Television v. V.U

Yeah I have tried to purge the self titled third album from my memory banks. As to the live album, do you mean "Blow Up"? I had that on tape years ago but I think it's out on CD now, right? My point was that they really only ever put out a handful of songs. The Velvets had a much more extensive career.

That's the one, and yeah, I am totally in agreement that The Velvets were much better, much more prolific, had more longevity, but I still do listen to "Marquee Moon" a lot more than any Velvets album, apart from perhaps "Loaded"

Yeah I "appreciate" the Velvets more than I enjoy them. Marquee Moon, on the other hand, is probably one of my top ten most-listened to albums ever. I never get tired of it.

Sure, MM is a tough act to follow, and anything would pale when held up against it, but "vacuous"? Adventure is anything but.


And I'm surprised the esteemed Mr. Hell hasn't been mentioned yet.

Velvets no contest im afraid

Marquee Moon deserves to be owned by by all serious music fans.

I am also a might partial to some of Tom Verlaines solo work - the solo debut and Dreamtime deserve a spin around ebay

Sorry but Lou reed is no Tom Verlaine...I like the Velvets, but they are more of a tag line hipster band that people defend to seem cool ( in a lot of cases)- not here per se, but in debates in the fleshworld.. I think Television is a far superior band....but that is just me. However, I think a double album by Lou Reed and Tom Verlaine as produced by John Clae.......would kick some serious ass.....

Since there is no way to compare them since they are completely different sounding... Television came out of the same NY art scene, primarily influenced by Patti Smith... Marquee Moon is a great album, If you can get through it...

The Velvet Underground was kind of a Warhol Project, but nonetheless sonically more than anyone had ever heard... Yet, they took a lot of ques from bands like The Sonics, and Booker T and the MGS... they had the boogie sound that rhythmic guitar clash when they weren't making noise as on White Light White Heat.

They also clock in with the total number of songs that start with a woman's name and end in "Says".

Personally, beyond the first 3 albums, I like Lou Reed's solo output better, even though it's hit or miss. Best Reed album = Transformer / Rock + Roll Animal.

edit: also, at least one Tom Verlaine song shows up on Bowies Scary Monsters, And Super Creeps.

[Edited on Apr 15, 2004 by psychickyouth]

it's a tough choice; both bands produced some excellent work and spawned some great bands/solo artists. I'd have to say Television though as they include one of my all-time musical heroes (Richard Hell)

hahaha exactamundo!

instrumentally, television played circles around the VU crew. VU had cooler sunglasses and album art. case closed

i'd say the velvets but my favorite line of lyrics is from television

Ritchie, Ritchie said "hey man lets dress up like cops, think of what we can do"

NO!! I WON'T CHOOSE!!! YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!!!

This is more painful than one of those "would you rather be deaf or blind" questions.

Different bands for different moods.

Velvet Underground, most definitely. I like Television, too, but come on, it's VU.

I will say this:

I enjoy listening toTelevision more than most VU tracks.

But VU is a better band. I wouldn't say by a landslide (Television is one of the most unique and inventive bands EVER, and "Marquee Moon" is a perfect album..."Adventure" is highly enjoyable). But come on; VU did it before anybody, they went further, and they did it with more style.

i like coke more than pepsi bitches

I think it's a silly question...'I know where temptation lies...inside of your heart' both bands are great! 'Don't spend your cash on all that trash'

Why do we have to bring up this versus bullshit all the time.

Can't we both say that both bands rock really hard and are great?

And since Korzybski broke out general semantics in 1933, the Aristotelian concept of "is" no longer holds an absolute position. We live in an non-Aristotelian quantum universe where nothing "is" absolute but rather a percentile based on observation - the time of the object observed, tools used, and the observer.

If we utilize the Bourland proposal (English without "isness") and re-phrase the statements in terms of operational language (E-prime - using English without the "is of identity") we can truly begin to understand that the sentence assumes an "essence" in the music that does not exist.

Example:

Standard English:

The Velvet Underground is better than Television.

E-Prime (or English Prime)

In my present mixed state of musical education and ignorance the Velvet Underground seems better than Television to me.


The Standard English assumes the music has an inherent "thingness", which German philosopher Max Stirner labelled "spooks". These spooks prevent us from understanding the subjective multiplicity and fluidity of the world.

But I won't totally cop out. Therefore my answer:

In my present mixed state of musical education and ignorance the Velvet Underground seems better than Television to me because Lou Reed's lyrics seem to have greater relevence to modern day life, seem to have better poetry, imagery, and cadence, and because it seems that John Cale's guitar playing has a pleasing dissonance not found in Television's work.

Eagles are worse... VELVETS ARE BEST.

I agree, Lemonkid. Beyond the fallacy inherent in the "is of identity" in English (i.e. the medieval notion that things possess inherent qualities like "goodness," "badness," etc., that cannot be measured), there is also the nightmarish stupidity of arguments based on the Aristotelian yes-no construct, which always leads to a bipolar and, in the end, completely boring argument. Beyond even that, isn't it apparent to everyone that appreciation for things like music is inherently subjective, and therefore there is no right answer? Give it up, people.

Oh, and by the way, Velvet Underground rules!



[Edited on Apr 16, 2004 by Faust]