50 Records that changed music

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swish

...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...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Resident Loser

...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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Resident Loser

...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

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

Never heard it (in its entirety, dedicatedly listening, in one sitting), sounds like I should.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N. Abstentia

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swish

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swish

...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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N. Abstentia

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3-LockBox

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:

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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superpanavision70mm

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".

...did you say:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swish

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...)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Resident Loser

...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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swish

...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...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Resident LoserRe: 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 [B

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swish

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swish

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.

Interesting conversation. Personally, I’m 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, you’re gonna get opinion, and I’m fine with that. I’m a big fan of disagreement, really. Keeps things lively. Never did like a “yes man.”

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. He’s 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.

That’s all group level generalities though. So what about the particular album in question? Well, it’s 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, it’s 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, I’m 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 70s…well, you probably should hate the influence of this album. But, it’s certainly there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shokhead

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nobody

Interesting conversation. Personally, I’m 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, you’re gonna get opinion, and I’m fine with that. I’m a big fan of disagreement, really. Keeps things lively. Never did like a “yes man.”

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. He’s 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.

That’s all group level generalities though. So what about the particular album in question? Well, it’s 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, it’s 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, I’m 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 70s…well, you probably should hate the influence of this album. But, it’s certainly there.

---

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

Swish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swish

.."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...).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Resident Loser

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

---

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

Swish

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nobody

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

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 !

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?

...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...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Resident Loser

...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shokhead

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'