The Velvet Underground and the Beatles?

Question

Who was the more artistically talented or adventurous group? That means no talk of popualrity or how much press they got because it has nothing to do with anything whatsoever. Who was the more inventive and innovative team?

Let me repeat for good measure, who was more popular and who sold more records has nothing to do with this question and needs not be brought up for any reason.

Please explain your reason with as much detail as possible, I'd like as few one line answers as possible. And it would probably be a good idea to refrain from answering if you don't know much about one or the other band.

And most of all let's keep this civil, a nice clean well thought out argument for your side that I think has the most valid points will get the best answer.

Go.

P.S.
By keep it civil I don't mean you can't bring up points against the other side, just try not to say anything derogatory and offensive for the sake of it, but don't be afraid to be controversial either.

So here's my opinion:


The Velvet Underground were the greater creative force. The Beatles did some pretty neat stuff, but the problem was that most of their catalogue is still relatively standard pop music that focuses on the relatively standard subjects, females and love and such. Then a lot of the stuff they get credit for they weren't the first to do. This is usually where someone says "BUT WAIT, they got it out to a wider audience!!!". That doesn't mean jack for original artistic innovation. Their biggest original achievements came in the studio. They did some kind of crazy something in the studio that added orchestral effects and all sorts of other frilly stuff, but back to the same problem, most of it still sounded like relatively standard music unless it was complete BS like "Revolution 9". So they do get credit for their studio achievements, but not the undeniable greatest and most creative band that ever existed. Sorry.

The Velvet Underground on the other hand were creating sounds that were very non-standard then, and still basically are now, without studio fiddling. And they honestly introduced new elements into the sound of rock 'n' roll, by playing instruments in unconventional ways. Mo's drum set was especially neat. The important difference is that the Velvets didn't have the media coverage the Beatles did.

Well goody, I love the first three answers.

And I always forget to make this clear, but I agree, the Beatles were a great pop band, but like it has been stated here, that's what they were, a great pop band. The majority of their material reflects that, nice happy pop songs that are a joy to listen to. But honestly, take the Beatles first album and compare it to the Velvets' first album, hell compare the Velvets first album and White Light/White Heat to Sgt. Peppers or the White Album, maybe I'm crazy but after that I personally lean towards the Velvets as the band that did more exploration. And then people talk about diversity, there's more diversity on The Velvet Underground & Nico than most bands entire careers, and even though the Beatles did get diverse it went from Pop, to psychedelic pop, to country style pop, to rock/pop, to pop with an orchestra. VU's debut has pop, garage rock, psychedelic folk, and songs that can't be described as anything but avant-garde rock.

But now I want to hear a Beatles fan's response, I know there's lotso f them on here, I see them all the time, so where ever you are today, what do you think about it? I am really curious.

Well I really don't think that reocrd sales show anything besides how well the band is marketed to be honest. The masses of the music buying public aren't that hard to sway once you make something look like the "in" thing, and so I choose to ignore record sales because the Beatles had huge media coverage and were being pushed on the public all the time whereas the Velvets only had an endorsement from aNdy Warhol. And let's face it, most of the people buying music don't give a diddly squat about artistic prowess as far as I've observed.

And I wouldn't say it made them a better band to develope so much, I mean you can't fault the other band for starting out at the top of their game can you? And the Velvets' sound definitely changed over the years. But it comes down to two respectable and opinion based arguments in the end, so I'm not trying to sound like my opinion is law. Hope no one takes it that way.

Answer 1

The Velvet Underground took the abstractness of Andy Warhol, and sort of crossed music with modern art. They introduced a dirty, grungy, almost nihilistic, point of view in their lyric content that was completely unheard of for their time.

And while the Beatles wrote some great songs, I would hardly call them revolutionary. They didn't really expand music sonically the way the VU did, but they managed to take what was there and really make the best out of it.

So for that reason I would say The Velvet Underground are more innovative, but the Beatles were definitely creative in their own sense.

Answer 2

As a lot as I just like the Velvet Underground (and certainly that album), they are no pageant for the Beatles, no band ever has been or will probably be, it is simply truth. Aside from the reality the Beatles had an extended, extra effective profession, simplest Lou Reed had a effective solo profession following, not like the Beatles who all spawned solo careers that had been mainly each and every greater than the Velvet Underground used to be (perhaps with the exception of Ringo)

Answer 3

The Beatles had arguably the greatest development of any band in modern music. Writing songs like "love me do" and 5 years later,"elenor rigby "A day in the life" .
No band has shown that steady growth of ability that these lads did. The velvet underground had talent but could only keep it together for a relatively short time . The influence of the Beatles is all prevailing in modern music, the V.U is less so. Both are legendary bands but The Beatles are on a different level to all bands.Lastly, to say that record sales cannot be included in a debate is removing a huge part of the argument you wish to provoke. People tend to embrace bands that are a little different or 'trendy' but if they only sell 10 albums does it make them any good?
I enjoy the Velvet's but The Beatles are a far more talented combo across the board. and all statistics support that.

What about tracks like "happiness is a warm gun"( a drug song ) 'Yer Blues' ( a depression song) ' helter skelter' ' revolution' and many others that are strong social comment but , because they are played so often, don't have the same impact that , say , ' waiting for the man ' which you don't hear that often , have on a first listen.

Answer 4

Ok I'll be brief. The beatles were originally a boy band until dylan introduced them to pot. they were just a british band doing american things. The velvet underground was innovative and ground breaking. The beatles wrote a lot of pop songs about love, the VU wrote abstract topical songs. The beatles were in the right place at the right time, VU created time and labled it.

Answer 5

The Beatles are good, don't get me wrong, but they're a pop band. They came to America and America loved them, but thats still all they were. Every album had some insanely good songs, but also some throwaway songs that they just wrote because they wanted a happy song for everyone to dance to.
In my opinion VU had a much more powerful playlist. Where bands like the Beatles sang happy tunes VU sang about heroin, sado-masochistic sex, druggies, and the like.
Even when you go into solo careers...John Lennon spent his career supporting peace, love, and flower power. The essence of a hippy message. Lou Reed sang "Dirty Blvd" and the like. He sat there and blatantly accused America of neglect and the cycle of poverty.
so yeah...Velvet Underground

Answer 6

Beatles are pop and easy listening. Velvets rock and are weird I love them.

Answer 7

So glad that I found this question already answered! Its like you've read my thoughts!

Answer 8

So amazed that I found this question already answered! it's like you read my mind!