NYT Says Taylor Swift Is Bigger Than The Beatles!? WTF

In this episode, I talk about a New York Times article I came across that tries to answer the question if Taylor Swift is as popular as some of the biggest artists in the past.
💫 The Beato Ultimate Bundle - $99 FOR ALL OF My Courses: ⇢ rickbeato.com/
📘- The Beato Book Interactive - $99.00 value
🎸 - Beato Beginner Guitar - $159.00 value
👂- The Beato Ear Training Program - $99.00 value
🎸- The Quick Lessons Pro Guitar Course - $79.00 value
… all for just $99.00
Get it here: rickbeato.com/
My Beato Club supporters:
Justin Scott
Terence Mark
Jason Murray
Lucienne Kilpatrick
Alexander Young
Jason Wagner
Todd Ladner
Rob Kline
Nicholas Long
Tim Benson
Leonardo Martins da Costa Rodrigues
Eddie Perez
David Solomon
MICHAEL JOYCE
Stephen Stubbs
colin stead
Jonathan Wentworth-Linton
Patrick Payne
MATTHEW KARIS
Matthew Barouch
Shaun Samuels
Danny Kurywchak
Gregory Reedy
Sean Coleman
Alexander Verbitskiy
CL Turner
Jason Pappafotis
John Fulford
Margaret Carno
Robert C
David M Combs
Eric Flatt
Reto Spoerli
Herr Moritz Adam
Monte St. Johns
Jon Beezley
Peter DeVault
Eric Nabstedt
Eric Beggs
Rich Germano
Brian Bloom
Peter Pillitteri
Piush Dahal

[@jeffkalmar7871]

The fact that every new artist is still compared to the Beatles tells us that nobody is bigger than the Beatles.

[@SenecaHighlander]

It's mainly because they were the first to create that phenomena on that level.

[@gloriahudson9408]

That's exactly the point!

[@a2ndopynyn]

I do think Led Zep comes in a pretty damn close second, though. They rewrote the rules just like The Beatles did.

[@scottiep74]

Great point. It will continue. Same with Michael Jordan. Every new superstar is compared with MJ.

[@Anik4Life]

@@scottiep74 did you mean Jackson?

[@tomdmann]

Taylor Swift is "changing her content for the algorithm of pop music". Rick you've summed it up perfectly.

[@AB-wy7dr]

As is NYT

[@charleyanne]

💯💯💯💯💯💯

[@TheMister123]

One could make the same claim for what Rush did throughout the years. It's not entirely true, but they did change with the times.

[@charleyanne]

@@TheMister123 Duran Duran has too, as well as many other artists that are still putting out music. But I feel TS music more recently all sounds similar, or many songs anyway, whereas those from the 60s-early 90s all sound different, from song to song, album to album.

[@Feirin332]

Changing with the times is a different thing, it's organic. What she's doing is more akin to politicians picking their values based on what the polls show will get them the votes.

[@michelestiles7692]

So in the 80s I saw Paul McCartney in Tampa stadium. 60,000 people were mesmerized by a small band with no smoke/fireworks, backup dancers, and flashy costumes. You haven’t lived until you sing Hey Jude with McCartney and 60,000 people on a warm summer evening. Taylor Swift is a smart woman who has captured her audience. I admire her showmanship skills, her relationship with her fans and her style. I just watched her Eras tour video. I see why she is so popular. She’s a personal event storyteller. But she’s not the Beatles no matter how many records she sells. I don’t even think she wants to be anybody but Taylor. Good for her. Different times produce different artists. Opinion writers seem to feel the need for comparisons that are pointless. Like comparing Van Gogh and Jackson Pollock. I feel the Beatles legacy is safe.

[@ktleemusic]

Big agree. She’s great but her music isn’t changing the game she’s just the best at it.

[@JuliaHilz]

Thank you for actually giving her the chance. As to the no backup dancers or flashy costumes, I don't think women popstars are so often given the luxury of doing low-key shows. They have to do the whole shabang. Taylor has done shows of this style before, but given the scale (and the hardship ppl went through to get these tickets) she wants to make sure people are seeing a full production show worthy of their money (not that low key shows aren't, but if you are Paul McCartney you can do that and people won't complain).

[@michelestiles7692]

@@JuliaHilzI admire her tremendously. She’s an intelligent, talented performer. I’m thrilled she’s found success in an incredibly tough business. I see most music performers have the flashier shows. Gaga, Elton John etc. That’s what is expected. I’m almost 70 so my preference for less is more is partly my age. I have younger friends who just have the best time at today’s music shows. I think it’s great. We all set our expectations and feel the experience of music in a different way. Music is such a personal choice. What impacts one person deeply will bore another to tears. I’m glad there is something for everyone.

[@clawmanmusic]

very well said

[@shay.exe.]

THISSS AHHHH. times are different. music is going to change with the times. taylor happens to be one of the best of our time. however, the beatles are what you would consider the best of **all time**

[@sonnyboybluesharpfargo8705]

"Don't confuse the size of your paycheck with the size of your talent". Marlon Brando

[@kevinvasquez7497]

The best analogy

[@ninthhorizon]

The fact that the Beatles did what they did without social media, streaming and all the instant platforms out there tells you how big they were.

[@MikeM-uy6qp]

No, in terms of being noticed, and garnering mass appeal, the Beatles had it much easier. The tech revolution that led to social media, has also made it very easy to make and upload tunes. It's enabled fans to split into millions of discrete echo chambers corresponding to numerous subgenres that didn't exist in the Beatles day. Because there is practically no barrier to entry, there are exponentially more people vying for attention and fans,. There is nothing like the common culture and mass audience that finite tv channels and radio stations fostered. When the Beatles famously appeared on Ed Sullivan, almost the whole country was watching because there were only two other choices in that time slot, and you wouldn't get another chance to see it if you didn't watch it when it was broadcast. There was a time when I could have named almost every show on television, and every big music act people were listening to or going to see. Those days are way over. It's remarkable when anyone becomes an enduring icon with mass appeal in all this noise, whether you like them or not.

[@aaronxoxo]

Man ❤❤❤❤

[@CasinoConsti]

@@MikeM-uy6qpthing is: internet is biased, and only a few artists are boosted nowadays. You have to be rich by default to get popular today. Back then, you survived through bought records.

[@Olivi132]

can u believe there was actually a world "without social media, streaming and all the instant platforms"????!!!?!?!?!?!

[@MikeM-uy6qp]

@@CasinoConsti That's a good point, which helps me make mine. Because of. the content-saturated and culturally splintered environment, it's almost impossible to find a mass audience at all without hit-making songwriters, a superstar producer and an expensive, well-connected PR machine.

[@nicholashylton6857]

*"[Blank] artist/band is now bigger than the Beatles."* We've heard that over, and over, and over through the decades.

[@Flixtex]

When was the last time you heard an artist having billion $ selling tour? Never! Taylor tour just grossed 2 billion in 150 shows , 1 billion alone in US. Biggest artist in history with 300 shows+ couldn't do it. To all the people yapping, the tour income is always adjusted to inflation and after drawing comparision to demand vs no of shows , Taylor Swift still win against beatles and Michael Jackson. Taylor did 50 shows in usa on eras tour, her demand was 900 shows, as cited by live nation music experts she is on par with beatlemania. Now don't use ur tiny brains too hard.

[@Sonny_McMacsson]

We at least know the check cleared for the editorial.

[@tonypapas9854]

@@Flixtex Complete hyperbole. IF......if the Beatles toured like that now, at today's prices - no competition.

[@noobslayer7564]

@@Flixtex The money that exists currently in the industry is incomparable to the money that used to exist in the industry. You wouldn't say the original MLB players were bad because they used wooden bats and therefore couldn't hit as far. Give the Beatles a metal bat and see how much they gross lol

[@rustinpieces]

Yeah. How well did Oasis age?

[@claradiaz3147]

2:03 "Anyone can have a No. 1 country song, including me!" And there went my coffee all over my pressed shirt! 😂

[@profthoth2548]

Rick you are more than 100% on point. The nerve of the un-informed NYT!

[@filinator33]

the nerve!

[@usernameinfo]

Can someone please explain why I have spent the last ten years hearing about Taylor Swift but I couldn't name one of her songs?

[@katiafer13]

Idk where you're from so I can't tell if you have Taylor Swift on radio, tv, or malls, etc. So what I think is the reason that would apply is the internet, which has allowed groups to be formed out of people from different countries and continents. By that I mean that you can be a TS fan and the people you know that are also her fans are nowhere near you, and the same is true for them. So you don't consume her music the same way you would decades before. People mainly connect through social media with a lot more room for connection but also for (physical) isolation. An artist can have millions of fans but they may be scattered all over the world. And you can be a fan without ever buying a cd or going to a concert or talking to anyone about it. I think that's the reason that nothing seems as famous anymore and hits don't feel like true hits.

[@ansibarius4633]

This exactly. I looked her up once because her name kept popping up in news outlets, but I found her music completely bland and forgettable, like the background noise in a supermarket. Couldn't name one song or remember a single melody of hers and I truly don't understand the hype.

[@Max-hc9vu]

Its because you're mute

[@James-nv1wf]

Me neither, nothing has caught my ear enough to investigate further.

[@johnabbottphotography]

I'm just going to guess.... because you're an indie rock nerd, who prides themselves on not liking mainstream music?

[@zaziou711]

It's like comparing a Diet Coke to a Chardonnay based on their selling results.

[@peterknecht6666]

Nothing more to say 😂

[@integral]

Bingo

[@AminTheMystic]

Diet coke is way better a drink. All major soft drinks are better than alcoholic drinks. Idiotic comparison.

[@kickenwing30]

@@AminTheMystic missed the point, sheesh man.

[@BR-mu5zd]

@@kickenwing30 It's almost like its a preference thing... hmmm

[@parallaxview6770]

The Beatles had number 1s when you had to sell at least a million to get to number 1 . These days sell a handful of records / downloads and X amount of streams ... its pathetic anyone would even try to make the comparison

[@theoldkidrocker]

yes that was a million physical hold in your hand one way or another units not this BS click and listen for 30 seconds and boom.....

[@guerralg63]

You're right. Comparing the Swifter to the Beatles is an apples to oranges endeavor.

[@Jesse615]

As a kid in the 70s, I can still recall the media hailing one band or the other as "bigger than the Beatles" -- I think the Bay City Rollers was one! But the number of sales or streams is how the tone deaf define musical success; musicians don't. The Beatles, to this day, inspire new bands, like The Lemon Twigs. If TS does or will in the future, it would be challenge to hear it specifically, since it would be just as easy to claim it was influenced by Max Martin, et al. As you say, the Beatles really never wrote the same song twice. The opposite is true for TS.

[@apexjoe4769]

I too remember in the '70's the Bay City Rollers were suppose to be bigger than the Beatles.🤣In the 1990's they also said the Spin Doctors were the next big thing like the Beatles.🤣🤣Taylor Swift?🤣🤣🤣Keep dreaming people.😴

[@SongSecretsMomNeverTaughtYou]

The Beatles' later albums = Michelin-rated restaurants. Taylor Swift's later albums = McDonald's or Taco Bell. Sales does not equal quality.

[@jacobferrera1777]

😂

[@SongSecretsMomNeverTaughtYou]

@@jacobferrera1777 you must be delirious from all that corporate processed sugar and salt😂

[@mikearchibald744]

Dude, local mom and pop restaurants suck. Its food you can literally cook at home. I wouldn't know because I've never listened to Taylor Swift, but then I havent listened to the Beatles since I was 16 either. Love love me do, you know I love you. Seems like the Beatles set a lot of templates, not all so laudable. Rick is really starting to sound like the old guy in the park yelling at pigeons.

[@rogerpbsmusic]

Perfectly said

[@SongSecretsMomNeverTaughtYou]

@@mikearchibald744 I should have specified the Beatles' last 8 albums rather than their first. Cheers!

[@simonjacques9641]

the Beatles had a ton of #1 when the competition was: the Stones, Hendrix, the Beach Boys, etc, etc.

[@juliuscepeda9655]

The Beatles also had to compete with Motown at its peak!!!

[@FedericoDLP]

True, the competition was overwhelming in those days.

[@meandyouagainstthealgorith5787]

The closest competition in number was Diana Ross and the Supremes.

[@MD-qm6gy]

Same with film. The fact Oppenheimer got the nod says more about the state of Hollywood than the quality of that film. I mean, it was OK mostly.

[@tetedur377]

Plus: no internet back in those days. It was all word-of-mouth, television and appearances, and DJs being paid to promote songs.

[@jrusovich]

To be fair, The Beatles had massive record company support, including top producers and sound engineers, the most expensive studio use, and a marketing blitzkrieg. That was their social media, streaming and identity building. Oh, and they were also at the right place at the right time with extraordinary compositional talent.

[@FRAME5RS]

The Beatles broke up when I was 9 years old, well before my musical hey day, BUT, I can still name every song pretty much. I can't name one Taylor Swift song as an adult.

[@pt6792]

Okay, Boomer

[@FRAME5RS]

@@pt6792 Totally taking that as a compliment Gez Z Swifty

[@felipealexandremcosta7352]

@@FRAME5RS 😂

[@Ioanna.1313]

You can't name a Taylor Swift song cause you don't listen to their music. I can't name a Beatles song for the same reason. That doesn't say anything about the Beatles or their popularity

[@cjmacq-vg8um]

i can name one swift song. its called "i rake in the big corporate bucks as i poison american culture." its also the same song EVERY rapper sings. i remember when the music media declared the bay city rollers were "bigger" than the beatles. then they declared the hack michael jackson "bigger" than the beatles. in the 90s it was britany spears and then justin beiber or kanye west. with the horrific state of the world as it is right now i wouldn't be surprised if swift was "bigger" than the beatles. if its true the only response is how sad it is and it demonstrates how corporations have corrupted the music industry. THE WORLD SUX!

[@mdw1927]

As somebody who grew up in the UK with the Beatles music, yes I am that old, they were more than just their songs. They were at the forefront of a generational change, both musically and culturally. Their legacy goes far beyond than just their music.

[@gilh3947]

And the upper beatle (Macca) cited Hit Me Baby One more time, as one of the best pop songs in decades. I guess Britney was happy that day. What does that tell us?

[@clairesmithe]

taylors boyfriend did a commercial for 2 in 1. they are trying to make out these creeps are respectable people. there is excess mortality. 😡

[@cianog]

@@gilh3947 You know she didn't write that song.

[@gilh3947]

of course, but that does not matter actually. I would bet a lot that if he would never have said that, most ranters here would call that song rubbish. I hope you understand what i'm saying.@@cianog

[@andygolborne5747]

"As somebody who grew up in the UK with the Beatles music, yes I am that old, they were more than just their songs. " And there are the same equivalent youngsters today thinking exactly the same about Taylor Swift.

[@paulfoster5269]

60 years later, young Russian kids know Beatles and can sing them in English, Japanese symphonies are still playing their melodies, Brazilian string quartets are playing their music. They wrote in the genres of Pop, Baroque, rock and roll, Rock-a-billy, Folk, Country & Western, Heavy metal, Chamber music, Ragtime, Vaudeville, Music hall, Tin Pan Slley, Twelve bar blues, Ballad, Piano roll, Showtunes, Eastern Indian, Psychedelic, Circus music & Children’s music... Wrote in dance styles - waltz, cha-cha, polka, jitterbug, two step The group is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Each member is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame individually Three members are in the Songwriters Hall of Fame They were such prolific song writers that they wrote 26 songs for other groups, Including the Rolling Stones’ first hit and 4 # 1 songs for those groups. Their song ,“Yesterday”, has been covered by more artists (an estimated 2500) than any song in history. AND WE'RE HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS????!!!!

[@leonardoiglesias2394]

The big big mistake is to call them a rock and roll band. If Bill Haley was rock and roll we need another word for the Beatles.

[@leonardoiglesias2394]

Dont call yesterday THEIR song. Its HIS song, only. Beatles gave him flowers the first time he sang the song in a concert, and left the stage leaving him alone. Paul McCartney. The best british composer after Henry Purcell.

[@tonixjesse9087]

You know, ignorant people are often ignorant fo a reason ,this Is the case 🤷

[@user-gg8zd8my6o]

OH YEAH?! Well.... Taylor Swift revolutionized the genre of break up music!!! She's written literally 50 songs about how much better off she is now that every one of her boyfriends have left her!!! Did The Beatles ever do that?! Noooooo. 😂😂😂

[@user-gg8zd8my6o]

The thing is... Even McCartney doesn't give a sh!t. He knows this is all just some marketing persons opinion. They will literally go into a town, and survey 100 people. 90% of those people will be Taylor Swift fans, so OF COURSE "they" are going to report that "90% of people think that Taylor Swift Is bigger than The Beatles."

[@grahamthompson2594]

The funniest thing i saw today was Lady Gaga and Taylor Swift telling people not to talk about their body. Ladies, your act is closer to pole dancer than musician.

[@NCX-mt5sy]

My son came back from a Taylor Swift concert in Liverpool this week , he showed me some videos he took with his mobile and I told him that I've been to the 1989 Pink Floyd Concert and that 60 seconds of that concert had more creative music, performance and presentation then the whole Taylor Swift Concert put together, he smiled as if he was talking to a nutter and walked away, these youngsters just cannot understand what it was like in the 70's.

[@stevenbyrd2188]

I read the NYT article and their number-crunching nonsense. They should have dialed up Rick and asked for a comment. This video is the best response to it I've seen.

[@cameranmanner4701]

First of all NYT readers are not going to deep dive into music knowledge and try and differentiate the two. They will just read the superficial stats the NYT prints out and run with it. To know surprise most newspaper readers are seniors, but having this article online would generate more eyes from Taylor Swift fans reading it, not a bad scheme.

[@MikeFugily-hj3ok]

Agree, like their lying polling numbers, they are fudging the numbers and cooking the books. Kissing ass/catering is what's happening here. I don't believe a word that say. Irrelevant publication.

[@carnivalminds]

I don't understand the comparisons. The Beatles are part of the palette we use to paint, it's beyond chart positions and sales.

[@melodies_are_alive]

Beautifully expressed! 🤟

[@SIRENTAROT]

Precisely.

[@redsvt98]

Brilliant 🎉

[@jkmsaturn]

. . . Taylor Swift is the bubble gum that a child ruins our canvas with 😂

[@alanjackson1568]

By which argument, The Beatles, could be some ugly colors, compared to Symphony/Jazz/Metal/Opera/Musicals. I don't like Taylor Swift's music, or The Beatles music, nor do I think The Beatles really innovated, unless you throw in the caveat, innovated in the pop music sphere. All the elitist arguments, used to prop up The Beatles, can be used against the Beatles, by fans of other genre's of music, which is a wonderful irony to me. But I am not a commie, so I do think things from the past can be good, I don't need a "ruthless criticism of all that exists" like Marx, or to call old culture, and old idea's "death loving" like Paulo Freire. But The Beatles were commies, so when I see people typing "ok boomer" when The Beatles are defended, that's hilarious.

[@AJK.630]

I like the Beatles more personally, and I’m pretty unbiased as someone who listens to, plays, studied jazz. But one thing she has going for her is longevity, and in the spotlight that’s hard to sustain. The Beatles were exhausted from being the Beatles after a decade. Taylor is going on 20 yrs now and not slowing down. The Beatles stopped performing and whether that’s because the material couldn’t translate or they didn’t want to. Taylor has them there in the sense she is still touring non-stop. IMO, outside of the subjective nature of whose music is better. From a career standpoint, she will do more than they did. A more fair comparison would be the Stones, no one can match their longevity. And to me that’s one of the hallmarks of an all time great artist. Of which she will be remembered as whether rock n roll, jazz, or whatever type of fans think.

[@farty81]

A rare informed comment in this thread. Well done.

[@jayseb]

Content creator is probably the best thing ever said about Taylor - it's not hate - just a fact.

[@avangar2833]

Even in my country in Kazakhstan, Almaty we have a statue of the Beatles

[@jeanmarieboucherit7376]

Waouh! I love it!

[@Jack.Strait]

i found a beatle in my apatrment today

[@TrackMasterAsh]

Very nice!

[@TWICE_Queenz33]

🤣

[@iancurrie8844]

I've seen this monument. It's...horrific but a nice thought.

[@Garnoo]

Another important factor to take into account is that the world's population has more than doubled since the 60-70s and when you couple that with the changes in how people listen to music and how accessible it is nowadays, you start to realize that it's impossible to make a proper comparison

[@sm0k1nggnu_]

Music has also become more accessible. I somehow doubt that people in some remote village in China (or other countries) in the 60s would've bought Beatles LPs but they probably have Spotify now. And TikTok. Listening to music back then also had a social aspect, you met with friends who owned the latest LP and listened together. The calculations for Charts are completely different nowadays when every stream counts.

[@johncahill3644]

For what it’s worth I was 10 years old in 1963 and I can tell you without question that the Beatles were massively more powerful in terms of the attention and influence of the moment. And of course then there’s the influence on music itself over the rest of the decade and thereafter which was again a quantum leap and pervasive. Taylor Swift seems to have a huge following and is very influential (I can’t say her music speaks to me but that doesn’t matter), but wow...not the Beatles, not even close. That was sociological phenomenon of epic proportions.

[@oldgoat6423]

Not only has the population doubled, the music is now accessible in markets it wasn't in the 60s. The Beatles may have been the biggest band in the world, but the "world" at the time amounted to North and South America, Europe, Japan and Australia. But no Russia, China, India, Africa, Eastern Europe or any of Asia but Japan, which meant the Beatles were never actually heard by most people living during their heyday. Strange, but true.

[@peterhayes3897]

Couldn't have said it any better!

[@sagetmaster4]

Hilarious.

[@stevengcarson]

I was 7 years old when the Beatles appeared on the Ed Sullivan show. Thus I got to see their entire working history as it played out. The one thing I remember about that time was that numerous people - myself included - who had *never* bought a record of *any kind* - went out and bought Beatles records! I even knew a couple of friends who did not even *own* a record player who went out and BOUGHT a record player expressly so that they could listen to Beatles records! The Beatles single-handedly enlarged the entire music industry world-wide. The exact amount of the increase may certainly be debated, but there is no doubt that the Beatles brought forth millions of people who had never before been part of the "music buying public" before. They also spawned the "British Invasion", opening the door for bands like the Stones, the Who, Led Zeppelin, etc. Think about how many millions of records were sold by those bands, and the fact that some of those bands may never have made it "across the pond" had it not been for those four mop top lads from Liverpool!

[@jamesthompson316]

Let’s have this conversation in 50 years time

[@jasonchambers4495]

Its gonna be the same.

[@phantasmal914]

I’m from the Netherlands, The Beatles are inside our high school history curriculum. They are a mandatory thing we need to know about for our history exams, that is the extent of the cultural impact they’ve had. Who cares if Taylor Swift has more streams, her name will turn to dust in 100 years or so. The Beatles, like many of composers of old, such as Beethoven or Mahler, are here to stay. Immortalized in the history books.

[@MrEliwankenobi]

I love this comment

[@rahihudson2630]

@@MrEliwankenobi 100 years or so? You're being generous, I think. I hear David Cassidy was huge in the early 70's. But if humans are still spinning around with this planet in 500 years, the Beatles may be even bigger than they are now. Van Gogh's been gone for nearly 150 years, and he failed to sell even one painting while alive.

[@a2ndopynyn]

I agree. I think both The Beatles and also Led Zeppelin will still be regularly listened to in 100 years. I'm not sure if much else will be, although I think it's possible that almost everything from the Big Band/Sinatra days, up until the early 90s or so, will live on in some fashion for a long, long time.

[@sidilicious11]

Well said! And I’m so glad they are teaching their music in schools.

[@markemerson8399]

Being an Australian from that time I have to say that I preferred and still do prefer Radar Love by Golden Earing to the Beatles. In fact, I think I'll listen to it now!

[@ytacct7959]

And remember, Rick, the Beatles would have had MORE number 1 songs in '64, but songs like Please, Please Me and Twist and Shout were blocked from hitting number 1 by...other Beatles songs!

[@Nickel1147]

No1 songs had to sell a lot more records than now.

[@JSantiago806]

What happened to the Beatles in the US charts in 1964 was like a dam breaking. Much of what they had already done in England the year before came pouring out suddenly in a single stream, along with what they were adding that year. It was something never seen before in music history and has never been repeated again.

[@sarawagistrom]

You’re always so professional and fair in your analysis, Rick. Very much appreciated! As a Swiftie, I’m unfortunately used to seeing quite mean commentary about her and it’s difficult not to take to heart. In your case, there’s nothing like that, and I thank you for it.

[@DmitryGorbushin]

Wow-wow-wow! At 5:42 "I don't have any knowledge of Taylor Swift working with Max Martin. But I met with Max Martin before". Now I don't care about Taylor. I'm requesting interview with greatest producer of 21st century! We need Max Martin interview!

[@garycharland3018]

You are not an idiot. I remember the Beatles back then. The hype. How they changed the music and culture of a generation. I remember what music was like before them. You are spot on.

[@metalfatigue]

I believe eveyone knows this but if they removed the KZbin videos that cover stuff that's obvious, what would be left?

[@carlatate7678]

Stopped video at 3.19 because you started playing a Taylor Swift song and my personal claim to fame is that I've never heard a Taylor Swift song.

[@pickles224]

@@carlatate7678the fact that you consider never hearing a Taylor Swift song to be a “personal claim to fame” is exactly why we’re talking about this.

[@carlatate7678]

@@pickles224 shrug

[@LazyLizzy706]

@@pickles224Taylor swift is loved by so many people yet many of us have never heard of a single song of hers. Meanwhile everyone knows Beatles songs 😂

[@ronpatton9424]

The mere comparison is ABSURD.

[@SKarboy_4]

Exactly

[@ScottPetro-tc3jn]

I agree. There will never be another band like the Beatles and people just need to get over it.

[@jumpercable20]

The fact it comes from the New York Times tells you all you need to know.

[@tidalcliff2202]

@@ScottPetro-tc3jn It's not about being like the beatles or a quality comparison. Taylor moves entire economies when she tours, she absolutely is as big or bigger than the beatles. There are more people alive today, there are more people into music today, there is more widespread exposure for big artists today, it's really not a stretch to say this guys.

[@richlisola1]

What I learned is that Taylor Swift barely writes her own songs and her songs still suck. Every contributor mentioned writes better songs for themselves-They’re pitching her their C game.

[@PeteChurch-tz7bk]

There is no comparison

[@chriscoyle]

This is so true, spot on Rick. Sadly, too many casual listeners and fans of music nowadays fail to appreciate and understand all the work behind the scenes. Great video.

[@RaymondHundley-mf2wf]

The true test of time is how many of her songs get picked up and played by other artists and orchestras in the future.

[@EF-fc4du]

Thing is, no songs get covered anymore. I can't think of a song over the past 20 years that has had a major cover.

[@barbaramonaco105]

@@EF-fc4du True. Songs get sampled but not covered.

[@mikedebruyn]

@@EF-fc4du Isn't that because you can just listen to the original now that everything is digital? Back in the 60's singles were not in print anymore a year after their initial release.

[@JuliusHowe]

Ryan Adam’s covered her album 1989 - it’s excellent

[@xBlitzerx]

@@barbaramonaco105 Weezer did Toto - Africa and Disturbed did The Sound of Silence.

[@francoischarbonneau9447]

My ultimate belief is , in the next 100 years the Beatles will still be taught in music classes in schools and musicians will still be trying to learn those songs.

[@mirrorblue100]

The Beatles got up on stage and played alone - their songs. Swift has to rely on a supporting cast of dancers, lights and effects. She's the modern equivalent to The Monkees - a packaged commodity - tailor made to appeal through gimmickry and a little music.

[@dougbhorne]

Correct. And nobody will have heard of Taylor Swift.

[@phoenixrising4995]

Yet Mozart and Bach will outlive them all Muwahahaha

[@LarryDeskPlant]

The Beatles are already taught in school music classes mate.

[@willinguyen1]

Swift can do the same. Acoustic solo shows of her will sellout across the globe. The fact that she puts so much extra into her show is a testament to her hard work and love of exceeding everyone's expectations. ​@@mirrorblue100

[@impettus]

I heard the same thing about some boy group that had a headline saying they were greater than the Beatles. Never heard from them since. I’ll be enjoying the Beatles long after they are all done

[@joelvarelasierraSONGS]

This powerful video should reach every corner of the artistic spectrum. Thank you so much Rick!

[@brianhu5612]

Rick pulling out his No 1 Country song plaque had me rolling 😂😂😂

[@guywiesel2380]

You could say you got rick rolled

[@franklincheney3653]

@@guywiesel2380 And he's just hitting his stride, there could be many more! More Billionaire songs, less Taylor vs da whole wide woild ;-)

[@MeYou-yz2yz]

Got to check Rick's hit out now. 😂

[@danieldaniels7571]

@@MeYou-yz2yzyeah, somehow I completely missed it

[@WFO_SonicSpeed]

@@MeYou-yz2yz honestly not missing much lol, it's just your standard 2010s country hit. Cool that he's a part of it though

[@betodaval]

I remember a video from Ozzy stating that: "Everything used to be black and white, with shades of grey, they brought color to the world" or something like that. You just can't compare.

[@der_jannik_0115]

Read that in his voice and it was hilarious

[@peterstafford4426]

I saw the Beatles on Ed Sullivan and never got why they were so big.

[@tonihernandez6862]

great quote from ozzy. also, the touring schedule the beatles maintained from 63 thru 66, an album a year, a couple of singles, a couple of movies, tv appearances. the beatles didnt put out sgt pepper and wait for another two or three years later to put out another album. they were consistent, and continued to improve.

[@kengeejr]

I mostly agree with you. But I’d be remiss if I failed to note that the Beatles had their own “super producer” in George Martin. Paul McCartney has called Martin the true “fifth Beatle”. His production was critical to the group’s sound.

[@AnthonyKellett]

I struggle to imagine, in 50 years time, people will be asking if 'xyz band/artist' is bigger than Taylor Swift. They come; they go; they're forgotten. I recall 'The Bay City Rollers' having similar comparisons made between them and The Beatles.

[@jaimeosbourn3616]

I still listen to them and the Beatles.

[@AnthonyKellett]

@@jaimeosbourn3616 - I'm unsurprised; but were you born 30 years after the Bay City Rollers split? The Beatles are in a different league, in my opinion.

[@jaimeosbourn3616]

@@AnthonyKellett Didn't say they weren't. And no I remember when the BCR had their own tv show.

[@AnthonyKellett]

@@jaimeosbourn3616 🤣 So do I 😂 Happy days! 😊

[@jaimeosbourn3616]

@@AnthonyKellett seems like we both have similar memories.

[@amhoody]

The real problem here is the NYT thinking this is a legitimate comparison!

[@florisbackx1744]

Really? I think they just know how to get your attention,clicks and 'engagement'. This video is a great example that they succeeded in that.

[@askannav2094]

Exactly !!! They need to also sell ' content"

[@larryhinze8658]

And NYT is not legit to start with...

[@Puzzlesocks]

The real problem here is thinking the NYT is legitimate and not just a propaganda/entertainment outlet.

[@michaelheller8841]

NYT is toilet paper.

[@timpeterson754]

Nailed it, Rick. And you’ve been extremely kind in your analysis. The Beatles and Taylor Swift are “completely different universes.”

[@robloxvids2233]

I think he meant different galaxies. There is only a single universe. That's why it starts with "Uni"

[@johnkesich8696]

I can’t help but wonder how the Swifties would react if she quipped that she’s “bigger than Jesus Christ.”

[@phadrus]

They are both manufactured and heavily marketed. So not all that different.

[@chloewu2760]

Maybe but some Beatles members themselves like Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr have praised Taylor

[@listy77]

​@@johnkesich8696 exactly what I was thinking! Would they start burning records or bibles.

[@user-lk6bq4vv1g]

I'm from the era of the Beatles and I was astounded by their talent and music. Taylor Swift is as Rick describes her, a content creator. As also said by Rick, she does a great job and obviously, she has a legion of fans. But, there is no contest on the question. The Beatles are one of the greatest of all time. Don't forget, they made this music in only a few years working essentially by themselves. Music is always evolving but giants aren't diminished over time.

[@EricSchultz-zs8hz]

Thank you for putting this into perspective. A lot of people will just look at the official # of hits and think that there is a comparison. Here's a rhetorical question: If Taylor Swift starred in a movie, would it be as watched, admired and studied 60 years in the future as "A Hard Day's Night" is today? Will her albums still be listened to and admired in 60 years as most of the Beatles' albums are today?

[@luciaromero5916]

Once I went to a band's concert, They had made video that went viral getting 3M views but the venue was empty. That's when I realized you tube numbers could give a fake perception of what success really means.

[@Natalia_Belenkaya]

Exactly, I sing in a video that went viral years ago and gained its 1.2M views with the original uploader (it's in Russian and mostly was popular for obscene lyrics sung in a semi-operatic voice). My cultural influence amounts to about zero, no matter what the numbers say ) And yes, we all bow down to Beatles despite the views on KZbin.

[@jleighwolfe]

Not sure how that's relevant to taylor swift who sells out massive stadiums nightly.

[@lanainmydreams]

You will find thousands outside the stadiums Taylor sells within minutes, because they just want to be there.

[@spike8244]

What you're saying is true... But not for Taylor Swift at all. She is on a billion dollar grossing most successful tour of all time. The demand for her tickets is insane. People are ready to buy her ticket for even 20,000 USD on resale.

[@kshafer6220]

@@Natalia_Belenkaya Especially knowing that YT strips views away from channels that don't buy in to their advertising packages.

[@redheadguy1951]

When I think of the variety of melodies from the Beatles, I'm just blown away, 60 years after I first sat up, listening to the radio and saying to my 12 year old self, "What the hell was THAT? - "I wanna hold your hand" There was NOTHING like it. Meet the Beatles was the first LP I ever owned - an Easter present from my parents. And then it didn't stop for years, all through highschool. The world changed, and they changed with it, along with me. I'm eternally greatful to the universe that i have been in it at the same time as the Beatles.

[@user-uz7lu7ju1x]

From what I can tell from your comment, you're much older than I am. Though I was not able to appreciate the Beatles in their heyday as I assume you did, they're my favorite band and one of the best things about them is that they are still insanely relevant even now. I have never bought an LP, and yet I still discovered and enjoy their sound. I'm eternally grateful to live in a universe shaped and evolved by the Beatles.

[@pennyparkin]

Same here my friend! Blessed beyond belief to have been there for all of it!

[@darlenegriffith6186]

@redheadguy - Well said! The Beatles have accompanied me through all the various seasons of my life. There will never be anyone that can compare to them.

[@a2ndopynyn]

By my calculation, you're 72. I'm 56. I like The Beatles a lot, and totally respect their place in music history, but for me age 12 was the discovery of Led Zeppelin, and I continue to believe that they belong right up there with The Beatles in terms of influence and quality of output. And no, I don't want to get into the plagiarism thing, for two reasons. First, their versions were orders of magnitude better, and second, back in their day, everybody sort of borrowed from everybody else. I had a classical music teacher tell me that a huge number of ELP tunes were based on obscure classical music, as in note for note motifs and small passages, stuff nobody but a Keith Emerson type would ever have heard before. (He also said YES did *not* do that; Rick Wakeman, Steve Howe and Chris Squire really were that good.)

[@cheezer57]

Almost the exact experience!

[@RM-yf2lu]

I cant name a single taylor swift song and im FKKIN PROUD OF IT

[@mikehal7889]

Nailed it. My only problem is you didn't continue. This should have been a 40 minute video. As you can see from all the comments this comparison is lopsided in so many ways.

[@gibber1944]

Rick pulls out a framed certification for a number one song -- "It's not hard to get". I think I hear the cries of thousands of songwriters.

[@Jombafomb]

I know he was being humble but that Parmalee song is one of the better country songs of the past 15 years.

[@roscoemuttley]

I got a buddy who used to be a rock band leader - he was one of many that didn't make it- He has sold 10 country songs

[@smittymcjob2582]

That's exactly what I was thinking... you know you're dealing with a different breed when the man pulls out a number one record from some nondescript corner of the room and says they're not hard to get!!! hehehe.....

[@BreetaiZentradi]

He is talking in context of being a big fish in a small pond. He has a number one country song, but not a number one pop song. You can get a number one is rock, country, comedy, or some smaller genre much easier than having the number one song in the US on the pop charts. Every Beatles hit was a number one on the pop charts. A third of Taylor's hits do not even qualify by that measure. That reduces the number of number one hits she has.

[@Tigermaster1986]

@@BreetaiZentradi Rock isn't a small genre, though, and neither is country - especially in the US. Plus, Beato isn't the performer of that song. *No one* bought it because of him. Even most fans of the band didn't know he worked on this song. Imagine Jack Antonoff claiming that he has number one songs. Would you believe him? Because he doesn't. Taylor Swift does, even though he is the one with the actual technical skills there.

[@JerryBearry]

To this day, I could not name one of Taylor's songs.

[@Rick.Grayson]

So fix that

[@Boondokker]

I was gonna say that 🤠🤠 But I can name 2 dozens of beatles songs

[@rbolwell]

I bet you could name one now you've watched this.

[@jesscasalla224]

what song?

[@pa4tim]

Me too, I know all Beatle songs, I never heard Swift. (I never listen to the radio, only YT, Spotify and LP/CD's)

[@CycleGirl-77]

I remember in the 1980s, someone said that U2 might become bigger than the Beatles. I suppose this was said about Fleetwood Mac, The Eagles and I don't know who else. In 40 years, whatever the hottest band will be compared to the Beatles, not Taylor Swift.

[@tarragon6]

I think you hit the nail on the head, Rick ! Thank you so much for all the entertaining and interesting information you provide constantly !!!

[@HumbleSchizo]

Bro those bed tracks sound like the previews of the default ringtones in your phone settings

[@sneetchw]

most good production is pretty simple and leaves plenty of room for the vocals

[@kurtisjohnson9530]

@@sneetchwAnd The Beatles production didn’t leave room for the vocals?

[@Christian___]

@@sneetchw lol

[@sneetchw]

@@kurtisjohnson9530 i didnt say that. i love the beatles and taylor. i think theyre both great

[@DustyDingoPhotos]

@@sneetchw . . . and auto-tune . . .

[@ultrametric9317]

Your explanation of "I Am The Walrus" gave me goose bumps. I never realized that opening chord was B. What a strange progression, no wonder it blew me away when I was a kid in 1967.

[@jtull6558]

One of my two favorite Beatles songs.

[@chrisanderson8094]

better yet, listen to Dennis Elsas "Song Evolution" on the Beatles channel/Sirius

[@novapersson8347]

I'm a die hard swiftie and this video made me understand the comparison so much better

[@finnishculturalchannel]

Number one songs... Show a picture of The Beatles to the people of the world and most will know it's a picture of The Beatles and can list and sing numerous songs of theirs. Show them a picture of Taylor Swift and most won't know who is in the picture and some of them will say they have heard the name, when they hear it, but can't name any of her songs. I doubt anyone will be listening Taylor Swift's songs after 60 years. I can't think why The Beatles' songs wouldn't be listened after another 60 years just as they are now.

[@josephupdegraff9351]

As a music teacher, I love everything you say in this video and your insight as far as the history of music and the production of music is spot on, but I worry that it doesn't matter to this generation that is so driven by Tik Tok and other social media. They don't seem to care about any of the history and seem to fail to recognize the limitations of past technology and how bands like the Beatles over came those things and still accomplished what they did. I have a real concern for the future of music because of a lack of understanding of how music has developed, to them "Streaming" has always been a thing, and they don't realize how epic a band like the Beatles was and they did it with out all that Tech. Keep up the good work, I love your content.

[@orlandoguitarist]

"They don't seem to care about any of the history and seem to fail to recognize the limitations of past technology and how bands like the Beatles over came those things and still accomplished what they did." I understand and agree with some of what you are saying, but is it possible they accomplished what they did because the limited technology didn't distract them from being together in the real world to create great music? Do you think Paul, John and George would have composed the songs they did if their faces were buried in their phones watching Tik Tok videos? Would George Martin have produced Sgt. Pepper's if he had Pro Tools and a limitless number of tracks, plug-ins, VST's, etc.? In the book, The Beatles Recording Sessions, I found it amusing to learn how many of the sounds were created. For example, in For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite: "After a great deal of unsuccessful experimentation, Martin instructed recording engineer Geoff Emerick to chop the tape into pieces with scissors, throw them up in the air, and re-assemble them at random."

[@user-er8xh1gc7m]

this is not true, i recently took a history of jazz to rock class at my university and a vast array of kids who are tiktok influenced people engaged with the music so well along with the history of it all. it was really cool to see.

[@burningjoe]

taking what you have said here to Ricks point, because of the Tick Tock, quick in out of all that, no one will care much for Taylor in 60 years but here we are 60 years on still in love with the Beatles.

[@mikedebruyn]

If you are really a music teacher then i advice you to take a look at "Taylor Swift NOW Listening Session with Taylor Grammy Museum" here on YT. In it she shows how her songs changed from the initial voicemail idea and she describes the rest of the proces and then she performs them without all the production. It am sure it will be informative because you seem to have some pretty strong pre conceived notions about her.

[@jonaszepog1829]

@@mikedebruyn Just wondering, where did you get your degree in music? Since you seem to know a lot about music, and are advising a music teacher here, I could use some advice on which university to send my talented son to. Looking at Julliard, Manhattan School of Music etc.; perhaps you have insight into these or other college's 4-year bachelor of music programs? He will likely go on to a masters and doctorate after that, if you have insight into those advanced degree programs, but first things first!

[@lonelytonyan]

Nailed it. Look at impact not just to music as a whole, but to MUSICIANS. The Beatles are historic.

[@leosan2173]

To be fair, they will both be historic.

[@matthewhenderson5070]

Yes but The Beatles are the benchmark and TS is a footnote.

[@stealthbastard8837]

@@leosan2173 we'll see about that, and if it does, it'd for different reasons, talent is certainly not the reason for Taylor.

[@ericwinter4513]

@@leosan2173do you think T Swift will be inspiring people to write songs 60 years from now? I highly highly doubt it. And yet the Beatles are still inspiring new generations 60 years after they played the Ed Sullivan show.

[@boomer3150]

@@stealthbastard8837 Exactly; she is bereft of any.

[@donaldleider7382]

Taylor Swift would’ve never been able to get a song played on AM radio in the 60’s or 70’s !

[@philiphoy1373]

I've been a Beatles fan ever since seeing them on the Ed Sullivan Show. I'm not sure why so many get offended by the comparison. When anybody reaches that level of popularity and success obviously comparisons are going to be made. What the Beatles, Michael Jackson, Madonna, and yes Swift all have in common is great songwriting. Particularly in their lyrics. What truly sets the Beatles apart was their willingness to experiment musically. They literally changed music, even in the way it's recorded and you could argue they created genres in the process. But when it comes to popularity Swift is definitely in the same stratosphere as those others. After taking a dive into her catalogue this year to see what the fuss was about I was surprised I actually liked many of her songs. It's her lyrics. Musically not all to my taste, but she's just a really good songwriter. I get her popularity. When people talk about great vocalists you never hear any of the Beatles mentioned. You never hear John, Paul, or George's names mentioned among great guitarists either. Many dismiss Ringo being a great drummer except drummers that followed. Clearly being the greatest singer or musician isn't actually mandatory for massive success. It was great songwriting and being good performers that made the Beatles wildly popular. That's what Swift is. There's better singers and better musicians than her. You can be a great singer and/or a great musician but you'll only be pleasant to listen to if you don't have great songs to perform.

[@JuliaHilz]

Thank you for being so open minded and giving her a chance! I feel like more people would appreciate her if they did the same. The Beatles definitely achieved such different sounds in their albums in such a short period of time.

[@ct81]

The better question is who will be continued to be listened to and covered by all genres of music in 50 years? Pop music "beds" reminds me of the music I search for on music libraries for TV shows.

[@drummerconz682]

There’s gonna be more way more pop fans than 60s rock fans by then.

[@orlock20]

One has to realize that classic stations often don't play the real Billboard hits, but the cream of the time period. I suspect that people will still be covering acts such as Beth Hart, Adele, Eminem, and Tool on the international level. Beth Hart already has a couple of cover bands and has had at least one song translated into another language (Vietnamese) so it could be sung by contestants on a TV singing program. When she was a contestant on Star Search in 1993, Beth Hart sang an original song called Am I The One which is still being sung by TV singing contestants. Beth hart has also written songs in several genres.

[@PeteQuad]

I have teenage kids and am blown away by how much "classic rock" and 60s-80s pop they listen to. That stuff does not seem like it's going away. Hell I am 51 and I listened to 60s and 70s stuff and it was before my time and thought I was listening to "old stuff" when I was younger.

[@PeteQuad]

@@Mindphaser1 where did you get the impression that I didn't listen to music past the 80s? In fact music prior to 1990 is probably my least listened to time period. Maybe you read a different comment?

[@hhaannnnaahh222]

@@PeteQuad i'm in my late 20s and listen predominately to music from the 70s/80s, it feels like such a breath of fresh air in comparison to what's in the pop culture zeitgeist right now. its' like the difference between wholefoods and fodder. but if all you've ever had is fodder you'll have no idea what you're really missing, which is why i'm hugely grateful my dad gave me a great musical education, sounds like you've afforded your kids the same privilege.

[@JohnBiddleMusic]

The point about the Beatles music being so varied is so valid. Look at the I, V, vi, IV progression. It’s literally used in 100s, probably even thousands of pop songs. Plenty of artists use that progression in multiple songs, even from one album. The Beatles used it once, in the song let it be. All of those hits, and they used one of the most common chord progressions only one time

[@AnthonyFlack]

I have no idea how true that is, but off the top of my head I recall Oh! Darling also contains a prominent I - V - vi - IV, although it leads into it with that very nice V7(#5)

[@themayor3263]

They are all stealing from Bach.... He invented "Pop" music

[@joseberardocunha]

And Beatles did that way before it became the axis of awesome chord progression 😂 My point is even when they had the same idea they didn't do it due to lack of creativity rushing into next album, they are masterpieces

[@JohnBiddleMusic]

@@AnthonyFlack I guess you’re right but even that song, not the whole verse is just that progression

[@vestibulate]

@@themayor3263 You can't steal from Bach. You merely receive his blessing and his bounty.

[@reinacarbetta388]

Very nice, breakdown. Swifties don’t like me trying to explain this on Twitter so now I can just send your video lol

[@user-ef1qm2gy1t]

It's a thing to get 15-20 number one songs like The Beatles or Taylor Swift...But It's another thing to have all those epic and cult songs that never been number one but just came stone cold Classic like A Day In the Life, I Am The Walrus, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, Across The Universe, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Happiness Is A Warm Gun, Blackbird, Here Comes The Sun, Abbey Road's Side B Medley...etc. etc. etc. Anybody who have a minimum of musical knowledge knows that nobody can't beat The Beatles. Ever.

[@PrestonPfeifer-yf4ej]

The Beatles is still being discovered. I read a book about the Beatles in 4th grade (2020) for school work and was amazed by how popular they are. So I told my Alexa and said to play their most popular songs and I started listening to them daily on my Amazon Alexa while playing video games. Then when I got a phone a year later the first app I got was Spotify so I could listen to the Beatles. My friends thought I was weird for listening to the Beatles until one really liked the song Hey Bulldog. And he got into music and now loves The Beatles. And another one of my frineds isnt really a Beatles fan but started listening to rock and older music. The Beatles are still being discovered amd loved in new technologies and generations and it will probably stay like that. Also i listened to The Beatles for 32,000 minutes on spotify

[@aaronxoxo]

You are a genuine soul my man ❤

[@ericwinter4513]

@johnabbotphotography

[@Dreamcatcher9000]

"32,000 minutes" So you listened to Beatles songs like....10,000 times (if we consider that each song is like 3 minutes)?? According to my calculation, that means that you listened to EACH one of their songs, like 65 times (unless you listened to the same song...10,000 times :p). Dude, I've been listening to the Beatles for 34 years, and even I don't think that I've listened to their songs so many times! :p

[@folkdude01]

@@Dreamcatcher9000 I’d like imagine that about 20% of that time is dedicated to listening to Hey Jude, It’s All Too Much, You Know My Name (Look Up the Number), Revolution #9 and I Want You (She’s So Heavy) at least once a day. 😇

[@musicantd]

The greatness of many Beatles songs is hardly repeatable and at the same time utterly necessary. It's like finding a 12 carat diamond.

[@johnbjorkman4144]

"if you remove the vocals..." Thank you, Rick!

[@Darcinator-music]

thank you for this comment

[@AlexMcDaniels]

Finally a good song!

[@gearond]

​@@Darcinator-musicI think Simon Cowell has some blame to take for the dummying of today's user listener market. All these people are rewarded on those shows for having only something distinct about their sound. Now whether it's good distinct or bad distinct doesn't seem to matter. They just have an effect on their in their voice and their intonation. Whether they can hold a note make you hear ahead of time that a chord change is coming. Hold the memory of the chord change from the last measure while singing into the next and basically blowing you away that will never come out of Simon Cowell or the whole vocals. Is everything thinking of today.

[@jameswilson7084]

But, what if you have Taylor just sing and play them on the guitar or a piano, like at her surprise acoustic sets on her "Eras Tour"? Her songs will still hold up.

[@gearond]

One chords, four chords nursery, rhyme, melodies and kindergarten lyrics

[@sulatlalaki]

Here is a loose listing of some Firsts that the Beatles pioneered. No particular order of when they did it. Not necessarily a complete list. First to include lyrics with the album (Seargent Pepper's) First to record a theme or concept album, (Seargent Pepper's.) First to use a hard rock guitar tone in their songs (Taxman, the solo which Paul played.) First to have hard rock vocals in a song (i e., Revolution, Oh! Darling) First to use backwards recordings in their music, began with Revolver) First to use full orchestration in their songs. >First musicians to use the recording studio as an instrument. First to compose and record music as an art form. First musicians to write and record a psychedelic song (Tomorrow Never Knows, the phrase which Ringo used in his everyday speech and John borrowed) First to impact fashion and culture for a generation. First band to be asked about politics. There are more, but that's a quick list. TS has NOT had this kind of impact on a BROAD scale, only those who love her genre.

[@MarkBurnett_Google]

Outstanding in-depth analysis, Rick. Well done.

[@Carlos12330]

I’m nearly 70 now the Beatles were the soundtrack to my early life,nothing but nothing will ever match what the Beatles were and did and still are, proof? Still talking and playing their music over 60 years later .So glad I was born when I was 🎶🎸🎶🎸

[@martymcfly1776]

I'm turning 70 in a few months, so I'm about the same age. For most of my like I liked the Beatles, but honestly, I don't get much out of their music anymore.

[@Carlos12330]

@@martymcfly1776 sorry to hear that I still enjoy them and listen to them most days.

[@jacksonfreed]

I just turned 77 and the Beatles were and are one of the biggest influences in growing up-I evenpped drugs and started meditating in 1968 and went from there. There are some artists who are beyond comparisons: the Beatles, Billie Holliday, Ray Charles......

[@martinpeters2708]

On point! Thank you! In Germany we have a saying: When the sun of culture stands low, even dwarfs throw long shadows ;)

[@stevetournay6103]

Ausgezeichnet!

[@tingdzinkochu]

Gesundheit !!!

[@williamhenning4700]

First time I’ve found myself agreeing with a Germ in a while. If only your country wasn’t determined to help that sun set!

[@VivekPatel-ze6jy]

6:13 oh i would say swifties do give credit to jack antonoff and max martin - it's really rare for producers to have the recognition they do, but partly through all the behind the scenes videos, most swifties know Jack

[@mELONHEAD1899]

I had no idea that you produced the outsiders! Awesome

[@BobbyMcGeePhoto]

I agree Rick. Also, as you. pointed out when "Get Back" was released, when the Beatles called it quits, the entirity of the Beatles catalog was written before any of them had reached their 30th birthday. A fact that just astounds me and is hard to fathom.

[@collapsiblespork]

I like to point that fact out as well. But even that doesn't tell the whole story. Consider that less than five passed between when the Beatles first appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show and the "rooftop concert" - just think about how their music changed over that short a time, and how they changed music.

[@ebikes2xs159]

Genius is fleeting. Most groups wrote all their best songs before age 25, it's no accident. Well known in the mathematics and scientific community, if you don't get it done by age 25 most likely you won't. Beautiful Mind.

[@kevinhill8502]

And George Harrison was just 25 when they broke up

[@Roberta-gl2by]

I'd say they were in decline and it was a good thing. They'd done some ground-breaking albums that I still love and still stand the test of time today, but the last couple of albums, while recognizable, seemed to lack total enthusiasm. Apart from All Things Must Pass, nothing much happened afterwards. Not to denigrate the members, but they weren't The Beatles.

[@rkk578]

And what did they do past 30 which would have been groundbreaking without their name? They had a few good songs and roughly that is it. As someone mentioned before, they were on the way out as a band too. In the last few albums, many of their songs were just unfinished demos...They would have probably ended just as any other band which does not break up before someone takes their place on the throne. By 1970 the hard rock boom was around the corner

[@davetighe]

Amazing that they still compare anyone who's had any musical success to a 60 year old band, that was done and dusted by about 1970. I'm just reading a fantastic Paul McCartney book and he constantly talks about the face to face, two guitar songwriting sessions with John, in bedrooms, hotel rooms, studios, on planes, in cars whatever, they wrote everything and recording everything themselves. Then I saved up and queued up in the rain and snow to buy the single or the album and still have them. Nice article Rick.

[@Akira-nw4jl]

The comparison to some may be absurd but it forced you to give an excellent explanation. Great work on your part. I am always awed by your deep knowledge of music.

[@westfale520]

only looking at the USA, Taylor Swift may be a big star. But worldwide you will probably know the name Beatles as Tayler Swift. Also the melodies of the songs. Go to Paris or to Rio or to Madrid, Berlin , Moscow, Beijing or Tokyo and sing on the street Yesterday or Hey Jude or Yellow Submarine. Masen-like people will immediately recognize the melodies. I'm not so sure about Taylor Swift

[@user-ic1hr9bh5e]

This is a clear narrative of the difference of how music is made of then and now, using the Beatles and TS as examples. Well done Rick for approaching this without bias and with clear, real information.

[@kaleyjoplinRAWRR]

I’m sick of people comparing her to The Beatles.

[@mikedebruyn]

So is she probably. So why is this old guy using her name to generate clicks for a video about an article that she had no say in?

[@pietromoltani6923]

I'm sick of people like Springsteen, I mean BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN himself, saying she's a great songwriter.

[@RobertRuddy-pk7ie]

@@pietromoltani6923 well...she is

[@pietromoltani6923]

@@RobertRuddy-pk7ie really? Townes Van Zandt, Paul Simon, James Taylor, Joni Mitchell, Sandy Denny and some italians (since I am italian) like Lucio Dalla, Rino Gaetano... Or some contemporaries like Robin Pecknold, Alela Diane and so on. These are great songwriters. We all have the right to like and listen to whatever we want, but she's just mediocre, and I'm not saying it because I don't like her. I cannot stand the Queen as well, but damn they truly are great musicians. Her music has no depth, nor the music nor the lyrics.

[@ikexbankai]

She’s bigger than the Beatles

[@anouschka]

So glad you are reminding people about the truth and craft of music. As a singer songwriter who does actually do my own beats, play my instruments, sing, write, arrange , mix, etc I get tired of artists getting credit for more work than they do.

[@skasteve6528]

Got to love an outrageous comparison to hook readers. I remember a magazine in the early seventies asking if some guy called David Bowie would be bigger than Elvis. I often wonder what happened to that David Bowie guy. Actually, are Elvis & Bowie forerunners content creators? I'm not saying they did it just for the hits, but both recognised that they had to keep evolving.

[@jayare6804]

Let's keep in mind Taylor Swift isn't suggesting this, it's some writer for the NYT trying to sell newspapers

[@04beni04]

Thank you!

[@firstlast1932]

​@@markpell8979 She has recently tied/beaten some chart records held by the Beatles, which probably launched some comparison, but those have been there for some time - IIRC Billy Joel said she is the Beatles of her generation ... which may be correct, because who else is there?

[@oldtabrough1026]

Yeah....I totally agree with u

[@kevinworley7096]

⁠​⁠​⁠@@firstlast1932 There are better than her, but she just sells. The Beatles were/are musicians and masters of a craft, but she is an entertainer only and that’s okay, just wouldn’t call her anything other than that.

[@rebamonica447]

Yeah but her fans aren't that humble anyway.. they keep comparing her to Michael Jackson and other legends solely because she manages to generate as much sales as them

[@jannepeltonen2036]

"living is easy with eyes closed / misunderstanding all you see / it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out / it doesn't matter much to me"

[@JuliaHilz]

No doubt great lyricists! So is Swift - "I didn't have it in myself to go with grace/ cause when I fight you used to tell me I was brave/ and if I'm dead to you, why are you at the wake?/ cursing my name, wishing I stayed, look at how my tears ricochet" "While you were out building other worlds, where was I?/ Where's that man who threw blankets over my barbed wire?/ I made you my temple, my mirror, my sky/now I'm begging for footnotes in the story of your life/ drawing hearts in the byline" "And I won't confess that I waited/ but I let the lamp burn/ while the men masqueraded/ I hoped you'd return with your feet on the ground/ tell me all that you'd learned/ cause love's never lost when perspective is earned/ and you said you'd come and get me but you were 25/ and the shelf life of those fantasies has expired/ lost to the lost boys chapter of your life/ forgive me Peter please know that I tried to hold on to the days when you were mine/ but the woman who sits by the window has turned out the light" literally just a couple beautiful lyrics from her. Hope this sheds some light on her talent for those unaware.

[@user-lf4dm4yh8c]

Taylor Swift "music" is like American cheese, some people are fooled into thinking it's real while some know for a fact that it's fake.

[@TheBatugan77]

I opened a college literature textbook, and among Wordswoth, Longfellow and DH Lawrence were Lennon & McCartney.

[@scottpeters8640]

Yes. I am old-ish at 60, but music today cannot compare in any way to music of the 19060s-1990.

[@ctown6592]

With the exception of John Mayer.

[@MegaByrds]

Editing was so important back then. ; )

[@jesusislukeskywalker4294]

@@ctown6592john’s a one in a million 🎸 an endangered species 😔

[@THEKARAOKEDUDE]

19060s?

[@dianaaa2524]

@@THEKARAOKEDUDE you know what they mean.

[@lanmola]

her instrumental tracks sound like royalty free music drops

[@user-yg6vq4cu8s]

I totally agree Rick, somebody finally had to explain the details like this !!! Thank you

[@babyirene3188]

Extremely good episode. Fantastic points. Fantastic reasoning. Thank you!!

[@TheHonestBroker]

Also, music was more expensive in the Beatles era, not only monetarily, but in terms of convenience. One had to go to a store to buy a single, unless one was a member of a record club or ordered from a catalog, all of which required much more effort than using Spotify.

[@Ganiscol]

And dont forget the social media marketing around the music. Back in the day, there was only media: magazines, radio and TV interviews. Thats it. If you missed it, you were outta luck. Today, artists have a team of social media chimps feeding the hype to the fans 24/7.

[@dino0228]

Until I could afford their albums, I recorded their songs from my transistor radio.

[@mirrorblue100]

In popular music there has been a Golden Age, Silver Age, Bronze Age and crap age. We now live in the crap age.

[@louise_rose]

Yep, the times when pop/rock was truly a vital and young river, with new movements and powerful new musical input by young bands pushing into the mainstream every five years or so, ended around 2005. After that point, mindless and overproduced crap took over. I mean, of course there are still good bands coming up, but they are completely shut down, or drowned out, by the mainstream music industry. Careers like those of David Bowie, The Who, Joni Mitchell, Neil Young, Van Morrison, Tina Turner, Pink Floyd or Talking Heads would have been impossible for any young artists starting out after 2010.

[@UTJK.]

How true!

[@sinnlorna1331]

“Crap Age”. Agree Game music is the best creative, beautiful music being created now.

[@dawnevans4518]

You nailed it!

[@diegohenrique8882]

Stop crying

[@andrewnbrown]

Ok the early hits are down to the 4 of them. Mainly John and Paul. But to be fair the producer (George Martin) and engineer (Geoff Emerick) were incredibly important to the Beatles too just like Taylor Swift - particularly post 1965. Without GM no string arrangements (Yesterday, Eleanor Rigby, For No-One). Without GE no weirdness (Tomorrow Never Knows, Walrus etc). They couldn't have done it without them and they were lucky to have them.

[@ericallen774]

This happens all the time, when Thriller came out it was the same hype. ( I loved Thriller btw and had it 3 days after release, loved it until radio overplay killed it for me ) I pointed out to my friends who were buying the hype that Off the Wall came out in 79, Triller was 82. I then had them consider the Beatles output from 64 to 68. More than half the Beatles (recorded) career passed by in the same time gap BETWEEN MJ albums! Also understood that Michael had over 100 tunes by professional writers to compile the LP from. The Beatles released pretty much everything they wrote. There is just no comparison. As the comment directly below says, there is a reason that every subsequent success it held up against the Beatles. They set the modern standard - much as , say, Charlie Parker set the standard for sax. Saxophone was 'before Bird' and 'after Bird'. Tremendous artists followed but Parker was the faultline. Same for Beatles. Keep shooting, guys. Great channel Rick!

[@tommytorres]

The Beatles are the most influential pop music act of all time. To this day we’re still using them as a reference.

[@katgod]

Good point, the Beatles are one of the gold standards in music, maybe TS will be also one day but to this old man it won't happen.

[@duroxkilo]

yeah but they didn't do it thru their music, it literally was 'a vibe'. they were at the forefront of a cultural shift and had the talent to back up their "attitude". i understand ppl love their music but let's chill a bit... Love, love me do You know I love you I'll always be true So please, love me do Whoa-oh, love me do i mean come on :))

[@thesoulbearer]

@@duroxkilo And why don't you provide an example of their later albums? Those bass riffs Paul played for the White Album in songs like Dear Prudence or Glass Onion? Or the melodic tune in Something and the use of more refined chords and progressions by a George Harrison who was flourishing as a songwriter? Because it destroys your narrative, I bet.

[@jamesvanderbilt201]

and taylor is the most googled and most awarded person in history…what’s your point?

[@heimonen5174]

@@duroxkilo "living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.." 😆

[@haewonyoon7274]

Listening to you, I'd like to sum it up like this: The Beatles was art, and Taylor Swift is industry.

[@michaelm.3210]

There's a saying: The way we do one thing is the way we do many things. You can apply this to both Swift and the Beatles. ("Once a performer, always a performer." And, "Once a songwriter, always a songwriter.")

[@jamesberger8175]

Totally agree. I'm 29 but fell in love with the Beatles music when I learned to play guitar as a kid - the way the Beatles shift the underlying chords & melody, leading you somewhere whilst keeping the end result accessible and catchy...it is just complete genius & mastery of songwriting that fully reveals itself when you sit at a piano or with a guitar and play/sing the song. By comparison, if you play a modern pop song on acoustic guitar, it is exactly what Rick describes - the same sequence repeated, with a narrow, often repeated melody. If it changes it all, its predictable. It's just not the same thing, and it kinda falls to bits without the production