Velvet Underground - Please Explain!

[Zappathustra]

I suppose you meant Can?? Can's Monster Music is all Velvety, especially the sidelong Yoo Doo Right

I meant ADII, but of course there are other names coming to mind. The use of dissonant violin could be making my example more direct.

[GuitarGeek]

Well, in some ways that was true: I've known a number of Deadheads, and I always got the impression that the "party", the experience of a Dead show, was just as important as the music, if not more so. And the "party" was all about recreating, for a few hours, the San Francisco of 1966-68. For many fans, the band was just the soundtrack, just an excuse to show up, and the ambience of that idealized past was what it was really about.

Well, yeah, you have a point there, and I don't necessarily disagree with you. But the way nostalgia acts usually work is, you go out and onstage and play a setlist of your hits. Depending on how many hits you actually had, you might have to pad out the set with a few album tracks, maybe a couple few cover tunes, and if you're lucky, maybe even a couple new tunes (I remember Roger McGuinn squeezing in "a new one" when he played at one of the Farm Aid concerts back in the 80's). You generally try to render the songs as faithfully to the studio versions, so that fans will recognize them, though some have at times tried "updating" their arrangements for whatever era you happen to be living in (Cab Calloway did a disco version of Minnie The Moocher in the late 70's, for instance). All pretty by the numbers, usually.

By contrast, the Grateful Dead went the exact opposite route. The Grateful Dead didn't have any hits, in the Billboard or Cashbox sense, at least not until 1987. Their setlist policy ("we don't use one") meant that it was highly likely that you might not get to hear anything you might have heard on the radio or y our older brother's worn out copies of Workingman's Dead, American Beauty, Skullfuck, and Europe '72. If you did get to hear familiar music, it was with a severely altered arrangements, often times with extended solos.

Actually, it was more likely that you'd recognize the band's choice of cover tunes over the original material. And they quite often played songs before they were even released (they played Touch Of Grey for four years before it was released and became the band's only top 10 hit). And let's not forget the often times very esoteric improvisations during the second set. What "nostalgia act" drops a 15 minute percussion interlude (note even a "drum solo" in the usual rock music sense) into the middle of a set, then following with another 15 minutes of spacey improv from the rest of the band, before finally seguing back into an actual song?

And there was no real attempt to engage the audience. Typically, Weir would end the first set by saying "We're gonna take a break, so y'all hang loose" and the second set by saying ""Thank you, goodnight", and that was about all you could expect. Occasionally, there might be an announcement of "technical problems" or some sort of attempt at humor (like Weir's "yellow dog" story, or saying "It's not a matter of letting him so much as making him" when the audience would chant "LET PHIL SING!"...Weir's quip would typically lead to a "MAKE PHIL SING" chant, which may or may not be successful).

But yeah, you are correct that obviously, for most in the audience, an 80's/90's era Grateful Dead concert wasn't about the music so much as about pretending it wasn't 1988 or whatever for a few hours (or a few days or weeks, if you're were actually following them on tour).

No matter how badly they played (ie frelled up segues, forgotten lyrics, listless performances, etc) and no matter how unimaginative the song rotation was (yeah, they could go four or five nights without repeating a song, but they still often times didn't many of their more interesting compositions), it never seemed to damage their reputation or stop them from selling out arenas and stadiums multiple nights in a row (during the late 80's and early 90's, they routinely sold out Madison Square Garden 8 or 9 nights in a row, much to Elton John's apparently annoyance).

[Baribrotzer]

And there was no real attempt to engage the audience.

I've heard that they, and Jerry in particular, were quite aware of how fanatical and not-too-tightly-wrapped some of their fans were. And so they were worried about some ordinary off-the-cuff remark being taken as an oracular pronouncement, and acted upon. Perhaps with disastrous or horrifying results; after all, look what happened when the wrong madman took the Beatles' "Helter Skelter" seriously. So they only uttered the most mundane remarks onstage, figuring that no one could take, "Hello San Diego, it's great to be back here," as an inducement to arson or murder.

But yeah, you are correct that obviously, for most in the audience, an 80's/90's era Grateful Dead concert wasn't about the music so much as about pretending it wasn't 1988 or whatever for a few hours (or a few days or weeks, if you're were actually following them on tour).

No matter how badly they played (ie frelled up segues, forgotten lyrics, listless performances, etc) and no matter how unimaginative the song rotation was (yeah, they could go four or five nights without repeating a song, but they still often times didn't play many of their more interesting compositions), it never seemed to damage their reputation or stop them from selling out arenas and stadiums multiple nights in a row.

Because "the party" was still there and still happening whether the band played well or not, and could have been socially/chemically incredible even if they didn't, and the audiences may have been so high that even the worst mistakes sounded like strokes of genius.

[moecurlythanu]

when the audience would chant "LET PHIL SING!"...

That's some serious masochism there.

[Progbear]

While I admit that the VU had their moments, even moments of unparallelled greatness, they weren’t the most consistent band and overall they weren’t that good. And I tire of the endless critical masturbation over them.

[Zaragon]

Can you think of any hard rock band the critics respected? They generally seemed to dislike urban/suburban regular-white-guy music: prog (the music of college kids), SF psych (the music of stoners), Webb/Bacharach pop (the music of Young Republicans), and hard rock (the music of blue-collar guys).

As Macan pointed out in Rocking the Classics, the schism between coastal-elite scribes and the record-buying public occurred at the dawn of the 1970s, the period marked by the post-psych diaspora, of which symphonic-prog rock and hard rock/heavy metal were the primary outgrowths. These developments marked rock's shift into high maximalism.

During the first half of the '70s, writers such as Christgau and Bangs — weaned on primitive foundationalism — became more venomous in their dismissal of rock's progress. Abetted by a few minor counter-developments during the spring/summer of maximalism — the Nuggets phenomenon, the VU's growing European cult, the emergence of the VU-inspired Bowery scene — the Velvet's were retroactively pitted at the center of an overly simplified and often condescending revisionist history that would form the basis of the ChriBa narrative.

The critics themselves, of course, weren't regular white guys - they were much hipper, much better informed, had much wider listening experiences, and much better taste. And typewriters. Don't forget the typewriters.

"Taste" is subjective. I prefer the word "interest," which allows for greater fluidity. As for "better informed" and "much wider listening experiences" — only true to a certain extent. The old guard music scribes had more exposure than the average rock fan because magazines would receive promo copies of the latest releases, and thus critics didn't have to pay for music, as they were paid to write about music to help sell it — or anti-sell it — to the public.

However, wide exposure doesn't make you better-informed if you don't have the time to properly assimilate an album and develop a listening ear for the artistic vision at hand. Critics, unfortunately, didn't have the luxury when faced with stacks of new records and pressing deadlines, which would render any listener jaded. If a publication will allow, it's easier to adopt a simplified narrative and trash vast cross-sections of music that you've neither the time nor energy to assimilate properly. The Wiki-grade simplicity of the ChriBa narrative — in which the Velvet's and their spawn are used as sticks to beat TriMax with — has been an easy go-to dogma for successive influxes of listening-challenged/exasperated critics, hence the echo-chamber vibe of most rock publications. (Well, there's that and the sociological disparity between TriMax and ChriBa, but that gets into another topic.)

Alas, as the TriMax-era Billboard charts would prove, ChriBa held little sway beyond its cult readership. Most readers bought Rolling Stone for the articles and interviews, not the record reviews.

[Chuck AzEee!]

Why “I” personally love The Velvet Underground. Of the so called “underground” bands of the music shaping 60’s that happened to break it on to classic rock radio, they weren’t as plush as The Beatles, uniquely expansive as The Byrds, brash as The Rolling Stones, powerful as either The Who, studio wizards as The Beach Boys but they were different and that’s why I personally love them, there were very few hints of their peers in TVU and that constant was Bob Dylan.

I wish for every time that Eno quote is mentioned, I’d wish a hypothetical trademark would allow for the band to get a million dollar check for that saying.

[Baribrotzer]

"Taste" is subjective. I prefer the word "interest," which allows for greater fluidity. As for "better informed" and "much wider listening experiences" — only true to a certain extent. The old guard music scribes had more exposure than the average rock fan because magazines would receive promo copies of the latest releases, and thus critics didn't have to pay for music, as they were paid to write about music to help sell it — or anti-sell it — to the public.

I meant that ironically, or perhaps as a description of how the Hipster Rock Critics (the ChriBa crowd, in your terminology) seemed to see themselves. Only they were cool enough to understand that True Art consists in paring down, in taking away the inessential rather than adding anything, and is governed by the iron maxim, "If something can be eliminated, and a work of art will still function in any way, it must be eliminated". The masses, of course, were too stupid and unaware to intuitively realize that Great Truth, so they had to be brought around.

[grego]

The critics really didn't like straight-up hard rock any more than prog, did they? The only such band I can think of they took seriously was Zeppelin, and LZ were too big not to take seriously; they were a category of their own, as far beyond a standard hard rock band as the Beatles were beyond a standard British Invasion pop band. Although I'm hardly an expert on either genre.

Can you think of any hard rock band the critics respected?

I don't think they have had respect even for Zeps - it is widely known fact when Zep recieved bad press for the third album, Page then avoided contacts with journalists for 18 months. Afterwards, every Zep album recieved 'mixed' reviews, the best were rather lukewarm, the worst were shashing. Zep were far from being press darlings, unlike Rolling Stones, whose constant worshiping has become sort of a tradition.

[grego]

VU sounded very poorly, that thin, jarring sound could be a parody, if the target was obvious for many, but was it really. A special vibe they had, of course, was the main reason of popularity.

[bigjohnwayne]

The whole chip on the shoulder about some critics working for British tabloids not liking prog is the 2nd most insufferable part of prog culture--slightly worse than the high fantasy themes and slightly better than the drum solos.

But look, I found a critic who doesn't love the Velvets.

http://www.markprindle.com/velveta.htm

"Lou keeps singing about somebody sucking on his ding-dong, the drumbeat NEVER becomes hypnotic, the noise is too tinny to kick ass"

[Jubal]

[QUOTE=GuitarGeek;740120]They always struck me as "just ok", but judging from earlier comments in this thread, it sounds like it was a "you had to be there" thing. Some of it I like, but not enough to make me want to run out and buy the albums (though I've always intended to get a least a couple of them, but I guess it's never been a "top priority" for me). Actually, one of the things I liked best by them was VU, the "best of the leftovers" collection that came out in the mid 80's.

I still say the best thing Lou Reed ever did was Rock And Roll Animal.

I would agree, but only because of the one live version of Sweet Jane with Hunter and Wagner on guitars. That is definitely one of the best Hard Rock anthems of all time.

[GuitarGeek]

I still say the best thing Lou Reed ever did was Rock And Roll Animal.

I would agree, but only because of the one live version of Sweet Jane with Hunter and Wagner on guitars. That is definitely one of the best Hard Rock anthems of all time.

Well, yeah, that's the whole point of it, isn't it? I read once that Reed had at one point disowned Rock And Roll Animal, because of how Hunter and Wagner upstaged him.

Mind you, I also like the stuff that Bob Quine played guitar on too,b ut there again, it's because of Quine's guitar work more so than Lou's words.

And beyond that, I think the best recording of any of Lou's songs is the Runaways version of Rock And Roll, though I recall being told that they copped their arrangement off an earlier cover of the song (I've forgotten by whom, but I'm sure one of you guys must know). When Joan Jett belts out "Her life was saved by rock n roll!", she sounds like she's singing about herself, whereas Lou sound slike he has no clue whta that might possibly mean.

Oh, and a shout out for Dark Light and A World Without Heroes, a couple songs off the infamous Kiss "concept album" Music From The Elder, which Lou contributed to. Nothing tops Ace Frehley singing Lou Reed lyrics, as part of a concept album which Ace says he never quite understood (don't worry Ace, neither did anybody else, including Ezrin, Klein and Eisen).

[arturs]

I suppose you meant Can?? Can's Monster Music is all Velvety, especially the sidelong Yoo Doo Right

I was gonna post something like this but you beat me to it. It's the metronomic chugging beat aspect of VU that I enjoy the most. And, yes, I'm sure Can were listening to VU a lot in their formative years. So were Kraftwerk and Neu.

So I think that is why I find VU appealing. The proto-motorik beats, the complete lack of blues in what is ostensibly "rock" and the off-kilter deadpan vocal delivery. When the Velvets come closest to the then-current folk-rock is when I like them least although they are actually reasonably good at it.

[Trane]

I was gonna post something like this but you beat me to it. It's the metronomic chugging beat aspect of VU that I enjoy the most. And, yes, I'm sure Can were listening to VU a lot in their formative years. So were Kraftwerk and Neu.

So I think that is why I find VU appealing. The proto-motorik beats, the complete lack of blues in what is ostensibly "rock" and the off-kilter deadpan vocal delivery. When the Velvets come closest to the then-current folk-rock is when I like them least although they are actually reasonably good at it.

I'd say Kraftwerk, Neu , LA Dusseldorf and Cluster were listening to a lot of Can, and maybe a little of VU

[GuitarGeek]

I've heard that they, and Jerry in particular, were quite aware of how fanatical and not-too-tightly-wrapped some of their fans were. And so they were worried about some ordinary off-the-cuff remark being taken as an oracular pronouncement, and acted upon. Perhaps with disastrous or horrifying results; after all, look what happened when the wrong madman took the Beatles' "Helter Skelter" seriously. So they only uttered the most mundane remarks onstage, figuring that no one could take, "Hello San Diego, it's great to be back here," as an inducement to arson or murder..

Interesting, I never heard that before, but I suppose it sort of makes sense. But I think a bigger thing is, none of those guys were "frontman" material, except possibly Pigpen, and even he didn't seem to talk to the crowd any more than Jerry, Phil or Weir. Nobody wanted to adopt the responsibility of getting the audience "jacked up". They just weren't into it, they just wanted to play their music. And I don't think there was anyone who wanted to tell long drawn out stories to introduce the songs (as per Gabriel or even Collins, who had a great intro piece for Domino the one time I got to see Genesis).

But the Dead were hardly alone in that regard. About the most you ever got out of any of the Allman Brothers Band was the title of the next song. Likewise, though Roger Waters did occasionally a bit of humor between songs (like chiding David Gilmour for taking too long to tune up, or saying something like "This next number is from the last album, before the last album"), Pink Floyd did really have a "Let's get the audience jacked up" kind of frontman. My impression of Talking Heads is, David Byrne was "that guy", either.

[miamiscot]

I will always prefer Reed/Cale's Songs For Drella to anything VU released.

Just sayin'.

[Wounded Land]

I don't get them either. I have three of their albums, only because they are so important to so many people, I wonder what it is I'm missing. Once a year or two I pull one out and give it a listen. I suppose the best I can say about them is I don't completely loathe them anymore, but I can't shake the feeling that what people like about them has nothing to do with the music per se. I have a hard time with that.

Obviously, YMMV, no offense, etc.

[Sturgeon's Lawyer]

...I can't shake the feeling that what people like about them has nothing to do with the music per se. I have a hard time with that.

It is indeed the music (and the lyrics, which were quite shocking at the time), and even the musicality, but not the musicianship, which was, well, hazy.

The Velvets did in the mid-'60s (along with MC5 and a few others) what the punks would do in the mid-'70s: reclaim the DIY, anyone-can-do-this, aesthetic of rock'n'roll, doing with raw power what the popular bands of the time were doing with technique.

I don't know if that helps. It's how I see it.

[WHORG]

Easy - they represented the holy trinity of sex, drugs and rock & roll.

Great band - loved them since the beginning.

[Mister Triscuits]

I will always prefer Reed/Cale's Songs For Drella to anything VU released.

Great album. Not very rawk, though.

[3LockBox]

Another music act for whom I understand the significance and influence but have little use for.