50 Records that changed music [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : 50 Records that changed music



Swish
07-18-2006, 09:49 AM
Ok, I don't want to list 50 albums all at one time as the thread would become bloated if I get even half the interest that I am hoping for, so I think what I'll try to do is post one each week for 50 weeks and see if I can stimulate some conversation around this place.

The first would be The Velvet Underground and Nico from 1967. This could be the most influential rock album of all time, although it sold poorly upon its first release. Without them there would be no David Bowie, Roxy Music, Siouxsie and the Banshees, The Jesus and Mary Chain, and countless others.

Your thoughts?

Swish

Resident Loser
07-18-2006, 10:07 AM
...Without them there would be no David Bowie, Roxy Music, Siouxsie and the Banshees, The Jesus and Mary Chain, and countless others.

Your thoughts?

Swish

...would somehow be bad? Although I think Bowie has talent...

I liked Reed's 'Walk On The Wild Side" more due to the backup singers and the sax and in spite of his recitative psuedo-vocals...

jimHJJ(...one of fifty? Sorry, not on my list...)

Swish
07-18-2006, 10:25 AM
...would somehow be bad? Although I think Bowie has talent...

I liked Reed's 'Walk On The Wild Side" more due to the backup singers and the sax and in spite of his recitative psuedo-vocals...

jimHJJ(...one of fifty? Sorry, not on my list...)

That's quite an understatement about one of the greating rock legends still walking the planet. Lou Reed is also an icon in my book, regardless of what you think about his vocals. He has more talent in his pinky than most of the posers recording today.

Let the games begin,
Swish

Stone
07-18-2006, 10:55 AM
...would somehow be bad? ...)

No, the author is showing how certain albums shaped music, whether good or bad. The article was written to show how big of an impact 50 albums had on the future of music.

I don't know if it was the most influential, but VU and Nico certainly has to be right up there and I have no problem with it being #1. Plus, it's a really great album.

Swish
07-18-2006, 11:07 AM
No, the author is showing how certain albums shaped music, whether good or bad. The article was written to show how big of an impact 50 albums had on the future of music.

I don't know if it was the most influential, but VU and Nico certainly has to be right up there and I have no problem with it being #1. Plus, it's a really great album.

..on the new baby! You must be flying high at the moment, and not from the usual substances.:hand:

Swish

Dusty Chalk
07-18-2006, 11:40 AM
Never heard it (in its entirety, dedicatedly listening, in one sitting), sounds like I should.

N. Abstentia
07-18-2006, 03:32 PM
I would tend to agree with Loser. Bowie is okay but those others? What did they do? How did they change the face of music?

I've never heard that Velvet Underground album, but as far as it changing the face of music I would assume that since it was released in 1967 it was probably overshadowed by a little thing called Sgt. Pepper. Not to mention The Doors debut. Now THAT's something that changed the face of music.

Swish
07-18-2006, 04:13 PM
I would tend to agree with Loser. Bowie is okay but those others? What did they do? How did they change the face of music?

I've never heard that Velvet Underground album, but as far as it changing the face of music I would assume that since it was released in 1967 it was probably overshadowed by a little thing called Sgt. Pepper. Not to mention The Doors debut. Now THAT's something that changed the face of music.

...post, or did you gloss over it because you were so anxious to agree with Loser? I didn't say the others bands changed the face of music. The whole idea behind this is to point out 50 records that changed the face of music, and the first was the VU record. As far as it being "overshadowed by a little thing called Sgt. Pepper", I disagree completely, and you're in no position to argue since you never heard the VU record, which is a pity in itself. How can you base an argument against something you've never heard? In addition, that wasn't even the best Beatles record in my opinion. A great one, yes, but not as good as Revolver or the White Album, although it will appear later in this list. And Bowie is just ok? Give me a break. His body of work is probably among the top 10 in rock. Yeah, top 10 for sure, and most of it was seminal, trend-setting music, and I'm sure many others on this board will agree with that assessment. If you're one of those "classic rock" lovers, then I guess I'm wasting my breath.

In addition, I never said the VU was "the most important", only that it was one of the 50 "most important", so you assumed that I was calling it the top of the list, which I did not. Also, I am not the creator of this list of 50 records, and never implied that I was. I am merely presenting them for discussion and paraphrasing the information for open discussion, one per week, which is exactly what is happening, although you misinterpreted the concept.


Swish

dean_martin
07-18-2006, 04:27 PM
Ok, I don't want to list 50 albums all at one time as the thread would become bloated if I get even half the interest that I am hoping for, so I think what I'll try to do is post one each week for 50 weeks and see if I can stimulate some conversation around this place.

The first would be The Velvet Underground and Nico from 1967. This could be the more influential rock album of all time, although it sold poorly upon its first release. Without them there would be no David Bowie, Roxy Music, Siouxsie and the Banshees, The Jesus and Mary Chain, and countless others.

Your thoughts?

Swish

I'll agree w/ya. Femme Fatale and There She Goes Again has been covered by the likes of REM and others. Heroin was covered recently by some band my teens listen to. I think what came out of The Velvet Underground & Nico was a "happening". It was representative of the Andy Warhol scene at the time and although Warhol's scene overshadowed VU's music then, I think VU's music from that album has had stronger staying power. (This is from a guy who snagged 10 to 12 of the films from the Factory days before the Warhol estate sold the rights to The Warhol Museum in PA.)

N. Abstentia
07-18-2006, 07:13 PM
...post, or did you gloss over it because you were so anxious to agree with Loser?

Swish

I love it when people say 'please post your thoughts!' then get all huffy when others opinions don't agree with their own.

If you don't want opinions, don't ask for them. When you do ask for them, be prepared for some that might not share your views.

Thoughts?

3-LockBox
07-18-2006, 09:28 PM
Where is the list, BTW?

I'd like to see it

And no, I have never heard this album in its entierity either, so I can't really comment on it.

Swish
07-19-2006, 03:26 AM
I love it when people say 'please post your thoughts!' then get all huffy when others opinions don't agree with their own.

If you don't want opinions, don't ask for them. When you do ask for them, be prepared for some that might not share your views.

Thoughts?

..only that you wanted to "agree" with Born Loser, quite evident by the fact that you admittedly never heard the VU record. I was merely pointing out that you deviated from the point of the thread, which was to comment about this being called one of the 50 records that changed the face of music. What you said was "I would tend to agree with Loser. Bowie is okay but those others? What did they do? How did they change the face of music?" The post wasn't about the "others" it was about how the VU record influenced those bands and many other.

Then you go on to say "I've never heard that Velvet Underground album, but as far as it changing the face of music I would assume that since it was released in 1967 it was probably overshadowed by a little thing called Sgt. Pepper. Not to mention The Doors debut. Now THAT's something that changed the face of music". Again, you're making an assumption about a record that you never heard and seemingly know nothing about, so how can you make that statement?

Look, I'm not trying to start some battle with you or anyone else on the board, just to create discussion on the record I posted about. If you want to take it personally there's not much I can do about it. Having not heard the record, it's pretty difficult to say much of anything in a negative sense, isn't it?

Swish

Swish
07-19-2006, 03:29 AM
Where is the list, BTW?

I'd like to see it

And no, I have never heard this album in its entierity either, so I can't really comment on it.

If I reveal the source of the list, then everyone will go looking at it and ruin the "thrill" of seeing my weekly post to discuss one more on the list, and what fun would that be? Don't be a buzz kill!

Swish :ciappa:

superpanavision70mm
07-19-2006, 04:04 AM
Swish,

Unfortunately certain people have to ruin this forum....anytime you make statements and sometimes not even when they are not even your own...people get into debate mode. The same thing happened when I made a post about how I thought that Terminator 2 was one of the best sequels EVER and gave 10 reasons why. Instead of people making the thread a fun one and perhaps listing their reasons why OTHER films could be great sequels, they instead just try to prove me wrong or start heated arguments.

I, on the other hand, look forward to seeing weekly posts and will try to comment to the best of my abilitites. For the record....BOWIE IS AWESOME!

Stone
07-19-2006, 04:49 AM
I want to add a bit more about this album. It has been said that when this record was released, not many heard it, but everyone who did started a band. That's the kind of influence this record has had and its sound is still heard in many bands today. Whether you like it or dislike it, I don't think there's any denying it has had a huge impact on rock and pop music over the years, especially with the indie set.

And this album has some wonderful songs on it. Nico really added something to the mix that makes the album special and beautiful.

And for those arguing about Bowie and the others, like Swish said, you completely missed the point of the post and of the list. It says without The Velvet Underground and Nico there would be no Bowie, JaMC, etc. I tend to agree with this, especially if you listen to Bowie's very early work which is basically just straight ahead Brit pop very similar to others of the day. I think this album changed the sound of a lot of artists.

ForeverAutumn
07-19-2006, 04:50 AM
Unfortunately certain people have to ruin this forum

I don't think that anyone is trying to ruin anything. Maybe they misunderstood the point of Swish's post and the discussion that he was trying to generate.

In my opinion, this forum has become such a ghost town that ANY form of discussion is a good one. So what if the thread ends up going on a bit of spin into conversation about Sgt Pepper (which could turn up as #2 on the list for all we know) or whether David Bowie has talent (he's a freakin' GOD for goodness sake!!!!!!!). When do threads around this place stay on topic anyway? (there's a thread on the general board which started about speakers and ended in a debate about gay people raising children). At least Swish has generated some discussion, debate, whatever....something that has been sorely missing around here for a long time.

I haven't heard the VU album. And I'm willing to bet that there will be a lot more on the list that I haven't heard. I'm looking forward to these weekly threads as an education on the history of music. Who knows, maybe this will take me in a whole new direction...just like when I first discovered Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars.....:ciappa:

Keep the peace boys. :D

BTW, I've added this album to my "list".

Resident Loser
07-19-2006, 04:52 AM
...did you say:


Your thoughts?

Well, you got mine and N.Absentia's...you don't want thoughts, don't ask for them...it's that simple...

Re: DB...I said he had talent...simply and succinctly...Understatement? No, sufficient for it's relevance to your post. Was I supposed to say he is AWESOME or that his music changed my life or the course of human history...Guess what? He ain't/it didn't. Saying he has talent goes well beyond your simplistic take on the word and, to remind you, this post is about the Chenille Subway and el drone-O...isn't it.

P.S. comparing anyone, anytime to the current crop of cr@p isn't saying all that much...If he didn't surround himself with transvestites and make nice-nice with Warhol, his 15 minutes of fame would have been long gone...

jimHJJ(...but that's just my further thoughts...)

MasterCylinder
07-19-2006, 05:12 AM
This disagreement over the influence of VU -v- Sgt. Pepper's is interesting.

Both releases were huge.

But I would argue that 1967 was a HUGE year for many reasons.

I have an album from that year that changed the face of music more than both of those reflected above..................

What about ... ARE YOU EXPERIENCED ? from Hendrix ?

I'd even argue that DISRAELI GEARS is a close alternative as well.

Swish
07-19-2006, 05:14 AM
...did you say:



Well, you got mine and N.Absentia's...you don't want thoughts, don't ask for them...it's that simple...

Re: DB...I said he had talent...simply and succinctly...Understatement? No, sufficient for it's relevance to your post. Was I supposed to say he is AWESOME or that his music changed my life or the course of human history...Guess what? He ain't/it didn't. Saying he has talent goes well beyond your simplistic take on the word and, to remind you, this post is about the Chenille Subway and el drone-O...isn't it.

P.S. comparing anyone, anytime to the current crop of cr@p isn't saying all that much...If he didn't surround himself with transvestites and make nice-nice with Warhol, his 15 minutes of fame would have been long gone...

jimHJJ(...but that's just my further thoughts...)

...you missed the point of the thread and that you underserved Sir David by saying he has talent. To me, that's like saying Tiger Woods hits a nice ball when he's the #1 player in the world. If you're not a Bowie fan, that's fine, as I have plenty of disagreements with others about music on this board, and always will. That's what makes it fun. We all have different tastes, or this board would be totally pointless and boring, wouldn't it?

What rubbed me wrong was that you and N. Abstentia's missed the point of the post. The opinion was supposed to be about the VU record, not the bands that it supposedly spawned. If you want to go off-topic, then whatever, I was only trying to start something a little different on a weekly basis. It proves the adage that no good deed goes unpunished.

Swish

Resident Loser
07-19-2006, 06:08 AM
...you missed the point of the thread and that you underserved Sir David by saying he has talent. To me, that's like saying Tiger Woods hits a nice ball when he's the #1 player in the world. If you're not a Bowie fan, that's fine, as I have plenty of disagreements with others about music on this board, and always will. That's what makes it fun. We all have different tastes, or this board would be totally pointless and boring, wouldn't it?

What rubbed me wrong was that you and N. Abstentia's missed the point of the post. The opinion was supposed to be about the VU record, not the bands that it supposedly spawned. If you want to go off-topic, then whatever, I was only trying to start something a little different on a weekly basis. It proves the adage that no good deed goes unpunished.

Swish

...I'm a fan of much of Bowie's work...I think he is good at what he does, can actually carry a tune, is responsible for innovative concepts and provides enjoyable entertainment...given the thread's main topic, my use of the word talent covered it in a nutshell...

Re: VU...it doesn't pin my meter...I find it and Reed self-indulgent claptrap...the dressed in black, artsy-fartsy, psuedo-neo-avant-garde, East Village idiots so taken with themselves as to be unbearable...and Nico...geez, fits right in, with the "I'm so deep and dark and full of angst" Puh-leeeze...

What was either revolutionary or even evolutionary about the album? Was it on a scale of Dylan's "Bringing It All Back Home" which gave folk a big wake-up call? Or Brian Wilson's "Pet Sounds" which gave us the foundation for concept albums? Or as suggested, Hendrix' "Are You Experienced" which resulted in a big whoa, man...where did that come from? Or "The Flying Buritto Brothers" which coalesced folk-rock into country-rock? Or the Dead's "Europe '72" which set the standard for live-performance recordings? Wa-a-ay out of it's league on so many counts.

Some claim it has social relevance, like nothing before it did? Or spoke out loud about things previously whispered? IMO, it has nothing to offer but shock-value in the pee-pee/doo-doo/ca-ca sense of the term...I'd rather hear a censored version of Harry Nilsson's "You're Breakin' My Heart"...at least it's amusing.

jimHJJ(...even more thoughts...)

Swish
07-19-2006, 06:17 AM
that[/B] come from? Or "The Flying Buritto Brothers" which coalesced folk-rock into country-rock? Or the Dead's "Europe '72" which set the standard for live-performance recordings? Wa-a-ay out of it's league on so many counts.

Some claim it has social relevance, like nothing before it did? Or spoke out loud about things previously whispered? IMO, it has nothing to offer but shock-value in the pee-pee/doo-doo/ca-ca sense of the term...I'd rather hear a censored version of Harry Nilsson's "You're Breakin' My Heart"...at least it's amusing.

jimHJJ(...even more thoughts...)

I agree with your assessment about some of the other records, and they may be on the list of the 50. I disagree with you about VU, but your comment are still appreciated for what they are. However, keep in mind that VU was only listed first, but just because the list has to start somewhere, and not because it's supposedly the most influential record in the history of rock. I think it is certainly one of the top 10, but not necessarily # 1, which I could never pin down, much as I could not say what my favorite record or favorite song was. There are just too many great one to pick only one.

Thanks,
Swish

shokhead
07-19-2006, 06:24 AM
Ok, I don't want to list 50 albums all at one time as the thread would become bloated if I get even half the interest that I am hoping for, so I think what I'll try to do is post one each week for 50 weeks and see if I can stimulate some conversation around this place.

The first would be The Velvet Underground and Nico from 1967. This could be the more influential rock album of all time, although it sold poorly upon its first release. Without them there would be no David Bowie, Roxy Music, Siouxsie and the Banshees, The Jesus and Mary Chain, and countless others.

Your thoughts?

Swish

Influential rock album of all time? Is this a joke?

ForeverAutumn
07-19-2006, 06:30 AM
keep in mind that VU was only listed first, but just because the list has to start somewhere, and not because it's supposedly the most influential record in the history of rock.

Hey Swish, this begs the question...did the author of the list put the 50 in order of what he (or she) thought was THE most influencial? Or, is this just a list of 50, in no particular order?

I realize that the purpose of the thread isn't even to rate the album but just to generate discussion on it's relevance and influence in music history...I'm just curious about this mystery list.

nobody
07-19-2006, 06:47 AM
Interesting conversation. Personally, Iím a big fan of the VU album, but dissenting opinions are fine. I can see Swish wanting more than a thumbs up or down with no reason behind it since he was talking about influence, not merely opinion. But, anytime you toss out an album for discussion, youíre gonna get opinion, and Iím fine with that. Iím a big fan of disagreement, really. Keeps things lively. Never did like a ďyes man.Ē

That said, I think the VU album was hugely influential. Lyrically, Reed went into areas where most had pretty much left alone, most obviously drug addiction and other depravities. Did dome others touch on it earlier? Sure, but not to the extent he did. He stretched the boundaries of what was considered appropriate lyrically in rock music, and that has continued to reverberate. Heís more friend than foe to Dylan in this regard.

Also, the whole notion of underground rock was pretty much jump started by the band. Without the Velvet Underground making a series of records that appealed to a narrow section of the public, later to garner acclaim, the impetus for all of the small label, make music for the music, not for the audience thing that is till huge today needs a different group for their heroes.

Sound wise, these guys were all over the map. They made one of the quietest albums of all time with their third, self-titled disc and made one of the grungiest, noisiest albums of all time with White Light/White Heat. They expanded what some came to expect from music. And, they brought the art world and the music world, along with street life, together like no one before, and probably since.

Thatís all group level generalities though. So what about the particular album in question? Well, itís probably their most accessible in many ways, outside Loaded. It made it OK to be avant garde in rock music, its mood and sonic ringing signature have been copied time and again. The songs have been covered hundreds of times. Even the album cover, designed by Warhol, of course, has become a visual icon in American culture. So, yeah, itís had influence.

More up for debate would be if you like the influence it had. I liked the Punk stuff that came out of its underground wake, fused with the anger of the Stooges and Dolls and more. I like the underground scene that made experimentation more prevalent. I like bands like REM, Jesus and Mary Chain, Bowie, Iggy, Talking Heads and many others who trace their roots directly to the Velvet Underground. And, I like when art and music collide. So yeah, Iím a fan.

If you would have preferred music to stick to its traditions and prefer something more straightforward with common blues riffs and a wailing singer, and think rock music has done nothing but decline since the 70sÖwell, you probably should hate the influence of this album. But, itís certainly there.

Stone
07-19-2006, 07:02 AM
Influential rock album of all time? Is this a joke?

Uhhh, no joke. Are you familiar with the album, the story behind it, the way music has changed since then, and the artists since it was released who have cited it as an influence?

noddin0ff
07-19-2006, 07:21 AM
Whoa...I can't believe how many on this board have never heard this album. It’s kind of difficult to make worthy opinions if you’ve never listened to it. You can’t be a student of music until you give this a listen.

Lots of great music came out of ’67. However, I don’t think VU&N broke any great ground for their musicality. I suppose they broke more ground for the lack of accessible musicality. I’m not sure Lou has ever actually ‘sang’ more than a handful of notes in his life, and Nico sounds unsteady at best. Where they broke ground was thematically. They sang about the dark side of drugs and sex, the sleeze and the ick, and the desperation in waiting for the next fix and the disappointment in a wasted life. They sang about destructive living. It wasn’t that peace, love, change the world, and open your mind with MJ and LSD bull that was so popular and successful. The album is gritty, jangly, paranoid, and hypnotic…and still catchy with memorable lyrics and melodies. I remember thinking how corny Sunday Morning seemed on this album and it always bugged me that it led off an otherwise great album… until I finally got that Sunday Morning oozes with musical sarcasm (I was a little slow then). “[I]…Early dawning, Sunday morning. It's just the wasted years so close behind. Watch out, the world’s behind you…[/]” It really sets the tone for an album about running from life and being drawn to, if not trapped, in a lifestyle.

I think the greatness in the album is it’s frank awareness of what a waste the destructive life is, bonded with a musical sensibility that makes that life compelling and attractive. You want to give in and be part of it. The pop hooks pull you in, the jangly avante-garde keeps you uneasy.

I could go on about influences in Punk and all, but it’s pretty easy to read all that.

shokhead
07-19-2006, 08:07 AM
Well 67 was when i was doing all the wrong{but fun} stuff and music was part of our everyday life outside of school and all the partys i went to,any of my friends houses i went to and anybodys car i was in, none of us or any of them were into or listened to or went to and VU stuff. But thats just middle America me.

noddin0ff
07-19-2006, 08:19 AM
Well, can't say I can speak first hand about 67, I was learning to crawl. ;-) My path to the VU was definately a backward one. I think I started somewhere around Duran Duran and worked my way back.

bacchanal
07-19-2006, 08:47 AM
I don't think you can overstate VU's influence on musical culture. It's hard to pinpoint the influence to one album though. I think VU and Nico had more of a social influence while White Light/White Heat had more of a sonic influence. I think there is plenty of evidene that suggests those two albums were a major influence on grunge and alternative rock in the 90's. What would Nirvana have been without the Velvet Underground?

Swish
07-19-2006, 09:11 AM
Interesting conversation. Personally, Iím a big fan of the VU album, but dissenting opinions are fine. I can see Swish wanting more than a thumbs up or down with no reason behind it since he was talking about influence, not merely opinion. But, anytime you toss out an album for discussion, youíre gonna get opinion, and Iím fine with that. Iím a big fan of disagreement, really. Keeps things lively. Never did like a ďyes man.Ē

That said, I think the VU album was hugely influential. Lyrically, Reed went into areas where most had pretty much left alone, most obviously drug addiction and other depravities. Did dome others touch on it earlier? Sure, but not to the extent he did. He stretched the boundaries of what was considered appropriate lyrically in rock music, and that has continued to reverberate. Heís more friend than foe to Dylan in this regard.

Also, the whole notion of underground rock was pretty much jump started by the band. Without the Velvet Underground making a series of records that appealed to a narrow section of the public, later to garner acclaim, the impetus for all of the small label, make music for the music, not for the audience thing that is till huge today needs a different group for their heroes.

Sound wise, these guys were all over the map. They made one of the quietest albums of all time with their third, self-titled disc and made one of the grungiest, noisiest albums of all time with White Light/White Heat. They expanded what some came to expect from music. And, they brought the art world and the music world, along with street life, together like no one before, and probably since.

Thatís all group level generalities though. So what about the particular album in question? Well, itís probably their most accessible in many ways, outside Loaded. It made it OK to be avant garde in rock music, its mood and sonic ringing signature have been copied time and again. The songs have been covered hundreds of times. Even the album cover, designed by Warhol, of course, has become a visual icon in American culture. So, yeah, itís had influence.

More up for debate would be if you like the influence it had. I liked the Punk stuff that came out of its underground wake, fused with the anger of the Stooges and Dolls and more. I like the underground scene that made experimentation more prevalent. I like bands like REM, Jesus and Mary Chain, Bowie, Iggy, Talking Heads and many others who trace their roots directly to the Velvet Underground. And, I like when art and music collide. So yeah, Iím a fan.

If you would have preferred music to stick to its traditions and prefer something more straightforward with common blues riffs and a wailing singer, and think rock music has done nothing but decline since the 70sÖwell, you probably should hate the influence of this album. But, itís certainly there.

..the only thing I didn't like was that I didn't write it myself.

Swish

Swish
07-19-2006, 09:15 AM
Hey Swish, this begs the question...did the author of the list put the 50 in order of what he (or she) thought was THE most influencial? Or, is this just a list of 50, in no particular order?

I realize that the purpose of the thread isn't even to rate the album but just to generate discussion on it's relevance and influence in music history...I'm just curious about this mystery list.

.."the more influential" in my original post. That being said, this is a list of 50 albums that changed the face of music, and was not specifically meant to be in the order of most important, although the writer did suggest that it could be the "most" influential. Read Nobody's reply and see if you agree with him as I certainly do. Some on the list are dreadful in my opinion, but there are reasons for their being on it.

Swish

Resident Loser
07-19-2006, 09:48 AM
.."the more influential" in my original post. That being said, this is a list of 50 albums that change the face of music, and was not specifically meant to be in the order of most important, although the writer did suggest that it could be the "most" influential. Read Nobody's reply and see if you agree with him as I certainly do. Some on the list are dreadful in my opinion, but there are reasons for their being on it.

Swish

...you've given it all away...and I still say, in response to the general statement the article makes re: "without this" after every inclusion...Given what they spawned, missing a few would have been no big deal...

Quite varied...Miles Davis, Sinatra and Black Sabbath on the same list?!?!?!?

jimHJJ(...however, I see I hit a few nails right on the head...).

Swish
07-19-2006, 12:24 PM
Quite varied...Miles Davis, Sinatra and Black Sabbath on the same list?!?!?!?

..although it's heavily tilted toward R & R.

Swish

nobody
07-19-2006, 12:28 PM
I actually get annoyed when they always list Miles Davis in these type of lists. It either says he was a huge figure in rock, which I personally don't really see...or that he's the only jazz muscian important enough to mention, which is even more ridiculous.

Swish
07-19-2006, 12:40 PM
I actually get annoyed when they always list Miles Davis in these type of lists. It either says he was a huge figure in rock, which I personally don't really see...or that he's the only jazz muscian important enough to mention, which is even more ridiculous.

...should be mentioned, especially Dizzy, Coltrane and Montgomery, but I'm sure you can name many others. However, Miles was truly a trend-setter in many ways, especially Kind of Blue and then again with *****es Brew.

Swish

MasterCylinder
07-20-2006, 03:57 AM
My path to the VU was definately a backward one. I think I started somewhere around Duran Duran and worked my way back.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, you poor fukker.
Glad you found your way out of there !

MindGoneHaywire
07-20-2006, 07:26 AM
N. Abstentia:

>I've never heard that Velvet Underground album, but as far as it changing the face of music I would assume that since it was released in 1967 it was probably overshadowed by a little thing called Sgt. Pepper. Not to mention The Doors debut. Now THAT's something that changed the face of music.

So the VU record didn't? Care to elaborate? I guess it would be tough, since you haven't heard it. Yr assumption is flawed. The influence of other records does not necessarily mean that a record you haven't heard wasn't influential.


>I love it when people say 'please post your thoughts!' then get all huffy when others opinions don't agree with their own.
>If you don't want opinions, don't ask for them. When you do ask for them, be prepared for some that might not share your views.
>Thoughts?

Uh, yeah. My thought is that you might consider that it might seem a bit odd to denigrate the influence of a record you haven't heard, especially if all you can do to express that opinion is to refer to other records. Not having heard it, how could you possibly deny the influence of the VU record?


Resident Loser:

>If he didn't surround himself with transvestites and make nice-nice with Warhol, his 15 minutes of fame would have been long gone...

I'm not much of a Bowie fan, but I fail to see the logic in this statement. There's a guy named Mick Ronson who factors heavily into this equation, and what he had to do with Warhol I don't know. Then there's Iggy. And what did Warhol have to do with the success of Let's Dance? Or the role Bowie played in the career of Stevie Ray Vaughan?


>Re: VU...it doesn't pin my meter...I find it and Reed self-indulgent claptrap...the dressed in black, artsy-fartsy, psuedo-neo-avant-garde, East Village idiots so taken with themselves as to be unbearable...and Nico...geez, fits right in, with the "I'm so deep and dark and full of angst" Puh-leeeze...

I get it. You don't like the record. Perhaps you could explain what that has to do with its influence?


>What was either revolutionary or even evolutionary about the album?

You want a list? Wait a second, there's something interesting here that you said...


>can actually carry a tune

How many bands can you name that were signed by major labels prior to the VU, where the lead singer couldn't carry a tune? One very significant reason why this album was influential was because it was probably the first major label release by a rock band where people were willing to listen through unorthodox vocals because of how they felt about the music...the importance of which overshadowed the ability of the singer. That didn't exist. One-hit novelty wonders & prefab teen idols who couldn't sing weren't singing about anything that anyone actually cared about. People were interested in the content, more so than the form. That people on this forum haven't heard the record, or don't like it, is not relevant to this issue. Someone managed to do something interesting enough to get a label to sign them, in spite of the fact that they couldn't even sing.

Ah, but that's what some would say about Dylan. However, the idea that he cannot sing, or wasn't a good singer, is laughable. Folks who cling to that don't know the difference between the quality of a voice, and singing ability. Lou Reed really couldn't sing. And that just wasn't that important; what mattered was the material.

And the execution. If they wouldn't have been competent players, then it would've simply sounded like the Shaggs. But John Cale brought a sensibility to a rock band that didn't really exist. Brian Wilson would come closest, but the commonalities weren't exactly apparent on 'Fun Fun Fun' and didn't come to the fore until SMiLE. Cale went to school in the same neighborhood where the Rolling Stones held a residency at a club that immediately preceded their rise to fame, and had no idea of this huge buzz that was being generated. Instead, he came to the U.S. to study music...thanks to Aaron Copland. He performed with John Cage and LaMonte Young. Brian Wilson admired Charles Ives, but that was more Van Dyke Parks' bag, and he was a bit more into the Four Freshmen. So this is what Cale brings to the table on this record. 'Venus In Furs,' indeed.

But it doesn't pun yr meter, so I guess it's insignificant, eh? If the influence didn't come through in R.E.M., in Sonic Youth, in Jonathan Richman, in Roxy Music, and more names than are worth mentioning, then you'd be right as rain. On the issue of influence, that is. I thought that was the point of the thread, not a like or dislike of a particular record.


>Was it on a scale of Dylan's "Bringing It All Back Home" which gave folk a big wake-up call?

Ask Tom Wilson that. He produced that album AND the first two VU records. Yeah, Andy Warhol is credited on the first one. But Tom Wilson produced it. Er, we can't ask him, he's dead. But, he'd probably tell you that making that comparison is silly at best. But Mike Bloomfield was doing loud, far-out, electric blues with Paul Butterfield before he was doing it with Dylan, right? Dylan invented what we now know as 'singer-songwriter.' Period. But he didn't invent talking blues ala Sub Homesick Blues. He just refined it. If you'd care to name me an example of a precursor to European Son, the Black Angel's Death Song, Heroin, or I'm Waiting For The Man...I could go on.

If you need to question the influence of the VU by pointing to Dylan, I'd suggest Freewheelin', Times They Are A-Changin', and Another Side, which established the s-s idiom, and was far more influential for that, than BIABH was for 'going electric.' At least so far as I can see. The hordes of blues fanatics who popularized electric blues in the mid- and late-60s were surely influenced by what Dylan was doing, but there was just one thing, that I feel renders his 1965-66 output less 'influential' in that sense:

They could never in a million years come up with a song like 'It Takes A Lot To Laugh, It Takes A Train To Cry.' Refer to the alternate take on 'No Direction Home' for an example of what mastery Dylan had at his disposal which enabled him to take a blues that sounded very similar to much of 'Bringing' and 'Highway' and craft it into the version that made the record.


>Or Brian Wilson's "Pet Sounds" which gave us the foundation for concept albums?

You ever hear of a Frank Sinatra record called In The Wee Small Hours Of The Morning? John Cale was & is a huge Brian Wilson fan. So Pet Sounds is great...how does that make the VU record not influential?

So Pet Sounds was and remains influential. How does that make the VU record not influential?


>Or as suggested, Hendrix' "Are You Experienced" which resulted in a big whoa, man...where did that come from?

Good question. I tire of bringing up Dick Dale in reference to Hendrix, and it has no bearing on Hendrix' creativity or songwriting, but it seems warranted here. Nevertheless...how does this make the VU record not influential?


>Or "The Flying Buritto Brothers" which coalesced folk-rock into country-rock?

Folk-rock? Ever hear of the International Submarine Band? That's what Gram Parsons was doing at least a couple of years prior to the Burritos, but I think you're thinking of the Byrds, the band that...coalesced from folk-rock into country-rock...which had a little something to do with Parsons being in the band.

If you're going to reach to make a point...besides, country-rock pretty much died with Parsons, hence the Eagles, and was a lost art for nearly 20 years until bands like Uncle Tupelo came along. I'd say the influence of the VU record outshines the Burritos, sorry. Unless there was a major country-rock movement from the mid-70s through to the early 90s that I never heard about.


>Or the Dead's "Europe '72" which set the standard for live-performance recordings?

Set what standard? Whose standard? What, then, of Live At Leeds? James Brown Live At The Apollo? Coltrane at the Village Vanguard? Johnny Cash at Folsom, or San Quentin? I'm not sure what you're getting at, here. Actually, this is the first time I've ever heard anyone refer to Europe 72 as some sort of groundbreaking achievement.


>Some claim it has social relevance, like nothing before it did?

How many examples can you name, then, that resulted in musical influence? Maybe you can even come up with one that ranges musically beyond Phil Ochs & Joan Baez.


>Or spoke out loud about things previously whispered?

Well, outside of Bo Diddley, how many examples can you name that could be considered rock? There were bands prior to 1967 singing about scoring drugs on the street? S&M? On a major label? Must be a reason the VU gets the credit for being the outfit that pioneered these as being viable topics for rock music lyrics.


>IMO, it has nothing to offer but shock-value in the pee-pee/doo-doo/ca-ca sense of the term...I'd rather hear a censored version of Harry Nilsson's "You're Breakin' My Heart"...at least it's amusing.

I don't care about this list, and I certainly wouldn't put this album at the top of any 'most influential' list. Lists are generally silly in that they inspire way too much debate that's ultimately useless, though I guess it's fun at the time. But it's not a best list, or a favorite list, or a most *****in' guitar player list, or a who influenced Randy Newman the most list. It's not my favorite VU album, either. I find most of side 2 to be downright unlistenable, quite frankly. But there just wasn't much dissonance in rock music prior to this, now, was there? Maybe that's not socially relevant, but it sure the hell is musically relevant. More than that, it's the first record I can think of where the players are extremely accomplished, yet do things at times that sound downright amateurish. That's a nuance of music that yields very interesting results at times; in more traditional rock outfits, it might be an instance of being 'sloppy.' Here, it's people who were absolutely pro caliber, doing things that could be called unique, eccentric, different, and/or inventive. To some it merely sounds inept. But that's all it would be if in fact the playing ability were not present. Some people like to bend musical rules. The appeal of the record to a particular type of audience shows that...there is in fact an audience for it. And in this case, it happens to be an audience that played a large part in creating a subculture within the rock genre that, uh, influenced, a lot of music.

That's why it's at the top of the list, whether or not it's deserved. But merely disliking a record hardly seems like a sound reason to try to deny its influence.

Lastly, as for shock value, that's what many associated solely with a guy named Lenny Bruce. Would you deny his influence also? Or if he was too intellectual for ya, there's always Howard Stern. Influential. Nothing wrong with disliking the work. Denying the influence? No way.

Thoughts?

Resident Loser
07-20-2006, 11:35 AM
...you may wanna' start from scratch and take some notes...my remarks about transvestites and Warhol was in response to Swish's "poser" comments re: Lou Reed not Bowie...And as you may or may not recall, my initial response was not a lamentation over losing a few of the mentioned "bands"...

Second have you seen the list or read the accompanying articles?

Who are the panel of seven numbnuts who compiled said list for the Observer or the Guardian or whatever? What are their credentials?

What metric or criteria did they use in compiling the list? Did they find an old copy of Rolling Stone? Readers polls? Anecdotal accolades? DBTs? Personal opinion? Was it the based on records in question? Of the groups or movements (bowel not excluded) they inspired? Did they like the spawn as opposed to the included albums? Or did they like the albums, but lamented what followed? Did they include stuff they felt would be PC to include? Did they think the black leather jackets were way cool? Do they all smoke the same cigarettes? Did they take the bus to work or their lunches?

Why would their opinions be any more or less reliable or valuable than mine or N.Absentia's or Daisy Duck's for that matter? Posted on the web? Well, so's mine and I could easily find six like-minded individuals who would cite Tiny Tim's "Tiptoe Through The Tulips" as a watershed moment in the rebirth of ukulele art. BFD.

Re: Europe '72...should have specified technical achievement and sound quality...The 'Stones "Got Live If You Want It" and The Who's "Live At Leeds" sound like cr@p in comparison to the wizardry worked by Alembic on the Dead's album.

With regard to Lenny Bruce...I only know what I remember from contemporary news covereage...he used bad languge and OD'd...some intellectual...and IMHO Howard Stern is a waste of space...I can get a group of folks sittin' around for hours at a time and simply by the law of averages, somethin' funny is gonna' happen, BFD times two..

jimHJJ(...ya' know, sorta' like your post...)

shokhead
07-20-2006, 12:59 PM
...you may wanna' start from scratch and take some notes...my remarks about transvestites and Warhol was in response to Swish's "poser" comments re: Lou Reed not Bowie...And as you may or may not recall, my initial response was not a lamentation over losing a few of the mentioned "bands"...

Second have you seen the list or read the accompanying articles?

Who are the panel of seven numbnuts who compiled said list for the Observer or the Guardian or whatever? What are their credentials?

What metric or criteria did they use in compiling the list? Did they find an old copy of Rolling Stone? Readers polls? Anecdotal accolades? DBTs? Personal opinion? Was it the based on records in question? Of the groups or movements (bowel not excluded) they inspired? Did they like the spawn as opposed to the included albums? Or did they like the albums, but lamented what followed? Did they include stuff they felt would be PC to include? Did they think the black leather jackets were way cool? Do they all smoke the same cigarettes? Did they take the bus to work or their lunches?

Why would their opinions be any more or less reliable or valuable than mine or N.Absentia's or Daisy Duck's for that matter? Posted on the web? Well, so's mine and I could easily find six like-minded individuals who would cite Tiny Tim's "Tiptoe Through The Tulips" as a watershed moment in the rebirth of ukulele art. BFD.

Re: Europe '72...should have specified technical achievement and sound quality...The 'Stones "Got Live If You Want It" and The Who's "Live At Leeds" sound like cr@p in comparison to the wizardry worked by Alembic on the Dead's album.

With regard to Lenny Bruce...I only know what I remember from contemporary news covereage...he used bad languge and OD'd...some intellectual...and IMHO Howard Stern is a waste of space...I can get a group of folks sittin' around for hours at a time and simply by the law of averages, somethin' funny is gonna' happen, BFD times two..

jimHJJ(...ya' know, sorta' like your post...)

I would rather sit around and watch old JC shows then anything HS has or will do if i want a laugh.

nobody
07-20-2006, 01:27 PM
I would rather sit around and watch old JC shows then anything HS has or will do if i want a laugh.


Jesus had a TV show?

bichin'

Swish
07-20-2006, 02:48 PM
It's a shame you had so little to say! Ha! Hope all is well in your neck of the woods. I'm headed there Sunday, but only to take in a baseball game (don't ask) and some sales calls on Monday, then on to CT for another day. I will get back to the city in the near future and fully except to sneak out for some fun and frivolity again. Hope Brian shows up again. That was a blast.

Yeah, the point of my post was kind of lost when everyone seemed to want to comment about the quality of the record or the bands it supposedly spawned instead of whether or not the record was a major influence and "changed the face of music". You brought up many good points that I didn't even realize, but then again, you're a walking, talking music historian, so I fully expected that.

I'm not a "list" lover either, but I thought this one was interesting because it wasn't the typical "Best Rock Guitarists", "Best 100 Albums" list that we so often see and that are basically pointless because they're popularity contests. This one forcused on the way they brought significant change to the music world and were not at all "rated" from 1 to 50, although some were considered to be significantly more important than others.. I got a lot of responses, some positive, some not so, but that's better than the stagnant atmosphere that sometimes prevails here, so I'm quite pleased with the results. .

Regards amigo,
Swish

tentoze
07-20-2006, 06:11 PM
Jesus had a TV show?

bichin'

Hey, he did some chit in those missing years.

Jesus.... the missing years
It was raining. It was cold
West Bethlehem was no place for a twelve year old
So he packed his bags and he headed out
To find out what the world's about
He went to France. He went to Spain
He found love. He found pain.
He found stores so he started to shop
But he had no money so he got in trouble with a cop
Kids in trouble with the cops
From Israel didn't have no home
So he cut his hair and moved to Rome
It was there he met his Irish bride
And they rented a flat on the lower east side of Rome...
Italy that is
Music publishers, book binders, Bible belters, Money Changers,
Spoon Benders and lots of pretty Italian chicks.

Chorus:
Charley bought some popcorn
Billy bought a car
Someone almost bought the farm
But they didn't go that far
Things shut down at midnight
At least around here they do
Cause we all reside down the block
Inside at ....23 Skidoo.

Wine was flowing so were beers
So Jesus found his missing years
So He went to a dance and said This don't move me
He hiked up his pants and he went to a movie
On his thirteenth birthday he saw Rebel without a Cause
He went straight on home and invented Santa Claus
Who gave him a gift and he responded in kind
He gave the gift of love and went out of his mind
You see him and the wife wasn't getting along
So he took out his guitar and he wrote a song
Called The Dove of Love Fell Off the Perch
But he couldn't get divorced in the Catholic Church
At least not back then anyhow
Jesus was a good guy he didn't need this ****
So he took a pill with a bag of peanuts and
A Coca-Cola and he swallowed it.
He discovered the Beatles
And he recorded with the Stones
Once He even opened up a three-way package
In Southern California for old George Jones

Repeat Chorus:

The years went by like sweet little days
With babies crying pork chops and beaujolais
When he woke up he was seventeen
The world was angry. The world was mean.
Why the man down the street and the kid on the stoop
All agreed that life stank. All the world smelled like poop
Baby poop that is ..the worst kind
So he grew his hair long and thew away his comb
And headed back to Jerusalem to find Mom, Dad and home
But when he got there the cupboard was bare
Except for an old black man with a fishing rod
He said Whatcha gonna be when you grow up?
Jesus said God
Oh my God, what have I gotten myself into?
I'm a human corkscrew and all my wine is blood
They're gonna kill me Mama. They don't like me Bud.
So Jesus went to Heaven and he went there awful quick
All them people killed him and he wasn't even sick
So come and gather around me my contemporary peers
And I'll tell you all the story of
Jesus...The Missing Years

Repeat Chorus:

-John Prine~ The Missing Years

Stone
07-21-2006, 06:06 AM
Second have you seen the list or read the accompanying articles?

I have. So?


Who are the panel of seven numbnuts who compiled said list for the Observer or the Guardian or whatever? What are their credentials?

What metric or criteria did they use in compiling the list? Did they find an old copy of Rolling Stone? Readers polls? Anecdotal accolades? DBTs? Personal opinion? Was it the based on records in question? Of the groups or movements (bowel not excluded) they inspired? Did they like the spawn as opposed to the included albums? Or did they like the albums, but lamented what followed? Did they include stuff they felt would be PC to include? Did they think the black leather jackets were way cool? Do they all smoke the same cigarettes? Did they take the bus to work or their lunches?

Why does it matter? This thread is meant to open discussion and debate about that album, not whether whomever made the list has a degree in music history. Personally, I think it's a good list and well thought out. I can't disagree with many of their picks for albums that were influential in rock/pop.



Why would their opinions be any more or less reliable or valuable than mine or N.Absentia's or Daisy Duck's for that matter? Posted on the web? Well, so's mine and I could easily find six like-minded individuals who would cite Tiny Tim's "Tiptoe Through The Tulips" as a watershed moment in the rebirth of ukulele art. BFD.

I don't think they are necessarily more reliable, if you know the history behind the record being discussed, have listened to it, and have listened to enough music to know how it impacted music that came after it. If Daisy Duck has heard VU & Nico and knows about the music that came after it, and the artists who have been influenced by that album, then her opinion is just as valuable as anyone else's, to me at least.

Also, if everyone agreed on everything about this, though, there wouldn't be a use for threads like this. So it's nice to have some differing opinions on these topics. I enjoy reading others' opinions on these things when they're based on some knowledge of the subject.

Resident Loser
07-21-2006, 07:12 AM
...here's a clue...now you have one...no charge...

Did you read and understand my post as a response to MGH and within the context of this thread or are you just responding to it as a stand-alone entity?

jimHJJ(...jus' wunnerin'...)

nobody
07-21-2006, 07:43 AM
You'd think a guy with a Hitler quote beneath his posts would understand that even people you don't like can have powerful effects in society...even if you don't like those effects.

Or...he could just be a boring pseudo-intellectual trying to show how clever and controversial he can be.

Resident Loser
07-21-2006, 07:57 AM
You'd think a guy with a Hitler quote beneath his posts would understand that even people you don't like can have powerful effects in society...even if you don't like those effects.

Or...he could just be a boring pseudo-intellectual trying to show how clever and controversial he can be.

...I didn't like him?

jimHJJ(...now you figure that out...)

nobody
07-21-2006, 08:05 AM
For all I know...you could be a goose-stepping neo nazi fuktard...but i was givin' ya the benefit of the doubt.

Resident Loser
07-21-2006, 08:30 AM
For all I know...you could be a goose-stepping neo nazi fuktard...but i was givin' ya the benefit of the doubt.

...yes...without any viable argument, we resort ot name-calling and inuendo...how typical of those of your ilk...

FYI, I'm not an intellectual, psuedo or otherwise..."...you don't get time to hang a sign on me..."

Just a great deal of experience with self-absorbed, ego-centric artistes...

jimHJJ(...and their sheep...)

nobody
07-21-2006, 08:44 AM
Now who needs a lesson in reading comprehension?

"could be"..."benefit of the doubt"

Its not easy to misinterpret such short statements so wildly...congrats.

Resident Loser
07-21-2006, 08:58 AM
Now who needs a lesson in reading comprehension?

"could be"..."benefit of the doubt"

Its not easy to misinterpret such short statements so wildly...congrats.

...is as good as a wink to a blind horse...does the word inference ring a bell?

jimHJJ(...misinterperet? preempt is the word you're groping for...)

nobody
07-21-2006, 09:02 AM
you're cute when you're angry...insecurity's always adorable...

but, i gotta run...playtime's over...have fun

shokhead
07-21-2006, 09:03 AM
How about its better then a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

Geoffcin
07-21-2006, 09:03 AM
Enough member bashing for one thread. Please stick to the topic.

And no more calling members "goose-stepping neo nazi fuktard" either.

nobody
07-21-2006, 09:15 AM
OK...back...shouldda stayed gone...and yeah, I'll knock it off.

BUT, how hard is it to see I was not calling anyone a nazi anything. I was asked how I knew he didn't like Hitler...so I responded that I assumed he wasn't a nazi whatever...and he gets all huffy like I called him a name. So, unless he took offense in my assumption that he ain't a Hitler fan boy, I can't for the life of me figure out why he would be upset.

Stone
07-21-2006, 09:19 AM
you're cute when you're angry...insecurity's always adorable...

but, i gotta run...playtime's over...have fun

Notwithstanding the moderator warning, I found this to be laugh out loud funny.

Resident Loser
07-21-2006, 09:26 AM
Notwithstanding the moderator warning, I found this to be laugh out loud funny.

...now that you've both wet yourselves...any response to my question Stone? I mean something on-topic...you know the subject of the thread...Get a chance to digest my on-topic response to MGH contextually?

jimHJJ(...is that at all possible for you?...)

Stone
07-21-2006, 09:32 AM
...now that you've both wet yourselves...any response to my question Stone? I mean something on-topic...you know the subject of the thread...Get a chance to digest my on-topic response to MGH contextually?

jimHJJ(...is that at all possible for you?...)

I've read the whole thread, a couple times over. So what's your point? You asked some pretty general questions about the credentials of the authors of the list. All I'm saying is that it doesn't matter. If they're familiar with the albums, and what transpired after it musically, I don't care if it's John Peel or your illegitimate neice down the block, everyone's entitled to their opinion, and the more it's based on fact, the stronger the opinion is.

And yes it's possible, smart ass. What's your problem?

shokhead
07-21-2006, 09:57 AM
LOL. You all cant stop but i for one understand.

Resident Loser
07-21-2006, 10:54 AM
I've read the whole thread, a couple times over. So what's your point? You asked some pretty general questions about the credentials of the authors of the list. All I'm saying is that it doesn't matter. If they're familiar with the albums, and what transpired after it musically, I don't care if it's John Peel or your illegitimate neice down the block, everyone's entitled to their opinion, and the more it's based on fact, the stronger the opinion is.

And yes it's possible, smart ass. What's your problem?

...didja' see that...it was the point...like in 98.6...Jumpin' butterballs it's as thick as pea soup around here... Given no system of quasi-objective measurement, the panel subjectively based it's choices on opinion...opinion of the album...opinion of the group...opinion of what they hath wrought and left in their wake...

I was told by MGH, quite pointedly, that a like or a dislike or the resultant O-friggin-PINION based on such didn't count...and obviously it's simply because myself and a few others, have opinions that run counter to the neo-hipster mindset...

It was self-indulgent cr@p then and lo these many years after the fact, it's still self-indulgent cr@p, quite to the consternation of the myopic, nothing-exists-past-the-Hudson-New Yorker-centric, leather-clad, Soho, TriBeCa, nouveau East Village DUMBO set...you wouldn't find it on my list...in fact there are many of their inclusions you wouldn't find...and as I said initially, the non-existence of some of their offspring would not affect the musical firmament one single iota.

jimHJJ(...a New Yorker who doesn't say "BAAA"...)

MindGoneHaywire
07-21-2006, 02:53 PM
Well, hasn't this become an interesting thread. But I thought it was supposed to be about the influence of these records. What I see was callous dismissal of a particular rec, substantiated only by individual dislike. I'm still waiting for anything resembling a reasonable idea why this rec shouldn't be considered influential.

There's a difference between not liking an artist & understanding that they were influential. I'm not much of a fan of the Doors, but I understand their influence. I could live just as well never hearing a note of their music for the rest of my life, but since avoiding their music can be difficult if one spends any time interacting in our society, I try to listen with a different mindset when I do hear them. If they were responsible for influencing someone whose work I prefer (and they were), then maybe it's worth it to spend a moment listening with that in mind, and perhaps finding a way to understand it...instead of the typical dread that accompanies having to listen to 'Light My Fire' or 'L.A. Woman' for the millionth time.

I wanted to avoid being defensive, if possible, but I listed four artists in whose work I hear a definite VU influence, especially the first record. R.E.M., Sonic Youth, Roxy Music, Jonathan Richman. All but Richman have achieved varying, but reasonable, levels of success. In the case of R.E.M., they were one of the most popular bands of the 1990s. They covered a couple of songs from this record, which speaks to influence, I would think. Sonic Youth, whether or not you like their music (and I mostly do not), were indisputably the foremost example of the bridging of rock music and the avant-garde during the 1980s, which led to their own reasonble success in the 1990s wielding a tremendous amount of influence themselves (perhaps most notably in areas other than actual song structures) on bands like...Nirvana.

Yet you're denying the influence of this record, Resident Loser.

Raging at the authors of the piece, who may indeed be know-nothings, doesn't make sense when the facts do not support yr argument.

But that's not the first occurrence of that in this thread. Let's see...gee...I made a mistake. I thought you were referring to Bowie, but I misread, and the charge about hanging around Warhol, the clever attempt at irony relative to the now-cliche '15 minutes' crack...is actually more laughable when applied to Reed. I won't cheapen his accolades from various entities by listing any; it may well be that you think as little of them as you do about the writers of the piece. But, before I respond to individual points (which I notice you didn't bother with much, interestingly enough, which is disappointing), let's dismiss this nonsensical notion, okay? Lou Reed dumped Andy Warhol in 1967, and gained almost no fame from the Velvet Underground. What did gain him fame was a song written years later, after a period where he confronted his lack of success by briefly giving up on music, and even moved back to his parent's house.

I like the ranting about how the piece is an opinion piece. Well, of course it is. It happens to carry some weight so far as I'm concerned, but like I said I don't really care, because the points they're making with those titles seem kinda obvious. Not to others, obviously. But, I realize, it can be frustrating when the facts don't exactly support a blustery argument that speaks to personal preference instead of influence.

Speaking of which, I'd argue against the placement of Sgt. Pepper as high as it is on that list at this point. Why? Because at this point in time, it seems to me, the explosion of art-rock & concept albums has been settled for quite awhile. It's not the dynamic force in music that it was in the decade or two past the release of Sgt. Pepper. There's a Beatles album that belongs in that slot, but not Pepper. Meet The Beatles. Now there's a rec that caused 73 million people to tune into the Ed Sullivan Show one night.

I would hazard a guess that there has been no other event that led to the formation of more rock bands. To be fair, most of 'em were teenagers who spent maybe a year banging away in a garage, only to eventually fizzle. But it was a shot in the arm for companies that manufacture instruments and equipment, which, I would suggest, allowed those companies to pursue advancements & improvements more aggressively than they might have if not for the increased cash flow that I presume came through their accounts in 1964.

That's an assumption I'm making without any facts or documentation, but I believe it's based in common sense. I do think that Jim Marshall still comes up with a brilliant way to build and market a guitar amplifier, but maybe it's not in as much demand if not for the effect the Beatles had on society at the time. That record rejuvenated pop music, which had been unfocused as a whole dating back to Elvis' induction into the Armed Forces. The Beatles pioneered stadium tours, which led to the development of gear designed for use in such venues...which of course didn't really exist when the Beatles forced the issue. But it took the industry a couple, or perhaps a few, years to catch up to the need. The need existed because all of a sudden there was an act capable of filling stadiums. And their rise to popularity was based on Meet The Beatles, which of course wasn't even a proper album, and the singles that were released from it.

The quip about how only a small number of people heard the first VU record...but all of them went out & formed bands...well, it's a funny thing, but you don't hear many people talk about how they went out & formed bands in the wake of Meet The Beatles. I suggest this based on anecdotal evidence, and some reading I've done about the guitar industry. I would think an argument for the Beatles having inspired people to form bands is pretty rock-solid, though if someone wishes to challenge this, have fun. But while there is plenty of evidence regarding what people did with their own music after having heard Sgt. Pepper, I have never seen it suggested that anyone went & formed a band after the orgasmic experience of hearing that exalted rec. Have you?

I realize that many will accept that there can be nothing that will ever happen in music that will eclipse this accomplishment, and that's understandable given the insistence of many that little good has come out of music since The Last Waltz or thereabouts. I say the fallout from Sgt. Pepper has long settled, and it's worth it to take a second to think outside the box & ask if it remains as influential as it once was. I really don't think it is. I'll admit I harbor a small bias with regards to its influence due to the original planned release date for the SMiLE record, which I think is a much better record, and which undoubtedly had an effect on Paul McCartney, who heard what Brian Wilson was up to when he attended one of the sessions (which leaves us to ponder how much the then-incomplete Pepper sounded like at that point, and would have otherwise sounded like...my money's on McCartney choosing to work towards crafting Pepper into something more along the lines of what SMiLE would've been...the concept was his, after all, so I've always wondered how fully developed it was when he heard the SMiLE tracks). For four decades Pepper has gotten the nod of the Rolling Stone-approved view of the rock music canon, and regardless of what I think of either record, or any record, that's that. But it is slipping; I do remember a 'greatest recs' poll from just a few years ago, and Sgt. Pepper was actually displaced from the top slot...by Revolver.

I say it's about time people get over Sgt. Pepper. I don't want to turn this into a debate over where it belongs on that list, just wanted to mention this, which I found interesting. Most influential? My opinion is, no way. Certainly not deserving of top 10 status anymore. An argument for another day: in my book not only would Meet The Beatles top Pepper on the issue of most influential, but the White Album & Abbey Road as well. And since bands now seem to think filming themselves in the process of making a record is such a good idea, you could make a strong case for Let It Be as well.

Oh, blasphemy. Pepper's the biggest, bestest, most influential, purdiest, most b*tchin', most mostest rec of all time.

Wait, you didn't say that. Sorry, I was confused for a second. I thought I was in a Dark Side Of The Moon thread for a minute there.

MindGoneHaywire
07-21-2006, 03:00 PM
Now, I have a question. Swish suggested that if not for the VU, there would be no...well, he threw a few names out. The reply?


>And this would somehow be bad?

Now, that's fine and all, because of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Swish challenged you on Bowie, but I'm more curious about applying that line of thinking to Roxy Music. The idea that had Roxy Music not existed, that this would not have been such a bad thing, is something I'm curious about. Mind you, I've sure crossed paths with folks who were not fans...but they never made that sort of suggestion. If you could live without records like For Your Pleasure, Siren, and Avalon, hey, great for you. I'm a bit stumped on the idea that pop music never having a Brian Eno around would have...um...not have been such a bad thing. Mind you, I don't listen to many of his records. But, heck, are you aware of what this guy has done? I'll do here what I was unwilling to do in my last post with regard to Lou Reed (though I will say that I suspect that the various entities that have honored his work don't think any more of you than you think of them).

Eno's played with Robert Fripp, Genesis (on The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway, no less), Camel, the Neville Brothers, Peter Gabriel, and Paul Simon; he's produced (and, in some cases, also played with) Devo, U2, the Talking Heads, Toto, and Johnny Cash. Now, that's omitting the names of artists I am taking the liberty of assuming you might be just as happy had they never existed (such as Bowie). But, uh, that looks like a formidable resume to me.

No Roxy Music, no Brian Eno. Yet you question whether it would have been such a bad thing if records like the inital VU rec hadn't been there to inspire such people. I'm not much of a U2 fan, so a dismissal of the artistic heights others seem to think they achieved in their performer/producer relationship with the original keyboard player for Roxy Music won't provoke me. But I must say I find this to be a curious position.

Thoughts?

Swish
07-21-2006, 03:56 PM
Now, I have a question. Swish suggested that if not for the VU, there would be no...well, he threw a few names out. The reply?


>And this would somehow be bad?

Now, that's fine and all, because of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Swish challenged you on Bowie, but I'm more curious about applying that line of thinking to Roxy Music. The idea that had Roxy Music not existed, that this would not have been such a bad thing, is something I'm curious about. Mind you, I've sure crossed paths with folks who were not fans...but they never made that sort of suggestion. If you could live without records like For Your Pleasure, Siren, and Avalon, hey, great for you. I'm a bit stumped on the idea that pop music never having a Brian Eno around would have...um...not have been such a bad thing. Mind you, I don't listen to many of his records. But, heck, are you aware of what this guy has done? I'll do here what I was unwilling to do in my last post with regard to Lou Reed (though I will say that I suspect that the various entities that have honored his work don't think any more of you than you think of them).

Eno's played with Robert Fripp, Genesis (on The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway, no less), Camel, the Neville Brothers, Peter Gabriel, and Paul Simon; he's produced (and, in some cases, also played with) Devo, U2, the Talking Heads, Toto, and Johnny Cash. Now, that's omitting the names of artists I am taking the liberty of assuming you might be just as happy had they never existed (such as Bowie). But, uh, that looks like a formidable resume to me.

No Roxy Music, no Brian Eno. Yet you question whether it would have been such a bad thing if records like the inital VU rec hadn't been there to inspire such people. I'm not much of a U2 fan, so a dismissal of the artistic heights others seem to think they achieved in their performer/producer relationship with the original keyboard player for Roxy Music won't provoke me. But I must say I find this to be a curious position.

Thoughts?

You're a regular rock historian, although we don't always share the same tastes, and you know that to be true. With that said, I have to say that I'm quite pleased that this thread has created so much energy on this board, the likes of which we have seen since Bernd''s "What is Spinning". (Ha! Sorry for that dig Bernd, you certainly could not have imagined your basically mundane post would have the most traffic of any post ever on this board, and I've been here for at least 7 or 8 years as best I can remember).

Anyway, I will try to stick to my promise of post one per week for 50 consecutive weeks, come h<a>ell or high water, and I hope that future posts create some noise that will come somewhere close to this.

Swish - enjoying my Rocky Patel 1990 Vintage and a very nice Fuller's Vintage Ale.

MindGoneHaywire
07-21-2006, 07:23 PM
Next issue at hand...


>...you may wanna' start from scratch and take some notes...

Sounds like good advice. Especially consideing the source.


>my remarks about transvestites and Warhol was in response to Swish's "poser" comments re: Lou Reed not Bowie...

Addressed & dealt with.


>And as you may or may not recall, my initial response was not a lamentation over losing a few of the mentioned "bands"...

Who's the one who needs to be taking notes here? Kindly reference post #2 in the thread, your initial response.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?p=151755#post151755

Come again?


>Second have you seen the list or read the accompanying articles?

Yes, last weekend. Curious why you'd think I didn't read them.


>Who are the panel of seven numbnuts who compiled said list for the Observer or the Guardian or whatever? What are their credentials?

Who cares? They're paid for their opinions, and why that bothers you so much I'm not sure I understand. Why don't you get a job writing for a paper if you don't like their opinions? Or start yr own?


>What metric or criteria did they use in compiling the list?

Wow, this is a startling level of discomfort I'm sensing here, though I won't bother re-listing all of yr questions. What's the difference? This is a consensus of opinion in an entertainment section of a UK newspaper, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. If you don't support their conclusions, fine. But it'd be nice if you could do so in a way that speaks to more than yr own personal likes & dislikes.


>Was it the based on records in question? Of the groups or movements (bowel not excluded) they inspired? Did they like the spawn as opposed to the included albums?

Did YOU read the piece?


>Did they include stuff they felt would be PC to include?

So what if they did? They still have Sgt. Pepper at #2, as well as Marvin Gaye, Pet Sounds Elvis, & Dylan all in the top 10. Those don't exactly strike me as 'PC' in a list compiled according to influence.


>Why would their opinions be any more or less reliable or valuable than mine or N.Absentia's or Daisy Duck's for that matter?

Because the publishers of a newspaper place a monetary value on them? If they published a piece saying that the earth is flat, that the U.S. weren't involved in WWII, that David Bowie died in 1979, and that there were never a band called the Beatles, then, regardless of truth or accuracy, there would still be that monetary value, which of course is not the answer you wanted. But it's the one you seem to require. What's not required is for you to care about their opinions.


>Posted on the web?

I take it you understand the difference between 'posted on the web' and a daily newspaper?


>Re: Europe '72...should have specified technical achievement and sound quality...The 'Stones "Got Live If You Want It" and The Who's "Live At Leeds" sound like cr@p in comparison to the wizardry worked by Alembic on the Dead's album.

Tell it to someone who cares about 'technical achievement and sound quality.' I care about music, and musical performance. The performance on Live At Leeds outshines the one on Europe to my ears, but then I'm not a big fan of either record. The Stones rec is horrible, but if it were a great performance, I'd care a bit less about the crappy sound. But then two of the songs are studio tracks. As for 'wizardry,' that's something I happen to think rock music works better without.

But it's interesting that you bring up the Grateful Dead, because, so far as I can see, they're the key to the worst flaw that I can see in this list. Speaks to the idea of PC having something to do with...er...influencing their choices. No Grateful Dead albums. Considering the popularity of the jam band genre, I think a Dead album deserves to be on that list. One of the two I consider listenable would've been a good thing, and more deserving than, say, Primal Scream.

But then this is a very British list. I guess it helps if you understand that in the UK, the music audience is very different than here. There are a lot fewer folks there perpetually hung up on classic rock, listening to the same records over & over for 30 or 40 years, grumbling that there is no good music anymore. That said, I think their explanation for no Rolling Stones records is extremely weak. I could quibble that if they're only going to pick a couple of jazz records, that they picked the wrong Miles rec (B*tches Brew makes more sense to me, even though I think less of it than you seem to think of the VU), and there's a Coltrane rec (or even Ornette Coleman) or two that warrant inclusion more than Head Hunters. Completely ignoring jam bands is inexcusable, though I suppose they may not be that big over there, I don't really know. However, I think it would've been a lot more PC had they included a rec like Uncle Tupelo's No Depression, given its influence on the alt-country genre, yet ignored the Dead/Phish axis. But I do think that roots music & Americana just isn't the force over there it was in the past.


>With regard to Lenny Bruce...I only know what I remember from contemporary news covereage...he used bad languge and OD'd...some intellectual...

Then I suppose we shouldn't regard Burroughs, Bukowski, or Dylan Thomas as 'intellectuals,' either, should we? This is probably a waste of time, but you might want to take a gander at a Dustin Hoffman movie from 1974. Unless you enjoy issuing statements that suggest ignorance.


>and IMHO Howard Stern is a waste of space...

I thought the Lenny Bruce reference was a safe one, that it'd be understood, but I also thought I'd never again see the point being missed this many times in a thread on this board. Like what you've had to say about the VU, this does not address the issue of influence. I guess I shouldn't have bothered.

This is truly strange. I never thought the concept of influence was so difficult to understand. Or so easy to mangle into posts that seem to be inexplicably written from the point of view that a piece on what I think the rest of us realize is about cause-and-effect, as a 'greatest' list.

3-LockBox
07-21-2006, 09:12 PM
Hey, my fun meter is pegged.

3-LockBox
07-21-2006, 09:20 PM
Anyway, I will try to stick to my promise of post one per week for 50 consecutive weeks, come h<a>ell or high water, and I hope that future posts create some noise that will come somewhere close to this.

Swish - enjoying my Rocky Patel 1990 Vintage and a very nice Fuller's Vintage Ale.

May as well, its not like you're wasting bandwidth or anything...

Oh and I picked up a copy of VU's greatest hits...it came with 14 other songs

:D

I crack me up.

MindGoneHaywire
07-21-2006, 10:35 PM
>Given no system of quasi-objective measurement, the panel subjectively based it's choices on opinion...opinion of the album...opinion of the group...opinion of what they hath wrought and left in their wake...

So, then, it's only an opinion that the recs listed influenced the artists referenced in the context of not existing without the presence of the influencing rec...which means that it's debatable that Bowie, Roxy, et al wouldn't have existed if not for the influence of the VU rec, because you're now saying this is only an opinion.

Yet, when you ask why it would be a bad thing if something didn't exist, on the basis that what influenced it is...pretentious, or whatever, you're then validating the very opinion you're railing against.

How does that work?

Either they were influenced by the record, or they weren't. Either you can explain to us why you don't think they were, why the stated opinions of the writers are wrong in suggesting that record A influenced artist B, or you can't. Either you can try to find another way of saying you think there is no good music these days, or you can conveniently ignore that 'the current crop' has always endured criticism from those who choose to see no worth in what they do, relative to what has been done before.

You might be right about the writers' opinions being ridiculous, though. Who in their right mind would suggest that the Clash was an influence on Rancid?


>I was told by MGH, quite pointedly, that a like or a dislike or the resultant O-friggin-PINION based on such didn't count...

Please explain what it counts for in a discussion of influence, as opposed to...sigh...a discussion of whether or not the artists in question, or the recs they made, are any good or not.

Hey, I don't like the Spice Girls. Does that count for anything if that's all I choose to post about, when what's relevant to the thread is that their presence paved the way for a new flavor of teenaged pop tarts like Britney Spears?


>and obviously it's simply because myself and a few others, have opinions that run counter to the neo-hipster mindset...

What does the "neo-hipster mindset" (whatever that is) have to do with acknowledging or denying influence?


>It was self-indulgent cr@p then and lo these many years after the fact, it's still self-indulgent cr@p

Influence. The piece, and the thread, are about influence.


>quite to the consternation of the myopic, nothing-exists-past-the-Hudson-New Yorker-centric, leather-clad, Soho, TriBeCa, nouveau East Village DUMBO set...

Sounds like you've got issues. One is that I don't think you've actually had much contact with the 'nouveau East Village' types. They are the last people in the world who give a damn about the Velvet Underground (if they even know who that is, provided someone they approve of might've dropped the name)...or, seemingly, more than anything beyond style & fashion. Been to Pianos lately? The bars with velvet ropes on Avenue A? The Mexican dive on Jay St. that has live jazz on Thursdays? Or the Sex-&-the-City-style trendy bar around the corner from it? Oh, those clothing boutiques on West Broadway, the ones chockful of models & Eurotrash, they're so in touch with that 'Velvet Underground And Nico' sort of musical-dissonance sensibility. As is Nobu, of course. Any other neighborhoods you want to share yr inaccurate perceptions of?

It's not like the Knitting Factory didn't all but give up on the avant-skronk-jazz they booked almost exclusively for years, in favor of rock bands...for, oh, the 10 years since they moved to TriBeCa.

Oh, and you left out NoLiTa...which, like DUMBO, didn't exist in 1967, by the way. What did exist during the existence of the Velvet Underground was a fair ambivalence of the local rock audience towards their performances. Outside of the residencies at the Electric Circus & Max's, they had long periods where they didn't even play in NYC. They preferred Boston, where their gigs were reportedly more successful, and where they felt more appreciated.

But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant, now.


>you wouldn't find it on my list...

No kidding!

Would you care to tell us why? You've already told us that you don't like the record, but...well, at some point perhaps you'll grasp the point. Since the list is based on influence & not popularity or anyone's favorites, then at least tell us why you feel the VU rec didn't influence Bowie, or Roxy, or R.E.M., or Jonathan Richman, or Sonic Youth, or the Feelies, or Television...


>in fact there are many of their inclusions you wouldn't find...and as I said initially, the non-existence of some of their offspring would not affect the musical firmament one single iota.

Sure, if you live in an imaginary world where music that you don't like simply doesn't exist. To the rest of us, a band that bridged prog and glam rock, predated punk, New Wave and the New Romantics, and unleashed a figure who produced the records of the most popular band in the world over the past 25 years onto the musical landscape, managed to affect the 'musical firmament,' whether you see it or not.

In the world I live in, there's plenty of music I don't like. It's bad enough that it exists, and may have influenced something else that I don't like. Or, perhaps it influenced something I did like, which makes the issue of influence potentially worth investigating. To avoid that issue by merely railing against the content seems not only foolish, but bizarre.

shokhead
07-22-2006, 04:12 AM
Kinda like influencing me to unsubscribe.

Swish
07-22-2006, 07:23 AM
Kinda like influencing me to unsubscribe.


Swish

Resident Loser
07-24-2006, 07:53 AM
...then the cheatin' and the bottles of rye...gotta' have it... hafta' have it or die..." Let Me Go Devil 1953...

Perhaps a peppering of lyrics that permeate the songs of Hank Williams...30s 40s 50s

Tony Bennet's Boulevard Of Broken Dreams...written 1934...

Parts of Gershwin's Porgy And Bess...1935

Sinatra's One For My Baby...1943

Frankie And Johnny...1925

Blues In The Night...1941

Fever...1958

Stagger Lee...recorded in '59 by Lloyd Price...although the story's roots pre-date it by 60 years or so...

But of course, none of these count as "socially relevant" because the tales they tell are not induced by society, they simply describe personal failings or love lost or a combination of both and then some...

I mean, none of it quite as compelling as some moron jonesing for some of Bayer's finest product...I can see how the story of some skagged-out dimwit or hooker would be much more influential...no, no, no...pop music never showed the underbelly of society 'til this disk plopped on the scene...

Some were done with class and style...There are comics who keep it clean while making people laugh and those who work blue...Do you really need the Randy Whorehole appropriation-style "art" to support the weak material? Apparently...I'd venture a guess many copies were bought more for the "artwork" a la Brillo boxes, Campbells soup cans and iconic serigraphs than for (you'll excuse the term) musical content...

As Phil Ochs observed, "..I'm sure it wouldnt interest anybody, outside of a small circle of friends..." I mean who really cares about some alky or a misbegotten love life?...only those who can identify with it...Kristofferson's Sunday Morning Coming Down certainly strikes a chord...Lord knows I remember mornings when my hair hurt and my teeth vibrated...Does society care about my (or anyone else's) shortcomings? hardly...it ain't socially relevant...go kill yerself fer all I care...OD on Tabasco and Ajax...

Now, if we go to the blues and folk and Guthrie and Seeger and Billy Holiday's Strange Fruit or Dylan...now we're talkin' relevant...and even Dylan alludes to being no frontman for a cause in Scorcese's film...he'd a been happy doing bubblegum if it brought him a measure of fame...

Who really cares about the one-trick ponies? Or the unisex gender-benders(how mid-60s was that anyway)...or the punk rejection of progressive rock...lookie me!!! I can play three chords and make a violin beg for mercy...

And who cares about a producer?...Like Johnny Cash had no career prior to?...Devo's cool...they know the joke and let everyone know they know it and want everyone to know they know it and share in it...luv those spudboys... Thumbs up for Talking Heads and David Byrne Stop Making Sense is a definite fave...Paul Simon? With a few notable exceptions...Still boring after all these years...and David Bowie owes more to the R&B revues, Little Richard, Monty Rock lll, gold-lame' Elvis and James Brown than to the Chenille Subway...

I have a copy of the 1850 English translation of Fernando Sor's Method For The Spanish Guitar...In it he cites 12 maxims, one of which cautions players "never to make any ostentation of difficuly" in playing...since he died in 1839, it would seem the poseur has been around for quite some time and still crawls out of the woodwork from time to time...sometimes in groups...

jimHJJ(...just some more thoughts...)

Resident Loser
07-24-2006, 08:33 AM
>Given no system of quasi-objective measurement, the panel subjectively based it's choices on opinion...opinion of the album...opinion of the group...opinion of what they hath wrought and left in their wake...

So, then, it's only an opinion that the recs listed influenced the artists referenced in the context of not existing without the presence of the influencing rec...which means that it's debatable that Bowie, Roxy, et al wouldn't have existed if not for the influence of the VU rec, because you're now saying this is only an opinion.

Yet, when you ask why it would be a bad thing if something didn't exist, on the basis that what influenced it is...pretentious, or whatever, you're then validating the very opinion you're railing against.

How does that work?

How simple can I make it? It's difficult for me to think quite that elemental...

Who cares about LR/VU?

Who cares about those who idolized or cloned/emulated/cookie-cuttered some facet of LR/VU?

Without the whole lot of 'em, the world and music would still roll on...of all the included recs (that I am familiar with) loss of the inspiration that may have been provided by VU and those inspired by them are probably the least significant...Most influential?

jimHJJ(...not a clue, but that one isn't even close...in my opinion...)

noddin0ff
07-24-2006, 10:16 AM
So...anyone here want to argue that the VU were derivative?

Stone
07-24-2006, 10:31 AM
How simple can I make it? It's difficult for me to think quite that elemental...

Who cares about LR/VU?

Who cares about those who idolized or cloned/emulated/cookie-cuttered some facet of LR/VU?

Without the whole lot of 'em, the world and music would still roll on...of all the included recs (that I am familiar with) loss of the inspiration that may have been provided by VU and those inspired by them are probably the least significant...Most influential?

jimHJJ(...not a clue, but that one isn't even close...in my opinion...)

Please stop -- for your own good.

Resident Loser
07-24-2006, 11:23 AM
Please stop -- for your own good.

...I wonder how many participants were even alive or at least of the age of reason when the record they so strenuously support was released...World of difference between first-hand exposure and simply delving through the back issues of Rolling Stone or Tiger Beat...or forming their psuedo-intellectual positions filtered through any of the writings of self-proclaimed, cooler-than-thou, opinionated miscreants who have held or hold court and opine on the earth-shaking topic of rock/pop...

jimHJJ(...for my good?...chuckle, chortle...ZZzzzz...)

MindGoneHaywire
07-24-2006, 11:49 AM
Gee, for a guy who was all high & mighty about someone else making a mistake in reading the thread, you seem to have difficulty with English yrself. Referring to my first post in this thread:

>how many examples can you name that could be considered rock? There were bands prior to 1967 singing about scoring drugs on the street? S&M? On a major label? Must be a reason the VU gets the credit for being the outfit that pioneered these as being viable topics for rock music lyrics.

I mean, it's nice & all to have some knowledge of the exceptions to the rule, but since you know a few (ya missed Lucille Bogan & Mississippi Sheiks, tho), then you know that they make great argument fodder, but represent a fraction likely somewhere along the lines of 1/100 of 1 percent of recorded popular music, folk music, jass, and even blues prior to 1967.

In other words, this does not support yr point.


>Some were done with class and style...

Either you can discern influence, or you can't. And if you choose to deny influence, I don't think it's too much to ask that you assemble an idea or two that doesn't stand on its own as an incoherent shambles masquerading as a rant against the present.


>I mean who really cares about some alky or a misbegotten love life?...only those who can identify with it...

Nice dodge. I'm not playing along.


>Who really cares about the one-trick ponies? Or the unisex gender-benders(how mid-60s was that anyway)...or the punk rejection of progressive rock...lookie me!!! I can play three chords and make a violin beg for mercy...

A daily newspaper in the UK who chose to publish a piece on 50 records their writers deem influential, and some on this board who found the article interesting, if flawed, at the very least.

Who really cares about people who seem to care enough about music to post about on a message board, yet asks ridiculous questions like this? Anyone you like who has made a record was dismissed by somebody who wondered who the hell would care about such things. It's amazing how many choose to follow into those unwise, short-sighted, closed-minded footsteps.


>And who cares about a producer?...Like Johnny Cash had no career prior to?...

No, he had no career prior to Sam Phillips, and neither did Elvis. I think Frank Sinatra benefited from producers, and Billie Holiday didn't leave Columbia for nothin'...then there was this guy named George Martin...anything else?

>Devo's cool...they know the joke and let everyone know they know it and want everyone to know they know it and share in it...luv those spudboys... Thumbs up for Talking Heads and David Byrne Stop Making Sense is a definite fave...Paul Simon? With a few notable exceptions...Still boring after all these years...and David Bowie owes more to the R&B revues, Little Richard, Monty Rock lll, gold-lame' Elvis and James Brown than to the Chenille Subway...

Like I said, it's not like Eno ever did anything. Like you said, the musical firmament would've been the same.

But my remark was sarcastic.


>it would seem the poseur has been around for quite some time

If you have a point, perhaps you could share it with us. If you ever come up with any evidence of John Cale denigrating musicianship, I'd love to see it.


>Who cares about LR/VU?
>Who cares about those who idolized or cloned/emulated/cookie-cuttered some facet of LR/VU?

Wrong question. The answer, though, is the people who have claimed influence from the VU (including the names you mentioned), and their audiences. The right question is, did the VU actually influence these people?

As I said, this is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. However, unless you are willing to dismiss the overwhelming anecdotal evidence, the answer to the question is yes.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that someone could attempt to construct such an argument. It's just that I'm growing tired of waiting for something resembling this argument to be provided.


>Without the whole lot of 'em, the world and music would still roll on...of all the included recs (that I am familiar with) loss of the inspiration that may have been provided by VU and those inspired by them are probably the least significant...

This stuff could be scary if this philosophy were applied to other topics. As it is, you've mixed & drunk yr own koolaid. You may dismiss that which you don't like on the basis that you don't like it. Denying its existence reveals a disconnect with reality.

It's entertaining, though.

BradH
07-24-2006, 12:15 PM
...I wonder how many participants were even alive or at least of the age of reason when the record they so strenuously support was released...World of difference between first-hand exposure and simply delving through the back issues of Rolling Stone or Tiger Beat.

Utterly irrelevant. The Velvets had an approach to rock music that has proven to be hugely influential in the broad scheme of rock history, eventually leading to the Big Bang of punk/new wave, the biggest stylistic shock in pop music since Beatlemania (and there hasn't been a bigger shock since.) You don't have to be an original purchaser of the Velvets debut to comprehend that.

Dusty Chalk
07-24-2006, 12:47 PM
Who cares about LR/VU?

Who cares about those who idolized or cloned/emulated/cookie-cuttered some facet of LR/VU?

Without the whole lot of 'em, the world and music would still roll on...of all the included recs (that I am familiar with) loss of the inspiration that may have been provided by VU and those inspired by them are probably the least significant...Most influential?And more importantly, who cares that you don't? Not I, for sure...

Look, I'm not the biggest LR/VU fan -- don't have any VU albums, only have a few LR. But I guarantee you there is someone that you like that has been influenced by them. Unless you hate rock, in which case, what are you doing in this thread? Please, go threadcrap in the "Audio Lab" or something.
...or forming their psuedo-intellectual positions filtered through any of the writings of self-proclaimed, cooler-than-thou, opinionated miscreants who have held or hold court and opine on the earth-shaking topic of rock/pop...So close...and yet, so far...

BradH
07-24-2006, 03:34 PM
Oh yeah, that reminds me....


Who cares about LR/VU?

Vaclav Havel and several members of Charter 77.


...loss of the inspiration that may have been provided by VU and those inspired by them are probably the least significant

Ever hear of the Velvet Revolution?

Know any other bands who had a revolution named after them?

Case closed.

bobsticks
07-25-2006, 06:36 AM
So much for keeping the original list shrouded in mystery...

Resident Loser
07-25-2006, 07:36 AM
...what a trip!!! (...To use contemporaneous lingo...)

The following is general in nature, specificity (of some sort) will follow under separate cover:

Doesn't make any diff if it's fuses or muses, there is a segment of the membership that doesn't like it (big time) when someone rattles their respective cages...one good swift kick in the foundation sends the whole house a-shakin' and the believers go into an ad hominem feeding-frenzy...Disrupted the mutual admiration society I see...

jimHJJ(...sorry 'bout that...)

Resident Loser
07-25-2006, 07:45 AM
So much for keeping the original list shrouded in mystery...

...ALL things shrouded in myth and mystery tend to be taken as sacrosanct and at face value...it's only when you start to dig a bit deeper and remove the cobwebs of time and reveal certain bits and pieces that the big picture emerges...

As a friend at this site once told me "...Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..."

jimHJJ(..."Arff!" she said...)

Resident Loser
07-25-2006, 07:59 AM
Oh yeah, that reminds me....

Vaclav Havel and several members of Charter 77.

Ever hear of the Velvet Revolution?

Know any other bands who had a revolution named after them?

Case closed.

...missed that newsletter...they're usually the first ones I go to to update my Essential Repetoire...and what do you expect from Czechs? All of them are wild and crazy guys, no?

jimHJJ(...how many bands copped their name from a book title?...)

Dusty Chalk
07-25-2006, 08:10 AM
Don't play the underdog card. There's a difference between being in the minority on an opinion and being wrong about a fact.

bobsticks
07-25-2006, 08:15 AM
...ALL things shrouded in myth and mystery tend to be taken as sacrosanct and at face value...it's only when you start to dig a bit deeper and remove the cobwebs of time and reveal certain bits and pieces that the big picture emerges...

As a friend at this site once told me "...Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..."

jimHJJ(..."Arff!" she said...)

uuhh, I was merely refering to the fact that the Top 50 list has made a sudden appearance on my SBC Home Page...

MindGoneHaywire
07-25-2006, 08:28 AM
It's alright. So far he's played the righteous indignation card, the age card, the pretentious East Village card, the 'what do you need a producer for anyway' card (Alfred Lion? Teo Macero? Brian Wilson? Rick Rubin? Whodat?)...all of which would be great in a thread about whether or not the album or those it influenced are any good or not.

This thread is about the issue of whether or not it was influential.

It's a good thing I can find the time for pointless debates. It's a bad thing there's someone who presumably had the skill to read a chart who's this utterly clueless about the merits of an issue.

Sorta like someone putting down Dizzy, Parker, Monk, and the bop they spawned, because that was a bunch of 'Chinese' music (Cab Calloway's verdict) played only for their self-involved musicians' sensibilities, and not the audience (Louis Jordan's take).

Funny how some people lack the ability to understand the parameters of the discussion. All that matters is what they have to say about their own individual response to the record.

Which might engage a poster or here in a worthwhile discussion, because on its own, I consider the merits to be debatable.

Its influence is not.

Resident Loser
07-25-2006, 08:38 AM
Don't play the underdog card. There's a difference between being in the minority on an opinion and being wrong about a fact.

...as seen by who?

Fact: When the band I was in auditioned at the Cheetah (then on 53rd&Bway) in '68, VU wasn't even a blip on the sonar in most quarters...

Fact: Searching the NYT archives for contemporaneous reviews gives you four citations...The Return Of Andy Warhol...Where Are The "Chelsea Girls" Taking Us...Jiggery-Pokery, Musical Jokery and Display ad 182-No Title...

Seems VU were mere mentions at the time and may have had an ad in the Times...whoop-eee...and thus the legends were born...

Fact: Tom Wilson who signed VU to Verve, also signed Frank Zappa and the Mothers...playing both ends against the middle for product...Both groups took exception to the then current and popular flower-power cr@pola but Zappa reportedly couldn't stand the hedonistic, druggie sub-culture that VU represented...another reason to like FZ...

jimHJJ(...and not LR etc...)

Resident Loser
07-25-2006, 08:45 AM
uuhh, I was merely refering to the fact that the Top 50 list has made a sudden appearance on my SBC Home Page...

...doing was taking the opportunity to expand on the value of mystery and mythology...nothing personal...

jimHJJ(...sorry if it came off as such...)

MindGoneHaywire
07-25-2006, 08:53 AM
Please explain why Sonic Youth & R.E.M. were not influenced by the V.U. That shouldn't be too difficult for someone so sure of themselves as you seem to be.

Resident Loser
07-25-2006, 09:29 AM
It's alright. So far he's played the righteous indignation card, the age card, the pretentious East Village card, the 'what do you need a producer for anyway' card (Alfred Lion? Teo Macero? Brian Wilson? Rick Rubin? Whodat?)...all of which would be great in a thread about whether or not the album or those it influenced are any good or not.

This thread is about the issue of whether or not it was influential.

It's a good thing I can find the time for pointless debates. It's a bad thing there's someone who presumably had the skill to read a chart who's this utterly clueless about the merits of an issue.

Sorta like someone putting down Dizzy, Parker, Monk, and the bop they spawned, because that was a bunch of 'Chinese' music (Cab Calloway's verdict) played only for their self-involved musicians' sensibilities, and not the audience (Louis Jordan's take).

Funny how some people lack the ability to understand the parameters of the discussion. All that matters is what they have to say about their own individual response to the record.

Which might engage a poster or here in a worthwhile discussion, because on its own, I consider the merits to be debatable.

Its influence is not.

...a qualification...I didn't say producers weren't essential...You mentioned someone specific...A producer...as in, none of these folks had a carreer before him...or wouldn't have had one without him...

And what's really funny, speaking of funny...Swish posted "Any thoughts?" and I gave mine...but hold on to your high-tops...my thoughts didn't align precisely with the party-line...further sacrilege revolved around the premise that music, as we know it, would not have been any worse for the absence of VU or ANY of the groups that supposedly cite them as inspiration...OOOOO! What you said!!!

The people and groups I hung with had no interest in VU (our manager, however, was into Sun Ra) nor did the audiences we played to...they wanted music, not drone, not angst, not wallowing in self-debasement, not you-may-touch-my-monkey...Oh sure, the odd drunk would ask for a little bit of "Shout"...

And I'm sorry...if you don't think that some music is just self-indulgent and excessive, well that's your problem...that's the attitude that gives equal value to everything, no matter how trivial or objectionable it is in the wider scope of life...the mindset that gives blue-ribbons to the entire class so that no one feels slighted...a constant lowering of the bar, promulgating mediocrity...

jimHJJ(...and no, I don't wanna' be sedated...)

MindGoneHaywire
07-25-2006, 09:49 AM
Devo, Talking Heads, & U2's careers without Eno? Do tell.


>music, as we know it, would not have been any worse for the absence of VU or ANY of the groups that supposedly cite them as inspiration

But then you said you liked Devo, some Talking Heads, some Bowie...which is it?


>the attitude that gives equal value to everything

You'll have to do better if you think I make no judgments. I just don't force my opinions on others as though they were fact. There's a difference. Now you're playing the relativism card. No dice.

I'm not sure why you think that branding some music as self-indulgent & excessive represents some kind of profound observation. Doesn't stop me from liking some of it. Particularly bop, on which I agree with Louis Jordan's take. But, I find virtue in some music that's seemingly made more with regards to the sensibilities of the players, rather than the sensibilties of the audience.

In rock, a different form, self-indulgence works far less of the time. Doesn't mean I have to find it completely worthless just because you say it is. Regardless, you're still ducking the issue of influence, because, oh, I don't know, you're older than someone else, or Bowie just wasn't that good, or the role of a producer just isn't that important, or because you think bohemians are full of sh*t, whatever yr point is this hour.

You said that rec wouldn't be on yr list, but since the list is based on influence, that doesn't make much sense. If you can wow us with the mountain of influences on bands like R.E.M. & Sonic Youth that don't include the V.U., then maybe we'll get somewhere. Until then, you're still blowing the same nonsense. Next?

Resident Loser
07-25-2006, 10:11 AM
Please explain why Sonic Youth & R.E.M. were not influenced by the V.U. That shouldn't be too difficult for someone so sure of themselves as you seem to be.

...would one go about doing that? Do they claim to be? Well, peachy keen for them...How could anyone explain why or how they weren't? Do they indulge in overuse of the fuzz-tone? Do their vocals have a range of less than an octave and sound breathy at times? Do most of their tracks seem to have a layer of white noise somewhere, back that-a-way? Are the lyrics vapid, banal and of no particular interest (outside of a small circle of friends, that is)? Well, that nails it, they must have been influenced by the group in question...

jimHJJ(...silly me, how could I have been so blind...)

MindGoneHaywire
07-25-2006, 10:42 AM
>they must have been influenced by the group in question...

Wow, I never thought I'd see you actually acknowledge this. But then it's a little strange to think of a guy who was managed by a Sun Ra fan not knowing much about Lenny Bruce, either. Nevertheless...

If you'd care to refer to post #59 in this thread, where you said


>the non-existence of some of their offspring would not affect the musical firmament one single iota.

Either you were wrong about that, or you're wrong now. Which is it?

Resident Loser
07-25-2006, 10:54 AM
Devo, Talking Heads, & U2's careers without Eno? Do tell.


>music, as we know it, would not have been any worse for the absence of VU or ANY of the groups that supposedly cite them as inspiration

But then you said you liked Devo, some Talking Heads, some Bowie...which is it?


>the attitude that gives equal value to everything

You'll have to do better if you think I make no judgments. I just don't force my opinions on others as though they were fact. There's a difference. Now you're playing the relativism card. No dice.

I'm not sure why you think that branding some music as self-indulgent & excessive represents some kind of profound observation. Doesn't stop me from liking some of it. Particularly bop, on which I agree with Louis Jordan's take. But, I find virtue in some music that's seemingly made more with regards to the sensibilities of the players, rather than the sensibilties of the audience.

In rock, a different form, self-indulgence works far less of the time. Doesn't mean I have to find it completely worthless just because you say it is. Regardless, you're still ducking the issue of influence, because, oh, I don't know, you're older than someone else, or Bowie just wasn't that good, or the role of a producer just isn't that important, or because you think bohemians are full of sh*t, whatever yr point is this hour.

You said that rec wouldn't be on yr list, but since the list is based on influence, that doesn't make much sense. If you can wow us with the mountain of influences on bands like R.E.M. & Sonic Youth that don't include the V.U., then maybe we'll get somewhere. Until then, you're still blowing the same nonsense. Next?

...Devo...Talking Heads...Didn't Francis Gary Powers get shot down over Russia in one of them U2s...I even like Ian Drury and the Blockheads...and Elvis Costello (or was it Abbott Presley?)...Joe Jackson...The Clash...The Ramones...Zydeco...Native American Flute music...Coltrane...Davis...Parker...Hampton...Anto nio Vivaldi...Mozart...Wagner...Boccerini...Some Copland...not particularly big on Stravinsky, most sounds like bad movie soundtrack although Scherzo a' la Russe has grown on me...Dylan, Cash, old Stones...Glen Milller...Hank Williams...Lyle Lovett...But I digress...

Did Eno produce ALL of their records? And other than being a member of Roxy music, where does he fit in to the equation other than the infamous quote attributed to him? Talk about guilt by association...

Why would you think my comment re: self-indulgence etc. to be profound? Or why I would think it to be? Did I say it was? I simply said it...You can put it any frame of reference you want to, but that's on you...

And I hardly expect anyone to agree with me about anything...I don't need any sort of validation...Someone asks me for my opinion and I give it...pure and simple...if need arises, I have no problem supplying the reasoning that helped me arrive at it...

I never ask anyone to think as I do, just to think...

jimHJJ(...fuses to muses...)

Resident Loser
07-25-2006, 11:10 AM
>they must have been influenced by the group in question...

Wow, I never thought I'd see you actually acknowledge this. But then it's a little strange to think of a guy who was managed by a Sun Ra fan not knowing much about Lenny Bruce, either. Nevertheless...

If you'd care to refer to post #59 in this thread, where you said


>the non-existence of some of their offspring would not affect the musical firmament one single iota.

Either you were wrong about that, or you're wrong now. Which is it?

...You do realize how backhanded my remarks were, don't you? And when did I ever say there weren't people who may have been influenced by them? I just called the need for their existence into question...hence I stand by my Post#59...I'd just have more storage area...

jimHJJ(...talk about a Mobius loop...)

noddin0ff
07-25-2006, 11:47 AM
Can we do Mile's *****es Brew next. I'm curious to know what it influenced. Carry on.

Dusty Chalk
07-25-2006, 12:12 PM
...as seen by who?(rolls eyes)

You know, a lot of bands weren't influential during their lifetimes, it wasn't until later that people started listening to them that they became influential. L, according to Bowie, one of the reasons the Pixies broke up is because their records didn't sell.

And again -- it's not that you disagree with how good they are, that's not the point. The point is whether or not they were influential. You're deliberately trying to mix the two up, so that when we berate you, you can say, "oh, you're berating me because I disagree with you" -- no, that's not the case, we disagree with each other all the time, most of the time civilly, but we will take you to task when you try to pass off personal opinion as fact. I'm not even going to argue with you about the rest of it, because I think we should just start ignoring you. In fact...yeah, there, done.

I hate the Beatles, but I will not for one second deny that they are influential on most every rock'n'roll band in existence. I will argue that many others that came after are better, but not first -- that would be silly.

Swish, buddy -- please, post another entry to the list, let's get this conversation back on track.

Resident Loser
07-25-2006, 12:21 PM
Can we do Mile's *****es Brew next. I'm curious to know what it influenced. Carry on.

...Bill Frisell's looping...But the album itself has certain commonality with musique concrete pioneered in the late 40s by Pierre Schaeffer...

jimHJJ(...but that may be open to debate...)

Resident Loser
07-25-2006, 12:33 PM
(rolls eyes)

You know, a lot of bands weren't influential during their lifetimes, it wasn't until later that people started listening to them that they became influential. L, according to Bowie, one of the reasons the Pixies broke up is because their records didn't sell.

And again -- it's not that you disagree with how good they are, that's not the point. The point is whether or not they were influential. You're deliberately trying to mix the two up, so that when we berate you, you can say, "oh, you're berating me because I disagree with you" -- no, that's not the case, we disagree with each other all the time, most of the time civilly, but we will take you to task when you try to pass off personal opinion as fact. I'm not even going to argue with you about the rest of it, because I think we should just start ignoring you. In fact...yeah, there, done.

I hate the Beatles, but I will not for one second deny that they are influential on most every rock'n'roll band in existence. I will argue that many others that came after are better, but not first -- that would be silly.

Swish, buddy -- please, post another entry to the list, let's get this conversation back on track.

...agreed to their influence...I'm not the one who is mixed-up (how droll) nor am I mixing anything...Anyone who mistakes opinion as fact is an idiot (said as he looks askance)

jimHJJ(...what more do you want...an egg in your beer?...)

BradH
07-26-2006, 07:22 PM
Didn't Francis Gary Powers get shot down over Russia in one of them U2s.

Actually, the Russkies were aiming at Powers and accidentally hit one of their own Migs. The resulting shockwave took out the fragile U2.

But, obviously, the Soviet Union's influence in the matter was not "significant" because they sucked.

3-LockBox
07-26-2006, 11:21 PM
...agreed to their influence...I'm not the one who is mixed-up (how droll) nor am I mixing anything...Anyone who mistakes opinion as fact is an idiot (said as he looks askance)

jimHJJ(...what more do you want...an egg in your beer?...)


I don't think anyone's denying you your right to like or dislike. As for the question of whether that particular VU album was/is influencial, I dunno. I haven't heard it.I haven't heard much of any VU albums and couldn't recall but a couple of songs. And no, I don't plan on picking up a VU album in the future. I don't think I'd like it. I'm not much a fan of that style of music, or its offspring (NY Dolls, Iggy, Roxy Music, et el) I only enjoy Bowie sparingly.

Not much of a chance anyone will change my mind either. I didn't make any comment on whether or not the VU album was influential because it would be pretty obvious that I didn't know what I was talking about. Oh, I coulda ventured out and pretended to know something of the VU, but I think that would look so stupid, especially after admitting I hadn't heard the album. No wait...now I know for sure, that it would look so stupid.

Resident Loser
07-28-2006, 08:16 AM
Actually, the Russkies were aiming at Powers and accidentally hit one of their own Migs. The resulting shockwave took out the fragile U2.

But, obviously, the Soviet Union's influence in the matter was not "significant" because they sucked.

...you have corroborating evidence...Since the U-2 flew at 80kft and the Mikoyan MIG-19S had a service ceiling around 58kft, it seems a bit much that a shockwave traveling approx. 4+ mi. would have much impact...Even the MIG-19SU, while it could reach an 80k apex with it's liquid-rocket assist, could not cruise at that height and was more analogous to a ballistic missle. By all accounts their first Tanguska-75 SAM took out their own bird...it was the second that got Powers...

If I leave a 7-10 split and by some miracle I'm able to convert it, the ball actually only hits one pin but it goes on the scoresheet as a spare...soooo, whether it's a direct hit or some sort of ricochet:


...Didn't Francis Gary Powers get shot down over Russia in one of them U2s?

jimHJJ(...consider it artistic license...)

Resident Loser
07-28-2006, 08:29 AM
Oh, I coulda ventured out and pretended to know something of the VU, but I think that would look so stupid, especially after admitting I hadn't heard the album. No wait...now I know for sure, that it would look so stupid.

...prezackly what?

jimHJJ(...and what is it's impact on my life?...)

Swish
07-28-2006, 09:40 AM
(rolls eyes)Swish, buddy -- please, post another entry to the list, let's get this conversation back on track.
...it's one per week for 50 weeks, unless someone chooses to post it in advance and, thus, ruins my little attempt at injecting a little fun and interest in this site, and making me forever their sworn enemy. :ciappa: I am going to try to post them every Tuesday unless I'm physically unable.

Swish - NP: Uncle Tupelo - Anodyne

BradH
07-28-2006, 11:27 AM
..By all accounts their first Tanguska-75 SAM took out their own bird...it was the second that got Powers...

My mistake.

The Sovs launched fourteen SA-2's at Powers. One hit their own fighter and the shockwaves from the others took off the tail of the U2.

-Jar-
07-28-2006, 06:47 PM
(rolls eyes)

You know, a lot of bands weren't influential during their lifetimes, it wasn't until later that people started listening to them that they became influential. L, according to Bowie, one of the reasons the Pixies broke up is because their records didn't sell.



Kind of like... if everyone that was influenced by Big Star actually *bought* their records....

3-LockBox
08-04-2006, 06:15 PM
Baribrotzer said:

Perhaps you have heard the frequently repeated journalistic cliche about the Velvet Underground: That their first LP sold only 5,000 copies, but that everybody who bought one of those then went out and started a band of their own.

I submit that this is not quite true. To me, it seems far more likely that indeed, 2,500 of them did start their own bands - but the other 2,500 bought typewriters instead of guitars, and started careers as rock critics, because they couldn't understand why this slurred, droning, willfully primitive band of NYC conceptual artists hadn't immediately displaced the Beatles as the greatest of all rock bands, they absolutely had to correct this injustice and, no matter how long it took, had to start drumming the V.U.'s transcendent greatness into the rest of the world until musical history had been rewritten.

I just couldn't resist. I think this guy knocks it outta da park.

Swish
08-04-2006, 07:25 PM
I just couldn't resist. I think this guy knocks it outta da park.

I guess it all comes down to mind over matter. I don't mind, and he doesn't matter.

Swish

3-LockBox
08-04-2006, 09:01 PM
I guess it all comes down to mind over matter. I don't mind, and he doesn't matter.

Swish


Ahhh...one of my favorite lines. Still a good one.

I thought you'd like that post. It was kinda funny, a week after the VU post on RR, the Progressive Ears site featured a VU album as their 'album o' the day'. Seems this list is making the rounds.

basite
08-06-2006, 07:36 AM
portishead, they changed the world alot, they don't exist anymore but they still are a big source of inspiration for alot of new groups.