I suppose I was asking for trouble when I posted something nice about the Velvet Underground a few days ago; it always seems that whenever I give them credit, for some reason "they" do something to irk me. In this case, it was the contents of a book of writings on the group that I came across. I should've known better, what with my experience with some of the stuff Reed and Morrison have said about Dylan and Morrison (uhh Jim Morrison, that is, not Sterling, although Reed probably put down Sterling at some point!!), two artists I know and love. It seems that a lot of fans of VU share a dislike of Dylan and the Doors, which makes me wonder why this trend seems to be largely prevalent among hardcore fans of the group (the type who regard them to be the fathers of modern rock, not just a cool little avant-garde group). I think certainly part of the reason is quite simply because they feel that such artists are renowned unjustly. (Then again, it seems like everyone hates the Doors these days, so...) Dylan nowadays receives virtually all credit for making literate rock lyrics, and I think the VU fan reaction is, to some extent at least, one of envy. I've read that people maintain that Reed's lyrics were more "honest", and that Dylan's were somehow through a veneer of some sort. (Of course I disagree, but I only bring these things up out of interest). There certainly is a world of difference between say "Visions Of Johanna" and "Venus In Furs", and I can certainly see the motivation for comments about the "reality" of Reed's lyrics.

It seems to me then that it's a different view of what is important/what is good in rock lyrics which prompts the anti-Dylan sentiment. The fact that Dylan is heralded as being the greatest lyricist ever and what have you no doubt irks some VU fans who see Reed as being a revolutionary before his time. I'm not intrepid enough to try and compared the two; there are areas where both shine, and the true high points are rather distinct I think. Reed can be completely honest and truly break down the barrier between listener and singer, be it when musing over his life ("My House"), or startling confession ("Heroin"), but on the other hand. It's obvious to me that he is a gifted lyricist, but one should consider also that Dylan mastered the art of making the bizarre make sense ("Stuck Inside Of Mobile"), and his imagery is darn-near unparalleled ("Visions Of Johanna"). And Blood On The Tracks, I think, is one of the most powerful rock-albums ever. When I talked about Plastic Ono Band, I mentioned how it was far more direct, and that's true; BOTT doesn't start off with "Mother, you had me, but I never had you". But it doesn't seem right to compare the two, because POB doesn't have anything like "Simple Twist Of Fate", say. Much like the Reed/Dylan divide, I think some things just can't be put side by side and critically contrasted, with a "winner" being determined.

And of course when one mentions The Doors, one of the first things bandied around is that they introduced the dark side of rock. I actually traced "Heroin" to as early as 1964, and Jim was actually influenced by VU after seeing them play once (imagine that!! What are the odds?), so it's true that the whole dark side of life thing wasn't entirely new. The Doors seem to be universally reviled now, so it's probably not just the VU fans who hate them. I suspect most of this animosity is directed squarely at Morrison, rather than at the actual band. I think with the Doors, it is very much a philosophical objection in the most part - I think many feel the band's whole atmosphere is fake, primarily because they find Morrison's lyrics to be derivative and phoney. I disagree, of course, but again I can certainly see adequate motivation for such sentiments. Even if you enter the world of Morrison with an open mind, there's a good chance that you'll feel disgusted with what you see (or hear), and join the ever-growing (it would seem) conclave of Doors-haters (or at least Doors-dislikers, who think the band is overrated).

I don't think it's as easy to try to compare Morrison and Reed in any objective sense, but it confounds me if it's the music itself turns people off. Starostin says "Anyone who thinks the Doors are unlistenable has a hearing disorder", and although I wouldn't go that far, it seems to have the right idea. I again suspect that it's probably Morrison who gets in the way of the music sometimes for the Jim-haters - a shame, because "Peace Frog" would still be great even without Jim's little digression (which I find rather good, but anyway) in the middle.

Yet again, it truly amazes me how people can have such different points of view, and how there are so many things which can affect this!

Aside: I don't much like these posts, because there's no proper opinion being expressed. I sometimes think that I hate writing, because I find now that I have no will to write down anything about what I feel about VU in comparison to Dylan and Morrison. What is happening to me!?!