Page 1 of 1

Authenticity and Artifice

Posted: 26 Oct 2017 23:39
by threechordwonder
Article. By Bernardo Alexander Attias.

About "The Velvet Underground and Nico". ... 16.1155376

Is it valid? Is it crap? Did I understand a single word?

Re: Authenticity and Artifice

Posted: 27 Oct 2017 12:05
by iaredatsun
'Musicians, journalists and academics often hold up the Velvet Underground as the paragon of authenticity in rock music, and the band indeed portrayed itself this way from the outset'

The trouble is I don't think any actually believes that kind of nonsense any more, so the opening statement acts as a straw man set up for the author to practice his critical craft on. Also, taking what Reed said about the band in 1987 as a measure of them portraying themselves as 'authentic' is wrong and is merely an indication of Reed's romantic and nostalgic tendencies getting the better of him in later age. You only have to place the VU in the context of their mentor Warhol (and the art scene in general at that point in time) to understand that authenticity was probably the last thing on anyone's mind. I'll read it later, nonetheless. Thank-you. :)

Re: Authenticity and Artifice

Posted: 27 Oct 2017 12:21
by iaredatsun
'I don't think anyone actually believes'

Whatever happened to infinite editing on the forum?

Re: Authenticity and Artifice

Posted: 28 Oct 2017 06:33
by peppergomez
It was a pretty worthwhile read.