|
|
Post by Galactus on Jan 16, 2006 17:43:09 GMT -5
this sums up the entire argument superbly. Ok let's assume they were ahead of their time...wouldn't sales have remained consistant or had resurgence until or around the time the industry caught up with them? I don't see it. Through out their career VU have appealed almost exclusively to those who "got it", wouldn't the greatest album of all time have broken that barrier? How could it be the greatest album ever if only a select group of fans "get it"? |
|
|
|
Post by shin on Jan 16, 2006 17:46:27 GMT -5
Andy Warhol makes art out of a plain Campbell's soup can. Those in the cutting edge artistic community go bonkers with glee.
Andy Warhol promotes the Velvet Underground. Those in the cutting edge musical community go bonkers with glee.
These are in no way connected.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Jan 16, 2006 17:46:43 GMT -5
To return to my earlier point, however ...
By the criteria that Mantis seems to have endorsed (some sort of balancing test between all the different ways to measure an album's success and hence "greatness"), Who's Next best fits this measurement. It also meets all the additional criteria that can be reasonably asked of it. No duds on it. Concise, with no extra filler what so ever. Any record that influences both punks and art rock certainly fulfills any "influential" criterium. Brilliant lyrics, no matter how you rate lyrics. No wankery, but not susceptible to the classic "they can't play their instruments properly" argument often tossed at punks. Daltrey's (incredible) vocals also sidestep the "he can't sing!" complaints heard whenever Bob Dylan is brought up in a wider audience than professed music geeks (and even by some of us!).
By the (emerging) criteria of this board, Who's Next is the record that most deserves the title of "Greatest Album in Rock and Roll."
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jan 16, 2006 17:50:43 GMT -5
this sums up the entire argument superbly. Ok let's assume they were ahead of their time...wouldn't sales have remained consistant or had resurgence until or around the time the industry caught up with them? I don't see it. Through out their career VU have appealed almost exclusively to those who "got it", wouldn't the greatest album of all time have broken that barrier? How could it be the greatest album ever if only a select group of fans "get it"? Two things: 1) The VU did have a big surge of album sales in the '80s, and have been pretty steady other than that surge since the early '70s. 2) Promotion. The record industry doesn't promote albums that are 40 years old, and the people who really dig deep and seek albums that aren't widely promoted are relatively small in number. People won't buy an album they've never heard of. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Jan 16, 2006 17:52:46 GMT -5
I'm leaning torwards agreeing with Who's Next.
BTW, I don't consider these "my" criteria. I'm just trying to come up with an objective list of things an album worthy of that title would almost certainly have to meet. Doesn't that make sense? I just think there have to be reasons why an album would be THE greatest. I'm looking for those reasons.
What about Sticky Fingers or Exile On Main ST.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rit on Jan 16, 2006 17:53:01 GMT -5
Shin, it's not Andy Warhol's influence that makes VU&N the greatest. Warhol is irrelevant. Except to the extent that he legitimized real artistry into pop music by simply attaching his name to them so that they got exposure....
HERE's the clincher: If the VU hadn't done it, some one else would have, sooner rather than later. The VU represent a maturity that came to pop music. That's what you're not seeing.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jan 16, 2006 17:53:37 GMT -5
Andy Warhol makes art out of a plain Campbell's soup can. Those in the cutting edge artistic community go bonkers with glee. Andy Warhol promotes the Velvet Underground. Those in the cutting edge musical community go bonkers with glee. These are in no way connected. And all the love for the White Album has absolutely nothing to do with the popularity they'd already amassed before it came out? It's popularity is completely due to it's own merits and it's own merits alone? Certainly the Warhol connection got their music heard by more ears than they would have otherwise, but that has absolutely nothing to do with any of the arguments we're making. I supposed you'd say that the Rolling Stones' Sticky Fingers would be dismissed if not for the Warhol connection... |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Jan 16, 2006 17:54:09 GMT -5
Ok let's assume they were ahead of their time...wouldn't sales have remained consistant or had resurgence until or around the time the industry caught up with them? I don't see it. Through out their career VU have appealed almost exclusively to those who "got it", wouldn't the greatest album of all time have broken that barrier? How could it be the greatest album ever if only a select group of fans "get it"? Two things: 1) The VU did have a big surge of album sales in the '80s, and have been pretty steady other than that surge since the early '70s. 2) Promotion. The record industry doesn't promote albums that are 40 years old, and the people who really dig deep and seek albums that aren't widely promoted are relatively small in number. People won't buy an album they've never heard of. Two very valid points, Rocky. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Jan 16, 2006 17:56:24 GMT -5
HERE's the clincher: If the VU hadn't done it, some one else would have, sooner rather than later. The VU represent a maturity that came to pop music. That's what you're not seeing. I'd be more inclined to attribute that maturity to Dylan, I think. |
|
|
|
Post by shin on Jan 16, 2006 17:58:00 GMT -5
Shin, it's not Andy Warhol's influence that makes VU&N the greatest. Warhol is irrelevant. Except to the extent that he legitimized real artistry into pop music by simply attaching his name to them so that they got exposure.... HERE's the clincher: If the VU hadn't done it, some one else would have, sooner rather than later. The VU represent a maturity that came to pop music. That's what you're not seeing. "Seeing"? I care more about what I'm "hearing". But what I'm seeing is the world's biggest avant garde circle jerk. And you're right, perhaps somone else would have come along and done what the VU supposedly did, which seems to be wearing sunglasses at night. And perhaps they could have included a hook or two as well. Doesn't exactly lend itself to the claim that VU is somehow unique. Like saying the first gold rusher in San Fran in the mid 1850's invented gold, instead of merely being the first lucky soul to discover it. |
|
|
|
Post by Rit on Jan 16, 2006 17:58:38 GMT -5
fair enough, DED.. i was thinking that even as i posted that...
but Dylan had his severe messianic streak in him... he placed himself in a unique stream,
the Velvets made pop music. they were a pop band. Shin also missed that point when he called them tuneless and anti-musical.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rit on Jan 16, 2006 18:01:04 GMT -5
if you think the Velvets are avantgarde, you are seriously living in a bubble  |
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jan 16, 2006 18:01:05 GMT -5
Shin, it's not Andy Warhol's influence that makes VU&N the greatest. Warhol is irrelevant. Except to the extent that he legitimized real artistry into pop music by simply attaching his name to them so that they got exposure.... HERE's the clincher: If the VU hadn't done it, some one else would have, sooner rather than later. The VU represent a maturity that came to pop music. That's what you're not seeing. "Seeing"? I care more about what I'm "hearing". But what I'm seeing is the world's biggest avant garde circle jerk. And you're right, perhaps somone else would have come along and done what the VU supposedly did, which seems to be wearing sunglasses at night. And perhaps they could have included a hook or two as well. Doesn't exactly lend itself to the claim that VU is somehow unique. Like saying the first gold rusher in San Fran in the mid 1850's invented gold, instead of merely being the first lucky soul to discover it. If you're going to claim that the Velvet Underground weren't unique, then you're going to need to name me another band doing the same thing as them at the same time they were doing it. Citing bands that copied them 15 years later sure won't count. And if you think the Velvet Underground didn't have hooks...well, I'm inclined to wonder if you've ever heard them. Obviously Loaded is full of hooks, but to stick more strickly to the album in question here, anyone who says that "There She Goes Again" or "Femme Fatale" or "Run Run Run" don't have hooks is either crazy, stupid, or purposely pretending not to hear them because acknowledging it would hurt their argument. I'm guessing that you're in the last category |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Jan 16, 2006 18:04:11 GMT -5
fair enough, DED.. i was thinking that even as i posted that... but Dylan had his severe messianic streak in him... he placed himself in a unique stream, the Velvets made pop music. they were a pop band. Shin also missed that point when he called them tuneless and anti-musical. I don't really think you could claim VU was a band "of the people". Seriously these guys were of the elite arty class. Dylan was a much better reflection of society and supose when you're channeling (some might even argue controling) the veiws of a generation it's expected you'd get a bit of a messianic complex. |
|
|
|
Post by Rit on Jan 16, 2006 18:04:35 GMT -5
just because Lou Reed took to wearing sunglasses in a few pics, doesn't mean much.. it means at most that Lou Reed was an anti-social prick (which he is)...
the Velvets as a band are like a social force that whipped into popular music and redefined everything that came after. To hate it on that basis (a reactionary fear) only tells me that you are a music conservative.
There's nothing demonic about them, nothing flimsy, nothing fruity.. the Velvets are a real concrete achievement of a necessary and inevitable cultural idea
|
|
