Best Ever Albums

Re: Why The Velvet Underground are better than The Beatles

Facetious — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:06:12 GMT

Author: Facetious

Posted: 04/24/2012 15:06

davidhuret wrote:

I should have.

See? *shakes head*

Re: Why The Velvet Underground are better than The Beatles

davidhuret — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:00:09 GMT

Author: davidhuret

Posted: 04/24/2012 14:00

[quote="Eggman/Walrus/Taxman"]You might want to read the thread, specifically the first page, again.

Oh, and BTW, I myself like The Velvet Underground better than "the Fabs" 😜 If only just slightly more.[/quote]

I should have.

Re: Why The Velvet Underground are better than The Beatles

Facetious — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:43:06 GMT

Author: Facetious

Posted: 04/24/2012 13:43

davidhuret wrote:

I can't think of a reason why on earth the VU could be considered better than the Fabs. Is this thread a joke? Defending the obvious is a useless way to spend energy.

You might want to read the thread, specifically the first page, again.

Oh, and BTW, I myself like The Velvet Underground better than "the Fabs" 😜 If only just slightly more.

Re: Why The Velvet Underground are better than The Beatles

davidhuret — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:20:14 GMT

Author: davidhuret

Posted: 04/24/2012 13:20

I can't think of a reason why on earth the VU could be considered better than the Fabs. Is this thread a joke? Defending the obvious is a useless way to spend energy.

Re: Why The Velvet Underground are better than The Beatles

Facetious — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:36:53 GMT

Author: Facetious

Posted: 04/17/2012 13:36

SquishypuffDave wrote:

That boy and his soggy sulphuric emissions...

Oh, great! 😁 Now I have the perfect rank for myself when I reach Level 8! S16.......

Re: Why The Velvet Underground are better than The Beatles

SquishypuffDave — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:24:03 GMT

Author: SquishypuffDave

Posted: 04/17/2012 13:24

That boy and his soggy sulphuric emissions...

Re: Why The Velvet Underground are better than The Beatles

Anonymous — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:14:16 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/17/2012 13:14

Link

Re: Why The Velvet Underground are better than The Beatles

Facetious — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:26:11 GMT

Author: Facetious

Posted: 04/17/2012 11:26

mooseboy101 wrote:

Jesus fucking god damn christ who bumped this shit? Oh yeah, eggman 🧱

Fucker

Thank you, Moose. I'm proud to know that at least I annoyed you. Signing as "Fucker", though (however true it is) isn't going to help anybody.

Re: Why The Velvet Underground are better than The Beatles

mooseboy101 — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 02:54:14 GMT

Author: mooseboy101

Posted: 04/17/2012 06:54

Jesus fucking god damn christ who bumped this shit? Oh yeah, eggman 🧱

Fucker

Re: Why The Velvet Underground are better than The Beatles

HigherThanTheSun — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 20:15:54 GMT

Author: HigherThanTheSun

Posted: 04/17/2012 00:15

I think what Jhereko means is that it's cooler to like a band which nobody's heard of than one that everyone knows, especially if they're critically acclaimed. And if you say you love VU and everyone looks at you blankly but one person who gos "I love that band!" obviously you're winning 😎

I'd still love them if they were huge though.

Re: Beatles are better

CellarDoor — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 17:26:51 GMT

Author: CellarDoor

Posted: 04/16/2012 21:26

Jhereko wrote:

I'm tired but I think the essential point I'm trying to make is this: if The Velvet Underground were hypothetically as big as The Beatles then some of the people who lke them now wouldn't like them anymore.

You keep forgetting "Sister Ray".

Re: Beatles are better

Anonymous — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 17:09:35 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/16/2012 21:09

CellarDoor wrote:

Maybe you have hipster friends. Mine probably haven't even heard of VU. They might recognize the VU & Nico cover, but that's it.

But they know probably every single Beatles song, all have a secret Fab Four T-Shirt and have the "1" album to get out for parties.

VU are still the better band though.

Mine haven't either (although they haven't gt all the Beatles paraphernalia either) but "hip" usually does refer to an exclusivity. I hadn't even heard of VU until I was 18 (one of the reasons I'm doubtful about the VU having more influence argument but that's neither here nor there). But because VU are somewhat *ahem* underground, it gives them a credibility Beatles can't attain.

I'm tired but I think the essential point I'm trying to make is this: if The Velvet Underground were hypothetically as big as The Beatles then some of the people who lke them now wouldn't like them anymore.

Re: Beatles are better

CellarDoor — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 17:00:44 GMT

Author: CellarDoor

Posted: 04/16/2012 21:00

Jhereko wrote:

Well, that's bullshit.

Re: Beatles are better

Anonymous — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:51:45 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/16/2012 20:51

CellarDoor wrote:

The Velvet Underground aren't hip.

Well, that's bullshit.

Re: Why The Velvet Underground are better than The Beatles

dwils0891 — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:44:22 GMT

Author: dwils0891

Posted: 04/16/2012 20:44

Eggman...I just checked and Freak Out! by Frank Zappa did come out a little over a month before Revolver. I still think that Tomorrow Never Knows is more impressive than anything on Freak Out! though.

Re: Why The Velvet Underground are better than The Beatles

dwils0891 — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:26:11 GMT

Author: dwils0891

Posted: 04/16/2012 20:26

Eggman... I think you're right that I exaggerated a bit in my previous post. The reason I made the claim about the Beatles starting the experimental/Psychedelic genre was because I was relating them to The Velvet Underground specifically. I should have been more specific as to what I was trying to say. I do think that this is a good debate because I love both bands. You can look at my best of the 1960s chart that I have and it has Revolver at number one and The Velvet Underground and Nico at number two so I really do love both artists. I just think the Beatles had something going for them that no one else had in the 60s. It is really hard to explain what I mean but if one were to listen to Revolver or Sgt. Peppers I think one would notice that nothing else in the 1960s sounded like that. The Beatles weren't just experimenting with the instruments that everyone else was (guitar, bass, drums, vocals, maybe keyboard). It was much bigger than that. The Beatles brought multi-cultural instrumentation and songwriting into popular western music. The Beatles were experimenting with sounds and recording techniques beyond most if not any of their peers. Yet at the same time creating accessible and beautiful melodies and harmonies. I will admit that The Velvet Underground wrote deeper more lofty lyrics than The Beatles did but so did Bob Dylan and many others of that time. I just think that The Beatles in the 1960s came closer than any other band in that time period to transcending genres and conceptualizing the western music ideal that would remain to this day. The concept being how far can I push the boundaries of music theory and at the same time make accessible, meaningful, memorable songs for the listener. Thus creating the western popular music ideal and popularizing that ideal by creating songs that fit that ideal and effectively portraying that ideal to the music listeners of the world.

Re: Beatles are better

Facetious — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:10:01 GMT

Author: Facetious

Posted: 04/16/2012 17:10

CellarDoor wrote:

The Velvet Underground aren't hip. I grew up with The Beatles, and am still fond of most of their songs, but as a music enthusiast, I can only but be amazed by The Velvet's output. The transitions between VU&Nico -> WL/WH -> VU -> Loaded will always amaze as the most daring twists in any artist's discography.

Haha, I've always been amused by the fact that after the poor sales of VU & Nico.................they went more experimental. Imagine if MBV's debut wasn't a success, and it turned off many people, then they released Loveless, an even more experimental album 🤣

Of course WL/WH and Loveless are my fave albums by their respective artists.

Re: Beatles are better

CellarDoor — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:02:38 GMT

Author: CellarDoor

Posted: 04/16/2012 17:02

dwils0891 wrote:

The Beatles are better by a mile and a half. The Beatles had better albums, better songs, and lots more of them. The Beatles were the first popular band to experiment (Revolver 1966). All of the psychedelic/experimental music of the 1960s came after The Beatles started the whole thing. Listen to "Tomorrow Never Knows" from Revolver. If that song doesn't blow your mind then nothing will. Tomorrow Never Knows was way ahead of its time. The sounds on that song were all achieved using primitive recording techniques/technology. Revolver is so much more textural and imaginative than anything the Velvet Underground ever created. The Velvet Underground were very good and had a "rebellious do whatever the hell they wanted" attitude about them and their music but they were no where near the ambitiousness of The Beatles. The Velvet Underground were pioneers of Punk music but The Beatles were pioneers of western music as we know it today. The Beatles were far more progressive than anything else in the 1960s. Everyone else just followed suit. These are just a couple of many reasons as to why The Beatles should win this by a landslide.

I love The Beatles more than say, hairymarx1, but please, most of all of that is bullshit.

The Beatles have never and could have never come up with the drug fuelled rock jam of "Sister Ray", the spiritual 3rd album or the sexy "Venus in Furs". They also had a mainstream album with Loaded, but with tracks like "Rock and Roll" and "Sweet Jane" on par with the best of The Beatles.
Pioneers of punk, yes, but also chamber pop, indie pop, and experimental rock. They delivered mature lyrics and exciting cohesive records from one release to another.

The Velvet Underground aren't hip. I grew up with The Beatles, and am still fond of most of their songs, but as a music enthusiast, I can only but be amazed by The Velvet's output. The transitions between VU&Nico -> WL/WH -> VU -> Loaded will always amaze as the most daring twists in any artist's discography.

Re: Beatles are better

Facetious — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:59:00 GMT

Author: Facetious

Posted: 04/16/2012 16:59

dwils0891 wrote:

Sorry, but some of what you said (the bolded parts) is just plain wrong. I do agree with you that Tomorrow Never Knows is one of the greatest and most mind-blowing songs ever and was ahead of its time, but seriously, the Beatles weren't the most progressive band of the 1960s. No, everyone else didn't just follow suit. You're simply ignoring many other artists. The Beatles did NOT start experimental music. Giving just one example, Freak Out! by Zappa had already come by the time Revolver was released. If you're gonna talk about Rubber Soul......well, the sounds were to an extent influenced by some of the Byrds' work that had been released before. They were just one of many in some cases, not always just the first/only one. They helped creating the raga rock genre, but the Kinks and the Byrds were there too. Important in the birth of the heavy metal genre, yes, but so were Steppenwolf, and the Kinks again, and Hendrix. I don't believe a single band has ever done that, you know, been so innovative that they were the first one in many things. Sorry, but you're making the Beatles sound more daring than they were. They were revolutionary and influential, and probably pretty important in the evolution of rock music, but what you said is a bit exaggerated. I'm still a big Beatles fan, though 😁 I love The White Album, Revolver, and Magical Mystery Tour very very much.

Beatles are better

dwils0891 — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:37:20 GMT

Author: dwils0891

Posted: 04/16/2012 16:37

The Beatles are better by a mile and a half. The Beatles had better albums, better songs, and lots more of them. The Beatles were the first popular band to experiment (Revolver 1966). All of the psychedelic/experimental music of the 1960s came after The Beatles started the whole thing. Listen to "Tomorrow Never Knows" from Revolver. If that song doesn't blow your mind then nothing will. Tomorrow Never Knows was way ahead of its time. The sounds on that song were all achieved using primitive recording techniques/technology. Revolver is so much more textural and imaginative than anything the Velvet Underground ever created. The Velvet Underground were very good and had a "rebellious do whatever the hell they wanted" attitude about them and their music but they were no where near the ambitiousness of The Beatles. The Velvet Underground were pioneers of Punk music but The Beatles were pioneers of western music as we know it today. The Beatles were far more progressive than anything else in the 1960s. Everyone else just followed suit. These are just a couple of many reasons as to why The Beatles should win this by a landslide.