# The Velvet Underground



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

A shrine dedicated
to the greasiest,
grungiest,
and GREATEST
Rock 'n' Roll band
of all time.​


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

This album eviscerates anything and everything by the Beatles, Zeppelin, and Stones...


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

An excellent and important album, it is solid throughout, has its moments of brilliance and deserves to be mentioned among the best rock albums of the '60's. To my ears it seems to have a punk-ish element to it that is different from the other bands you mentioned. It prefigures punk and grunge music.

In ways it is a very musically innovative album, some really progressive ideas and instrumentation being used, but if we get down to the actual songs I just don't think they are quite as well written as the best stuff by Zeppelin and The Beatles.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I've heard them a lot  but I still like them. They ain't classical  but when I want to hear the "greasiest and grungiest," they always fit the bill. The "punk-ish element" is partly what makes them timeless for me, because they were punk before there was punk. The debut 'banana' album, Loaded and VU are probably my favourites, with White Light/White Heat next and the eponymous third album (?) last. VU2 wasn't so great and Squeeze doesn't count, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

All four 'core' albums are excellent, as are the live 1969 and the 'leftovers' VU collection (some leftovers...). The debut was really without precedent and since the 70s hundreds of artists have attempted to build careers trying to recreate/emulate its peculiar strain of visceral menace. 

One can almost smell the grimy underbelly of Manhattan when listening to tracks like Venus in Furs and Heroin or imagine a lost soul crying in a semi-furnished garret (All Tomorrow's Parties), and adding ice maiden Nico for some of the songs was a masterstroke even if the collaboration wasn't meant to last (I'd love to heard her sing Lady Godiva's Operation and Here She Comes Now from White Light/White Heat, though). 

Even the eventual absence of John Cale's wild card talents didn't ruin it for me - it meant Lou Reed shouldering more of a song-writing burden and the group dynamic having to change tack somewhat but I liked the third and fourth albums very much - a sudden lack of twin guitar feedback, 'child-on-a-dustbin' drums and graveyard viola wasn't commensurate with a lack of inspiration: Candy Says, What Goes On, Pale Blue Eyes, Rock 'n' Roll, Oh! Sweet Nuthin', Ocean...all classics. 

I read somewhere that Doug Yule initially wanted Squeeze to be designated a non-VU album but the record label or someone else (manager Steve Sesnick?) thought it might sell more if attributed to the Velvets - yeah, as if it would...


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

For anyone who's become a bit too familiar with the studio albums I recommend they get their hands on some of the live material. VU were a ferocious live act but regrettably, that quality wasn't well captured in-studio.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

^ I agree. While I have a nearly lifelong 'rule' not to buy live, only studio albums, I confess to enjoying some of the great bootlegs that are available on YT.

I did, back in the '70s, have Max's Kansas City (never caught on with me) and the double with the green cover and the derrière of a woman (I wished I had saved my money).


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Several VU albums (vinyl) reside in my collection, including the "banana" album, of course. A stunning document.

Lou Reed in general tends to prove interesting. I'm happy to own an original LP copy of _Metal Machine Music_. That blows away practically everything else.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

I think VU's music was much more subversive and interesting than the Beatle's. An alternate list of the greatest rock bands of all time would go something like this...

1. Zappa
2. VU
3. Beefheart


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

A counter view.

The music is simplistic and the playing adequate.
The singing is weak
The lyrics shock suburban white kids but they exhibit little craft wit or insight. It's the audience who thinks its dangerous.
Once you get beyond the image, the substance is thin.


The most overrated band of all time? Possibly. And the fact that they became legends based on image and a certain 'squalor glamour' has led rock and the whole field of popular music down a boring cul de sac.

What's the quote? only a few thousand ever bought their albums but they all went out and formed a band? Maybe but none of them had any real musical worth and that is one reason why popular music to day is so dire, with image, style, and the story (in marketing terms they were a great brand) being more important than content and ability. that's their legacy.

You may think I'm just trolling but I have tried to justify my opinion. I wish Andy Warhol (a total charlatan) had never discovered them.


For those who say they were innovative how?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Belowpar said:


> A counter view.
> 
> The music is simplistic and the playing adequate.
> The singing is weak
> ...


my point of view:
They weren't great songwriters if the idea of great songwriting is elaborate and interesting melodies and clever chord progressions. But their music was about drugs, decadence and alienation so that monotony fits perfectly that kind of imagery. 
And they were the first to do that. Their music was a mix of minimalism, free jazz and exotic influences (for instance Lou Reed used the ostrich tuning with all the strings on the same note that makes the guitar resonate as a indian instrument, like on Venus in furs) and I don't know if there was something like that before them.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I am not now, and never have been, the audience for whom the Velvet Underground's music was intended.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I can appreciate WHY people don't like the Velvet Underground. They are one of those groups which seem to polarise opinion more than most when being appraised - there's no middle ground with them. No-one ever seems to say 'yeah, they're OK' or 'I can take them or leave them' - usually one either loves or hates them with equal intensity and many who can't stand the group can't figure out how a group known for their often sloppy playing and depressing lyrics can still be the critics' choice half a century on. 

We all have our blind spots, of course - I once tried to explain to just one of the many gazillions of Bruce Springsteen fanatics why The Boss's music left me cold and he simply looked at me as if I'd just machine-gunned his kittens.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Ghy


elgars ghost said:


> I can appreciate WHY people don't like the Velvet Underground. They are one of those groups which seem to polarise opinion more than most when being appraised - there's no middle ground with them. No-one ever seems to say 'yeah, they're OK' or 'I can take them or leave them' - usually one either loves or hates them with equal intensity and many who can't stand the group can't figure out how a group known for their often sloppy playing and depressing lyrics can still be the critics' choice half a century on.


I don't fall into love them or hate them categories with any kind of music. Any composer, any music is capable of offering me something I want to hear again (and again): it's a matter, especially in popular musics, of how many "good" songs any artist or group can muster, and how "good" the good ones are. I can always find something I like in anybody's oeuvre; certainly in the Velvets' (always liked "Waiting for the Man"), but such nuggets are far, far too widely-spaced in their output--ditto for those other darlings of the critics and historians, The Mothers and Captain Beefheart. Just too little gold to be extracted from too much ore, requiring too much time and labor. Plus the fact that i have unsophisticated, even _lumpen_, tastes in so many things....


----------



## Grizzled Ghost (Jun 10, 2015)

I like VU a lot, particularly most of the album "VU". Although I never personally had the banana (Nico) album, I like all the tracks on there as well. I heard the 1969 live album a lot back in the day, but it was never a favorite.

But I wouldn't fetishize them. Their songs were cute, and contributed to the mix. But there was a lot going on back then, including some bands doing their best to sound even weirder than VU, and plenty of bands writing better songs.


----------



## EarthBoundRules (Sep 25, 2011)

Although they're known for their grungy and dirty songs, they also wrote some beautiful ballads, especially on their albums The Velvet Underground & Nico and The Velvet Underground.


----------



## ldiat (Jan 27, 2016)

Beefheart??? Zappa!!!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

They were real artists, and so they can't really be compared rationally to other pop music groups of the time. I bought all the LPs as they came out, and I really like them, but I will not slide into bombastic statements like "better than the Beatles" or play that game. I enjoy them for what they are, with no need to compare or trash other artists. I am civilized, and keep my natural tendency for aggression in check.
"Heroin" was not a song I wanted my mother to hear, though.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

New LIVE release:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Matrix-Tapes-4-CD/dp/B014WIZP96


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Grizzled Ghost said:


> But there was a lot going on back then, including some bands doing their best to sound even weirder than VU, and plenty of bands writing better songs.


Which bands were those?


----------



## ldiat (Jan 27, 2016)




----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> They were real artists, and so they can't really be compared rationally to other pop music groups of the time.


What would be the point, anyway? Lately I've lost interest in jazz, and I'm taking a break from classical. I've been listening to The Byrds, Dylan, and today I'm listening to VU, and Lou Reed's The Blue Mask.

I have this wonderful album called Till The Night Is Gone : A Tribute To Doc Poumus, and Lou contributed a really cool performance of This Magic Moment which inspired me to pick up a copy of The Blue Mask. And the sound and songs on this album are just what I was looking for.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

starthrower said:


> What would be the point, anyway? Lately I've lost interest in jazz, and I'm taking a break from classical. I've been listening to The Byrds, Dylan, and today I'm listening to VU, and Lou Reed's The Blue Mask.
> 
> I have this wonderful album called Till The Night Is Gone : A Tribute To Doc Poumus, and Lou contributed a really cool performance of This Magic Moment which inspired me to pick up a copy of The Blue Mask. And the sound and songs on this album are just what I was looking for.


This kind of thing happens to me regularly. I've even listened to Jim Croce's main album in full tonight for the first time in my life. Really nice. I've also got a soft spot for the early Dylan although I never listen to it anymore. You never know when that'll change suddenly. I've regretted doing away with many records in the past I was fed up at the time but would love to listen to again now.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

norman bates said:


> my point of view:
> They weren't great songwriters if the idea of great songwriting is elaborate and interesting melodies and clever chord progressions. But their music was about drugs, decadence and alienation so that monotony fits perfectly that kind of imagery.
> And they were the first to do that. Their music was a mix of minimalism, free jazz and exotic influences (for instance Lou Reed used the ostrich tuning with all the strings on the same note that makes the guitar resonate as a indian instrument, like on Venus in furs) and I don't know if there was something like that before them.


I agree with that. I think there have been little bands that so perfectly united form and substance in a way that was absolutely innovative at the time. It's not meant to be listened to as art music. It's an expression of modern life in music that is unsurpassed in my opinion. Sister Ray's my personal favorite.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Casebearer said:


> I've regretted doing away with many records in the past I was fed up at the time but would love to listen to again now.


I used to get rid of stuff in the past, but now I keep everything for the reason you mentioned. I might only listen to Dylan or Neil Young twice a year, but I've got the CDs when the urge hits.


----------

