Quote
hbwriter
(thanks and you're welcome) it's funny - a lot of people have expressed this lately- that the Lou Reed thing is hitting really hard- i think his stubbornness and surliness just made him seem like he'd outlast them all- plus the music was just always so tough and sturdy. I dunno - my 20 year old son talks about it all the time - when he heard it on the news it was like a death in the family - i guess a loss like this just reminds us how important music is to all of us.

I have had similar experiences. For some reason the death of Lou Reed just hitted hard on people I know. And only a few of them have following his career very closely, especially lately. I mean, it is not surely the first death of a rock star, and not even for ages, but somehow this one feels like there is something extraordinary and significant in it. Probably there was indeed something to do with his "stubborness and surliness"; no way he will die ever with that badass attitude. One of my friends said that Reed's career was like he consciously was writing a book one chapter after other. And there always be a new, odd, fascinating, whatever chapter, no matter how much we pay attention to. And suddenly we realized that there would be none anymore; the book is finished. Reed is gone for good. In him there was that forever living kind of wandering spirit, true artistic honesty that is forever gone with him. He represented something unique, and he seemingly directly or indirectly affected a lot more to the culture - and generations of people - than what, say, his record sales, amount of hits and all that bullshit says. With him we lost more than just him.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-11 11:01 by Doxa.

Quote
hbwriter
(thanks and you're welcome) it's funny - a lot of people have expressed this lately- that the Lou Reed thing is hitting really hard- i think his stubbornness and surliness just made him seem like he'd outlast them all- plus the music was just always so tough and sturdy. I dunno - my 20 year old son talks about it all the time - when he heard it on the news it was like a death in the family - i guess a loss like this just reminds us how important music is to all of us.

Thats exactly it. It really is so weird. I'm just like your son. I'm 21 years old and my dad is a die hard Lou Reed fan. Like, the one that has every album on CD and has seen him many many times live. The amount of times I've heard his stories through the years: from the time he saw him live before or right when his debut album came out and he was playing colleges and just playing Velvet Underground songs, to when he claims Lou "sweat on him" at the Bottom Line, to when he saw the worse concert he ever saw, which was Lou at Carnegie Hall in 2004.

He's just been such a part of my life for so long, and while I'm nowhere near the fan he is, I really did love him, and its exactly as you said. He was the guy you thought would outlast them all and would always do what he wanted. Yeah he pissed me off many times, with crap like Like A Possum, but there was actually always something sort of good about it, and the good stuff by far outweighed the bad. Its like his death sparked this whole new interest for me that I didn't know was there. It makes sense my dad is so affected. I mean, he's been following him for over 40 years. But people can't really understand why he's affecting me so much.

And I really can't either, but it does definitely feel like that death in the family. And its in the way that The Stones or Paul McCartney dying should feel more like a death in the family but that I don't think it will. Those guys, sorry to burst anyone's bubble, are essentially done. When Paul McCartney dies, I will be sad, but I won't feel the same as when Lou Reed died. He was still creating and he would always be creating. But more importantly it would be at a level the same as his whole career has been. His stonefaced attitude made it seem like he'd never leave. Like, he was just gonna outlive anyone. It helps that he's been "old" since like 1990. So he hadn't really changed much, he was just Lou and he felt like the guy that would always be around.

It just felt like he wasn't done living yet. 71 isn't terribly young, and for how he's lived its luck that he lived that long. But for some reason with Lou, it feels like he died at 40. It feels like there's all this stuff we'll never get to hear from him even though he basically hadn't put out anything new in a decade. It always felt like he was with us though and relevant. Like, he gets the joke and he's ahead of all of us. He's seeing something that we aren't.

I don't know. Its just the weirdest feeling. His death shouldn't have affected me this much, yet it does. The fact that I can't wake up every morning anymore and think "he's still singing Sweet Jane somewhere"... its just unreal to me. Its like I'm mourning someone who I've followed for 40 years when, in reality, its been like 10 years for me. I miss him on this whole other level than most people.

But now and I'm rambling and thats because its 2 in the morning for me. Basically, I really like this thread, and I really like what people have said, and its touching that there's been so much outpour for him. The one thing I will say about his death is at least he's getting the respect I would hope he'd get. No one is really saying anything bad, when they easily could, and its good to know that after 70 years of unintentionally pissing people off, no one really wants to taunt the beast. Because even though he's gone, it still feels like if you said "he sucked" he could come up to you and punch you in the face.

An excellent post, RollingFreak! Thank you for sharing it. You put it so well, especially concerning the McCartney/Stones part - I know what you mean.

- Doxa

What a great post..RollingFreak - a lot of people including myself have been affected similarly.

Thanks Doxa. I was literally just gonna say the same about you. I think this part you said sums it up perfectly:

Quote
Doxa
And suddenly we realized that there would be none anymore; the book is finished. Reed is gone for good. In him there was that forever living kind of wandering spirit, true artistic honesty that is forever gone with him. He represented something unique, and he seemingly directly or indirectly affected a lot more to the culture - and generations of people - than what, say, his record sales, amount of hits and all that bullshit says. With him we lost more than just him.

Beautiful and just so true. And a lot more succinct than me LOL.

Also, Stonehearted, thanks for those videos and stories. I never knew about that event and you can see the happiness on the faces of two HUGE curmudgeons. Makes it even more special when two guys who always seem pissed off get to play with each other and really care because you can see so clearly how much they admire the other.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-11 11:09 by RollingFreak.

So, Doxa, are we saying that there will no "previously unreleased" music....released?

I think that the profound personal impact that many feel with Lou Reed's passing has more to do with the nature of his music and the fact that his music often deviated from the tastes of the mainstream.

Apart from Walk On The Wild Side, the radio didn't really play anything of his all that much, and most people couldn't even name more than 3 Lou Reed songs offhand. So, to experience the full scope of Reed's genius you really had to take it upon yourself and search for it, and it was often a solitary task.

Unlike with, say, The Stones, you wouldn't have a party with a bunch of your friends over and put on Magic And Loss. Even Songs For Drella you would have to take in alone. I once played Songs For Drella for someone who enjoyed a fair amount of Lou Reed. When I asked if he liked it he avoided answering the question directly and instead replied with: "Well, it's very theatrical, isn't it?"

You might have been able to impress a few friends and such by playing the video of the 1993 VU reunion, but for the most part your appreciation of Reed's body of work would be a personal, rather than communal, experience. Mainly because to appreciate Reed fully you had to really listen and absorb the lyrics--which were often poetry--line for line, which is just not done in a communal, and especially party, setting.

As opposed to when McCartney or Jagger and Richards die, where it will be as if time has stood still for a day or so and a time tunnel collage of cultural memories will be flooding through the media as popular consciousness bids farewell at last to the final truly tangible living links to an era that now exists in living memory only....

....but with Lou Reed the experience of loss was more personal because so few people you knew had absorbed as much of his work or owned as many of his albums and songs as you did, so his passing is somehow closer to home so to speak.

His work is durable and timeless, like any great poetry would be.

I think this is a great performance!

Quote
RollingFreak
Stonehearted, thanks for those videos and stories. I never knew about that event and you can see the happiness on the faces of two HUGE curmudgeons. Makes it even more special when two guys who always seem pissed off get to play with each other and really care because you can see so clearly how much they admire the other.

You're very welcome. Glad you got to see and enjoy those clips.

When I first got the DVD when it came out, it made me realize for the first time that Lou was really starting to look old. His face was weathered and his voice sounded a bit worn and shaky, but I did have a bit of a chuckle over the leather pants and thought how there weren't any other 65-year-olds I could think of who could wear them and still seem cool. Old or not, Lou Reed would always be Lou Reed, and that would be good enough for me.

Just watched an "American Masters" film about Lou that was pretty good. Don't think I saw it when it originally aired. Nice that PBS ran it last week.

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
hbwriter
(thanks and you're welcome) it's funny - a lot of people have expressed this lately- that the Lou Reed thing is hitting really hard- i think his stubbornness and surliness just made him seem like he'd outlast them all- plus the music was just always so tough and sturdy. I dunno - my 20 year old son talks about it all the time - when he heard it on the news it was like a death in the family - i guess a loss like this just reminds us how important music is to all of us.

Thats exactly it. It really is so weird. I'm just like your son. I'm 21 years old and my dad is a die hard Lou Reed fan. Like, the one that has every album on CD and has seen him many many times live. The amount of times I've heard his stories through the years: from the time he saw him live before or right when his debut album came out and he was playing colleges and just playing Velvet Underground songs, to when he claims Lou "sweat on him" at the Bottom Line, to when he saw the worse concert he ever saw, which was Lou at Carnegie Hall in 2004.

He's just been such a part of my life for so long, and while I'm nowhere near the fan he is, I really did love him, and its exactly as you said. He was the guy you thought would outlast them all and would always do what he wanted. Yeah he pissed me off many times, with crap like Like A Possum, but there was actually always something sort of good about it, and the good stuff by far outweighed the bad. Its like his death sparked this whole new interest for me that I didn't know was there. It makes sense my dad is so affected. I mean, he's been following him for over 40 years. But people can't really understand why he's affecting me so much.

And I really can't either, but it does definitely feel like that death in the family. And its in the way that The Stones or Paul McCartney dying should feel more like a death in the family but that I don't think it will. Those guys, sorry to burst anyone's bubble, are essentially done. When Paul McCartney dies, I will be sad, but I won't feel the same as when Lou Reed died. He was still creating and he would always be creating. But more importantly it would be at a level the same as his whole career has been. His stonefaced attitude made it seem like he'd never leave. Like, he was just gonna outlive anyone. It helps that he's been "old" since like 1990. So he hadn't really changed much, he was just Lou and he felt like the guy that would always be around.

It just felt like he wasn't done living yet. 71 isn't terribly young, and for how he's lived its luck that he lived that long. But for some reason with Lou, it feels like he died at 40. It feels like there's all this stuff we'll never get to hear from him even though he basically hadn't put out anything new in a decade. It always felt like he was with us though and relevant. Like, he gets the joke and he's ahead of all of us. He's seeing something that we aren't.

I don't know. Its just the weirdest feeling. His death shouldn't have affected me this much, yet it does. The fact that I can't wake up every morning anymore and think "he's still singing Sweet Jane somewhere"... its just unreal to me. Its like I'm mourning someone who I've followed for 40 years when, in reality, its been like 10 years for me. I miss him on this whole other level than most people.

But now and I'm rambling and thats because its 2 in the morning for me. Basically, I really like this thread, and I really like what people have said, and its touching that there's been so much outpour for him. The one thing I will say about his death is at least he's getting the respect I would hope he'd get. No one is really saying anything bad, when they easily could, and its good to know that after 70 years of unintentionally pissing people off, no one really wants to taunt the beast. Because even though he's gone, it still feels like if you said "he sucked" he could come up to you and punch you in the face.

a beautiful, poignant response - thank you - gonna show it to my son.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-11 16:35 by hbwriter.

Quote
stonehearted

When I first got the DVD when it came out, it made me realize for the first time that Lou was really starting to look old. His face was weathered and his voice sounded a bit worn and shaky, but I did have a bit of a chuckle over the leather pants and thought how there weren't any other 65-year-olds I could think of who could wear them and still seem cool. Old or not, Lou Reed would always be Lou Reed, and that would be good enough for me.

Yes. I would say Lou looked remarkably young for his age up until about the last 7 or 8 years. I can recall seeing him live at the time of his album, SET THE TWILIGHT REELING around 1996, and being very close to him near the stage, and wondering how on earth he managed to stay so well preserved, especially in light of his previous well documented lifestyle, with all the drugs, and alcohol etc. In a sense he looked the very antithesis of Keith Richards, despite them both abusing their bodies to the extreme. Lou looked well toned too, in his black t shirt, and with his impressive biceps on show. He looked like he'd been seriously working out. However, the first time i really noticed a significant physical decline was during an interview he gave around the time of his BERLIN album stage shows in around 2008. Ageing is always an issue, of course, and especially when one gets passed a certain age, but in my opinion, at this point Lou looked really quite ill.

As much as i love the Stones, like Rolling Freak and Stonehearted have said, Lou was still a living and breathing musical artist, who was still not satisfied to sit back and wallow in nostalgia. He still had something to say. That does make his death all the more hard to swallow. What Doxa said about Lou's albums being like chapters of a book is true, also. In fact it is something Lou was always quoted as saying, and that included his work with the Velvet Underground too. It's such a shame we've reached that final chapter, and seemingly much too prematurely.

There is also that thought that was aspired to, that because Lou's music was not commercially heard much on radio (apart from the odd song) those songs do take on a more intimate meaning, as belonging to ourselves, but not everybody else. You can really feel they exist as part of you.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-11 16:53 by Edward Twining.

Quote
bitusa2012
So flame me - I like the album New York (LIKE - not LOVE) and a handful of other tunes, but I just never got any other Lou Reed. I CERTAINLY could never get his legendary status.So he's rude, or stubborn or surly. If that makes him a legend so is my Aunt Amy.

I could never listen to an album all the way thru, thats for sure.

Sorry he has passed. Especially feel for his family. But his music? No, sorry, not my cup of tea.

Rgds
Rod
Perth

Has your Aunt Amy released any new albums lately?

If so, love to download them.

RollingFreak, Doxa - and others, - hey really good posts. Thanks.

What hit me about Lou's death is the hole he leaves on the modern music. We seem to live in era of American Idol, X Factor and Britain Has Talent game shows - where most of the singers sound the same as the next. We don't have that many musicians that are unique in what they do. Lou was interesting character, a big personality who walked his own path.

I think these times make me really sad, cause there so much commercial crap and I would like too see more original individuality in music and real artists. Too much mass marketed copy cats out there.

Nothing new, but a reminder. Lou with and without Velvet had such talent, everlasting talent.

Quote
RollingFreak
I'm 21 years old and my dad is a die hard Lou Reed fan. Like, the one that has every album on CD and has seen him many many times live. The amount of times I've heard his stories through the years: from the time he saw him live before or right when his debut album came out and he was playing colleges and just playing Velvet Underground songs, to when he claims Lou "sweat on him" at the Bottom Line, to when he saw the worse concert he ever saw, which was Lou at Carnegie Hall in 2004.

Hi Rolling Freak, I'm curious about the Carnegie Hall show - why did your dad feel it was so bad?

Quote
UGot2Rollme

Quote
RollingFreak
I'm 21 years old and my dad is a die hard Lou Reed fan. Like, the one that has every album on CD and has seen him many many times live. The amount of times I've heard his stories through the years: from the time he saw him live before or right when his debut album came out and he was playing colleges and just playing Velvet Underground songs, to when he claims Lou "sweat on him" at the Bottom Line, to when he saw the worse concert he ever saw, which was Lou at Carnegie Hall in 2004.

Hi Rolling Freak, I'm curious about the Carnegie Hall show - why did your dad feel it was so bad?

I've tried and he's tried to explain it. It was the weirdest thing. Lou played a lot of Magic And Loss an album my dad really likes, but also a lot from The Raven. But for some reason it was just a really downer night. Lou Reed didn't say a word at all, and the whole night was really subdued. My dad didn't need hits, but he was just waiting for the night to pick up and it just seemed like overall it was a rather boring show. Probably what Lou decided on for that night, but not knowing that beforehand it really can be a let down for the audience.

Alot of it also had to do with Animal Serenade. He toured that the year before and we got the CD when it came out and were blown away. Like, that sounded like reinvigorated Lou Reed playing such a diverse catalogue of songs over a 2 and a half hour span. And then like 4 months after the CD is released, he plays Carnegie Hall and my dad is beyond excited. He expected this really upbeat show similar to that, or at least one that touched on so many classic albums. And he was just disappointed to get a pretty bland evening, with no Berlin, no big VU songs like Sweet Jane and White Light, no New York stuff. Just a weird selection. And then to top it all off, he ends with Perfect Day, but the really quiet version from The Raven which kind of felt like a slap in the face.

My dad was never bitter about it. He always ragged on it in a rather joking way because it was just so different than what he expected. It was a pretty challenging setlist looking at it now. And I know I've heard the bootleg (which I'm currently trying to download again so I can hear in light of his death) and the night does feel quiet and strained. There's a lot of tension when people yell out Velvet Underground songs, moreso than usual where Lou really seems angry with them this time. I don't know, just didn't rub him right. Also really short at about an hour and 15 minutes long, literally half the length of the Animal Serenade show. No hard feelings about it, as you never really can with Lou shows, but I remember it was his first time seeing Lou in awhile and he felt kind of ripped off. Yet he would have been the first person buying tickets next time a tour was announced. The two of us tried unsuccessfully to see one of the Brooklyn Berlin shows, of which we have the live album and Lou sounds excellent.

As our requiem continues here - another shot I took of Lou last year- if you can imagine, total silence while I shot- we spoke after - but while he sat, all i could hear was his breathing and little throat clearings. he was not really comfortable, i sensed, but still, he sat, until finally saying - "so we good?"

Great shot hbwriter.....................

__________________________

Lou Reed, Moe Tucker and Doug Yule. New York Public Library, December 8, 2009.






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-12 04:23 by tatters.

hope it's cool to maybe post a few more shots -

Quote
Beast
By Patti Smith

[www.newyorker.com]

A fitting enough poem-tribute to a man of our times.

Not much mention here of the 1993 Velvet Underground reunion tour. I'd be interested to read the thoughts of anybody who saw them. The one person I've spoken to who did make the trip to London to see them that year said that, as would have been the case with any Beatles reunion, the myth greatly evaporated the moment they began playing. She also thought the coolest person in the group was Moe.















Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-12 16:07 by tatters.

I didn't see the VU reunion although I just heard the album last week. I would agree it does sound like there's something missing from it. And I mean they basically played everything you'd want, with all the well known stuff plus some great rarities like The Gift, I Can't Stand It, Real Good Time Together. But for some reason the whole thing just sounds... off. Like they really aren't that into it. IMO Moe and Sterling shine and really do well. In fact, I don't think the live album even picks up till Moe does After Hours four songs in. John Cale and Lou are fine, although they just seem there. I would actually say Lou is my least favorite part of the record. His vocals, while not glaringly bad or wrong, just sound SO uninterested. Again, that could just be Lou, be he sounds like he's singing nothing with feeling. The whole concert just almost seems to planned and like a task to them. John Cale does fine. Its not a bad album, I don't know how the shows were, but there's definitely something off that keeps it from being as amazing as the tracklist seems to imply. And I can't even give how they should play better, because they play fine. Maybe the Velvet Underground just didn't work in the 90s, at least in that organized reunion type way.

I would also say, minor change, but if I were to change anything to make the setlist perfect, I would switch out Hey Mr. Rain for Sister Ray. If you're gonna do the 20 minute jam, it might as well be the famous one.

Quote
RollingFreak
I didn't see the VU reunion although I just heard the album last week. I would agree it does sound like there's something missing from it. And I mean they basically played everything you'd want, with all the well known stuff plus some great rarities like The Gift, I Can't Stand It, Real Good Time Together. But for some reason the whole thing just sounds... off. Like they really aren't that into it. IMO Moe and Sterling shine and really do well. In fact, I don't think the live album even picks up till Moe does After Hours four songs in. John Cale and Lou are fine, although they just seem there. I would actually say Lou is my least favorite part of the record. His vocals, while not glaringly bad or wrong, just sound SO uninterested. Again, that could just be Lou, be he sounds like he's singing nothing with feeling. The whole concert just almost seems to planned and like a task to them. John Cale does fine. Its not a bad album, I don't know how the shows were, but there's definitely something off that keeps it from being as amazing as the tracklist seems to imply. And I can't even give how they should play better, because they play fine. Maybe the Velvet Underground just didn't work in the 90s, at least in that organized reunion type way.

I would also say, minor change, but if I were to change anything to make the setlist perfect, I would switch out Hey Mr. Rain for Sister Ray. If you're gonna do the 20 minute jam, it might as well be the famous one.

Lou's live vocals haven't particularly struck me for decades (since perhaps that great Bottom Line Club performance from 83). I'd say his vocals displayed a little more energy in the late nineties onwards though. It's difficult, i feel, to listen to the reformed Velvet Underground from 93, alongside the great 1969 Live album (and that's with the reintroduction of Cale too, who had already left them by 69). Lou's voice had certainly lost a lot of its former greatness in my opinion. However, i don't think this exclusively relates to Lou alone. There are few artists that can pull off vocally what they could do in their youth.

Here's my 2 cents.

College. Around 1972. I became a huge Bowie fan and shortly thereafter a big Lou Reed fan via Transformer. When Rock-n-Roll Animal came out the decision was made to see him "live" as soon as possible. Three of us drove to Philadelphia to see him at the Tower Theatre where he would perform his Sally Can't Dance show. It was very good. He had blond hair, faked shooting up Heroin and performed a great setlist. My only complaint was that his band didn't quite perform to the level that his "73 Berlin Tour band did with Hunter and Wagner.

Fast forward to around 1976 or so at my next opportunity. It was Lou at the "Felt Forum" under Madison Square Garden. Another good show. This time Lou was back to black hair and played more guitar than he had previously. Lots of purposeful crazy feedback. One of the memorable moments was him doing I Wanna Be Black, a rare un-released song that I had never heard before. It was good but not quite as good as the first time in Philly.

Fast forward again to around 1978. Baton Rouge Louisiana. The Kingfish bar, an old honkytonk on the bayou where I also saw the Sex Pistols. This time was pretty up close and personal. It was also very boring. I don't know how else to describe it except that he just grew older, less dangerous and less exciting with each passing tour. The same thing happened to me with Bowie, I saw about 3 tours and that was it.

I guess that if I have my choice I like to see an artist in his prime. That has happened for me a few times. I still enjoy Transformer and the '73 live European shows which I collect. Those are absolutely amazing. You can really hear the bands growth with each show which culminated with his finest show, ever, at the New York Academy of Music.... which no one had the foresight to film. What a shame. Peace. Out....

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
RollingFreak
I didn't see the VU reunion although I just heard the album last week. I would agree it does sound like there's something missing from it. And I mean they basically played everything you'd want, with all the well known stuff plus some great rarities like The Gift, I Can't Stand It, Real Good Time Together. But for some reason the whole thing just sounds... off. Like they really aren't that into it. IMO Moe and Sterling shine and really do well. In fact, I don't think the live album even picks up till Moe does After Hours four songs in. John Cale and Lou are fine, although they just seem there. I would actually say Lou is my least favorite part of the record. His vocals, while not glaringly bad or wrong, just sound SO uninterested. Again, that could just be Lou, be he sounds like he's singing nothing with feeling. The whole concert just almost seems to planned and like a task to them. John Cale does fine. Its not a bad album, I don't know how the shows were, but there's definitely something off that keeps it from being as amazing as the tracklist seems to imply. And I can't even give how they should play better, because they play fine. Maybe the Velvet Underground just didn't work in the 90s, at least in that organized reunion type way.

I would also say, minor change, but if I were to change anything to make the setlist perfect, I would switch out Hey Mr. Rain for Sister Ray. If you're gonna do the 20 minute jam, it might as well be the famous one.

Lou's live vocals haven't particularly struck me for decades (since perhaps that great Bottom Line Club performance from 83). I'd say his vocals displayed a little more energy in the late nineties onwards though. It's difficult, i feel, to listen to the reformed Velvet Underground from 93, alongside the great 1969 Live album (and that's with the reintroduction of Cale too, who had already left them by 69). Lou's voice had certainly lost a lot of its former greatness in my opinion. However, i don't think this exclusively relates to Lou alone. There are few artists that can pull off vocally what they could do in their youth.

Absolutely. Except I wouldn't say his voice hadn't struck me for that long. Yes, there was that decade from 84-94 where he was pretty flat and dry and you can hear it in stuff like New York, Drella or the VU reunion. More than ever, it feels like he's reading and not singing. But with Set The Twilight Reeling and all the way up until at least the Berlin album performance in 2006 I thought his voice was great. He found this new energy and he was still kind of talk-singing, but it was an older wiser Lou and I think it gave the songs a whole new spin. He wasn't trying to sound young anymore because he wasn't, but he also had this vigor to start delivering quality shows again (not that New York and Magic And Loss shows were bad, just his voice was an acquired taste at the time). I think that his vocals on Perfect Night and Animal Serenade are a perfect example of how amazing he could sound at an older age. The VU reunion was unfortunately just during that period where he seemed a little out of it.

surreal moment i recall from the bottom line, 1983

andy warhol using a polaroid (with flash) from his table during the show - if it were anyone else, they would have tossed him- bill boggs, the tv producer/host whose company was shooting the show, whispered gently to him, to no avail

and here is Boggs talking to Lou from that period!

Quote
RollingFreak

Absolutely. Except I wouldn't say his voice hadn't struck me for that long. Yes, there was that decade from 84-94 where he was pretty flat and dry and you can hear it in stuff like New York, Drella or the VU reunion. More than ever, it feels like he's reading and not singing. But with Set The Twilight Reeling and all the way up until at least the Berlin album performance in 2006 I thought his voice was great. He found this new energy and he was still kind of talk-singing, but it was an older wiser Lou and I think it gave the songs a whole new spin. He wasn't trying to sound young anymore because he wasn't, but he also had this vigor to start delivering quality shows again (not that New York and Magic And Loss shows were bad, just his voice was an acquired taste at the time). I think that his vocals on Perfect Night and Animal Serenade are a perfect example of how amazing he could sound at an older age. The VU reunion was unfortunately just during that period where he seemed a little out of it.

I agree RollingFreak. SET THE TWILIGHT REELING was great, especially, because although i liked NEW YORK, SONGS FOR DRELLA and MAGIC AND LOSS, in terms of the concept behind them, and many of the songs, i grew very bored with the way Lou began reciting the words, in that very dry way of his, without frankly injecting very much vitality, instead of making much real effort to sing. The first time i heard 'New York City Man' off SET THE TWILIGHT REELING it reminded me of Lou's mid seventies voice a little, and i was overjoyed at the prospect that perhaps a little bit of the old Lou was back. I wouldn't say SET THE TWILIGHT REELING as a whole was a return to a more 70s sounding Lou necessarily, but i just thought vocally Lou was the most vital i had heard him for sometime (at least since MISTRIAL). I was bewildered with some of the less enthusiastic reviews of SET THE TWILIGHT REELING, because i felt it was a big improvement on much of the material he had released in the previous decade. Critics seemed to have loved those albums i had some strong misgivings about, but were less charitable when it came to the albums i enjoyed significantly more (and ECSTASY is an album i'd include, too).

Yes, i think live Lou vocally certainly made a partial return to form, certainly around the time of those 1996 and 2000 tours, although maybe not enough to quite compare to those earlier shows up to 1983. I just found Lou's vocals and also the the songs arrangements a little too clinical, during the 89-93 era.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-12 22:34 by Edward Twining.