The Stooges vs. The Velvet Underground

Because the entire Beatles vs. Rolling Stones question is so played out...

...and let's face it, these two other groups are probably more important to rock history if you consider punk and its derivatives. With the Velvets being the Beatle analogues and the Stooges the Stones in the equation no doubt.

I find it a total apples-and-oranges situation to be honest, but it's the Stooges I've listened to the most. As much as I like the Velvet Underground, I have to be in a very specific mood to get into the music. The Stooges, at least on Fun House and Raw Power, have the edge that you can listen to them as both "normal rock music" and as weird avantgarde mutant noise rock.


Edited by Toaster Mantis - July 09 2015 at 12:43

The Velvets. There was a time where I listened to them almost exclusively.

Which ones are you referring to in particular?

what about MC5

I think MC5 are now one of those groups who are more influential than popular. They were responsible for the entire political movement side of punk, though, even if they weren't as insightful in their lyrics as Crass or Killing Joke.

Well like it or not, ideology's as important to punk as music. Same thing with goth, industrial, metal, psychedelia etc. if you define "ideology" somewhat more broadly than strictly political matters.

The Fugs were also an openly political 1960s garage rock band but they're not cited as a punk forerunner quite as often as MC5. Though I can easily imagine the satirical humour in their lyrics being as much an influence on Jello Biafra as on Frank Zappa.

SteveG wrote: Ideology is more important than music in Punk.

I like the both, The Stooges are more mechanical and relentless compared to The Velvet Underground.

Both: the Stooges when I want wildness, the VU when I want something more cerebral.

Velvet Underground because of Nico