The Beatles and The Velvet Underground have both received a great amount of commercial success and critical recognition for their artistic contributions. However the immediacy of The Beatles' global popularity directly contrasts the gradual emergence of The Velvet Underground's fan base and critical acclaim, which didn't flourish until many years after the band had split up in 1973 in the wake of Reed's established solo career and the punk rock movement. In order to explore the reasons for this phenomenon, I'll mostly be using lyrics and interviews from the 1960's and early 1970's for both bands, as well as their reflections in more contemporary interviews and memoirs. The Illustrated History of The Velvet Underground (2009) has been particularly useful as a collection of primary sources because of The Velvets' largely undocumented career, while secondary sources like Revolution in the Head (2008) have offered lyrics, substantial background knowledge and insightful theory to expand upon and counter argue against. Due to the nature of my research title, the focus will revolve around the debut albums Please Please Me (1963) and The Velvet Underground and Nico (1966).
It could be argued that the key distinction was The Beatles' ability to directly experience and hence capture the changing attitudes among the baby boomer's generation, empowering them to reflect and arguably shape popular culture. Their impeccable sense of timing and adaptability was not matched by The Velvet Underground who - while striving to achieve commercial success - refused to compromise the authenticity and exclusivity of the music which characterised the band. In order to compare the broader extent of success, it is essential to analyse the initial ambition and motivations of both bands to assess whether they achieved their personal goals, regardless of record sales. In doing so, it is apparent that while The Beatles dwarfed The Velvet Underground in terms of both initial and, to a lesser extent, long-term popularity, the two bands still maintain a strong presence within modern music. That being said, The Beatles' fusion of high and popular culture in their art combined with a prudent non-exclusive approach embraced a mass, popular audience enabling a greater capacity for both commercial and individual success. The Velvets were indisputably original and ahead of their time, transcending elements of avant-gardism into the popular sphere; but while their prioritisation of authenticity earned the band a great deal of post-1960's admiration and recognition, it ultimately cost them initial commercial success.
Popular and critical recognition of The Velvet Underground elevated at a colossal rate from the mid-1970's and into the 1980's, and as a result of their initial low profile misconceptions and mythology seem to have arisen surrounding the band's ambitions. They have been depicted as an unrelenting force of the alternative culture of New York, rejecting the lure of commercial success in order to preserve their 'underground' status and character. It is true in that the band was unwilling to bend to the will of popular demand by adhering to the musical orthodoxy of the 1960's - to 'cash-in' on the countercultural movement - but they always desired commercial success. When asked in an interview in 1975 by Bill Bentley 'Was there a time when The Velvets decided they weren't going to push for commercial success?' Sterling Morrison dispelled the myth by saying ‘We always wanted to be commercially successful, but on our own terms. We wanted to do the music we were doing, and hoped that tastes would change - or that we could change tastes. That is what everybody felt in the Sixties’.[1] The Beatles certainly felt this too, though perhaps more significantly later in their career upon the realisation of the extent of their influence.
The Beatles differed in that they were initially prepared to pragmatically moderate their music and alter their image to achieve commercial success - and then use their increased status and resources to develop their music accordingly. The Beatles' business-like approach in anticipating the look and sound that Sixties youth - especially girls - was craving and the band's fashionable yet working-class 'cheeky chappy' image proved to be incredibly popular, topping the UK album chart in 1963 with Please Please Me. John Lennon commented in a 1963 interview with Alan Smith of NME ‘We tried to make it as simple as possible. Some of the stuff we've written in the past has been a bit way-out, but we aimed this one straight at the hit parade’.[2] The core themes of their music would remain basic and accessible for all to understand. It was not until the release of Rubber Soul (1965) that Lennon in particular started to write more personal songs, such as 'Norwegian Wood' and 'Nowhere Man,' which explored his own insecurities. In response to John Hoyland's open letter in 1969, Lennon said ‘The establishment never slotted us into a ‘cheeky chappy’ bag, dear John -- WE DID -- to get here to what we're doing now’.[3] This highlights that the driving force of The Beatles was to write, record and perform the music that they wanted to make. However, unlike The Velvets, they were initially willing to delay their artistic ambitions in order to take a strong foothold in popular music. This they achieved with their debut album Please Please Me, which enabled The Beatles to pursue their musical interests more freely, whilst retaining - and expanding upon - their commercial success.
On the other hand, The Velvet Underground's debut album The Velvet Underground and Nico was raw, gritty, minimalistic and unedited; a screeching ‘psychosis that assaults the senses’[4], explicit in its vivid drug and sadomasochistic imagery. Critically, it was met with mixed, but predominantly poor reviews, and did little better in terms of record sales peaking at 171 on Billboard's Top 200. One critic reviewed The Velvets' performance in the Chicago Daily News in 1966, referring to the band as ‘an assemblage that actually vibrates with menace, cynicism and perversion’[5]. Though the review explains in detail the profound impact of listening, the analysis that ‘to experience it is to be brutalised, helpless - you're in any kind of horror you want to imagine, from police state to madhouse’[6] highlights why the debut album was not suitable for a mainstream audience, and with a repercussion of similar reviews would do little to increase their chances of commercial success. The band had certainly achieved one objective that Cale pointed out, that ‘Our aim was to upset people, make them feel uncomfortable, make them want to vomit’.[7] The Velvets' ambitions sometimes appear contradictory: their insistence to their record company that they include the most negative reviews on the inside cover of the LP - ‘we gathered the worst things that had been said about us and stuck them in’[8] - could only provide a commercially negative outcome. They may have wanted commercial success but their tendency was to consciously deter it, perhaps out of frustration over the lack of instantaneous recognition. While the band may have felt alienated from the Sixties music scene, it seems as if they did their best to alienate their music from the Sixties.
The avant-garde nature of the band - in particular John Cale's influence - created a determination to maintain the uniqueness of their music but restricted their commercial success. Their loyalty towards authenticity was demonstrated fiercely throughout their career. Cale stated in a BBC Radio 6 interview that:
‘For me the most important thing to do was to do something that nobody else could imitate, and that's something that is really a disease that you get from the avant-garde, that you cannot do anything that is remotely similar to what anybody else is doing.’[9]
Andy Warhol played a pivotal role in the promotion of the band. Warhol incorporated The Velvets' act into his Exploding Plastic Inevitable tour. In doing so handing them a respected platform to perform upon, increasing their publicity and credibility. It is widely acknowledged that Warhol is responsible for a large part of the band's success. Reed recognised that ‘Without him [The Velvet Underground were] kind of inconceivable’.[10] Meanwhile there is evidence to suggest that the affiliation with Warhol could possibly have hindered The Velvets' commercial success. For example, as can be seen below (source 1) below The Velvets' were often overshadowed by either Warhol's name as the host of these events, or by the German vocalist Nico who Warhol implemented into the band and supported more rigorously.
Poster, 31 March - 1 April 1967[11]
This 1967 promotion poster features Warhol's endorsement followed by Nico's adjacent photograph and name as a headline in big, bold font while The Velvet Underground seem to be depicted merely as a orchestral band for Nico's act. Also, Warhol's tour mainly attracted an avant-garde, underground audience which gave the music little access to the wider public sphere. Morrison regards this audience as ‘the people who ultimately were the ones we wanted to reach,’ reinforcing the exclusivity of the band's ambitions, and the prioritisation of authenticity over publicity. The support of Andy Warhol was integral to The Velvet's preservation of their own style. Prior to this, they were dismissed by several recording companies straight out, while some demanded change. Morrison recalled that ‘Atlantic said ’no 'Heroin' and no 'Venus in Furs'.’ We had to have those songs so that didn't work’. [12] Warhol gifted The Velvets complete artistic freedom (except the artwork) as producer to The Velvet Underground and Nico. Reed firmly believes that without Andy's presence the album's rawness would have been compromised - ‘because he was Andy Warhol they [MGM recording company] left everything in its pure state’.[13] In the same interview Reed is asked ‘Was he [Warhol] the 'catalyst'?’ To which he responded ‘Protector,’ which must be in reference to the authenticity of the music. In assessing the impact of this freedom, it is evident that Warhol's involvement meant that the album's release was not suspect to the traditional editing for marketing purposes and potentially had an adverse commercial effect initially; however the vacation of producing intervention was perhaps the reason for the long-term success and timelessness of the record - in not capturing the ever-changing taste of the consumer.
The album made a substantial financial loss for a variety of reasons. External forces were partly responsible for the commercial failure. The high price of the LP (due to Warhol's expensive 3D banana to peel) directly contrasted the relatively cheap production of The Beatles' album - a photograph full of cheesy smiles. Other factors included the poor timing of the release by the record company (Morrison alleged that ‘it [the album] was sabotaged so [Frank] Zappa and the Mothers' first album Freak Out! could be issued before ours’[14]) as opposed to The Beatles' swift recording to take advantage of the two successful singles; legal complications (’that took it out of circulation’[15]); and most significantly the banning of The Velvets' music on New York FM radio from 1966 to 1969, which Morrison refers to in hindsight as ‘the thing I'm most pissed about’[16], while The Beatles received a substantial amount of radio airtime. The fact remained that ‘it was victim as much of the delay in its release and a series of marketing problems as it was the lack of popular acceptance’.[17] The most notable blockage to The Velvets' commercial success remained their inability to penetrate through the existing mainstream and countercultural dominance of the 1960's music industry: Beatlemania.
Though not to the extent of The Velvets, 'Love Me Do' was still ‘extraordinarily raw for by the standards of its time’[18]. ‘[W]hereas The Beatles used a bit of guitar feedback to introduce the otherwise traditional song, ‘I Feel Fine,’ VU used feedback much more pervasively, and as a way of painting an urban landscape that was as foreign to normal sensibilities as was the music they were playing’.[19] The key to The Beatles' success was their ability to pre-emptively recognise, and ride on the cultural wave of rebellion that became present at the beginning of the 1960's. MacDonald points out that ‘Though ultimately a product of influences deeper than pop, the Sixties' soaring optimism was ideally expressed by it, and nowhere more perfectly than in the music of The Beatles...so vital was the charge emitted in their music and so vividly did it reflect and illuminate its time that, without it, the irreverently radiant Sixties atmosphere...might hardly have sparked at all’. Music, rather than literature, had become recognised as the best mode of expression for a mass audience due to 1960's affluence providing most British households with radio. Their positive, energetic image, sound and behaviour ‘blew a stimulating autumn breeze through an enervated pop scene, heralding a change in the tone of post-war British life’[20] and kick-started a career which would later grow into a call for global change and universal participation. It could be argued that the Sixties' mentality that The Beatles were significant in creating spawned The Velvet Underground. When Cale was asked why he brought the avant-garde discipline to a rock and roll band he replied by saying ‘The Beatles, I mean the Beatle revolution happened...and I suddenly realised I'd been missing out on my puberty all this time’.[21] However, The Velvets' chances of commercial success were severely obstructed by the grand commercial success of The Beatles and the cultural revolution that they helped initiate.
It could be argued that the 'attitude' of The Velvets' was a conscious attempt to develop their image: to portray a strong sense of uniqueness, and to disassociate themselves from the counterculture that dominated America in the mid-Sixties. Warhol reflects that ‘The San Francisco scene was bands and audience grooving together, sharing the experience, whereas The Velvets' style was to alienate people - they would actually play with their backs to the audience! Anyway, we were out of our element, for sure’.[22] The comment implies that The Velvets' behaviour was cynical and rebellious in a reactionary manner to the hippie subculture, almost creating a persona based on counteracting the expanding counterculture to enhance their 'underground' status. It is clear that The Velvets did not fit, and did not want to fit into, the countercultural movement that was so prominent on the West Coast. However Reed explains that his disapproval with the scene was because it had ‘no relationship with the reality we knew, we had as a goal to put together rock 'n' roll songs which really had something to do with what was really going on in New York and around us, and add some basis of reality as opposed to this junk’.[23] The harsh, urban reality that The Velvet's explicitly refer to throughout their art was perhaps a premature realisation that could only be identified and commercially appreciated once the existential idealism inherent within the counterculture had been swept away. Upon The Velvets' reformation in 1993 Morrison reiterates this point, stating ‘We were never active participants in any political cause or social daydreaming...we played in a band and had songs about things we saw around us. It was not intended as a lifestyle for people to adopt, it had no credo, no set of rules...we in a sense de-mysticised rock and roll.’[24] ‘Social Daydreaming’ reinforces the bands political apathy and distaste for idealism which is most evident in the gritty urban reality expressed in the seven minute long 'Heroin':
Because when the smack begins to flow
I really don't care anymore
About all the Jim-Jim's in this town
And all the politicians makin' crazy sounds
And everybody puttin' everybody else down
And all the dead bodies piled up in mounds
The defeated approach (’I really don't care anymore’) completely contradicts the countercultural notion of change, activism and the mystical pursuit of happiness; instead opting for relief or escape through the use of hard drugs, as opposed to using drugs like marijuana and LSD as a means of expanding consciousness. Reed's comment that The Velvets' music was observing ‘what was really going on in New York’ and Morrison's that they were ‘Songs about things we saw around us’ also emphasises the exclusive nature of their music. For example, the isolation and addiction portrayed in 'Heroin' was only relatable for urban dwelling drug users, to an extent excluding those who lived outside of New York, non-drug users, and most significantly the hippies who were severely disillusioned with city life. On the other hand, The Beatles' subject matter was of universal relevance. Though their later material was more globally inclusive than Please Please Me, the debut album was centred around love - an emotion which people - regardless of background or nationality - can experience and relate to. The Beatles' song 'Love Me Do' contains 26 lines, 20 of which included the word ‘love’ - a positive theme which they would continue to include throughout their career, though later exploring the deeper context and connotations of its meaning. Rather than alienating and distancing themselves from their audience, 'Love Me Do' is written as a direct address, almost as a plea for love, which thousands of teenage girls would respond to by buying the single and subsequent album upon release.
The Velvets' refusal to dilute the avant-garde elements within their music, exclusivity, as well as the fact that the band essentially ‘presented itself as the antithesis of the ruling hippy epic’[25] are the most significant factors as to why they failed to achieve initial commercial success. Despite this, these factors, combined with the band's valuation of authenticity over popularity, undeniably strengthened their eventual cult-like status that became established in the later 1970's. While The Velvets' debut album was revolutionary in style and content, The Beatles employed a more evolutionary strategy by building an audience through the commercial success of their earlier albums, to showcase their artistic talent to the world in their later work. The most compelling outcome of comparing and contrasting these two bands is the fact that both bands achieved both their commercial and aesthetic ambitions which confirms their success. While The Velvets conquered their aesthetic goals which eventually created commercial success, The Beatles' prioritisation of commercial success empowered them to fulfil their aesthetic goals; the difference being that The Beatles ultimately achieved both ambitions simultaneously in their later music, indicated by their masterpiece Revolver (1966).
Bibliography
Books
Beatles, The, The Beatles Anthology (London: Cassell & Co., 2000).
DeRogatis, J., The Velvet Underground: An Illustrated History of a Walk on the Wild Side (Minneapolis, MN: Voyageur Press, 2009).
Donnelly, M. Sixties Britain: Culture, Society and Politics (Harlow: Pearson Longman, 2005).
Gair, C. The American Counterculture (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007).
Gould, J. Can’t Buy Me Love: The Beatles, Britain and America (London: Piatkus Books, 2007).
Harrison, G. I, Me, Mine (London: Weidenfield & Nicolson, 2002).
Heylin, C. All Yesterdays’ Parties: The Velvet Underground in Print: 1966-71 (Cambridge: Da Capo Press, 2005).
MacDonald, I. Revolution In The Head: The Beatles’ records and the Sixties (London: Vintage, 2008).
Warhol, A. and P. Hackett. POPism: The Warhol Sixties (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1990).
Articles
CBC News, Velvet Underground recall links to Warhol, December 2009: http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/music/story/2009/12/10/velvet-underground.html.
Reason to Rock, The Velvet Underground: Track Analysis for ‘Sweet Jane’: http://www.reasontorock.com/artists/velvet_underground.html.
Rock and Roll, Counterculture, Peace and Protest: Popular Culture in Britain and America, 1950-75: http://www.rockandroll.amdigital.co.uk/FurtherResources/MusicScene/54VelvetUnderground.aspx?searchmode=true&docref=The%20Velvet%20Underground%20and%20Nico&.
Smith, Alan. ‘You've Pleased Pleased Us Say The Beatles’, New Musical Express, 1 February 1963: http://www.rocksbackpages.com/Library/Article/youve-pleased-pleased-us-say-the-beatles.
Audio
BBC Radio Six, The First Time with... John Cale, Series 4 Episode 14, October 2012: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00zrb0y.
Video
BBC Wales, John Cale on The Culture Show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSH0PVVNc1I.
Bill Boggs TV, Lou Reed interviewed by Bill Boggs, 1981: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=HpdvfTlKjP8&NR=1.
YouTube, ‘Velvet Underground in Europe’, History of The Velvet Underground: Documentary featuring interviews during 1993 European Tour - Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTkIGJPlLnM
YouTube, ‘Velvet Underground in Europe’, History of The Velvet Underground: Documentary featuring interviews during 1993 European Tour - Part 2, 1993: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=IEYIs3FWCJg&NR=1.
[1] J. DeRogatis, The Velvet Underground: An Illustrated History of a Walk on the Wild Side (Minneapolis, MN: Voyageur Press, 2009) p.175.
[2] A. Smith, ‘You've Pleased Pleased Us Say The Beatles’, New Musical Express, 1 February 1963: http://www.rocksbackpages.com/Library/Article/youve-pleased-pleased-us-say-the-beatles.
[3] Liberation News Service, John Hoyland/John Lennon Letters (New York City: No.159, May 1, 1969) p.11.
[4] DeRogatis, ‘Note 1: Variety’, Prologue (1966).
[5] Idem, ‘Note 1: Chicago Daily News’.
[6] Idem, ‘Note 1: Chicago Daily News’.
[7] Idem, ‘Note 1: John Cale’.
[8] Idem, ‘Note 1: Swallowed Up by the Armadillos: Sterling Speaks, Sterling Morrison interviewed by Bill Bentley (1975)’.
[9] BBC Radio Six, The First Time with... John Cale, Series 4 Episode 14, October 2012: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00zrb0y.
[10] CBC News, Velvet Underground recall links to Warhol, December 2009: http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/music/story/2009/12/10/velvet-underground.html.
[11] Warhol/Nico/VU Poster, New Mod Dom, Exploding Plastic Inevitable, Rhode Island School of Design, Providence, Rhode Island, 31 March - 1 April 1967.
[12] DeRogatis, ‘Note 8’ p.173.
[13] YouTube, ‘Velvet Underground in Europe’, History of The Velvet Underground: Documentary featuring interviews during 1993 European Tour - Part 2, 1993: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=IEYIs3FWCJg&NR=1.
[14] DeRogatis, ‘Note 8’ p.173.
[15] Idem, ‘Note.8’ p.173.
[16] Idem, ‘Note 8’ p.174.
[17] Idem, ‘Note 1’ p.47.
[18] I. MacDonald, Revolution In The Head: The Beatles’ Records and the Sixties (London: Vintage, 2008) p.59.
[19] Reason to Rock, The Velvet Underground: Track Analysis for ‘Sweet Jane’: http://www.reasontorock.com/artists/velvet_underground.html.
[20] MacDonald, ‘Note 18’ p.1.
[21] BBC Radio Six, ‘Note 9’: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00zrb0y.
[22] DeRogatis, ‘Note.1: Extract from 1966: The Year The Velvet Underground Went Pop’, 1990, p.95.
[23] Bill Boggs TV, Lou Reed interviewed by Bill Boggs, 1981: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=HpdvfTlKjP8&NR=1.
[24] Velvet Underground in Europe, History of The Velvet Underground: Documentary featuring interviews during 1993 European Tour - Part 1, 1993: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTkIGJPlLnM.
[25] Rock and Roll, Counterculture, Peace and Protest: Popular Culture in Britain and America, 1950-75: http://www.rockandroll.amdigital.co.uk/FurtherResources/MusicScene/54VelvetUnderground.aspx?searchmode=true&docref=The%20Velvet%20Underground%20and%20Nico&.
It could be argued that the key distinction was The Beatles' ability to directly experience and hence capture the changing attitudes among the baby boomer's generation, empowering them to reflect and arguably shape popular culture. Their impeccable sense of timing and adaptability was not matched by The Velvet Underground who - while striving to achieve commercial success - refused to compromise the authenticity and exclusivity of the music which characterised the band. In order to compare the broader extent of success, it is essential to analyse the initial ambition and motivations of both bands to assess whether they achieved their personal goals, regardless of record sales. In doing so, it is apparent that while The Beatles dwarfed The Velvet Underground in terms of both initial and, to a lesser extent, long-term popularity, the two bands still maintain a strong presence within modern music. That being said, The Beatles' fusion of high and popular culture in their art combined with a prudent non-exclusive approach embraced a mass, popular audience enabling a greater capacity for both commercial and individual success. The Velvets were indisputably original and ahead of their time, transcending elements of avant-gardism into the popular sphere; but while their prioritisation of authenticity earned the band a great deal of post-1960's admiration and recognition, it ultimately cost them initial commercial success.
Popular and critical recognition of The Velvet Underground elevated at a colossal rate from the mid-1970's and into the 1980's, and as a result of their initial low profile misconceptions and mythology seem to have arisen surrounding the band's ambitions. They have been depicted as an unrelenting force of the alternative culture of New York, rejecting the lure of commercial success in order to preserve their 'underground' status and character. It is true in that the band was unwilling to bend to the will of popular demand by adhering to the musical orthodoxy of the 1960's - to 'cash-in' on the countercultural movement - but they always desired commercial success. When asked in an interview in 1975 by Bill Bentley 'Was there a time when The Velvets decided they weren't going to push for commercial success?' Sterling Morrison dispelled the myth by saying ‘We always wanted to be commercially successful, but on our own terms. We wanted to do the music we were doing, and hoped that tastes would change - or that we could change tastes. That is what everybody felt in the Sixties’.[1] The Beatles certainly felt this too, though perhaps more significantly later in their career upon the realisation of the extent of their influence.
The Beatles differed in that they were initially prepared to pragmatically moderate their music and alter their image to achieve commercial success - and then use their increased status and resources to develop their music accordingly. The Beatles' business-like approach in anticipating the look and sound that Sixties youth - especially girls - was craving and the band's fashionable yet working-class 'cheeky chappy' image proved to be incredibly popular, topping the UK album chart in 1963 with Please Please Me. John Lennon commented in a 1963 interview with Alan Smith of NME ‘We tried to make it as simple as possible. Some of the stuff we've written in the past has been a bit way-out, but we aimed this one straight at the hit parade’.[2] The core themes of their music would remain basic and accessible for all to understand. It was not until the release of Rubber Soul (1965) that Lennon in particular started to write more personal songs, such as 'Norwegian Wood' and 'Nowhere Man,' which explored his own insecurities. In response to John Hoyland's open letter in 1969, Lennon said ‘The establishment never slotted us into a ‘cheeky chappy’ bag, dear John -- WE DID -- to get here to what we're doing now’.[3] This highlights that the driving force of The Beatles was to write, record and perform the music that they wanted to make. However, unlike The Velvets, they were initially willing to delay their artistic ambitions in order to take a strong foothold in popular music. This they achieved with their debut album Please Please Me, which enabled The Beatles to pursue their musical interests more freely, whilst retaining - and expanding upon - their commercial success.
On the other hand, The Velvet Underground's debut album The Velvet Underground and Nico was raw, gritty, minimalistic and unedited; a screeching ‘psychosis that assaults the senses’[4], explicit in its vivid drug and sadomasochistic imagery. Critically, it was met with mixed, but predominantly poor reviews, and did little better in terms of record sales peaking at 171 on Billboard's Top 200. One critic reviewed The Velvets' performance in the Chicago Daily News in 1966, referring to the band as ‘an assemblage that actually vibrates with menace, cynicism and perversion’[5]. Though the review explains in detail the profound impact of listening, the analysis that ‘to experience it is to be brutalised, helpless - you're in any kind of horror you want to imagine, from police state to madhouse’[6] highlights why the debut album was not suitable for a mainstream audience, and with a repercussion of similar reviews would do little to increase their chances of commercial success. The band had certainly achieved one objective that Cale pointed out, that ‘Our aim was to upset people, make them feel uncomfortable, make them want to vomit’.[7] The Velvets' ambitions sometimes appear contradictory: their insistence to their record company that they include the most negative reviews on the inside cover of the LP - ‘we gathered the worst things that had been said about us and stuck them in’[8] - could only provide a commercially negative outcome. They may have wanted commercial success but their tendency was to consciously deter it, perhaps out of frustration over the lack of instantaneous recognition. While the band may have felt alienated from the Sixties music scene, it seems as if they did their best to alienate their music from the Sixties.
The avant-garde nature of the band - in particular John Cale's influence - created a determination to maintain the uniqueness of their music but restricted their commercial success. Their loyalty towards authenticity was demonstrated fiercely throughout their career. Cale stated in a BBC Radio 6 interview that:
‘For me the most important thing to do was to do something that nobody else could imitate, and that's something that is really a disease that you get from the avant-garde, that you cannot do anything that is remotely similar to what anybody else is doing.’[9]
Andy Warhol played a pivotal role in the promotion of the band. Warhol incorporated The Velvets' act into his Exploding Plastic Inevitable tour. In doing so handing them a respected platform to perform upon, increasing their publicity and credibility. It is widely acknowledged that Warhol is responsible for a large part of the band's success. Reed recognised that ‘Without him [The Velvet Underground were] kind of inconceivable’.[10] Meanwhile there is evidence to suggest that the affiliation with Warhol could possibly have hindered The Velvets' commercial success. For example, as can be seen below (source 1) below The Velvets' were often overshadowed by either Warhol's name as the host of these events, or by the German vocalist Nico who Warhol implemented into the band and supported more rigorously.
Poster, 31 March - 1 April 1967[11]
This 1967 promotion poster features Warhol's endorsement followed by Nico's adjacent photograph and name as a headline in big, bold font while The Velvet Underground seem to be depicted merely as a orchestral band for Nico's act. Also, Warhol's tour mainly attracted an avant-garde, underground audience which gave the music little access to the wider public sphere. Morrison regards this audience as ‘the people who ultimately were the ones we wanted to reach,’ reinforcing the exclusivity of the band's ambitions, and the prioritisation of authenticity over publicity. The support of Andy Warhol was integral to The Velvet's preservation of their own style. Prior to this, they were dismissed by several recording companies straight out, while some demanded change. Morrison recalled that ‘Atlantic said ’no 'Heroin' and no 'Venus in Furs'.’ We had to have those songs so that didn't work’. [12] Warhol gifted The Velvets complete artistic freedom (except the artwork) as producer to The Velvet Underground and Nico. Reed firmly believes that without Andy's presence the album's rawness would have been compromised - ‘because he was Andy Warhol they [MGM recording company] left everything in its pure state’.[13] In the same interview Reed is asked ‘Was he [Warhol] the 'catalyst'?’ To which he responded ‘Protector,’ which must be in reference to the authenticity of the music. In assessing the impact of this freedom, it is evident that Warhol's involvement meant that the album's release was not suspect to the traditional editing for marketing purposes and potentially had an adverse commercial effect initially; however the vacation of producing intervention was perhaps the reason for the long-term success and timelessness of the record - in not capturing the ever-changing taste of the consumer.
The album made a substantial financial loss for a variety of reasons. External forces were partly responsible for the commercial failure. The high price of the LP (due to Warhol's expensive 3D banana to peel) directly contrasted the relatively cheap production of The Beatles' album - a photograph full of cheesy smiles. Other factors included the poor timing of the release by the record company (Morrison alleged that ‘it [the album] was sabotaged so [Frank] Zappa and the Mothers' first album Freak Out! could be issued before ours’[14]) as opposed to The Beatles' swift recording to take advantage of the two successful singles; legal complications (’that took it out of circulation’[15]); and most significantly the banning of The Velvets' music on New York FM radio from 1966 to 1969, which Morrison refers to in hindsight as ‘the thing I'm most pissed about’[16], while The Beatles received a substantial amount of radio airtime. The fact remained that ‘it was victim as much of the delay in its release and a series of marketing problems as it was the lack of popular acceptance’.[17] The most notable blockage to The Velvets' commercial success remained their inability to penetrate through the existing mainstream and countercultural dominance of the 1960's music industry: Beatlemania.
Though not to the extent of The Velvets, 'Love Me Do' was still ‘extraordinarily raw for by the standards of its time’[18]. ‘[W]hereas The Beatles used a bit of guitar feedback to introduce the otherwise traditional song, ‘I Feel Fine,’ VU used feedback much more pervasively, and as a way of painting an urban landscape that was as foreign to normal sensibilities as was the music they were playing’.[19] The key to The Beatles' success was their ability to pre-emptively recognise, and ride on the cultural wave of rebellion that became present at the beginning of the 1960's. MacDonald points out that ‘Though ultimately a product of influences deeper than pop, the Sixties' soaring optimism was ideally expressed by it, and nowhere more perfectly than in the music of The Beatles...so vital was the charge emitted in their music and so vividly did it reflect and illuminate its time that, without it, the irreverently radiant Sixties atmosphere...might hardly have sparked at all’. Music, rather than literature, had become recognised as the best mode of expression for a mass audience due to 1960's affluence providing most British households with radio. Their positive, energetic image, sound and behaviour ‘blew a stimulating autumn breeze through an enervated pop scene, heralding a change in the tone of post-war British life’[20] and kick-started a career which would later grow into a call for global change and universal participation. It could be argued that the Sixties' mentality that The Beatles were significant in creating spawned The Velvet Underground. When Cale was asked why he brought the avant-garde discipline to a rock and roll band he replied by saying ‘The Beatles, I mean the Beatle revolution happened...and I suddenly realised I'd been missing out on my puberty all this time’.[21] However, The Velvets' chances of commercial success were severely obstructed by the grand commercial success of The Beatles and the cultural revolution that they helped initiate.
It could be argued that the 'attitude' of The Velvets' was a conscious attempt to develop their image: to portray a strong sense of uniqueness, and to disassociate themselves from the counterculture that dominated America in the mid-Sixties. Warhol reflects that ‘The San Francisco scene was bands and audience grooving together, sharing the experience, whereas The Velvets' style was to alienate people - they would actually play with their backs to the audience! Anyway, we were out of our element, for sure’.[22] The comment implies that The Velvets' behaviour was cynical and rebellious in a reactionary manner to the hippie subculture, almost creating a persona based on counteracting the expanding counterculture to enhance their 'underground' status. It is clear that The Velvets did not fit, and did not want to fit into, the countercultural movement that was so prominent on the West Coast. However Reed explains that his disapproval with the scene was because it had ‘no relationship with the reality we knew, we had as a goal to put together rock 'n' roll songs which really had something to do with what was really going on in New York and around us, and add some basis of reality as opposed to this junk’.[23] The harsh, urban reality that The Velvet's explicitly refer to throughout their art was perhaps a premature realisation that could only be identified and commercially appreciated once the existential idealism inherent within the counterculture had been swept away. Upon The Velvets' reformation in 1993 Morrison reiterates this point, stating ‘We were never active participants in any political cause or social daydreaming...we played in a band and had songs about things we saw around us. It was not intended as a lifestyle for people to adopt, it had no credo, no set of rules...we in a sense de-mysticised rock and roll.’[24] ‘Social Daydreaming’ reinforces the bands political apathy and distaste for idealism which is most evident in the gritty urban reality expressed in the seven minute long 'Heroin':
Because when the smack begins to flow
I really don't care anymore
About all the Jim-Jim's in this town
And all the politicians makin' crazy sounds
And everybody puttin' everybody else down
And all the dead bodies piled up in mounds
The defeated approach (’I really don't care anymore’) completely contradicts the countercultural notion of change, activism and the mystical pursuit of happiness; instead opting for relief or escape through the use of hard drugs, as opposed to using drugs like marijuana and LSD as a means of expanding consciousness. Reed's comment that The Velvets' music was observing ‘what was really going on in New York’ and Morrison's that they were ‘Songs about things we saw around us’ also emphasises the exclusive nature of their music. For example, the isolation and addiction portrayed in 'Heroin' was only relatable for urban dwelling drug users, to an extent excluding those who lived outside of New York, non-drug users, and most significantly the hippies who were severely disillusioned with city life. On the other hand, The Beatles' subject matter was of universal relevance. Though their later material was more globally inclusive than Please Please Me, the debut album was centred around love - an emotion which people - regardless of background or nationality - can experience and relate to. The Beatles' song 'Love Me Do' contains 26 lines, 20 of which included the word ‘love’ - a positive theme which they would continue to include throughout their career, though later exploring the deeper context and connotations of its meaning. Rather than alienating and distancing themselves from their audience, 'Love Me Do' is written as a direct address, almost as a plea for love, which thousands of teenage girls would respond to by buying the single and subsequent album upon release.
The Velvets' refusal to dilute the avant-garde elements within their music, exclusivity, as well as the fact that the band essentially ‘presented itself as the antithesis of the ruling hippy epic’[25] are the most significant factors as to why they failed to achieve initial commercial success. Despite this, these factors, combined with the band's valuation of authenticity over popularity, undeniably strengthened their eventual cult-like status that became established in the later 1970's. While The Velvets' debut album was revolutionary in style and content, The Beatles employed a more evolutionary strategy by building an audience through the commercial success of their earlier albums, to showcase their artistic talent to the world in their later work. The most compelling outcome of comparing and contrasting these two bands is the fact that both bands achieved both their commercial and aesthetic ambitions which confirms their success. While The Velvets conquered their aesthetic goals which eventually created commercial success, The Beatles' prioritisation of commercial success empowered them to fulfil their aesthetic goals; the difference being that The Beatles ultimately achieved both ambitions simultaneously in their later music, indicated by their masterpiece Revolver (1966).
Bibliography
Books
Beatles, The, The Beatles Anthology (London: Cassell & Co., 2000).
DeRogatis, J., The Velvet Underground: An Illustrated History of a Walk on the Wild Side (Minneapolis, MN: Voyageur Press, 2009).
Donnelly, M. Sixties Britain: Culture, Society and Politics (Harlow: Pearson Longman, 2005).
Gair, C. The American Counterculture (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007).
Gould, J. Can’t Buy Me Love: The Beatles, Britain and America (London: Piatkus Books, 2007).
Harrison, G. I, Me, Mine (London: Weidenfield & Nicolson, 2002).
Heylin, C. All Yesterdays’ Parties: The Velvet Underground in Print: 1966-71 (Cambridge: Da Capo Press, 2005).
MacDonald, I. Revolution In The Head: The Beatles’ records and the Sixties (London: Vintage, 2008).
Warhol, A. and P. Hackett. POPism: The Warhol Sixties (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1990).
Articles
CBC News, Velvet Underground recall links to Warhol, December 2009: http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/music/story/2009/12/10/velvet-underground.html.
Reason to Rock, The Velvet Underground: Track Analysis for ‘Sweet Jane’: http://www.reasontorock.com/artists/velvet_underground.html.
Rock and Roll, Counterculture, Peace and Protest: Popular Culture in Britain and America, 1950-75: http://www.rockandroll.amdigital.co.uk/FurtherResources/MusicScene/54VelvetUnderground.aspx?searchmode=true&docref=The%20Velvet%20Underground%20and%20Nico&.
Smith, Alan. ‘You've Pleased Pleased Us Say The Beatles’, New Musical Express, 1 February 1963: http://www.rocksbackpages.com/Library/Article/youve-pleased-pleased-us-say-the-beatles.
Audio
BBC Radio Six, The First Time with... John Cale, Series 4 Episode 14, October 2012: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00zrb0y.
Video
BBC Wales, John Cale on The Culture Show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSH0PVVNc1I.
Bill Boggs TV, Lou Reed interviewed by Bill Boggs, 1981: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=HpdvfTlKjP8&NR=1.
YouTube, ‘Velvet Underground in Europe’, History of The Velvet Underground: Documentary featuring interviews during 1993 European Tour - Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTkIGJPlLnM
YouTube, ‘Velvet Underground in Europe’, History of The Velvet Underground: Documentary featuring interviews during 1993 European Tour - Part 2, 1993: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=IEYIs3FWCJg&NR=1.
[1] J. DeRogatis, The Velvet Underground: An Illustrated History of a Walk on the Wild Side (Minneapolis, MN: Voyageur Press, 2009) p.175.
[2] A. Smith, ‘You've Pleased Pleased Us Say The Beatles’, New Musical Express, 1 February 1963: http://www.rocksbackpages.com/Library/Article/youve-pleased-pleased-us-say-the-beatles.
[3] Liberation News Service, John Hoyland/John Lennon Letters (New York City: No.159, May 1, 1969) p.11.
[4] DeRogatis, ‘Note 1: Variety’, Prologue (1966).
[5] Idem, ‘Note 1: Chicago Daily News’.
[6] Idem, ‘Note 1: Chicago Daily News’.
[7] Idem, ‘Note 1: John Cale’.
[8] Idem, ‘Note 1: Swallowed Up by the Armadillos: Sterling Speaks, Sterling Morrison interviewed by Bill Bentley (1975)’.
[9] BBC Radio Six, The First Time with... John Cale, Series 4 Episode 14, October 2012: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00zrb0y.
[10] CBC News, Velvet Underground recall links to Warhol, December 2009: http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/music/story/2009/12/10/velvet-underground.html.
[11] Warhol/Nico/VU Poster, New Mod Dom, Exploding Plastic Inevitable, Rhode Island School of Design, Providence, Rhode Island, 31 March - 1 April 1967.
[12] DeRogatis, ‘Note 8’ p.173.
[13] YouTube, ‘Velvet Underground in Europe’, History of The Velvet Underground: Documentary featuring interviews during 1993 European Tour - Part 2, 1993: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=IEYIs3FWCJg&NR=1.
[14] DeRogatis, ‘Note 8’ p.173.
[15] Idem, ‘Note.8’ p.173.
[16] Idem, ‘Note 8’ p.174.
[17] Idem, ‘Note 1’ p.47.
[18] I. MacDonald, Revolution In The Head: The Beatles’ Records and the Sixties (London: Vintage, 2008) p.59.
[19] Reason to Rock, The Velvet Underground: Track Analysis for ‘Sweet Jane’: http://www.reasontorock.com/artists/velvet_underground.html.
[20] MacDonald, ‘Note 18’ p.1.
[21] BBC Radio Six, ‘Note 9’: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00zrb0y.
[22] DeRogatis, ‘Note.1: Extract from 1966: The Year The Velvet Underground Went Pop’, 1990, p.95.
[23] Bill Boggs TV, Lou Reed interviewed by Bill Boggs, 1981: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=HpdvfTlKjP8&NR=1.
[24] Velvet Underground in Europe, History of The Velvet Underground: Documentary featuring interviews during 1993 European Tour - Part 1, 1993: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTkIGJPlLnM.
[25] Rock and Roll, Counterculture, Peace and Protest: Popular Culture in Britain and America, 1950-75: http://www.rockandroll.amdigital.co.uk/FurtherResources/MusicScene/54VelvetUnderground.aspx?searchmode=true&docref=The%20Velvet%20Underground%20and%20Nico&.