John Cale is infinitely better than Lou Reed
 

Now im not a huge Velvet Underground fan, but what ive heard makes it CLEAR than Lou Reed is a Charlatan.
Discuss the truth.

You trippin fool
Actually, I've only heard Vintage Violence by Cale and Transformer by Lou Reed.
Both good albums, but neither of them blow me away.

I have to agree. I find Cale much more enjoyable.

This reminds me I still need to obtain Metal Machine Music. Never checked out Cale solo. Not too long ago watched the Warhol film of the VU jamming at the factory and it sort of came across that Cale was more into some experimentation and shit whilst Reed was more into smug posturing.. that's the way it came across to me sort of, anyway.. Still, what I've heard of Metal Machine Music is pretty fucking splendid and way way ahead of its time..

I've listened to to Metal Machine Music a couple of times and it isn't really that great.

if you mean is a charlatan in comparison to Cale, implying that Cale is the true musical genius behind the mutual VU tunes, then you have something of an argument. but if you just mean a charlatan in general, then that is just not a fair critique, I mean the man can clearly sing, play and perform these tunes with some level of skill, whether or not it is to your tastes should not discredit the technicality of the music.

theyre both brilliant, cale is indeed a better composer, but lou reed is a songwriter and had a vision.

the velvet underground was the best band of all time, they influenced everything we listen too.

I have only heard one Cale solo tune on an Uncut magazine cd haha. And I've onlyheard Metal Machine Music, which is actually fucking awesome, so textural and eerily beautiful... but I know that's not his 'norm'.
But I mean... Loaded is a fucking wicked album, consistently incredible songs, and Cale wasn't on that album.

But I love what Cale brought to the band, anyway... I wouldn't say all the experimental bits, because Lou made the damn Ostrich guitar, did he not?! But I would probably agree with what batreleaser said, John is a batter composer, but Lou is the songwriter and conceptualist, man.

I find Lou to be the more consistent of the two.

DUH

John Cale is obviously a better musician, but a better songwriter I don't know.

The latter part of your post is simply an overstatement. The Velvet Underground simply was not that great, and in terms of influence, they've indirectly upheld a lot of truly lousy, third-rate bands over the years--not so many as Led Zeppelin, mind you, but still quite a few. Because of the poor recording of their first two albums, and the underrehearsed sound of many of the tracks, too many groups over the years have misinterpreted The Velvet Underground as an excuse to sound like shit. The result has been a lowering of standards, sadly. I'm glad bands like Joy Division and The Psychedelic Furs listened to The Doors and Roxy Music too, otherwise....

Lou Reed wrote most of the songs of the VU , and it's a good band ( very influencing , but not great ) , so no way is he a charlatan.
My favorite record by these two fellows is "Song for Drella"

There is no texture in Metal Machine Music at all. It's all pedal-controlled feedback coming from some amplifiers, but yes, it still sounds pretty good. Good point about the Ostrich guitar, which allowed Reed to explore one-note playing and attracted Cale, amongst other things.
To be honest, if it came down to the solo work of any member of the Velvet Underground, Nico made most of the albums that resonate with me more than any other, and even Maureen Tucker's solo albums are much better than some of the rubbish that both Reed and Cale produced over the years. Cale I prefer to Reed simply for introducing me to a different musical world that Lou Reed could have not, and he also produced and played on much of Nico's best work, so there. Much underated is Sterling Morrison's guitar-playing, which personally I find just as good as Reed's, but less of a show-off. They all made their own contribution, in one way or another.

Nico's solo stuff is definitely the best.

I feel Cale's solo stuff is hit and miss. There is some stuff off of Vintage Violence, Slow Dazzle, and Paris 1919 that I appreciate. I don't really care for any of Lou Reed's solo stuff.

The Velvet Underground was still great after Cale left. The self-titled 3rd album is really awesome, and a testament to Lou Reed's ability as a song writer, and the Morrison and Tucker's contributions.

Cale's Words For The Dying is one of the best LPs of '89, and certainly made my Christmas that year. (There's something about Cale singing Dylan Thomas's poems--especially 'On a Wedding Anniversary'--with a Russian orchestra backing him up that goes well with cheap booze and blowing snow on December 25th.) That album opened up a fair number of young people to classical music, I think.

It's fair to say that Chelsea Girls is the least interesting of Nico's albums, but Marble Index alone is very much a peerless album. There hasn't been one that sounds like that or with a person who sings like that on it ever since. Similar, yes, but not quite sounding like that.

im not gonna start an arguement. theyre brilliant, i love them, lotta people love them, i love roxy music too, but theres no way they had the huge influence that the velvet underground or the stooges had. ure entitled to your opinion tho.

i like loaded and self titled a lot, there is a lot of beautiful songs on both of them, but i feel like that theyre more like reed solo alblums than velvet underground alblums. ive always thought of as the velvet underground as the songwriting collaboration of john cale and lou reed, granted maureen tucker was a great drummer. but john and lou made the VU what it was.

Well, we couldn't have had The Stooges without The Doors, The Velvet Underground and The MC5 now, could we? Similar things could be said of David Bowie and Roxy Music, throwing in The Beatles, The Who and American R & B (Motown, Stax) as additional influences in their cases.

Frankly, I don't think The Velvets, The Stooges, The Doors, MC5, Led Zeppelin or even The Beatles can match Roxy Music when it comes to influence, mainly because--unlike the others--Roxy influenced considerable portions of both underground/noncommercial rock and mainstream pop. There was a while there in the late '70s and '80s when virtually everything one heard on commercial rock radio sounded like Roxy Music (Duran Duran, Heaven 17, Images In Vogue, Platinum Blonde, ABC, INXS, early U2, Psychedelic Furs, Blue Peter, etc.), and certainly everyone looked like them on Much Music and MTV. In fact, I would rank Roxy Music to be the No. 2 most influential rock band of all time, second only to Black Sabbath. Rounding out the Top 5 or 10 would be mostly other early British Invasion acts. I'm not sure that any North American (or international) acts would make the list; possibly The Stooges and/or The Ramones (I would include Hendrix as part of the British-based Jimi Hendrix Experience). As far as North America goes, we've given the rock world the most influential solo artists: Bob Dylan, Alice Cooper, Neil Young, Elvis Presley, James Brown, Leonard Cohen, Joan Baez, Joni Mitchell, Chuck Berry--and Lou Reed!!!

Actually, when all is said and done, one can trace just about all the major movements and sub-genres in rock music back to a handful of groups and artists in the mid '60s: Dylan (folk rock), James Brown (funk), The Yardbirds (heavy metal), The Who (punk/metal), The Nice and Zappa's Mothers of Invention (progressive), The Doors and The Velvet Underground (new wave/art rock), and The Pink Floyd and The Red Crayola (no wave). Most of the other styles that came along after this were cross-polinations or extensions of the mid '60s inventions.