Despite being one of the most repeated rock myths, The Velvet Underground were actually quite popular in the 60s. Obviously we're not talking Beatles or Stones levels but they certainly had a level of success that brought them into the mainstream. I thought I'd take a look... 
Brian Eno famously said that everyone who bought a Velvet's album went out and formed a band. Or did he? Nobody actually seems to be able to find the source of his legendary quote - quoteinvestigator.com/2016/03/01/vel…
It's certainly a great line, and probably true -to an extent - regarding it inspirational qualities anyway. I'm not convinced about it only selling 10-30,000 copies though. Discogs mentions at least 23 presses of the first album in 1967 alone.
However, website, RecordMecca has fairly definitive evidence the 1967-1968 royalty statement showing it selling nearly 60K+ copies. Richie Unterberger wrote that Sterling Morrison would later claim that by 1970 it had sold around 200K. 1970-71, as we will see were important years
We do know that the Banana album reached 171 in the charts and stayed there for 13 weeks on its 3rd release, comparable to contemporary acts such as The Mothers of invention. But they were being written about in the mainstream long before their album came out...
A live gig was reviewed in May 1966. Even in the UK, Norman Jopling was writing about them in highstreet weekly Record Mirror on 22 October 1966- "the Velvet Underground (this group is handled by film-maker Andy Warhol, who is responsible for many major "happenings" in the U.S.)"
Outiside US, Mick Farren mentioned them in IT in late 67, and the album was reviewed in Echo - "Their music is hard rock 'n' roll brought up to date with electricity. An electric viola adds a distinctive cruel, harsh note — it's particularly evil on 'Venus In Furs' and 'Heroin'"
The second got some great UK reviews - "A MENACING set of acid-rock tunes from the former Andy Warhol group, which range from the behemoth 'Sister Ray'.......All of the backings have that repetitive growling blues quality, and the vocals are deadpan. A hippy must. ****
Perhaps the star of bringing The Velvet Underground into the UK mainstream was Guardian critic Geoffrey Cannon - through 1968 to early 69 he'd written profusely about them in the pages of The Guardian...
MGM were no slouches either. White Light / White Heat was advertised heavily in Rolling Stone throughout 1968
Our friend, Geoffrey continued to religiously promote the band in multiple UK press pieces throughout 1969. In the US, Lenny Kaye started name dropping them during his Stooges review. MGM continued their press campaign of high level advertising...
In October 1969, The Melody Maker had their turn - "THE VELVET Underground have made just three albums, none of which have sold particularly well in Britain. But that trio of albums constitutes a body of work which is easily as impressive as any in rock. 1/2
"If you doubt that statement, then it's unlikely that you've listened hard to the albums, because they yield up their treasure only to a listener who is prepared to treat them with respect and intelligence." 2/2
Again, Geoffrey continued to use his public space to tirelessly promote the VU to the UK public across 1970 and meanwhile in the US, the New York Times used a review to offer a little history piece on the band.
In 1971, Geoffrey used his credentials to run a very in depth retrospective of the band in Time Out. This coincided with a large re-release campaign and a Lou-less European tour.
While never being on ToTP, I think it's safe to say that unlike popular claims, The Velvet Underground, in their first few years actually sold a fair few records, had good press; and with important figures such as Geoffrey Cannon laid the myth for generations far earlier
Bowie's 1967 cover(ish)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
