For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
RollingFreak
You mentioning it now is the first I'm hearing about it. Honestly, its a great friggen setlist. I'm tempted to say its a compilation, because what are the chances he would play Kill Your Sons, Romeo Had Juliet, Ecstacy, and The Blue Mask all in one show? Seems like thats too big of a collection which he rarely did. Does it sound like a compilation since you've downloaded it? It also doesn't look like a compilation of previous stuff, because the times are different with stuff that is already out and then there's stuff like The Blue Mask, Women, Jesus and stuff that isn't on any official Lou live album. I'm very curious about this.
Quote
coffeepotman
There is a run of albums from Sally Can't Dance through Street Hassle excluding MMM that is just sensational. I've always loved these albums, especially Street Hassle. For me it just doesn't get much better in his career.
The Blue Mask is very good but New Sensations and Mistrial I don't like at all. I rarely listen to The Bells or Growing up in Public, perhaps I should give them anoth spin.
I like still listen to NY and Drella quite often but don't really give much listen to the others. I thought Extacy was interesting and did listen to that alot when it came out, will also have to listed to that again.
The 80's weren't kind to alot of older artests but Lou came back in 89 with the NY album which was and still is excellent.
Quote
stewedandkeefed
Since Lou's death ITunes has released a live album. I downloaded it. It sounds like it is all one source. Called Rock On The Wild Side. Over eighty minutes. Has Ecstasy on it so it is from 2000 or later but it does not match up to any setlist I know about. Anyone know anything about it?
Quote
TeddyB1018Quote
stewedandkeefed
Since Lou's death ITunes has released a live album. I downloaded it. It sounds like it is all one source. Called Rock On The Wild Side. Over eighty minutes. Has Ecstasy on it so it is from 2000 or later but it does not match up to any setlist I know about. Anyone know anything about it?
It's a comp. It's taken from a minimum from the DVD's Spanish Fly and Live at the Bottom Line, which span the early 80's into the '00's. For instance, Kill Your Sons is from the Bottom Line while Jesus is from Spanish Fly. Fernando Saunders is on all of it, which ties the sound together.
Quote
Chris Fountain
Lou Reed live NYC December 26, 1972.
Dateline is approximately one year prior to the recording of R & R Animal/ Lou Reed Live. I'm not sure if Berlin was released at this point or if it was in the making. Song "Berlin" is played in this concert.
Hunter & Wagner are included; This is a great recording as the sound is clean and crisp.
Quote
latebloomer
Lester Bang interviews Lou Reed, originally published in 1973.
Quote
stonehearted
It's also quite remarkable that as early as 1973 Lou Reed, despite not yet truly famous, was considered a "legend" after having only been in the business for less than a decade and only having recorded and released albums for 6 years by that point.
It's like considering someone a legend in 2013 whose debut album had only been released as recently as 2007. Today, it seems an artist needs a good 20 to 30 years to achieve such a status.
Perhaps time moved in slow motion back then, or that so much had changed in such a short time that it seemed like a longer time.
Yup. And also think about that if today were the same as the 60s and 70s, between 2007 and 2013 a band would have released at least 3 albums in that amount of time, probably closer to 5. So if the albums were really good (like a Led Zeppelin scenario) and all considered classics, I think its easy to think that that person could be considered a legend. Lou Reed had 4 VU albums that were considered pretty groundbreaking, even if they weren't critically acclaimed, and then just disappearing like he did. Definitely made him seem like a mysterious legend that could change music, and did by that time. Nowadays, an artist would have about 2 albums worth of material in 6 years.Quote
loog droogQuote
stonehearted
It's also quite remarkable that as early as 1973 Lou Reed, despite not yet truly famous, was considered a "legend" after having only been in the business for less than a decade and only having recorded and released albums for 6 years by that point.
It's like considering someone a legend in 2013 whose debut album had only been released as recently as 2007. Today, it seems an artist needs a good 20 to 30 years to achieve such a status.
Perhaps time moved in slow motion back then, or that so much had changed in such a short time that it seemed like a longer time.
Changes in society--and music-- were moving a lot FASTER in the 60's and 70's.
Certainly the Stones were already considered to be legends by 1967 (when Brian introduced Jimi at Monterey ), if not even earlier
Quote
TeddyB1018
Chris, this is not Hunter and Wagner but a famous live in the studio radio broadcast Lou did with The Tots that has been released many times. It's great though.
Quote
Chris FountainQuote
TeddyB1018
Chris, this is not Hunter and Wagner but a famous live in the studio radio broadcast Lou did with The Tots that has been released many times. It's great though.
Thanks for the correction. I was only going by the YT post and not my instincts. Still a great performance.
Quote
Chris Fountain
I prefer the Tots sound over Hunter & Wagner because their vesions seem to sound closer to the studio versions and still provide ample & respectable lead guitar.
Obviously, H & W can tear down the building with guitars as the forefront. However, the mood has to be correct in order to listen. Don't get me wrong, I love R & R Animal/ LR Live and listened to both Cds a zillion times but I'm a Lou Reed purist. The only beef I have with aforesaid Cds is that the Organ shouldn't had been as prevelant.
Quote
Edward TwiningQuote
Chris FountainQuote
TeddyB1018
Chris, this is not Hunter and Wagner but a famous live in the studio radio broadcast Lou did with The Tots that has been released many times. It's great though.
Thanks for the correction. I was only going by the YT post and not my instincts. Still a great performance.
I happen to think The Tots more intimate playing complimented Lou's true vision of those songs, more than the Hunter/Wagner style arena rock. However, i'm sure ROCK 'N' ROLL ANIMAL appealed to an audience who wouldn't necessarily be fans of Lou Reed, because of the album's more slick, mainstream sound. Lou seemed to lurch between styles in the seventies, some seemingly more appropriate than others, although nothing he seemed to do could be deemed boring. For me, the later seventies Everyman Band, were one of his best backing bands, because they inluded more of jazzy improvised feel. The Robert Quine/ Fernando Saunders band was great too, from the early eighties, because of their more focused rock playing (and this coincided with Lou's re-emergence as a serious guitar player). However, apart from the DVD, A NIGHT WITH LOU REED, it's hard to find examples of them truly firing on all cylinders (at least from what i have heard).
Quote
abQuote
Edward TwiningQuote
Chris FountainQuote
TeddyB1018
Chris, this is not Hunter and Wagner but a famous live in the studio radio broadcast Lou did with The Tots that has been released many times. It's great though.
Thanks for the correction. I was only going by the YT post and not my instincts. Still a great performance.
I happen to think The Tots more intimate playing complimented Lou's true vision of those songs, more than the Hunter/Wagner style arena rock. However, i'm sure ROCK 'N' ROLL ANIMAL appealed to an audience who wouldn't necessarily be fans of Lou Reed, because of the album's more slick, mainstream sound. Lou seemed to lurch between styles in the seventies, some seemingly more appropriate than others, although nothing he seemed to do could be deemed boring. For me, the later seventies Everyman Band, were one of his best backing bands, because they inluded more of jazzy improvised feel. The Robert Quine/ Fernando Saunders band was great too, from the early eighties, because of their more focused rock playing (and this coincided with Lou's re-emergence as a serious guitar player). However, apart from the DVD, A NIGHT WITH LOU REED, it's hard to find examples of them truly firing on all cylinders (at least from what i have heard).
Try Live in Italy.
Quote
ab
Lou a Bowie clone? Even Bowie would find that laughable. Bowie referred to Lou as The Master when they were making Transformer.