The Velvet Underground (Sterling Morrison / Maureen Tucker / Lou Reed / John Cale)
Photo by Gerard Malanga (1966)
The Sex Pistols (Steve Jones / Glen Matlock / Johnny Rotten / Paul Cook)
Photo by Peter Vernon (1976)
I.
As conceded in a recent post contrasting 'Venus in Furs' by the Velvet Underground with 'Submission' by the Sex Pistols [1], the former song is undoubtedly the more interesting of the two. However, that's not to say I would agree with this which arrived in my inbox in response:
Quite why anyone would choose the scuzzy little marketing joke of Sex Pistols over the catastrophic beauty and kinetic mystique of The Velvets is beyond me . . .
II.
It's a peculiarly affecting line of criticism; one that could only have been written by a fan of the latter - note, for example, the use of the shortened band name to indicate intimacy and insider status (although there was also an early 1960's doo-wop group called The Velvets and one is tempted to feign confusion just to be irritating).
Clearly, the writer prioritises artistic complexity over what they see as crude commercialism. But what is also clear from the sentence structure and grandiloquent language employed, is that this critic is something of an intellectual and cultural elitist - catastrophic beauty ... kinetic mystique - who uses phrases like this without wishing to signal their superiority?
By dismissing the Sex Pistols as no more than Malcolm McLaren's scuzzy little
marketing joke, they also position themselves as someone who can see through popular cultural trends such as punk; trends that lack the depth, authenticity, and high aesthetic value of the kind of avant-garde pop (or art rock) produced by the Velvet Underground.
III.
Of course, this subjective and judgemental style of writing is one that many music journalists have experimented with and, to be fair, it can be entertaining (even if some readers may find it a tad pretentious) [2]. And one is reminded also of a letter written by a teenage Stephen Morrissey to the NME critiquing the Sex Pistols for their shabby appearance and 'discordant music' with 'barely audible' lyrics [3].
However, before my anonymous correspondent gets too excited by this - for if he loves the Velvet Underground, he's bound to love Morrissey - he should note that Morrissey also praises the punk band for knowing how to get their audience dancing in the aisles and compares them favourably to his beloved New York Dolls (another scuzzy group managed briefly by McLaren which, I imagine, my correspondent hates just as much as the Sex Pistols).
IV.
Ultimately, whilst belonging to two very different eras, the Velvet Underground and the Sex Pistols were both seminal bands and it is beyond me why we should be forced to choose between them.
Having said that, my love and loyalty remains with the peculiars of 430 Kings Road rather than Andy Warhol's Factory and I prefer the comic anarcho-nihilism of the Sex Pistols to the dark poetic surrealism of the Velvet Underground.
Notes
[1] See 'The Velvet Underground Versus the Sex Pistols: Venus in Furs Contra Submission' (6 Jan 2026): click here.
[2] I am sympathetic to Thomas Tritchler who calls for a rethinking of the term 'pretension'; see the third and final part of his post 'On the Malign/ed Art of Faking It' (27 Dec 2014): click here.
[3] Morrissey's letter was published in the NME on
16 June, 1976. It was written in response to the Sex Pistols' gig at the
Lesser Free Trade Hall, in Manchester, on 4 June, 1976. To read the
letter on Laughing Squid, click here. See also Alice Vincent's article on the letter in The Telegraph (23 July 2013): click here.
I really enjoyed reading this nicely structured and effectively argued text in which you adopt a sophisticated point-counterpoint narrative by referencing a previous post and an anonymous response to such.
ReplyDeleteThe critical analysis of your correspondent's intellectual and cultural elitism was spot on and it was a clever rhetorical move on your part to progress from their email to Morrissey's letter.
I also like how you employ the 'having said that' tactic identified by Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David in order to say (and not say) two things at once: rejecting the false dichotomy of choice (either the VU or the Sex Pistols) and then openly expressing a preference for the latter, not so much on musical grounds but because philosophically the Sex Pistols clearly excite you more as a concept (the reference to McLaren and Westwood's shop at 430 King's Road versus Warhol's Factory provides an intriguing contrast that transfers the debate into the aesthetic arena).
Ultimately, the post succeeds because it allows for a complex understanding of how both bands play an important role in the history of popular culture.
I find it fascinating (and actually quite embarrassing) that in a blog like TTA - shot through, unashamedly, with cultural/intellectual elitist gestures, judgments of all kinds, and fluid expressions of arbitrary sovereignty - a brief, fairly unremarkable comment that simply states a passing musical preference is apparently (i) exercising such excitement and (ii) being trounced/defended against for all of the above supposed failings.
ReplyDeleteRe the 'insider status' point (and the blogger's petty resentment of same), even though 'The Velvets' is a very familiar mode of reference to the band in question in this context (and as such surely hardly worthy of comment), I suppose this would be similar to the endless number of posts on TTA about Malcolm McLaren referencing 'Malcolm' in the course of same, for instance.
I've no idea what the blogger is imputing to the writer's 'superiority' (? of what ?over what) - simply, it would seem, on the basis of his use of vaguely lyrical opinionated language - but I suggest straining to look at the statement through the lens of aesthetic power is as much a reflection of/on the reader than the writer. We read what we want to read, in many cases. Here, however, the reader doesn't seem to recognise how he is standing in his own light - and in fact IS, in many ways, himself the light (or more precisely the lens) he purports to cast.
In fact - full disclosure - the statement of musical preference between Sex Pistols and VU was one I was invited to make by Stephen Alexander himself, so it is frankly both bizarre and disreputable that he is now affecting amazement at being asked to choose between them when this was a dichotomy HE HIMSELF INSTIGATED.
As for the anonymous response chuckling admiringly and (in his self-congratulatory tone) mostly tediously about the 'clever rhetorical move' linking an admiration of VU with a love of Morrissey, I'm not quite sure what musical planet he's living on, but it's not mine. (By the way, Anoynmous, your 3rd paragraph basically means nothing more or less than 'having your cake and eating it' - the very thing, in the Seinfeld episode you allude to, Jerry S. is calling out.)
Finally, for a critic who goes out of his way to insist he can never be held responsible for saying anything, it is very telling that SA needs me to play a role here (by nailing a passing remark to the wall) that he himself narcissistically refuses. Unfortunately for him, I would gaily advise that, similarly, I have no particular attachment to this opinion, may well say something different tomorrow, and take no ownership of it whatsoever on this basis.
For all the above reasons, I feel, this post has little or nothing to do with me, so I mainly just look upon it with a crinkled smile (and through my fingers, given the painful aspects).
SS
Thank you Simon for another peculiarly defensive (and yet polemical) response, employing a typically condescending tone to highlight my perceived intellectual hypocrisy, etc.
DeleteNot defensive - just continuing, in fact, the stated aim of TTA to 'interrogate everything'. Why not take the egos out of the picture and feel pleased on this basis? (Unless you feel that your posts are quasi-fascist vignettes, rather than part of a conversation with TTA's readers that never ends.)
Delete