Pitchfork, in a recent interview with Lou Reed in which they try and convince us Metal Machine Music is not a completely unlistenable album (now remastered so it's SIXTY-FOUR minutes of guitar feedback), describe Lou Reed as the "godfather of punk".
Now, I like some of Lou Reed's stuff, but do punk fans get to vote on this one? Was Richard Hell sick and unable to perform the duties as Godfather of Punk? Iggy Pop was busy? Wayne Kramer? Joe Strummer too busy being dead?
I mean, the artsy fartsy guy in the Velvet Underground is the godfather of punk? Are we sure about this?
5 comments:
On the premise of "everything is funnier if you add 'in my pants' to it'," I give you the following:
I like some of Lou Reed's stuff in my pants.
Man, you are showing your age.
This is because there are stupidheads in this world who actually believe "punk" equals "cannot play instruments", thus squealing "artistic" feedback gets lumped into the same category as The Clash et al. But even so, what the hell have you got to be smoking to pick Lou over Iggy? I shake my head in bewilderment at you, Pitchfork, and your way-too-young and/or preppy and most definitely brown-nosing staff.
I was gonna say all of the guys I mentioned are "before my time" and thier primes certainly were... but then I relaized I have seen everyone in this post play live except Lou Reed.
And seriously, Iggy Pop is a total badass.
sorry but Godfather implies predates, so Richard Hell wouldn't qualify....Iggy had the attitude but let's not forget he was influenced by THE DOORS , very un punk, Wayne Kramer had the right attitude but was too political and American Punks were not political baby... and by the way, The Stooges had their own artsy fartsy moments as well...L.A. Blues anyone??? So while The Velvets may have had their artsy Fartsy moments, the attitude was pure New York, and that in and of itself qualifies him for Godfather just as much as Iggy.
Post a Comment