Venus in furs

"What is there to do this afternoon?"
Thinking about this, I lay down and tried to plan something interesting.
Instead I slept, and it felt like a thousand years.

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!?!

Since I revel in the pointless, yesterday I was scouring to find whether The Velvet Underground (or Lou Reed, to be more precise) were the first to introduce dark and complex lyrics to rock. The precise motivation for this is unclear, as it is with so many things I do. For starters, I have nothing better to do; but also, I had read a bit on the net of people trying to be level-headed about VU, and mentioning that there were other acts that introduced the element of serious lyrics to rock before they did.

Note that I only really looked for the origins of some of their songs, in an attempt to see whether they were the first group with serious lyrics. They are renowned for many other things too, such as the birth of punk, goth, new wave, and any other category you'd like to chuck in, but these are not in question here, partly because I wasn't particularly interested in this aspect, but also because it's much harder to determine whether someone influenced other people.

What I've come up with so far is this. Their first album was released in 1967, perhaps the greatest year for albums ever (Sgt. Pepper, The Doors, Are You Experienced?, Magical Mystery Tour, Piper At The Gates Of Dawn, Surrealistic Pillow, Days Of Future Passed...). To which one might initially think "Well, that's that then - Jim Morrison exploded onto the scene at the same time with "The End". Top that". But a little more research revealed that the album was in fact recorded in 1966, but it was only released in '67 due to delays. Ah, but The Doors were performing "The End" in 1966 too - although at what time specifically is unclear. Ok, so there may be an edge over Morrsion, but still, there is enough uncertainty to tilt the scales in Morrison's favour.

Then it got interesting, because apparently Morrison himself was in the crowd for one of the Velvet's shows in '66! Yep, it seems he was a film student at the UCLA, and he was there to hear the Velvets perform their most provocative numbers (Venus In Furs, Heroin). So did the Velvets influence the Lizard King?! Unclear, but it would seem so.

Ah, but the timeline stretches further into the past. It seems that it was as early as 1965 that the Velvets were playing Heroin, including their famous performance at a high-school auditorium. So how old is this song already!?

Well, older still, possibly, because apparently the Velvets formed in late '64!! That places them ahead of most competition, and leads me to conclude that maybe they were the first to think about introducing the darker side of life to the world.

It's important to keep in mind, however, that none of this really matters. Well, that's not entirely true, but it probably doesn't matter as much as I've made it out to be. 'Twas just me filling up time, I suppose. I don't believe that it automatically affirms all the great things people have said about the Velvets, but rather it merely hints (important! I say hints, not shows, because I can't really establish the validity of some of my sources) that they were revolutionary in a lyrical aspect.

So, the outcome is that I now think that it was VU, and not Morrison, who introduced a darker shade of rock. However, Morrison certainly introduced it to the general public, because the Doors' debut was a huge success. Then of course there's the question of whether stuff like "Break On Through" is in some sense 'better' dark rock to the Velvet's stuff. Which one is more important is another matter entirely, of course, and falls into the lovely realm of subjectivity vs. objectivity.

At the same time, I don't know that Reed introduced serious lyrics to rock. Darker, yes, but serious, no. That would still have to be Dylan. In '64, he recorded "My Back Pages" and "The Lonesome Death Of Hattie Carroll", which I think are beautiful examples of serious lyrics ("My Back Pages" in particular is pure poetry). And was it not in '63 that he recorded "A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall"? Of course, some people argue that Reed introduced serious lyrics to rock, as opposed to folk, which is sort of where Dylan's loyalties lied at the time. Still, with Another Side Of Bob Dylan he closes with "It Ain't Me Babe", which some interpret as being his statement that he was not the messiah who would save folk music, because his interests lied elsewhere. Who knows?

Ah, nothing like a long, pointless post to start the day!