The Velvet Underground

The VU have been discussed many times before:

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=80387&KW=velvet+underground&PID=4251955#4251955
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=54642&KW=velvet+underground&PID=3104242#3104242
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=52015&KW=velvet+underground
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=48287&KW=velvet+underground

(the list goes on) I love the Velvets (together with Patti Smith, Television, Devo et al) but just don't think there is a place for them on PA. Arty/Bohemian rock does NOT prog make alas. As far as influence goes, the VU's indelible signature can be traced in practically every garage band that formed > 1970 and what has been called 'post-punk' is, to all intents and purposes, a phenomenon entirely of their own (unwitting) creation. The only trace of Reed & Co that I can hear in anything currently listed on PA, is certain types of Krautrock but even then, for me the influence is restricted to 'Rock leaves Psyche' and textual elements (literary sources of subject matter etc) Lou Reed once remarked that if a fan couldn't play one of his songs on a guitar after two listens, he considered he had failed in his task. That is a sentiment that smacks of a Punk/minimalist mindset. Lengthy improvisations, avant-garde flourishes, cluster chords and track length (Sister Ray) cannot equate in such a context to be Prog elements and I cannot hear any VU in Prog whatsoever

thellama73 wrote: HolyMoly wrote: Looking back, my post above is a bit reductive, trying to derive all music from just two bands.  We all know it's isn't that cut and dry.  But it was a fun post to write anyway. Remember also that 1967 (the year of the Velvets' debut) is also the year in which Sgt. Pepper was released, and the year before included both the Mothers' debut and Pet Sounds. Both of those records had a huge influence on the productions techniques that would come to define prog and I would argue overshadowed Zappa and Reed's contributions (at least at the time.)

True, and that argument is made stronger by the fact that the Beatles and Beach Boys were infinitely more popular (and therefore had a greater chance to "influence") than VU and the Mothers put together, in addition to being just as innovative, if not more so.  I guess I'm thinking of the more avant-tendencies of Art Music, the conscious merging of rock music with Art (with a Capital "A"), with less commercial consideration involved.  *(though I do maintain that everyone wants to be popular, whether it be on their own terms or not).

HolyMoly wrote: Looking back, my post above is a bit reductive, trying to derive all music from just two bands.  We all know it's isn't that cut and dry.  But it was a fun post to write anyway.

Remember also that 1967 (the year of the Velvets' debut) is also the year in which Sgt. Pepper was released, and the year before included both the Mothers' debut and Pet Sounds. Both of those records had a huge influence on the productions techniques that would come to define prog and I would argue overshadowed Zappa and Reed's contributions (at least at the time.)

The Velvet Underground rift that we're playing out right now had its roots back in the 60s, with the rivalry between two underground bands on the Verve label, the Velvets and the Mothers of Invention.  Both seemed to be bent on claiming discovery of this new territory of Art Music.  One was very studied and virtuosic, the other was more spontaneous and simplistic.  Kind of a yin/yang thing, and a lot of people tend to come out on one side or the other.

My view is that both of them provided "seed crystals" out of which most Art Rock Music arose - including progressive rock, new wave, Krautrock, virtually any rock music that considers itself as an intellectual pursuit.

I'm not advocating their inclusion nor their exclusion, but I'm just trying to understand why it is that the Velvet Underground (who were virtually unknown while they were active, btw) are so divisive.  I had a feeling this thread would go past the first page and produce some lively debate, and it has.

octopus-4 wrote: it's not like Darwin's evolution the lines are dotted, not straight.

How does being dotted preclude a line from being straight?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Edited by thellama73 - July 13 2012 at 07:31

Devo for Proto? Yes please! Oh and Gary Numan... 

17 minute experimental jam session.



Jam session in one ear, short story recited by Cale in the other.

I just don't think stuff like this is new wave at all, they did not jam as much as the Velvets and certainly did not display a wide range of styles. They go from stuff like this to little ditties such as this:



Oh, and this too:



This band is putting lyrical complexity as well and musical and sonic complexity into that song.


Edited by The Truth - July 12 2012 at 17:57

AtomicCrimsonRush wrote: thellama73 wrote: Well, I'm against their inclusion. Great band? Yes. Innovative as hell? Yes. Massively influential? Again, yes. But they are not prog, they are closer to punk. well said No way can they be lumped in with prog - more New Wave meets punk if they get in so should Toyah

They were not a proto prog band. As someone else said, if anything, they formed a template for much of the 1970's New Wave in America.

thellama73 wrote: The Truth wrote: thellama73 wrote: Well, I'm against their inclusion. Great band? Yes. Innovative as hell? Yes. Massively influential? Again, yes. But they are not prog, they are closer to punk. That's why proto-prog is a better fit. I just don't think that everything experimental is automatically related to prog, proto or otherwise.

Fair enough.