ridiculous!! Probably hiding a deep insecurity about the quality of his own work maybe, I don't know. He says: I don't want to come off as being snide; then goes on to say: I have no respect for those people at all. Really?!! These are fellow musicians that also did a lot for music. Independent of personal taste, you should at least respect them.
reed was a great songwriter and musician. but the sound of the original velvet underground is way more appealing to me than his later work.
Lou does something that's very hard-he talks raps in his songs and when he's on...he's as good as anyone America ever produced and makes Dylan sound pompous at times...
@ironcurtainsteve The Velvets sound was mainly down to John Cale on their first two lps TVU&N and White Light/White Heat. He brought those menacing and sinister soundscapes into the Velvets and should have been co-credited for the music, but Reed's enormous ego would have none of that.
After Cale's departure from the Velvets, he went on to produce and arrange Nico's album triology The Marble Index, Desertshore and The End, laying the foundations of postpunk and goth. Furthermore he also produced the debut albums by The Stooges, Patti Smith and The Modern Lovers, all of them milestone recordings in the early sculpturing of punk and alternative music.
John Cale's solo career is possibly the most diverse of any musician on this planet, ranging from rock to punk, avantgarde, industrial, electronica, jazz, pop, country, classical or whatever.
And then there's also Cale's live performances, always rearranging his music so no gig is the same. Between the mid 70's and 80s Cales live performances could be unpredictable and chaotic, but with such intensity ghat would be mind blowing. Back in 1977 while headlining a tour with The Clash and Subway Sect, Cale beheaded s chicken on stage, throwing the hesd and the carcass into the bewildered and shocked audience. Two of his bandmembers who were vegetarians walked straight out, so thag was the end to the tour.
I love Lou Reed, but it's embarrassing listening to him disrespect John Lennon
Reed was ok-- being nice. Beatles were genius. Dylan was genius...case closed.
I think Dylan genius and Beatles talented don't know about genius I haven't watched get back yet we'll see lol
At no point does LR say what he means by poetry or what is poetic'. He's being entirely subjective. Fine, fine, but it's somewhat a destitute summary of his preferences without any qualification.
He sounds like Stanley Kubrick
I love Lou and the Underground, but he was a snarky contrarian and loved to say what would insult the most people for their tastes. He liked to perpetrate an artistic aloofness that, in my opinion, was undue and more of a put on. I love his idol Warhol similarly, his art said something ($), but his whole attitude, scene and sycophantic cult entourage was more his "art" than his paintings. Stuck on a desert island, I would take the Beatles catalogue over Lou's hands down. Not even sure anything of his would make it into my 10-20 albums to have to listen to forever. And he seems like he would have been a total drag to party with.
Reed admires but doesn't listen to whom? I can't make it out.
Pretty sure it was Randy Newman
Planetist: Yeah, it seems quite clear now. I couldn't get it a month ago.
Lou was based.
He had a view which I understand. Not everyone thinks the Beatles are the best. Bands contemporary to them like the Stones, the Kinks and the Doors were also brilliant, arguably better in fact. In many ways the Beatles were a boy band of their era, in comparison to say the Stones and definitely compared to Lou Reed and Bob Dylan. Personally I think some Beatles stuff is great but I would rather listen to most of the above I mention and many alternative bands. Indeed in terms of the pop style the Beatles championed, the Beach Boys are arguably as good or better at that particular genre.
The Beach Boys, The Stones, The Kinks and The Doors are better than The Beatles? 🤔 You're kidding they are good but no close to The Beatles
You can't compare Bob Dylan and the Beatles. Both are masters of their craft. To call the Beatles music "shit" is to completely miss the powerful impact their music had and CONTINUES to have. Bye.
Lou is right. Compare Sgt. pepper and the Velvet's second album. More meaning in the line "don't Che do that that you'll stain the carpet" than the entire Beatles rock opera. But I do love the Beatles.
JustintheJ the song is called sister ray. It's a 17 minute jam track and the line about the stain on the carpet refers to blood :)
It's easy to say that now but you're losing sight of the power that music had when first released, which is the same for all great, transformative art ; the shock of the new!
You can critique Sgt Pepper in that way now but you forget that nothing like that had existed before. Mr Kite, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, A Day In The Life, Within You Without You....these are not songs to be dismissed as 'pop' music, let alone garbage!
Yes they are; compared to the Level Mr. Reed is talking about here The Beatles are/were embarrassingly bad as "writers". There just isn't a kinder way of putting it; for the hero worshiping masses, however, this is absolutely verboten and cannot be tolerated for a scintilla of a second. Tough. What most people call Art is actually infantile drivel or just dog shit. Get used to it. And then grow up.
Zettel 9016 - you've obviously never played an instrument, written a song or spent time in a recording studio. Another clueless wonder who thinks the only things that are relevant in music come from the underbelly of a city, in Reed's case New York.
The first VU album inspired a lot of people who couldn't play to play, the last one (Loaded, with Reed) was a sell out.
Transformer was a truly great record but that was largely to do with the power of Bowie & Ronson's production, two 'pop' artists you no doubt despise as much as you do the Beatles.
And that was it. What did Reed do after Transformer? Berlin was lazy, amateur night out shoddy, Coney Island Baby was a sad attempt to re-capture the vibe (and success) of Walk On The Wild Side. Reed can talk a good game but his output was meagre compared to many of his contemporaries (Bowie for one) and the idea that John Lennon wrote nothing before Mother is just some crap he said on the day which he probably wouldn't say a week later. Go listen to Happiness Is A Warm Gun, then go listen to Waiting For My Man and then ask yourself, in all seriousness, which track is more worthy of being called 'art'?
"than the entire" How much "meaning" did Lennon's autobiographical "I used to be cruel to my woman, I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved" have?
great to hear Reed, an artist and a poet, trash all that Beatle bilge. Hes an honest man- not a pr man- and he is direct about the sitch: of course the Beatles etc. ad infinitum- and Reed the other side of that conundrum. Darker, more alert, and infinitely more on track -.
Keep in mind this was right after lou reed released mistrial. Cheesy dive bar rock.
Don’t like the Beatles but to say they were garbage is just pompous, arrogant, and ridiculous.
George Martin reviewed Lou Reed and said he's musically nothing.
"Wanky chords". How can a chord be "wanky"?
"How can a chord be 'wanky'?" Paul McCartney taught his friend Elvis Costello to take out extra chords the song doesn't really need. Costello would likely call those extra chords "wanky chords," although Andy Partridge more likely would.
Tony his post are not only boring but also full of bullshits.
@@b.3066 Yeah, Revolver came out before the VUG was formed -- and has basically all the same elements of VUG: druggy existentialism and nihilism even in regards to sex -- blended with drone like music of Far East\ Middle East -- adult themed personal gritty autobiographical music. VUG just retreaded that and went a tad darker and more explicit.
The Beatles were involved in the same avante guard counter culture in London as existed in NYC at that time. So the two albums are built around much the same outlook except that the Beatles were first to translate it into rock and pop music -- with VUG riding on their coat tales.
Iggy was doing hippy trippy nihilistic sound montage stuff around that time very much like Revolver.
Have to remember too that most of the world heard the North American release Revolver which was more stripped down and hard core with less pop elements.
@deadvoguestar You're right, it's not like he's a classically trained music expert who would likely be shoe in for greatest producer of the Rock era.
Funny how he mentions the Stones and how they're missing that extra element. Mick Jagger is an excellent, underrated lyricist and as good as anything Lou ever wrote.
Not.
Mick's written some very good lyrics but as good as Lou, nah.
Mick Jagger was underrated - he could be a great lyricist at times, sometimes almost the equal of Reed, but his philosophy was to not sing the lyrics too clearly. He said as much. Lou Reed, being much more of a word man than a melody man, could never bring himself to squander a chance to get people to hear his lyrics. Compare the diction of the two men.
I say: if you want words, read a book. I can't make out 99% of the lyrics to "Louie Louie" but it makes no difference, I still love it. I don't even want to look 'em up - it might spoil the effect!
Nice to hear Lou Reed mention Elvis Costello - criminally underrated lyricist.
One more thing - I could have sworn I once saw a quote from Reed that said "They (Lennon/McCartney) have to be the best songwriters ever".
Are the limey's still upset Dylan went electric? Pussies.
James France
Wasn't it American-as-apple-pie Pete Seeger that tried to cut the cable with an axe at the Newport Folk Festival when Dylan came on with an electric guitar, though? He was probably a bit pissed off to do that.
There was stupidity both sides of the pond, I'd say.
calls the beatles garbage, and he does lulu...
More people used the restrooms at a beatles concert than attended a lou reed concert
does that mean anything? is coca cola the best drink because everyone drinks it?
That’s not true at all but do dream
elvis costello
Wow I find it hard to think of 4 Lou Reed songs from his entire catalogue yet I can think of every single song off "Revolver" & he call's the beatles Garbage!! Rock and Roll should be felt not pondered so fuck engaging your mind Lou Reed!
A ONE HIT WONDER TALKING ABOUT MUSIC ?
??? Explain . . .
@Sy Goldboy,, If it needs to be explained you wouldnt understand anyway. Now be quiet and let the grown ups talk.
Lithium Pillow I think the current consensus is White Light / White Heat spawned about 5 genres give or take.
You got no idea
Lou Reed thought the Beatles were garbage.
Who is Lou Reed ?