Talk:The Velvet Underground/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Lost Album Recovered

It's a bit "breaking news", so I'd wait until it's settled out, but the missing original Warhol album has been recovered (or possibly somebody is running a very nasty scam). See [the ebay auction] for details.

More on the acetate can be found here. At least one other copy of this acetate exists, belonging to Mo Tucker, which is the source of all available mp3's. Thanks, Mo. Almightybooblikon 22:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried adding the following paragraph about the acetate, which is an important piece of VU history, but I gave up after being exasperated by finding my changes wiped out other sections of the page:

In 2004, a test acetate of this album, known as the "Norman Dolph Acetate" surfaced when it was purchased by Warren Hill of Montreal for $0.75 at a garage sale in Chelse, New York. and then auctioned on E-Bay, fetching a price of $25,000 . The acetate had been recorded during a one-day session at Scepter Studios which had been arranged by Warhol in order to create a record that might be sold to record companies with a minimum of artistic interference. Norman Dolph was a sales executive with Columbia Records at the time, but he acted as engineer for the recording session at Scepter and then had the acetate pressed after hours at Columbia . The acetate contains the same songs as the later album, but they are in a different order and in different mixes, and in three cases ("European Son," "Heroin" and "Waiting For My Man") the acetate contained a different take. Copies of the crackly acetate are now available on the internet in Mp3 form . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig Walker (talk • contribs) 17:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your Talk page, the problem is that a footnote reference has to end with </ref> and you left out the <.

You might want to consider whether the acetate needs to be mentioned in this article. It's discussed in some detail at The Velvet Underground and Nico#Scepter Studios acetate version. It doesn't hurt to mention it here as well, but I'm not sure that it needs the same level of detail. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

PS – I fixed the footnote problems in the paragraph above, so you can copy and paste it into the article if you want. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Image

anyone have an image of the peeled version of the album cover for the velvet underground and nico? that would be a good addition to this page.

Origin of The Velvet Underground

was underground british?

Well, Reed was American and Nico was German, but, yeah, Cale was from Wales. I don't know about Morrison and Tucker. If you mean the group as a whole, no, they were founded in the U.S., N.Y.C.,. And if you think they're name is british, it's because they got it from a book -- Djinn112 05:48, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

The V.U. was founded in New York City. Reed was born in Brooklyn but raised in Levittown, Long Island. Tucker (born in New Jersey) and Morrison hailed from Levittown as well. Cale came from Garnant, Wales. Doug Yule is a Bostonite. Nico (not formally a VU member, but hey) came from Köln (Cologne), Germany. — Curt Woyte 07:25, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, VU was founded in NYC, but I always thought "underground" referred to a clandestine group like, for example, the Weather Underground. --Slandermonger 00:22, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More like The Rasberry Reich. Hyacinth 05:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe 'Velvet Underground' was the title of a novelette passed from Tony Conrad, a pre-VU collaborator and notable composer in his own, to Lou Reed. The matter of the novelette was apparently S&M. I have had a difficult time corroborating this info. However, I hope this will help gather enough force to dispel any doubts as to the origin or extended meaning of the band's name. ---SoundEx

You're right. The book that was passed on (most sources agree by Tony Conrad) was indeed called The Velvet Underground and was written by Michael Leigh. It is a cheap sensationalist affair written under the guise of serious investigative journalism but mainly focuses on depicting scenes of debauchery, among which swinging, homosexual activities and sado-masochism. It proved popular/scandalous enough for a sequel to come out in 1967, Return to the Velvet Underground. — Curt Woyte 07:25, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

- I'm bitter about how Doug Yule is included on the "other members" section of the VU link banner thingy. He played on Loaded; the third, eponymous album; and VU; and sings lead vocals on half their best known songs.

NPOV notice added for anti-Yule and anti-Nico sentiments. Its dishonest to list Yule as an "other member" and Cale as a "main" member when Yule played on more records and sings on half their best-known songs. Also, Nico as "related topic" is just plain wacky. --B. Phillips 20:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I can see how this point was raised when reading this article. This discussion really belongs to the template, not the article, but that would greatly reduce its visibility. Anyway, I am the person who wrote the template and so I will try to answer the points raised.

The template was in no way intended to diminish contributions by either Yule or Nico. As for their respective classifications:

Nico is listed as a related topic because, by admission of nearly everyone concerned, she never really was part of the band. She collaborated with The Velvet Underground on four songs on The Velvet Underground and Nico, which was named so precisely because it's a collaboration. If Nico had been an integral part of the band, the album's name wouldn't have been ...and Nico any more than it would be ...and Lou Reed (or any other band member's name). The Velvet Underground and Nico, the only album on which The Velvet Underground and Nico have collaborated, is the starting point of the discography of both the Nico and The Velvet Underground entities. The person who wrote the Nico albums template seems to have thought so too, as s/he included The Velvet Underground and Nico in Nico's albums as well. I felt Nico ought to be mentioned in the Velvet Underground template but as there was no real other place I could include her, she went under 'miscellaneous' (i.e. "related topics"), just like other people closely related to but not actually in the band, such as Warhol and Billy Yule, did.

As for Yule, his being classified as "other member" does in no way reflect how I perceive his contributions (personally, I think they're great, especially "Candy Says", "Oh! Sweet Nuthin'" and the lead guitar work on "One of These Days"). I think the consensus is that the Reed-Cale-Morrison-Tucker lineup is the "classic one" (but I'd like to hear from others). That leaves all other people, be they "pre-classic" (such as MacLise) or "post-classic" (Yule, Alexander, Powers), "other members". There no other way in my opinion, except perhaps specifying all line-ups, and that would be unwieldy, or going with a band's original line-up regardless of how short-lived that might have been. In The Velvet Underground's case, that would result in Reed-Cale-Morrison-MacLise and all people coming after being "other members".

It's just about what most people consider to be the "regular" line-up, what automatically comes to mind when thinking of a band. Consider this: the core line-up of The Byrds was Clarke-McGuinn-Crosby-Hillman-Clark. Regardless of his contributions, Gram Parsons is a later addition to the line-up, and so he goes in another place in the template. The other way around: Pete Best was the original Beatles drummer but it's Ringo Starr in the core lineup. It has nothing to do with relative merits or being anti-somebody. Not in my opinion, anyway.

I'd love to hear how you think about all this. And I'd like to scrap "dishonest" and "wacky" from your post — it's POV. :-P
Curt Woyte 15:20, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I also think that most people think that the "classic" lineup is Cale-Morrison-Reed-Tucker (think about the 1993 european tour too), but I think that Doug Yule could be listed as well. Perhaps it's a bit unfair to have him listed in "other members", but I don't think it has nothing to do with any anti-Yule sentiment, it's just how most people (I think) see him.--SugarKane 17:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I was thinking too lineup-oriented and felt I had to choose one of the two "main" lineups. I could of course list all five "most prominent" members alphabetically irrespective of lineup and so bypass any "credit"-related issues. In fact, I'll do that straight away. Curt Woyte 07:14, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I think that we could get rid of this whole thing by removing the headlines "Core members" and "Other members" from Personnel and just put everyone in a single grouping. Given that Nico wasn't in the band, and was just brought in to sing a couple of Lou Reed's songs, maybe she should be omitted as a member but instead get a note in the same Personnel section saying that she accompanied them for _VU and Nico_. Mkilly 04:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that's another discussion that belongs to the article section "Personnel", not the template used at the bottom of the page, which is the subject of this discussion. But you're largely right as far as I'm concerned. We could simply delete the subdivisions and list everybody alphabetically, optionally mentioning the years they served in the Velvet Underground. I'm not sure about Nico though. If we mention her, we should also mention Billy Yule, Tommy Castanaro and all others who played with the band but weren't actually in it. Curt Woyte 10:54, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

In response to both the original NPOV discussion and Mkilly's remarks, I've restructured the Personnel section, giving pre-eminence to no-one but listing all members alphabetically and adding a lineups section to indicate who played with whom at what time. As for the people who played with the band but weren't in it (Nico, Billy etc.), I still think they do not belong in the personnel section but are okay as they are, being mentioned in the main text at the appropriate place. This is common procedure with other bands' articles.

I've done this restructuring pro-actively, believing in bold, constructive action and noticing the relative slowness of this NPOV discussion. I feel any perceived POV'ishness of this article has now been dealt with and so I've also removed the NPOV template. Let me know how you think.
Curt Woyte 07:18, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been a little slow in getting back to this.... but I agree completely with your final editions, conceding that Nico is best left in the related topic category. I suppose I was just struck by the dehumanized aspect of "related topic". I also think it's a good policy to eschew the core "line-ups" in favor of "members" whether they all played together at ones or not in general. --B. Phillips 20:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the ...and Nico was more of sales pitch. LIke Tom Petty and the heartbreakers were originally The heartbreakers but Tom was recognizable so the label put Tom in front. They also did this with Bob seger and the silver bullet band.

i guess maybe i should read through this whole discussion first, but doug yule may have been a major member on paper, but songs from his tenure really aren't what the VU is remembered for. i figure that only the original lineup should be included. and nico was by no means a member or really even a major contributor of the group. she sang four of the songs on their first album. that's it.

Velvet underground name?

Why are they called velvet undergroung and what does it mean?

back in the early days, angus maclise (original drummer) was wandering around new york and found a cheap porn book called 'the velvet underground' lying in a gutter. perhaps seeing the connection between their music and a dirty little rag someone had thrown in the street, or perhaps because it was just a good name, they took it up themselves. someone should maybe find a way to include that in the article. it's a well established story.

Joeyramoney 03:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"The Velvet Underground was a book about sadomasochism by Michael Leigh that Reed found when he moved into his New York City apartment (left by previous tenant Tony Conrad). Reed and Morrison have reported the group liked the name, considering it evocative of "underground cinema," and fitting, due to Reed's already having written "Venus In Furs", inspired by Leopold von Sacher-Masoch's book of the same name, also dealing with sadomasochism. The band immediately and unanimously adopted the book's title for its new name."

This is how they got their title, and it is already in the article. BauerPower 21:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

I have removed this article from Wikipedia:Good_articles/Nominations because:

1. The article has problems with POV and poor writing ("Longtime fans began mocking the new lineup as the "Velveteen Underground", perhaps unfairly"; "the album's perceived Middle of the road content is sometimes dismissed out of hand by Velvets fans"; "pounding on piano like a demented Jerry Lee Lewis."
2. Lots of uncited statements ("Young's use of extended drones would be a profound influence on the early Velvet's sound", "'Angus was in it for art', Morrison reported", "The band having asked her to 'do something unusual'", among many others).
3. The gallery of album covers probably does not fall under fair-use. A smaller number of images would be justifiable, but can we really claim a rationale for all the live records and compilations? Andrew Levine 00:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"Welsh-American?"

Come now. Cale was Welsh. Nico was German. Didn't Angus become Nepalese later in life? If it can't say "Welsh-Germanic-Nepalese-Brooklyn-American," it shouldn't say "Welsh-American." --electric counterpoint 06:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Brooklyn not in America? Revolver66 17:18 31/12/06

depends who you ask

Punk?...

I just listened to the White Light/White Heat album and the Sister Ray song, and I couldn't discern any resemblence at all to punk rock. Now to be clear, I'm not any sort of punk rock purist, and I enjoy a lot of the music from the late 60s/early 70s. And in a lot of that music, I can clearly hear how it influenced punk rock. I can clearly hear it in the Who, Janis Joplin, Hendrix, but not in the Velvet Underground. Are they really considred by most music historians to be proto-punk? As far as I can tell, they seem to have more in common (musically) with abstract jam-bands like Phish than with any sort of punk rock I've ever heard.

Well, with that particular album, it was things such as the experimentation and lyrics that laid the groundwork. However, if you want to really hear the influence, get the postumously-released MGM sessions. Rsm99833 16:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of that album...is that its name - "MGM sessions"? (Didn't see it in the "Discography" section.) Is there an article about it on Wikipedia?

If memory serves, the name of the album was 'VU'.Rsm99833 17:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the mentality was more what influenced punk. God, look at the contrast between the Beatles' lyrics and the Velvet Underground's! It was even more counterculture than the counterculture, if that makes any sense to you. I think that this whole thing about saying it's not is POV in itself. Even if I am biased, I can still say that the first two albums are considered by many to be proto-punk. Hey, they inspired the Stooges, and you're not jabbing at them, either. But that's something else entirely....

i'd like to know what punk this kid has listened to if he can hear it in joplin and hendrix and not the velvets —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petchboo (talk • contribs) 21:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, not only the lyrics but also the sound of the band. On many of their albums the thing that strikes me the most was the discord. Some of their most memorable songs consist of long, almost senseless jams. They didn't really care what people thought of the band (well, they didn't show it), they just made noise and chaos...Teeteringtotter (talk) 06:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If your definition of punk is simple three-chord Green Day-style punk, then no, you won't find a whole lot of that in the Velvets' music. But as others have mentioned, it is not only the massive amount of distortion that places the Velvets as punk forefathers in the history of rock, but it is the attitude, the presentation, the fact that every first generation punk rocker payed debt to Lou Reed and the VU. You want to know what genre the Velvet Underground really foretold? It's shoegazing. But shoegaze is also descended from punk. They were also goth forefathers, and goth has its roots in punk too. They also were pioneers of the jangly brand of guitar music that came to be known as indie rock, which also is a punk descendant. Basically you've got punk in the middle, The Velvets (and other protopunk bands) on one end, and later music subgenres on the other. And oh, how can you say "Sister Ray" doesn't sound like punk?!?Leamanc (talk)

Feedback

"Also setting them apart from their contemporaries was their use of feedback and amplifier noise in a musical context, exemplified by the seventeen-minute track 'Sister Ray' from their second album."

This sentence is puzzling, since many of their contemporaries did in fact also use feedback in a musical context: The Beatles, The Who, Jimi Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane, the Grateful Dead, to name a few. Any objections to removing the above sentence?

While others used feedback as part of the song, VU used in a way that was quite different than their contemporaries. The feedback was not meant to be exploritory, phychedellic, or anything nice. In many cases, it was used to punish the audience, as outlined in the book 'From The Velvets to The Voidoids'. I would recomend reformatting, rather than deletion.Rsm99833 16:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how feedback can possibly be "anything nice"... There was certainly nothing nice about the chaotic feedback experiments of The Who or the Dead, for example. I'm not sure how one would go about rephrasing that sentence - it seems a bit odd to write that "setting them apart from their contemporaries was their use of feedback to punish the audience." In what other ways did their use of feedback set them apart from their contemporaries?

as far as the "anything nice", I would suggest listening to Jimi Hendrix or even CCR's Suzy Q as examples of nice stuff. For VU, if an audience got a bit too "twirly" the looping feedback would start. Again, this is all documented in the book I previously mentioned. It's highly recomended, and you should get a copy. Rsm99833 17:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not sure that using feedback to punish the audience is significant enough to set them apart from their contemporaries. If their usage of feedback was so significant as to warrant this sentence, then why isn't the band mentioned at all in the article on "feedback"? The sentence needs to be rephrased or deleted.

Yes, but did anyone else rig a Vox organ to a guitar amp?

that statement is out of place anyway, since "sister ray" and "i heard her call my name" are the only two tracks the velvets did that included feedback, so they weren't as noisy as people tend to say they were.67.172.61.222 23:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...no feedback on "Run, Run, Run", "Heroin," or "European Son"? Not to mention a lot of the other songs from later albums..."Foggy Notion" in particular. Leamanc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC).

If you close the door..?

What album was this song (sung by Nico?) on? I always thought it was Velvet Underground & Nico, although a website suggests it was on an album by VU called The After Hours. --Mal 20:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The song is called "After Hours". It's the final track on the third (self-titled) album, and is sung by Maureen Tucker. It's mentioned in the article.

Personnel Timeline

In my personal opinion, the colour-coded personnel timeline in the Velevt Underground article is misleading, or at best, virtually useless, and should be removed.

Zenexp

Support. The damn thing stretches the boundarys of the page, and is, as you said, pretty useless. Corban321 05:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The color-coding is unexplained and practically useless to anybody who isn't already familiar with the Velvets and who played what instrument, and for those folks it's unnecessary. Malik Shabazz 08:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the entire section. Corban321 04:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. I admit I am pretty late to the discussion, but I think the thing is rather important, and so I am reopening the argument. Of course, I am the one who inserted it, so I am bound to disagree, but let me argue in favour of it.

In general, personnel timelines are useful for bands with multiple personnel changes to show at a glance which members played together at any given moment in time. Specifically for The Velvet Underground this applies, as the rear end of its career featured many people leaving and being replaced, some by official full band members (Powers, Alexander), some by backing musicians (the three players on the 1972 tour). Since this part of the band's history is under-exposed, I would certainly say this bit merits inclusion. It indeed was one of the major motives for me to create the timeline graph: it shows little-known facts, such as Maureen Tucker carrying on all the way to late 1971/early 1972.

As for the arguments brought forward by Zenexp, Malik Shabazz and Corban321, I am sorry to say I see none, really. Zenexp states (in his personal opinion) that the timeline is misleading or virtually useless. I have argued for its use above; I'd like to hear about its being misleading. There is in my view little room for confusion, but if there is, I think explanatory notes below it should be able to fix it. Malik Shabazz states that the colour coding (but not the timeline's existence) is unexplained and practically useless. This could easily be fixed by either adding a legend or making all bars the same colour, either of which would solve Zenexp's problem at the same time. Corban321 mentions it stretching the boundaries of the page, which is illogical. Adding another text paragraph would do the same. The same argument could be put forward for the deletion of the discography, the external links, the interwiki reference or any main text paragraph for that matter. The Velvet Underground is a band about which many things can and should be said, and size is no determining factor for deletion. If size is a problem, perhaps we could move parts to subpages, as is the usual course of action when articles grow too large.

Finally, there's some formal issues I have with the procedure -- one of the first things I think you should do with such an important edit is invite the original contributor to share his views; and I think two days' notice is a bit short (especially in the holiday season). I missed the discussion and edit completely until I happened to pass by today. I am going to post messages with Zenexp, Malik Shabazz and Corban321 to invite them back to this discussion.

Just as you were being bold in deleting the content, I am by reinstating the content. Please share your views on my argument in favour of the timeline before we move to edit again. -- Curt Woyte 09:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. All of this refers to the main 1965-1973 timeline. I added the 1990s timeline for completeness' sake, but that indeed was stretching it, and I agree the 90s part should be left away. -- Curt Woyte 09:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was never involved in the original removal, so I hadn't really checked out the timeline before. From the looks of it, it's very useful. In response to the comment that it's too fan-centric: by the time the article is read, the timeline will make sense. Sorry I reverted, I just glanced at the talk page, I should have been more informed. Also, I'd like to add a disagree. John Reaves 09:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

To those tuning in late, I was stupid enough to reinstate the timeline first and argue it afterwards, and John Reaves reverted in the interim. In order to avoid edit wars, I won't reinstate again until the discussion has come to a conclusion. But I do want to invite other contributors to share their opinion. If you want to see what the timeline looked like, view this older version of the page featuring the timeline. -- Curt Woyte 09:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove I think that these types of Wikipedia timelines are generally incomprehensible. I'd have no problem with a table type timeline though. See Metallica#Line-ups for an example. - kollision 10:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the notes under the VU timeline are a helpful improvement, but I don't understand why the Yule/Powers lineup is shown for Loaded and Yule seems to be solo for Live at Maxes. That's not entirely true: I understand that they made up the band when those albums were released, but they didn't record the albums in question. I think a Metallica-style timeline could provide the same information -- or more -- and be less confusing to somebody who isn't already familiar with the Velvets and their history. Malik Shabazz 04:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right in saying that the band members shown for the release dates of either Loaded or Max's are on the albums in question, but that's always the problem with albums recorded by lineup 'A' but released only after the lineup shifted to version 'B'. The album timeline (a later addition) reflects the albums' release date, not their recording timeframe, otherwise The Velvet Underground and Nico would've been located in 1966, WL/WH in 1967 etc. But it is the least "necessary" and perhaps most confusing element to the timeline, so I would be happy if that bit were removed altogether. As for the "joining months" of both Powers and Alexander, they're a bit vague, so if we keep the timeline, I propose to insert grey "vacancy" blocklets between the leaving of Reed and Morrison and the joining of Powers and Alexander, to show there was a vacancy. I'd base their joining months on their first known gig according to Olivier Landemaine's page.

I have seen the Metallica-style timeline and I agree that it is a easy-to-use overview of who played in which period. But there is a lack of detail here: its highest resolution are entire years, whereas the bars can be coded to reflect a resolution of days if needed (I have used a resolution of months), and the bars show instantly who played together at any given moment in time. -- Curt Woyte 09:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Curt Woyte, you misunderstand me when I say stretching the page boundarys. I meant horizontally, the timeline images were larger than the width of the page. Corban321 11:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, understood. Its width currently is 1000px, which probably would mean that it exceeds page width size on anything less than 1280, which is of course undesirable. But that is something which can be fixed easily. Is it a showstopper objection? -- Curt Woyte 13:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The stretching of the page was my main problem with it, so if that is fixed I wouldn't have a large problem with it being there. I would rather not have it there at all, but I can live with it as long as that is fixed. Corban321 03:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

---

OK, so it seems that some people now have no insurmountable objections to the timeline; but there are some suggestions to improve readability; and then there's people who prefer a table-style line-up overview over a graph. To show at a glance what either option entails, I've put both options side-to-side on a sandbox section of my user page. Have a look: user:Cwoyte/timeline, then tell us here which one you prefer. -- Curt Woyte 12:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the color bargraph option 1, and now I can easily tell at a glance who was in VU when! MGlosenger 13:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Table The graph looks better than it was before but I prefer the table style because it's a lot more informative, giving important information such as the actual roles of the members, the recordings of each lineup and it also includes the 1990s lineup. That said, I think the current version of table has too much information and that the 'also' instruments and months in the dates should be removed. - kollision 16:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems there are more people in favour of the table (or, at least, against the graph), so I'll insert the table. I still think the graph is more informative and more aesthetically pleasing (subjective, I know), -- but it's the information that counts, not its representation, and so the table it shall be.

I have left in the months, though, because I think just stating years is too coarse a resolution, especially where it gives the impression that short-lived lineup changes are longer-lived than they actually were (e.g. the MacLise- and Alexander-era lineups). The "also" instruments have been deleted in favour of more specific role headings. These, I'm afraid, are inevitable as two of the band's four roles changed over time: "Multiple instruments" (Cale, then Yule) simplified into just "bass guitar" over time, and Morrison's "Guitar" role changed to another instrument altogether, Alexander's "Keyboards and vocals". I chose the term "multiple instruments" because the role, although roughly remaining the same and containing a core of keyboards, organ and occasional vocals, changed in the additional instruments (Cale also played viola; Yule guitar and occasional drums). Suggestions as to improvements of course welcome. -- Curt Woyte 10:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The new timelines currently posted are much more elegant. Zenexp 03:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Late suggestion here, but have a look at this page. I think that format would look a lot better, and take up less room than the current table (or at least appear to take up less room). Corban321 07:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Exploding Plastic Inevitable

I started an article on this, to replace an earlier one that was deleted for copyvio. Please feel free to contribute. ~ trialsanderrors 16:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"The Gift"

According to this article, Cale wrote the short story that served as the lyrics for "The Gift" on White Light/White Heat. According to the articles on WL/WH and "The Gift (song)", the story was written by Reed. Most accounts describe it as a story Lou wrote in college, but perhaps they've been led astray by his songwriting credit for the lyrics. Can anybody verify that the story was written by John? Malik Shabazz 07:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That's strange. As far as Malanga and Bockris are concerned in Up-Tight, as well as John Cale himself in What's Welsh for Zen?, the story was by Reed (written in college) and the music was based on the "Booker T." jam they played in concert. -- Curt Woyte 09:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

How the fuck is The Gift based on Booker T.!? The two sound nothing alike! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lumarine (talk • contribs) 08:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for your ...insightful comments. The band have often acknowledged the music to "The Gift" being based on/having evolved from the "Booker T." instrumental. It's in the Peel Slowly and See booklet and Up-Tight too. Finally, there's this discussion on The Velvet Forum I could point you to. -- Curt Woyte 13:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice that, despite the comments above from me and Cwoyte, the articles on WL/WH and "The Gift (song)" have been edited to state that the "lyrics" to "The Gift" were written by John. I'm going to revise all three pages. Malik Shabazz 20:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Squeeze"

Does anybody know where I could get to listen to the Squeeze album without having to pay a collector's price for it? Or does anyone have the album on mp3 to share? I've got the feeling that most people ban it from the Velvets's canon only based on what others have said. And lately, I've read a couple of relatively positive reviews on it.

Try isohunt.com

Squeeze sucks, though

Looking for Comments re: Infobox

Fabio21 made some changes to the Infobox. First, some band-members have been identified as "Members" and others left as "Former members". Second, instruments have been added for each musician.

Rather than revert or modify Fabio21's changes, I wanted to solicit other editors' comments about the infobox.

I compared this infobox to other defunct bands. The MC5 lists all members as former members. The Beatles lists the four Beatles as members and Pete Best and Stu Sutcliffe as formers. The New York Dolls, who have revived themselves (the "Two York Dolls"), include the current reunion members as "Members" and all previous members as "Former members".

None of the infoboxes list instruments. The Beatles and the Dolls show the years of membership, which seem helpful, but that information is shown in the Line-ups section of the VU article and is probably unnecessary in the VU infobox.

One other thought. When they were all "Former members", the various Velvets were all sorted alphabetically. Fabio21 has upset the apple-cart by putting Lou on top and -- the horror! -- putting Doug above Mo. ;-D Malik Shabazz 23:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fabio21: The idea of putting the instruments next to name of the band members is also on The Libertines infobox. I only put people of the main line ups, Reed, Morrison, and Tucker to be titled current members, because they were the primary members, they've been on the all four of the main albums, and the other two well known catalog albums ("VU" and "Another View"), and they were part of the VU reunion tour. John Cale deserves it, because he's part of "The VU & Nico" and "WL/WH" and the vault albums. John Cale was also part of The VU reunion tour and went into Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a Velvet, making him a pledged member of the band. Doug Yule deserves current member recongnition, because he was primary in the albums "The Velvet Underground" and "Loaded", and others. Nico does not deserve this status, Nico only sang four songs in "The VU & Nico", not playing a role in any of the other albums. As for the order I put the band members in, I put the two of the five primary band members who were in the band for most of the time at top and bottom, the two only multi-intrumentilist at second to top, as well as second to bottom, and the band member who is no longer alive at the middle.

Deserves it? Doesn't sound very objective, and as this is a Encyclopedia not your personal opinion page, I think an alphabetical ordering would make more sense. Just what I think though. Mister B. 01:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have formatted the musical artist infobox as per the instructions at Template:Infobox_musical_artist#Fields. All information that I have removed has actually been commented out, so it is still there, but does not show up. - cgilbert^{(talk|contribs)} 18:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know that there were standards concerning the "current members"/"former members" issue, which — as I described above — seem inconsistent with regard to "expired" bands. I'll do some research as to the order in which the members joined the VU. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 18:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have changed "Christa Päffgen" to "Nico", since it doesn't make any sense having her real name instead of her artistic one. It's like using "Gordon Sumner" instead of "Sting".

Protopunk

The Velvet Underground was not a punk band. First and foremost, it was a rock and roll band. They may have influenced The Ramones and The Clash or whoever, but their genre can be most readily classified as rock. You are confusing genre with influence - I don't know how much clearer I can be, Malik Shabazz.

After all, no one would classify Muddy Waters as a "proto-jazz" musician. Despite the blues' influence on jazz, Muddy Water played the blues. That is proper his genre.

Check AllMusicGuide for further support. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.253.51.147 (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

You are clearly confusing protopunk with punk. Please take a few minutes and read the protopunk article ("performers who were important precursors of punk rock, or who have been cited by early punk rockers as influential. Often, protopunk bands were not considered punk themselves. Most protopunkers are rock and roll performers of the 1960s and early-1970s ... Significant examples include ... Lou Reed (often called the "father of punk") and the Velvet Underground").

Also read the rock and roll article that you keep inserting in its place — it describes 1950's rock and roll, which most certainly doesn't describe the Velvets. (Perhaps you mean rock music?)

I'm sorry that you don't like the word "protopunk" — and that you can't differentiate between "protopunk" and "punk" — but the best word to describe the VU's genre is protopunk. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 22:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

punk and protopunk are rock and roll. that's what you call a subgenre. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.172.61.222 (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

so the only genre we really need is 'music' then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petchboo (talk • contribs) 21:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

that tag protopunk is rubbish for velvet. truly. roxy music at least have virginia plain which probably steve jones have listened. but they don't make any song who remember punk rock(american or british), maybe "proto-noise-rock" if you wanna mean, but no protopunk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.25.34.166 (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Clean up?

Has anyone actually read through the bulk of this article lately? Some of the information is downright incorrect (for instance, The Velvet Underground and Nico was attributed to release on MGM Records rather than Verve). And much of the information in the album-titled sections would be better served taken out of this article and actually incorporated into the articles for the albums themselves, all of which could use some fleshing out. There was a bit about Billy Name doing White Light/White Heat's album cover... well, that's not really important to the band's development or career, but it would be fantastic in the article for White Light/White Heat. I'm considering putting a clean-up tag on the article, but I don't know if it's a simple case of "clean up". Pele Merengue 04:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is far more info on the individual albums here than on their respective pages. Also, some of the 'facts' here are contradictory to the facts in the album articles. For instance, the story about the back cover of The Velvet Underground and Nico is very different than what it says on that albums page. Definitely in need of clean up, maybe a complete re-write.

Bands Influenced

I'm removing the "Bands influenced" section and appending the text below this comment. As it stands, the section is an unreferenced list of apparently unrelated bands. If anyone wants to track down published statements made by the following artists about how VU has influenced them, we could add the section back in as a substantial piece of prose. --Gimme danger 00:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. When the section was created a few weeks ago I put the "list to prose" tag at the top, but I should have deleted the section instead. The list has no place in an encyclopedia article. It may be appropriate to mention a very few of the most significant bands influenced by the VU, but I think that more than three or four is too many. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. I've removed the removed text from the talk page since anyone who needs to consult it can do so by referring to the page history. SethTisue 03:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As someone who's done alot of Velvets reviews over the years, this "article" is too reliant on Warhol's association with the band (which was only 1.5 years out of a 7 year existence, and the band isn't "ART ROCK", that would only apply to the FIRST ALBUM. Please stop changing deleting edits because there's better writers out there then the person who wrote this article: Paragraph #2: Biggest Example of shitty writing: The Velvet Underground was a part of the subcultural New York City art collective surrounding Andy Warhol's Factory and his Exploding Plastic Inevitable events." Really? That was actually only during a 6 month BLIP in this bands' existence - yet no date-range or reasoning is offered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.251.31.10 (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

michael leigh

there is no biography or something about the author michael leigh (who wrote "THE VELVET UNDERGROUND"). can someone help me to find informations about him??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.3.113.39 (talk) 15:26, Jun 23, 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:3rdalbum.png

Image:3rdalbum.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The inapropos Stevie Nicks

This article does not benefit much from its full paragraph about Stevie Nick and her appreciation of Nico. The_Velvet_Underground#Post-VU_developments_.281973.E2.80.931990.29 Does that tidbit contribute to anyone's understanding of VU? Hult041956 22:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I removed the Stevie Nicks trivia. In case anyone wants this text (say, for the Stevie Nicks article), here it is. Hult041956 18:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The band was name-dropped in the 1982 Fleetwood Mac song “Gypsy” (So I'm back to the Velvet Underground / Back to the floor that I love / To a room with some lace and paper flowers), a reference to songwriter Stevie Nicks returning to her childhood home where she listened to the Velvet Underground as a teenager. Nico was clearly an influence on the very young Nicks, who was just 19 and starting to open for Janis Joplin with Fritz in the Bay Area in 1967 when The Velvet Underground and Nico was released.

Unexplained revert (removal of images)

User:Betacommand removed several images (album covers), with reference to WP:NFCC (February 12, 2008). These images were missing specific fair-use rationales for this article. I have provided such rationales, and put the images back again. The items illustrated are extensively commented on in this article, so in my opinion fair use of the images complies with policy. Later the same day, User:Betacommand removed the images again, without any explanation. Hope somebody can explain whether (and how) the use of these images here (still) violate WP:NFCC. Oceanh (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC).

Velvet fog

is true Velvet Fog Yellow Cave Woman had Sterling Morrison an Mo Tucker in it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by A plague of rainbows (talk • contribs) 20:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of this band. Post-VU, Sterling and Maureen did collaborate on her solo albums. Perhaps this was a pseudonym given to Maureen's band for a while? Leamanc (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not true.vuas

Nico: A band member?

Wasn't Nico technically a member of the band (even if it was brief?) I mean she did sing on four or five tracks on the album and interviews and pictures of the band seem to treat her as a member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.31.229 (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The consensus view is that she wasn't a member of the band. That's why it was The Velvet Underground and Nico — because she was apart from the band. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to expand a bit, if memory serves, when Warhol suggested to the band that Nico join, they were vehemently against it, which is the reason behind the Velvet Underground and Nico. faithless (^speak) 06:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there is a "consensus" here at Wikipedia, but I've been a VU fan for 20 years this year, and most folks I talk to consider her a true member from 1966 to 1967. Why would songs like "Chelsea Girls" and "It Was a Pleasure Then," which first appeared ON A NICO "SOLO ALBUM" now appear on a VU box set, the deluxe edition of the first album, and the career-spanning Gold compilation? Because they are VU songs, plain and simple, because she was a member of the band. Yes, she did nothing but stand around and look beautiful when she wasn't singing (OK, she occasionally shook a tambourine), but that was part of her role as "chanteuse." Apparently, in the eyes of many, being a chanteuse doesn't grant you full band membership. But sure, credit songs from the chanteuse's solo album to the band! It doesn't make any sense unless you consider her a full member of the band. Leamanc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC).

...or unless they were relevent because she was backed by members of the band in question. Those tracks weren't credited as Velvet Underground tracks when they appeared on the original Nico albums, and their appearance doesn't retroactively make them Velvet Underground tracks - or retroactively make her a member of the band.Vonbontee (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Velvet Underground 'Inventors of Heavy Metal section

i wanted to add a section about the VU being the inventors of heavy metal. i have cites and sites. Fans of heavy metal are often shocked and appalled by this, since the VU style bears very little similarity to the style of metal today. The historic connections between the VU and heavy metal are mostly hidden. Part of the problem is that the VU didnt release and distribute it's first album until 67, though they had toured as the Exploding Plastic Inevitable since 1964, catching the attention of musicians particularly(Bowie wrote Lady Stardust about Nico fronting the band. By 67, the Exploding Plastic Inevitable tour had passed to history, and the production on the record sounded dated. English and American bands had already begun to imitate and evolve the VU 'sound.' By fall of 67, The Yardbirds were playing VU covers, only months before they morphed into Led Zep. Page and Plant have done VU covers for years, especially I'm Waiting for the Man.

I'll be putting the proposed section in this thread in the near future, if I'm supposed to put it some where else please let me know. I'd like feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.41.172 (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC) 96.234.41.172 (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Heavy metal's roots and evolution are too convoluted to trace to a single definitive source - you could make a case that Howlin' Wolf invented it in 1951 with "How Many More Years", or perhaps even earlier. I don't think the Velvets invented metal any more - or less - than The Kinks or Link Wray did.Vonbontee (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I do believe this is incorrect

In the 1966-1967 section, it is stated "They played shows for several months in New York City, often as the house band at Max's Kansas City." I do believe that Max's Kansas City did not feature live music until 1970 which, at that point, yes the Velvets were the house band for that summer. Several of the articles compiled in "All Yesterday's Parties" from 1970 seem to back up this claim. It does seem well established that the band members hung at Max's in 1966 and 1967, and even later. Doug Yule said that when he was asked to join the band in 1968 he had to ride up from Boston straight to Max's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leamanc (talk • contribs) 16:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right. I don't think the Velvets played Max's in the 1966–67 time period. This appears to be borne out by this and this, although those pages are (a) incomplete and (b) definitely not reliable sources.

The current source says "It was there [at Max's] that the Velvet's got their start playing as the house band", but it's not a reliable source either. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and re-word it. Oliver's VU live pages are pretty thorough, digging up shows small-town clubs all over the midwest. I think if the VU had played Max's in 1966 or 1967, it would be listed there. If I have to, I'll dig up my copy of All Yesterday's Parties and cite the contemporaneous articles that state that the Velvets opened up Max's for live music in 1970. Leamanc (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

White Light/White Heat

added the Sterling Morrison Quote to White Light/White Heat, it's from the following book:

Peter Hogan, The Complete Guide to the Music of The Velvet Underground (1997; London: Omnibus Press (A division of Book Sales Limited); ISBN 071195596.4

Link is here: http://books.google.com/books?id=GL0eMqztmuIC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=Sterling+Morrison+%22Fuzzers+and+compressors%22&source=bl&ots=bx2f9Ui6Ga&sig=v56LCovcvbaocuHHl9LlqZi-aVo&hl=en&ei=4GX8SpebHsyKnQfC453yBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Sterling%20Morrison%20%22Fuzzers%20and%20compressors%22&f=false], rpt. ref>. Would love to add this as a reference, but am unable. Any assistance is appreciated! Best, Harry

 Done — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I am actually wondering whether that quote should not be moved to the main article on the band, rather than here. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic is having Problems

Hello everyone, Allmusic.com seems to be going through some odd phase right now where some of its information towards albums is incorrect, and I would like some help.

The Velvet Underground & Nico (the debut album) and Loaded (their 1970 album) have been placed in the compilation section of the site under their discograpgy, when these are both clearly main studio albums. Going to these pages on allmusic.com and informing them of these mistakes is essential to what this music stands for, the information about these albums should not remain incorrect. To those who read this please looks up these pages on allmusic.com and scroll to the bottoms of each page and click on Corrections to this Entry to inform the site of these mistakes, thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.216.153 (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Legacy

The legacy subsection is terrible, poorly-written, unreferenced, and speculative. I considered striking it altogether, but put an unreferenced-section tag on it instead. If it is not improved, i.e. rewritten and sourced, soon, I will remove it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have trimmed some of the blatant speculation from this section, and will look for sources for the remaining bits. The Interior(Talk) 20:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. The fact is, though, that VU has had a tremendous legacy, and this section does not indicate that. A legacy section could easily be 2 or 3 paragraphs long, if it were adequately sourced. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

My To-do list is getting a bit long, but I agree it needs expansion to reflect their considerable legacy. Will try to help out with expansion. The Interior(Talk) 20:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• David Fricke: The Velvet Undergound The Interior (Talk) 10:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)