Bastardizing The Velvet Underground and Nico

GroovyMusic · Post by **GroovyMusic** » 23 May 2007 18:44

Why'd they have to take a cool album and ruin it in every way possible? It's just supposed to be a banana sticker...

MJG196 · Post by **MJG196** » 23 May 2007 20:39

I thought it was the music that made the album?

Besides, if you don't like the artwork, dont you cut it up into pieces and throw it out, anyways? How does the album jacket/artwork "bastardize" the music inside?

GroovyMusic · Post by **GroovyMusic** » 23 May 2007 21:10

mg196 wrote:I thought it was the music that made the album?

How does the album jacket/artwork "bastardize" the music inside?

I'm not talking about the music.

Mark · Post by **Mark** » 23 May 2007 23:26

Groovy has a point... for such an iconic design, it's been fucked around with a lot over the years hasn't it? It's quite rare that it's seen in its original form.

MJG196 · Post by **MJG196** » 24 May 2007 00:42

Isn't that what Andy always did? f*** around with iconic designs? I can give a crap about the artwork as long as the music inside is worthwhile.

I dunno, I just find this to be yet another negativity-inspired thread. But Sterling ruined the VU by not shaving, so maybe I am off base.

MJG196 · Post by **MJG196** » 24 May 2007 18:07

To follow up on my last post, and I don't know why I never bothered to think of this sooner...

Groovymusic is so obsessed with "good vs. ugly" art. What art ruins an album, what art is worthy of being junked, what album jacket is going to be cut to pieces...

It seems to me that this is exactly the kind of crap that Warhol was subjected to throughout his career by the "Art World" elite. (Now, of course, those same detractors pay millions for the same stuff they trashed decades ago). They did all but spit on his "ugly" art pieces, which is essentially what we get from Groovymusic.

Is there something inherently wrong with a fan of the Velvet Underground (and by default, Warhol) being so determined to label a type of art as bad or good? Ugly or pretty?

Now THAT'S a good thread topic.

melody laughter · Post by **melody laughter** » 25 May 2007 03:33

well, i'll just say this. The original look is by far the best. As far as i'm concerned, there could be a picture of just about anything on the cover and i'd still love and listen to the album as much. The real question here is why you guys continuously argue over something you both obviously enjoy? If anything, this forum needs to relax. I joined it looking to share music, f*** around, and enjoy myself, so maybe we shouldn't fucking worry about posts about sterling's mustache. Sterling sure as f*** wouldn't. You don't have to be the biggest warhol fan ever to understand that andy made his art to criticize the art world and how pretentious it really was. By arguing over any of this we're just proving him right. NOW ON TO THE MUSIC.

LCB · Post by **LCB** » 25 May 2007 03:35

Let's burn all those Marilyn prints Warhol did because they totally bastardize the original photo.

Tempest, meet teapot.

simonm · Post by **simonm** » 25 May 2007 10:06

I always liked this one, but never got around to gettng it, and i'm sort of embarrassed by how many times I've bought this album now...

Horror !
Sex !
Vibration !

I'm trying to rescue this thread, as it must have some shred of interest or we wouldn't read it. Let's nurture positive feelings!
I like the Archetypes one with the crash helmet people too - it's a blank image that's open to interpetation, and so reasonably appropriate. Better than the hideous Swan thing anyway (whoops - negativity crept in at the end there).

simonm · Post by **simonm** » 25 May 2007 10:36

The point Groovy may be heading towards is the importance of the visual aspect of the band. Being involved with Warhol definitely gave them a heightened interest in image + presentation.
Late 1965 - they look like beatniks/proto-hippies/yer typical starving lower east side bohos
mid '66 - black-clad and dangerous/exotic/decadent.

In the early-mid 80s (yawn - I hear ya) the black clothes + wraparound shades look was v influential and a shortcut to cool for a number of bands, and the rep of the VU was starting to build to where it is today. That was also the period when the visual aspect of music was starting be much more important - with MTV etc. This is significant I think. We might be placing 'modern' assumptions about packaging + image onto this band from the late 60s inappropriately. It was v cool to have a 'tache in 1968.

When the artwork for the 1st alb was being messed around, it was not in the 'all time top 10 album' lists, it was just another mid-price back catalogue item. The current reissue has a nice cover, reflecting it's current status. I think the CD of WL/WH even has the skull now, too. This isn't just to make them look cool, it's still about marketing, 'authenticity' and brand image etc.