[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: six degrees of Velvets (was: Every 80's song...)
> > the beatles, for one (in a reverse sort of way, but there's still a
> > kind of conversation going on- lennon says 'x' and lou reed responds
> > with '-x.' but i'm oversimplifying here) and some r&b stuff.
>
> > so let's look at it like this:
>
> > r&b -> beatles -> velvet underground -> r.e.m.
>
>
> eh? i have yet to read or see or hear ANYWHERE that the Velvets were
> inspired by the Beatles. sorry, bud, i strongly disagree with you on
> that one, unless you can show me where that info came from...
that's not true- you just read it *right here*....
my point was that the velvetshad a very anti-beatles stance- almost
as if they were in a kind of rebellion against the pop sensebilities
of the beatles. where you have a song by the fab four that focuses on
the mystical side of drug use (the latter half of abbey road, or glass
onion or strawberry fields) with the velvets, you get a very long,
jangley sounding song focusing on the more destructive elemnets of
drugs (heroin comes to mind...)
the velvets certainly had to be aware of the beatles- and lou reed and
john cale were definitely much more intellectual and arty than lennon
and mccartney, who seemed to put on artiness as a costume- lou reed
and john cale were part of andy worhol's little clique and they used
the "pop" medium as an art form much in the way warhol did- as a
tongue-in-cheek half admiring, half critiquing pop culture.
lennon and mccartney bought into the pop thing fully and capitalized
on it...
remember- the matrix i drew out is very one-dimensional.
so you can look at it something like this-
buddy holly>
> beatles>
r&b->-------> |
> velvets>
classical >
the matrix will get really complicated once you think about the
stones, the beach boys, andy warhol, david bowie.... remember i
compared it to six degrees of seperation.
just because some rock music critic never noticed a connection before
don't mean it ain't there....
note- i am *not* saying either the velvets or the beatles were better
than the other... just comparing.
> but as far as the "college intellectual" side of it goes, i actually
> wrote a major term paper on how the Velvet Underground really paved
> the way and inspired the TRUE alternative movement (and heck, even the
> posers) as we know it today. and yes, i used a similar "trickle down"
> theory. it works. i got an "A" on the paper.
>
> the Velvets rule.
>
> prof. bink
there's this sickening idea in "alternative" circles of
authenticity... i'm not sure there is a "true" alternative "movement."
punks seemed to rabidly afraid of and resentful of "posers" but the
whole idea of associating oneself with a particular musical genre
brings with it this weird cutltural baggage. i remember seeing this
thing on MTV about the christian punk kids who were mad at that Clash
knock-off MXPX for siging a record deal with A&M. they weren't mad
because they signed witha major label, but because they singed with a
so-called "secualr" label- MXPX left the exclusive community in search
of a wider audience (or, as is often the case with christian bands,
perhpas in search of first ammendment rights...)
MXPX suddenly became "inauthentic" because they switched labels....
that's so wierd to me.
who is "true" alternative and who isn't?
poet john.
np- the beach boys- "pet sounds."
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com