How popular were the Velvet Underground at the time?

The line attributed to Eno goes something like this: "Not a lot of people heard the Velvet Underground's first album when it came out, but everybody who did started a band."

While the quote does capture the particular influence the Velvets (and that album especially) had on punk, indie, etc over the years, I wonder how true the part about very few people hearing it at the time is? I see vintage copies of The Velvet Underground and Nico sell online all the time--there don't seem to be any shortage of them floating around, so it seems that quite a few people did buy it when it first came out, or soon after. Then again, compared to a lot of the other big bands of the era that are considered influential on future generations, of course VU were not as successful.

Those of you who were around and paying attention to music at the time (or anyone else who has a take on this), just how well-known were the Velvet Underground in the late '60s? Of course we can look at record sales, chart, positions, etc., but I'm also interested in peoples' subjective impressions--did they "feel" semi-obscure? Or relatively well-known but dismissed as too weird? Or something else?

 

That Eno quote was in response to a claim that The Velvet Underground And Nico had only ever sold 30,000 copies, so it's not to be taken literally - and in any case, the point of it is that sales weren't that low.

Personally speaking, I can say by the early Seventies the first three albums were known as classics. By 1972 there were major artists who were clearly Velvet-influenced: Bowie, early Roxy Music, some of the German bands (they were a major influence on Can, and Faust did a Velvet pastiche, "It's A Rainy Day, Sunshine Girl"). So there had been people listening at the time. The idea some people have that the Velvet Underground were unrecognised till after punk, or even not till the Eighties indie scene, is just wrong.

 

Also, the release of 1969 Live in 1974 was the entry point for a lot of people. Unfortunately by then the original albums were hard to come by unless you went the import route.

 

Jimmy Page's Yardbirds were covering VU in 1968.

 

I'm 68. I just heard about them a few years ago (at least, that is when they showed up on my radar). I figured they were a 80's/90's band. I just found out about a month ago that they actually hail from the time they should have been on my radar. I was into Chicago, The Who and BS&T back then.

 

They weren’t on my radar. My friend Tony who I met late 70’s says he was listening to them in high school. I heard just the other week that the lyric about ‘evil mothers’ in Sweet Jane is a swipe at FZ. Groups were on the same label with Tom Wilson producing and feuded over the timing of their respective first albums. I guess if you want to measure look at the sales figures. Their importance has only increased over the years and I think they’re more timely now than a lot of music I was listening to then. They’re still as good as anything happening.

 

They had significant label support on Verve and Atlantic, but they never managed to chart in any significant way. The chart performance of their albums was roughly comparable to Love, but unlike Love, they never had a remotely successful single. But like Love they had a strong local following, especially in Boston.

Their albums, including 1969 Live, tended to chart in the lower reaches of the top 200, except for their third album, which did not chart at all (it didn't even "bubble under" like Loaded at #202 or 1969 Live at #201). Their first album was their highest charter, at #174.

So someone was buying them, in respectable numbers in certain centers, but they weren't a hit band by any measure.

It is however not true that 1969 Live charted any better than their previous releases or introduced them to a new generation of listeners or anything like that, at least on a national level in the US. The 1980s reissues did that.

Of course they had a significant cult/musician following from the very start. And there were many bands in that era whose chart action was even less.

 

They did get a lot of buzz in the Warhol era, at least in NY. I know a few people who went to see them at the DOM; The 1st album got a fair bit of radio play and my brother picked it up at the time. My cousin moved to San Francisco in 1968 though and went to see them at the Matrix every night and said is was empty; basically just her and her friends there.

 

Not very. In the UK. If by 'the time' you mean 67-69, the big groups were Cream, Hendrix, Tull, Zeppelin, Moodies, Stones. Even the underground DJ (Peel) was playing Love and Beefheart, not the VU.
By early 1971 when Loaded was being played here on the radio (occasionally) and after most of the band had quit, they picked up popularity. I saw a band called the Velvet Underground in October 71 at Bristol University, but apparently only Mo was left (and Doug). By 1972 Lou was a cult and big on the student circuit. After Transformer, Hunky Dory etc the rest is history.

 

My input here isn't very useful, and it's difficult to precisely remember when the Velvets came into my orbit.

However, if I think back to ye olde days - I knew a few people back then with sizable collections, and they liked a broad range of material. Some were rock/pop, some metal heads, some prog etc. But when I think about it now, none of them had any Velvet's that I can recall. I certainly came to them late. In fact, I came to them mostly because I fell in love with John Cale circa 1977, so it was after that.

Not scientific or exacting at all, of course. But yeah, I don't recall Velvet's being a thing in my circles.

 

Incredible. Kind of mind blowing to think that you could have been at one of the most iconic clubs in San Francisco in the late '60s to see one of the most influential rock bands of all time, and for it to be empty. Of course, VU didn't really fit in with the SF scene of the time.

Also interesting that there would have been such a big regional variance, where they got some buzz around NYC, as you say.

 

Lillian Roxon's Rock Encyclopedia which has an Author's Note dated August 1969 has an almost two page writeup of the Velvets.

I had a copy of Miles book In The Sixties which I can't lay my hands on but I'm pretty sure that he mentions VU being known in his circles at the time of the VU & Nico album.

 

Loving these responses so far, everyone. Keep them coming.

One thing I'm thinking about for the first time--and part of why my question is perhaps hard to answer definitively--is that their association with Andy Warhol probably gave them some notoriety up front but that this perhaps dissipated when people heard their actual music, because it was so out of step with the stuff that was big at the time. So, they probably got more publicity than a band of similar (low) commercial potential--how many up-and-coming bands get the benefit of being promoted/"produced" by the most famous visual artist of the era, a celebrity in his own right?--but couldn't make good on it because their music was somewhat incomprehensible at the time.

 

Wow, I didn't know about this. I think the partial answer to my question is that they were much more well-known to other musicians (and rock writers, and other "scene" people) than to the record buying public.

 

Not at all popular. This is a group that gained their recognition with some time and patience.

 

One guy in my college dorm had their first album.
This would have been in 1975. That was the first time I heard them. I had read their name in rock magazines but they were never, literally never; played on the radio, and I never met anyone with one of their albums until 1975.

 

Not true. There's a playlist out there from one of his Perfumed Garden shows from 1967 which has a VU song on it. He also mentions the band in some comments after a Pink Floyd session was broadcast the same year.

 

Wha...?!
Ya learn something new every day!
I had no idea that such a musical circumstance as this had occurred.

Anyone know anything about this, or care to speculate?
Apparently not only did other musicians of a striking variety
know of the VU, they were obviously moved to perform their material.

That's pretty interesting pop music history right there.

Jimmy Page listened to everything...

 

From my point of view as a Californian teenager in the early '70s, not very. I read a bit about them in rock magazines, but never heard them on the radio, nobody I knew had any of their records, and I don't remember seeing the records displayed in stores. It was only when Lou embarked on his solo career that the VU records started to become more visible. I did buy the Live 1969 album out of curiosity when it was released. Didn't like it much and I sold it before long.

I'm still not a big fan. I find them more of historical interest than musical.

 

This is a classic "art is subjective" thing. When I researched them, I listened to some of their stuff on Youtube. I was not impressed. But then, I was no fan of Cream, the Yardbirds or the Byrds. So it's about taste. And for the record, I think Eric Clapton is an amazing and creative guitar player. I'm just not into his style. I've never gotten into the blues or blues inspired stuff. I prefer a bit more complexity. If you spice it up with some horns, it helps.

But like I said, art is subjective.

 

Could be wrong, but the only time I recall them being played on FM here in NYC was when Loaded was released.

 

That's interesting! Notice that the "How Many More Times" riff shows up at the end, including the big bass glissando!

 

I'm always surprised about how badly the third album did. You'd think with songs like Pale Blue Eyes and What Goes On that it would have had at least a little bit of commercial success.

 

Awesome. Had no idea they ever covered that.

 

And Deluxe Box Sets.