You lot are going to hate me for this but: can you explain me the appeal of the Velvet Underground?

"The great thing about the Velvet Underground is, that they were a little bit shit." I can't really explain it any more than that.

It's like this drone gene to appreciate stuff like that, the texture of it all, and either you have it, or you don't.

Er, but other than that, some really good records, seriously.

If your complaint is "Well, it's just one chord, over and over, for a really long time" well, see, that's the *point*! You could say that about any of the bands that I love.

Also, they're one of the few bands I love where the lyrics are really, truly important to me. There's a kind of emotional descriptiveness about the darker side of human sentiments that I find really uplifting. And not a stupid, trite, Doors-style "ooh, we're so DAAAAARRRRK" proto-Goth thing. It's more like, a very emotionally honest description of the bad things that can happen to people, and how they deal with it.

oh that whole cliche "the seedy underbelly of rock" mythos crap they inspired, i guess.

oh, and the rock/"avant-garde" crossover. because john cale was a smarty art wigga and lou reed is "street". they were the outkast of 1966!

But you didn't.

oh, and the rock/"avant-garde" crossover. because john cale was a smarty art wigga and lou reed is "street".

Well, not really. I wouldn't say Lou Reed was "street". But he was, quite literally, Tin Pan Alley, Brill Building Bubblegum POP! The appeal is that they mixed the weird, fucked up avant-guarde noise with an accessible pop aesthetic. (again, see that third album.)

also, they were the first band to do all the things they did - or, at least, the first band of their prominence. sure, the druggy, debauched atmosphere feels a little creaky, a little cheesy now, but consider the impact given the era. The Velvets demand the suspension of disbelief, to a certain extent.

But they made some *great* records too. The guitar interplay between Reed and Sterling Morrison was *killer* (check Live:1969 for proof), the third album's muted pop was so sublime, so evocative and so enveloping. White Leat, White Heat is just psychotic, *so* pointedly unpleasant, from the queasy amphetamine R'n'B of the title track, through the grisliness of 'The Gift', the broken-neck guitar heroics of 'I Heard Her Call My Name', the monolithic, electrifying build of 'Sister Ray'. The fourth album's just wonderful pop music, a great summer album.

But the myth and the romance of the Velvets are key as well. That's why even a presumed-clunker like the Live At Max's City is riveting to some, because even though the band play average and sound awful on the sub-bootleg recording, the ambience of the venue - and how it ties in with the Velvets' and the Warhol set's dovetailing lasting image as a debauched and sleazy time - is something I'm a sucker for, soaking up the drama of Jim Carroll, stood beside the tape recorder, ordering a Pernod that he never receives, and buying a clutch of Tuinols instead.

#2)White Light/White Heat

#20)The Velvet Underground & Nico

#51)1969 Live With Lou Reed

#64)The Velvet Underground

#76)Loaded

(sorry about typos, other failings and whatnot)

DAMMIT!!! Discs 2 through 5 were nicked while I was on tour! I still have the box, the cases, the book, and the early demos (some joker stuck my Strokes demo in there as well) but I'm just missing the discs! Can anyone copy them for me? Please? I'll be your best friend, carry your books home from school?

Kate - I can burn you them. I misplaced the Loaded disk for ages, though I have the 2CD Loaded too, so I wasn't too worried.

i have a lot of friends into hardcore rap but they dont want to shoot or get shot by anyone either.

haha at least you've still got those '65 demos!

I *always* hated Loaded when I was younger. Maybe I just wasn't old enough to understand it at the time or something, I don't know. It just sounded like coked-up disco-boogie with that bad 70s production, I wanted the noise and the feedback and all that! So I didn't listen to it for years. And then I gave it a chance when I got the box set (perhaps it was the alternate mixes that did it) and I utterly loved it.

1) Attitude

A song like Venus in Furs just oozes druggy decadence. They really hated the peace/love/LSD west coast bands and provided a counter-balance to their over-optimistic heralding of the age of aquarius. The obvious contradictions in their lyrics, music and interviews are intriguing and make them more human than they appear at first listen. Their attitude somehow epitomises my idea of New York - no bullshit, loud, cynical, sexy, laconic, energetic, ambiguous, chaotic, uptight.

2) Melody

Lou Reed had an obvious gift for melody and anyone who appreciates a good tune should appreciate the VU.

3) Lyrics

See attitude. Sterling once said in an interview that they deliberately didn't print the lyrics to their songs and made them difficult to discern when listening as a way of saying "fuck you, if you want reading matter, buy the new york times" or words to that effect. And yet at the same time their lyrics could be simply fantastic - "dark", brutual and cynical at times, or tender, joyful and life-affirming at others. They wanted rock-n-roll to be a visceral rather than an intellectual experience, but they just happened to able to write brilliant lyrics.

4) They are the coolest looking band ever.

5) The fact that they were a bit rough around the edges. The guitar solo to "I'm Set Free" is so amateurish it's almost embarrassing. That they wrote such brilliant songs using the most basic chord progressions is a source of inspiration to any musician more concerned with expression/communication than impressing the audience with technical ability.

Right - now everyone is welcome to tear into my arguments and tell me what a numpty I am.

Aside to Mark, no, I'm sorry, it has nothing to do with internalising indie rock history. I started listening to the VU in my mid teens, when I had very little knowledge of indierock, in fact, large sections of indierock hadn't even been invented yet. If the VU had a large amount of influence, it's because they made a very difficult balancing act look incredibly *easy*.

If anything, I think people who have internalized indie rock history are more apt to have a kneejerk dismissal of the band. My assumption of "god-like genius" is why I didn't find anything enjoyable about Bob Dylan for ages.

(I will love you forever, and we'll never row again, if you can sort it out for me!)

How right. VU were Shadow Morton/King-Goffin pop genius + avant-garde + early rock n roll crudeness. I love their first two albums, but growing older I tend to prefer their mellower side. And how can you resist to those endless live versions of _What goes on_?

Don't think I agree with that - yes, Lou used to work in da Brill Building, but I don't think that aesthetic influenced VU much...they're melodic, sure, but if there's anything Pop about them it's a lot closer to Simon & Garfunkel than The Shirelles, tho I'm sure Lou Reed would spit in my face for suggesting this.

Sick, are you subbing for Hongro or something?

Lou used to work in da Brill Building, but I don't think that aesthetic influenced VU much...

*splutters* 'Sunday Morning'??? Hello??????

This is why I haven't actually listened to my VU LPs since I left college/The Strokes appeared on the horizon.

Oh, and What Goes On... it's been too long since I heard that song. Someday I shall use my music editing techniques to produce a 60-minute uber-version by editing all the live versions together, and then I shall die happy and have that played at my funeral.

They were wild like the USA
A mystery band in a New York way
Rock and roll, but not like the rest
And to me, America at it's best
How in the world were they making that sound?
Velvet Underground.

A spooky tone on a Fender bass
Played less notes and left more space
Stayed kind of still, looked kinda shy
Kinda far away, kinda dignified.
How in the world were they making that sound?
Velvet Underground.

Now you can look at that band and wonder where
All that sound was coming from
With just 4 people there.

Twangy sounds of the cheapest types,
Sounds as stark as black and white stripes,
Bold and brash, sharp and rude,
Like the heats turned off
And you're low on food.
How in the world were they making that sound?
Velvet Underground.
Like this...

Wild wild parties when they start to unwind
A close encounter of the thirdest kind
On the bandstand playing, everybody's saying
How in the world were they making that sound?
Velvet Underground.

Well you could look at that band
And at first sight
Say that certain rules about modern music
Wouldn't apply tonight.

Twangy sounds of the cheapest kind,
Like "Guitar sale $29.99,"
Bold and brash, stark and still,
Like the heats turned off
And you can't pay the bill.
How in the world were they making that sound?
Velvet Underground.

Both guitars got the fuzz tone on
The drummer's standing upright pounding along
A howl, a tone, a feedback whine
Biker boys meet the college kind
How in the world were they making that sound?
Velvet Underground.

Wild wild parties when they start to unwind
A close encounter of the thirdest kind
On the bandstand grooving, everybody moving
How in the world are they making that sound?
Velvet Underground.

RS also OTM. It *is* OK not to like them. But make sure you don't dislike them for all the wrong reasons.

Listened to "Sunday Morning"; can *sort of* imagine it as a Brill Building choon, but can imagine it as a Beatles or Francoise Hardy track much better, so I dunno. Must re-listen.

Brill Building Pop, fake Motown and Bubblegum all conjure up very diferent musical directions for me (diferent from each other, that is. Tho diferent from VU also.)

Kate, will DL that track.

Before Kate said this, I was thinking, "Try The Velvet Underground." Of course, a good portion of the second side could still be a turn-off. (I don't think I would sit through the long "literary" song, the name of which eludes me.)

I'm all twisted up into ambivalent knots about the Velvet Underground. I still like a lot of their music (probably at least half of the tracks from their main releases, and some of the recovered stuff as well), but it's pretty far removed from what I normally listen to these days. My appreciation for anything droney started to wither away about ten years or so ago. Also, I don't like most of the bands that claim the Velvet Underground as forebears. I don't think they were really such a good influence. But they still made lots of good music, and they won my affection before I drifted away from their particular aesthetic, so stuck with liking them, even if they don't sit comfortably next to many of my other favorite rock bands (let alone anything else I listen to).

Lou Reed is Keith Richards:The Sequel. He's looked curmudgeonly for years and he will undoubtedly outlive us all.

I don't actually care about Lou Reed solo. According to my ex, he was an arsehole anyway, and actually stole his lunch.

I used to say the same thing.

I'm nonplussed. Is that the right word?

What Kate says about Lou as popster is bang on the money. After all - he used to write for others and is rooted in late 50's doo-wop etc. It shows.

And yes, the Morrison-Reed guitar interplay is stellar - I like it better when Cale had fecked off with his viola so that you can hear the beauty of it. Yule>>>Cale IMHO.

Dr C. you're wrongness is astonishing on so many levels... ::gapes:: and all the more irritating cause you agree with me on other things!

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v253/catwank/john.gif

[/typical kate response]

Yes, but my money's on Cale to win.

http://member.nifty.ne.jp/universal/10squeeze.jpg

x-post: a little like Loaded then?

Say something BORING about the Velvet Underground

hahahahahaha (i'm a stinker.)

I took "fake Motown" to mean "Motown style songs played in a diferent instrumental setting"...you know, like "The Boy With The Arab Strap". Of course the 60's had their own fake Motown (Jackie Wilson etc.), which complicates matters.

OTM.

Yup, they indeed did that. Good night, that.

hahahahahaha (i'm a stinker.)

-- scott seward (skotro...), July 23rd, 2004. (tracklink)

Damn, Scott, you stole my idea!

I just find it all rather unpleasant to listen to. It's badly recorded, the music is dirge-like and one chord, the lyrics are okay but often just devolve into repeating the same thing.

You don't have that gene, doglatin... oh, and you're a cunt for not liking them. ;-)

To create a listenable mix of R&B, noise, free jazz and POP that exists on the cutting edge is everything I've ever wanted to do as a musician. All of the infamous VU "ripoffs" have been sadly funkless and fearful of innovation

that throws a MAJOR curve in my "miccio = anti-me" thesis, it does.

I find Cale irritating, btw.

Just get the damn Live '69 Vol. 1 album, if you get nothing else.

the first 3 records are extraordinary. totally different to each other but equally ambitious, creative, entertaining... different layers of influence, new things to discover on each listen, all that.

I find them quite depressing and they make me sleepy. I can't imagine getting rid of them, but whenever I think I'd like to hear them I only get through a couple songs.

i admit that i don't appreciate the songs when i'm not giving them their due attention. can't imagine them being anything other than annoying as background music, in truth.

I like the VU quite a bit but the way they're often discussed sometimes mystifies me a bit too. It seems pretty obvious to me that they weren't at all the only or the first band in the 60s to combine the avant-garde or jazz with pop/rock, work with drones, work with feedback, write simple songs, or write realistic songs about drugs and urban life. Nor does it seem to me that what the VU did in these areas was somehow more advanced than what many others did, including more well-known and successful artists like the Beatles, Stones, Dylan, Hendrix, the Byrds, the Grateful Dead, and Neil Young/Crazy Horse. I don't really see the level of songcraft (in melody, rhythm, or arrangements) that went into a lot of Brill Building or Motown music expressed in Lou Reed's tunes.

That said, they had a distinctive sound and memorable songs that really work for me, especially on the first album.

It seems pretty obvious to me that they weren't at all the only or the first band in the 60s to combine the avant-garde or jazz with pop/rock, work with drones, work with feedback, write simple songs, or write realistic songs about drugs and urban life. Nor does it seem to me that what the VU did in these areas was somehow more advanced than what many others did, including more well-known and successful artists like the Beatles, Stones, Dylan, Hendrix, the Byrds, the Grateful Dead, and Neil Young/Crazy Horse.

Even though I love the Velvets, OTM. Except there's a glaring omission from yer list there (cough the Who cough "Anyway Anyhow Anywhere").

"Heroin" is astonishing and timeless and i think if you reckon you could've "made it easily" yiou are likely deluding yourself. But i don't want to rule out the possibility that you r a genius.

I think that using a viola as a rock instrument (and leaving out the bass) might have been the most interesting thing about the VU but they unfortunately dropped that after the 1st album.

2xpost Yes, The Who is another good example.

boring contrarianism.

boring contrarianism.

^

It seems pretty obvious to me that they weren't at all the only or the first band in the 60s to combine the avant-garde or jazz with pop/rock, work with drones, work with feedback, write simple songs, or write realistic songs about drugs and urban life

Hmmm, nope, I would say they pretty much were the first to do all of those things together and get it down onto record. But I'd happy to be corrected. (I often am.)

Hard to tell what the most basic VU thread is...I just watched Under Review. Nothing startling, and only Tucker and Yule are interviewed, but pretty good. For a band I'd count as one of my three or four favourite, and was really interested in a few years before I ever managed to get my hands on a record (thanks to Lillian Roxon), I have to admit I didn't know that Doug Yule sings "Candy Says" (I'd never even thought about it--it was like the vocal didn't have an actual person attached to it), or--this is embarrassing--that Tucker doesn't play on Loaded. Yule's a great interviewee, and the two main critics, Clinton Heylin and some guy I didn't know, are fine. (Christgau's in there a bit.) Some other guy foolishly calls "Sunday Morning" a poppy, feel-good song or something like that. First time I've ever seen the skull on the White Light cover.

dog latin thread

Just noticed an ambiguous parenthetical in my post. Lillian Roxon's Rock Encyclopedia is what first got me interested in the Velvet Underground--she had nothing to do with me acquiring my first VU album, what with her being on the other side of the world and all.

One thread that didn't get revived. Hope it doesn't need to be really, since liking them should be obligatry and all.

It's my dirty secret that I don't really like the Velvets except for the Nico-sung songs. I'm a huge fan of Cale but I could never enjoy Reed's vocals.

liking them should be obligatry

It sort of is. They have this sheen of unimpeachable cool. Yet even if I feel like saying they are overrated I'd still be first in line to overrate them.

Cue a million bands saying they are influenced by the Velvet Underground, none of which sounds anything remotely like the Velvet Underground.

10,000 critics pretended that everyone who bought the first VU album formed a band

The VU were shit

Does Mr Raggett like the VU?

these kinds of questions are usually so fruitless, since the person asking the question is really saying, "i bet nothing you can say will make me like this band." which is probably true.

It's one thing if people need to learn the historical/cultural context of a piece of music. Any demands for explanation beyond that... seems to be in opposition to much of the thrill of music entails.

dog laton comvinced me.
I lived in mistake.Fuck You VU.

It's one thing if people need to learn the historical/cultural context of a piece of music. Any demands for explanation beyond that... seems to be in opposition to much of the thrill of music entails.

Yeah. I liked the velvet underground from the first listen (VU & Nico when I was 16) and it was just: sound-wave into my ears and everything blew up. I knew little about them apart from the name and a bit about Andy Warhol at the time.

If I hadn't had that instant hit reaction, I don't think I'd like them at all. If a music is only interesting in theory, or only after analysis, that puts it down one level for me.

It's the same for Erik Satie for me.

But, none of this holds up if someone doesn't get the rush from the sound.

I dislike the basic idea of 'Bands you HAVE to listen to!' also and these often get promoted in that way

yeah, especially since that sort of attitude often comes with lots of ethnocentric assumptions, namely that rock music is at the center of the musical universe.

ethnocentric and just plain narrow-minded

Yup.

VU also pushed me away from rockist ideas and into popism, I think having listened to them and then looked into the story of how the records were produced, one can't seriously use the adjective 'manufactured' as a negative. (Personally, Nico made me like Blondie which made like Madonna)

White Light/White Heat sounds great on my car speakers.

cardamon socl

VU's magic for me lies in the atmosphere their songs evoke: strange times, strange places, strange frames of mind...but always accompanied with very down-to-earth human feeling. It's like you're getting transported somewhere and sinking into your heart at the same time.

There's nothing unusual about the fact that they don't charm everyone, because that "atmosphere" is a fragile, tenuous thing, and depends as much on what the listener brings by way of projection and expectation as on the sound the stylus picks up. That expectation in turn is also shaped by what else you've listened to. When I first heard VU, my diet consisted mostly of hard 70s rock and punk. I had just never heard anything like them before, so the impact was forceful, and those first impressions have a way of lingering.