I was discussing this with a friend a while ago, and i thought id leave it up to UG to decide. Who was more influential, The Velvet Underground, or The Beatles?

I'll be nice and reply to this absurd, unanswerable, trivial question. In the world of my kind of music, the VU definitely have a bigger, more substantial influence (however you define or quantify it). But, you know, you're asking in the punk forum.
Hmm, I don't know about that.

I guess she is, because the Beatles have a negative aggregate coolness (Lennon, of course, is the only one with a positive score—Ringo is negative, Paul is even more negative, and Harrison is neutral).

Individually, Mo and John are pretty close.
Last edited by █▐▌█▐▌ at Nov 25, 2011,
Quote by █▐▌█▐▌
Hmm, actually, Paul (or rather Faul) is kind of cool because he's an imposter.

Yeah, I agree. Lots of people say that's just a loony conspiracy theory but, tell me, how do you explain this?

You can't.

Last edited by due 07 at Nov 26, 2011,
Quote by neidnarb11890
Ringo gets points for narrating Thomas the Tank Engine.

He only did the first season. After that, Michael Angelis took over.
Thinking about it, I wrote a paper once along the similar lines of this discussion, although it was between Sgt Pepper's, and Pink Floyd's first album (they were both recorded at the same time at Abbey Road in '67).

Quote by Against Him?
vu are more influential on undergroung music and the beatles affected pop music more

I would probably be inclined to disagree with you, because from about '73 pop music owed a lot more to the VU than the Beatles, Bowie was obviously massive around that time and he really had a direct presence on the charts for about a decade.

You then have a bridge between that to like electronica style music through people like Gary Numan. Then obviously electronica was pretty hip by some time in the 80's, and that emerged from the avant-garde, and experimentalism and stuff. It probably had roots in stuff like Disco, I'm not sure exactly what that owes more to out of the Beatles and Velvets.

But of course there's also very 'proper song' pop music, which is more beatles-y. But I'd say that the Velvet Underground actually had more of an impact over time, albeit in a more subversive way.

Good thread though.
Personally, I think Dylan's first three electric albums are way more significant than anything the Beatles ever did.
I was gonna say, if we're following the Bowie/glam rock train of thought, Dylan was waaaay more influential than both VU and the Beatles.

Well I don't think you can gauge influence so easily anyway, I'm just saying.
Last edited by due 07 at Nov 26, 2011,
Oh, hear this Robert Zimmerman
I wrote a song for you!
About a strange young man called Dylan
With a voice like sand and glue

Both are the same amount of awesome. I'd say the Beatles had more of a universal influence due to more universal appeal. VU's influence might be greater among a smaller audience though.
“Just to sum up: I would do various things very quickly.” - Donald Trump
Yeah, I realized that immediately. What's up with that?

This is probably the one forum where be the general consensus would be in The Velvet Underground's favor.

I'm rockin' out to Fugazi right now, "By You" coulda been on White Light/White Heat.
Quote by neidnarb11890
Bobby's alright, Bobby's alright
He's a natural born poet, he's just oughtta sight

Aww yeah there's never been enough talk about T. Rex in this forum.

I need to ask my Music Biz professor about his work with T. Rex. He knew Captain Beefheart ya know.
Yeah, I was thinking about T Rex a while ago. They were a very countercultural kind of group, which isn't the first thing that springs to mind when you play the records.
I think Twilight was inspired by T. Rex. I mean, that sparkly dude is obviously meant to be Marc Bolan, and he's just a vampire for some girl's love.