Site New Answers Search Boards ILE ILM Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login

"Ahead of their time"

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
This question could be about anyone. I'm using the Velvet Underground as an example because it's easier to write "VU" than other band names and easier to use a proper name than a pronoun. Substitute whomever's name you wish.

Were the VU really ahead of their time? i.e.:
-Did people (i.e. large throngs of mainstreamers) not "get" them until 20 years later, when the music finally fit in context with society?
-Did people not get them until people in general were more sophisticated?
-Did people not get them because the media was unfriendly to anything unusual until the mid 80's (or whenever) ?

OR

-Was the newfound interest in them a retro-cool posturing?
-Is what they did in the 60's only (or mainly) appropriate to the 60's and a bit irrelevant today, except as a history lesson? (i.e. if they hadn't created it then, would it have made sense to create it now?)

You can reason that the rise in interest came because "disciples" cited the VU as an influence & then everyone went back to dig up the VU records. But that really has no bearing on whether the band was "ahead of its time" - "Ahead of its time" means that they predicted the future. So did it take 20+ years for society to catch up, or did society (with regard to music) regress 20 years to discover something that they missed?

― Dave225, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

"Were the VU really ahead of their time?"

No one is "ahead of their time". This is not possible except in universe involving time travel. Were VU related in some way to Dr Who?

"Did people (i.e. large throngs of mainstreamers) not "get" them until 20 years later, when the music finally fit in context with society?"

TO my knowledge "large throngs of mainstreamers" do not and have never listened to and possibly even heard of the Velvets.

"Did people not get them until people in general were more sophisticated?"

Why is listening to VU sophisticated? I'm lost.

"Was the newfound interest in them a retro-cool posturing?"

I think that this is one of those things where a few folks like a band that a lot of people had never heard and these folks mentioned said band a lot and some people got into them 'cause they liked them. It could be posturing, but I prefer to think that people listen to music 'cause they liked it.

"Is what they did in the 60's only (or mainly) appropriate to the 60's and a bit irrelevant today, except as a history lesson? (i.e. if they hadn't created it then, would it have made sense to create it now?)"

I'd like to think context is largely unimportant in music (and everything else). I'm a hypocrite here though (see my feelings on influence). The circumstances (time, place, political situation, etc) under which something is recorded always fascinate me. I have no idea what The Velvets today would sound like in a world without the Velvets though so I don't think I can answer this question (and I don't think anyone else can either).

― Alex in SF, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Although it was mainly a list of artists who were 'ahead of their time', this thread covers similar ground, and may be of interest to you Dave. Oh - and this one - oops.

― N., Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

the newfound interest in them a retro-cool posturing

maybe quibbly, maybe vital point: this "newfound interest" is going on 20 yrs old now even if you [almost arbitrarily] date the posthumous canonization as beginning with the eighties compilations of previously unreleased stuff ("VU" and "Another View").

― fritz, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Let me put it another way - maybe fewer words will make it more clear:
Was it one of those things that people were just not ready for and now they are? (i.e. dissonance makes more sense now.)
Or Is it something that people couldn't understand without the benefit of hindsight? (i.e. "Oh yeah, that's really cool - especially the whole factory thing and the anti-summer of love sentiment.")

― Dave225, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

sorry, I guess you made that point in your initial post, "because the media was unfriendly to anything unusual until the mid 80's". I'll just shut up.

― fritz, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

And by "now" I just mean "sometime later/ after the fact" - with respect to fritz's point about the canonization being almost 20 years old. Remember, this could be any band - VU is just an example.

― Dave225, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

OK, but critical reevaluation is an ongoing cyclical thing like seasons in the fashion industry. It's not so much an ever-increasing sophistication which allows us to appreciate the once-obscure, but rather a gradual shift from one existing template to another.

Just as certain artists are rediscovered(Talking Heads were last season's), other recently rehabilitated artists are cast off. The Velvet Underground (like Gram Parsons or Pink Floyd) are just a perennial favourite - the little black dress of rock.

― fritz, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

another thing about the velvet underground legend: the whole "those stupid hippies just weren't ready for it, maaaaaaan" is kind of self- congratulatory about how hip we are now. I mean people might be marginally more tolerant in a been-there-done-that kind of way now, but 45-minute feedback sessions by unknown NYC dressed-in-black bands are really greeted by about as much enthusiasm now as they were in 1969, eg a handful of stoned hipsters says hooray and the rest of America happily listens to equally cool shit on the radio.

― fritz, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Fritz, that's kind of the impetus for the question.. I mean, I think their music made a hell of a lot more sense for 1967 than it does now. Yet it was only appreciated when "the great lost VU tapes" were found in 1984. ... and I wondered if people were incapable of appreciating it until other barriers were broken down over time (as an analogy: the bikini would not have been appreciated in victorian times, but through years of "societal degeneration"/"enlightenment" (kidding) it's now commonplace.) -or- did people get into it 20 years late because of the new hype surrounding the reissues; hype which was not present in 1967 because San Francisco was in the spotlight.. ?

― Dave225, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh Jesus not the word APPRECIATED!!!! Argh. Next we will be talking about artistic PROGRESS!!!!

― Alex in SF, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah but lots of people appreciated it at the time - enough for them to make four major label records, tour all over, get tons of press, enjoy the patronage of the most famous visual artist of their era, have rabid fans bootleg all their shows, etc etc. Successful enough for Cher to know who they were. Successful enough to allow Cale & Reed 30+ years of making all the records they want to make. I think they make almost exactly the same amount of sense to people now as they did thirty years ago. If "the world wasn't ready for them" as is so often claimed, they wouldn't have gotten out of the basement.

― fritz, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah, no-one's ever "ahead of their time," I hate that phrase. You create the time as you go.

― Dare, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Don't get hung up on stupid phrases like "ahead of their time" or "influence" or "appreciated" ... look for the meaning - don't be so pedantic. Of course they weren't ahead of their time. Just look at how many fucking box sets have been sold over the past 10 years. ..Lots more than the individual records sold when originally released. Why is that?

(Thanks be to Fritz.)

― Dave225, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Is "boxsets & reissues sold over 35 yrs vs records sold in months after immediate release" really a fair comparison? You could say the same thing about some-one like Elvis Presley who was a pop success during his career.

― fritz, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I would bet they sold considewrably fewer from 1966 to 1976 than they sold from 1990-2000.

Maybe I should pick another band as an example...

― Dave225, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I would bet they sold considewrably fewer from 1966 to 1976 than they sold from 1990-2000.

fair enough, but I don't think this has so much to do with generalized sophistication resulting in tolerance/appreciation for the far-outness of the VU than it does with more sophisticated niche-marketing, but we might be getting into chicken-egg territory here.

― fritz, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

If the whole thread is based on a phrase in quotes that is obviously as much in question as the actual band and their influence, then of course I'm going to offer my opinion when I think the entire idea implicit in the term is misleading and inefficient.

― Dare, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I would bet they [VU] sold considerably fewer from 1966 to 1976 than they sold from 1990-2000
Ditto The Beatles though.

― Jeff W, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Does anybody remember the Warlock Pincers? Now they were truly ahead of their time, which is currently our time.

― Andy, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

>>the little black dress of rock

this is terrific

― "pinefox" s, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

VU were classically ahead of their time; others like Scott Walker were more lost in the wrong time. That is, "the times" began to catch up with VU almost as soon as they disbanded, and continued to steadily close in through the glam, punk and alt years. Walker seemed to remain on the fringe, disconnected from any timeline, until suddenly in the mid-90s his disciples were everywhere. It's as though VU really could anticipate where music was headed, while Walker only knew he wasn't meant for his time, and by sheer accident made music that synched up 30 years later.

― Curt, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

When people get excited about bands being ahead of their time, they're implying that music is constantly improving. Usually it just means doing something that's out of fashion & comes into fashion later. It doesn't mean its any good, neccesarily, it's just how the music exists in relation to a trend.

― Mark, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

"I think it was Brian Eno who said, 'Only a thousand people bought the first Velvet Underground record, but every one of them became a musician.' Well, millions of people bought [Motley Crue's] Shout at the Devil, and every single one of them remained a person."
- Chuck Closterman, pg 15, Fargo Rock City

― fritz, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

out damn spot

― fritz, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

ok?

― fritz, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

the velvet underground invented schmindie

― mark s, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.
Site New Answers Search Boards ILE ILM Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login