Were the Beatles the most influential band ever... or the VELVET UNDERGOUND??

You are implying that I and others have deemed Helter Skelter as being the main driving force behind the development of heavier music styles, which is an incorrect conclusion and an exaggeration on your part. It was merely an influence - similar to some of the ones you mention above. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the varied experimental musical forms on the White Album influenced a very wide spectrum of sub-genres (including "heavy" music) in a way unlike almost any other rock album in history.

 

Obviously The Beatles were the greater influence! That being said, The Velvets probably influenced more bands that I personally love!

 

So too Artaud, but that doesn't mean, as people seem to want to continue to cling to, that the VU made no mark on their peers. Artists are influenced by almost anything and everything. They're sponges super attuned to the ideas of their time and to other ideas. And it was the band's approach, not Warhol's (though everyone in a popular commercial art at the time who believed they could make serious art out of popular "ephemera" like rock & roll, was influenced by Warhol). Warhol brought the film and lighting elements to the show, and of course was a ringmaster, but not the architect of the band's performing style.

 

The Beatles were surely more influential, but if you compare records sold and influence, The Velvets have the Fabs beat hands down.

 

Indeed, but he didn't study with Artaud
He did attend and study with Malina and Beck.

 

Of course, but then you also see your peers doing something in a similar vein and it reinforces your feelings that this can work, it shows you modes for how it can work, it's the way artistic influence occurs -- it's not a zero sum game or an either/or equation, it's a big stew of influences and moments and experiences that together inform the work you do.

 

Even citing it as an early influence is giving them way too much credit. If Helter Skelter had been released three, two, or even one year prior to when it did come out, you'd have a solid case. But that sound was far too common and widespread by that time to have hold any significance.

 

Nonsense. Even when you consider some proportionate ratio, The Beatles crush the Velvets....(see what I did there? crush, velvet)
Think I'll listen to Fool on the Hill by Brazil 66

 

I'm not sure influence per record sold is relevant to anything anyway.

 

My thoughts precisely. What kind of nonsense is that? If someone has to go to those lengths to attempt to minimize their influence...well it just kinda proves just how influential they were.

So hypothetically if they sold 10 times as many records but were only 8 times as influential (never mind how you can even quantify that) that somehow lessens their impact?

 

After which Cher made her famous comment about the Velvets, which they used in subsequent promo materials: "They will replace nothing, except maybe suicide."

 

The point is simply that, given how miniscule their sales were in the 60's, the Velvets proved to have a disproportionately powerful influence over time. You don't need to get your knickers in a twist. No one's trying to steal the crown from the Beatles.

 

I think the distinction is in the middle of saying someone made "no mark" and "an obvious mark." By your own definition, Morrison copped his look from someone involved in the EPI, and not The VU. Sure, they were an integral part of that scene, but in that way, it can be said that he and The Doors were "influenced" by a number of people - and The Beatles could be just as strong.

Keef said they nicked "Stray Cat Blues" from "Heroin," but they also nicked a complete album and even included The Beatles' pictures on Their Satanic Majesties Request. John, playing a Beatles track, was on Rock And Roll Circus - made in 1968. VU was alive and well. Tull was there, but where was The VU if they were so "influential" or should have been shared? (Were they invited and declined? - honest question)

But, let's get back to the OP. By using the argument that people can take pieces of things, I think the answer is clear. It's The Beatles, as much as people don't want to believe that. And, as far as direct influence, it's an even easier answer.

Look, I love the 3rd album and Loaded, and dig the first two. I "get it." But, you need to direct the question. As noted here with "everyone was influenced by somebody" - are folks who love Rubber Soul influenced by The Beatles, The Beach Boys, The Byrds, Ravi Shankar, Dylan, Baroque...? Well, all - right? But, in the end, it's The Beatles. I can't find such obvious and clear directions and "influences" tied to The VU.

And, again, February 9, 1964 changed EVERYTHING. There's not anything close in the VU universe.

 

My point exactly. I'm as big a Beatles fan as the next person, but the degree of derision that comes from some here if you don't say they were the best at everything is a bit tiring.

 

At this point in time that, as huge as the Sullivan broadcast was, it was more A Hard Day's Night that crossed The Beatles over into true, full artistic success.
And I agree that it was much more about Warhol than the Velvets and, imho, it still is and will be to future historians. Again, imho.

 

Well, I'm not sure the Beatles on Sullivan changed everything; that's hyperbole. But there's absolutely no doubt that the Beatles were a bigger, broader influence on all kinds of things about music and culture. I don't think any act, even Elvis, had the same kind of broad pervasive influence on rock (though Elvis had a broader and more pervasive cultural influence beyond the music itself I think). I think the OP's contention is ludicrous on it's face. But I also think the many attempts by folks in this thread to completely dismiss the impact of the VU's music and cultural influence both in the band's time and afterward is silly and inaccurate, and there have been plenty of specific examples offered in this thread.

 

Nah, the EPI and the Velvets got press attention in '66 and '67 because of Warhol, and they got access because of Warhol, but their musical sensibility was not marked by Warhol, nor Reed's literary sensibility (many of the group's most famous songs were written when Reed was in college; and the sound of those first two records in particular were obviously influenced by Cale's time with La Monte Young), and those were and continue to be the source of the Velvet's musical and cultural influence.

 

One thing's for sure: The Beatles never got a major political movement named after them, did they? Well the VU did, with Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution! Sure, that might be a bit of a stretch, but it is true that the Velvet Underground were a big deal to the various artists and intellectuals who made up the backbone of the country's political opposition to the Communists...

 

I wonder why there's such resistance among some folks in the face of obvious evidence and citations by the band's musical peers and successors, to completely dismiss the impact of the VU. I sense the next rationalization is going to be that it was all about Warhol. Warhol didn't write any of those songs, play any of the music, and had no involvement with the band really after the first album and the end of the EPI. And that body of songs Reed wrote for those first 4 albums are as good as any rock songwriter's body of work from 66-70. It's an incredible, and an incredibly rich and diverse, collection of songs, and the covers have been myriad and by perhaps unlikely coverers (someone was just spinning me Tori Amos' cover of the original '69 version of "New Age.") Is it just the silliness of the comparison to the influence of The Beatles that gets people worked up, or is there something else going on?

 

Yeah, and meanwhile the Beatles were inspiring a mass murderer. Talk about a negative influence!

 

Well, let's not a) blame the Beatles for that and b) it's hard to say how much Manson was "inspired" by the Beatles and how much he was just using the bizarre moment in time when people did things like parse rock lyrics for the secret code to the universe as another rap do get people to follow him and do his dirty work.

 

Yes, Vaclav Havel was a big fan. I forgot about that particular influence.

 

The Beatles were the mainstream.
The Velvets, Stooges, Mc5, etc., provided an alternative route
Shepherded by Creem, NME, Sounds, etc.,
In time this became a very viable movement in the US, UK, Canada, Australia,etc.,
That in someways is writing rock's history today
A different story than who may have been the big sellers of the day.

 

Sorry, I added the wink there. Apart from your thoughtful, well argued contributions, this thread has gotten pretty silly anyway.

 

That's fair, and I'm certainly didn't mean to minimize Moroder's importance, particularly on house music and its related genres. Kraftwerk is a more direct influence on hip hop, electro, and techno - Juan Atkins has talked about Cybotron being an attempt to synthesize Parliament and Kraftwerk. Both are crucially important!