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?

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
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.

It sounds like one source. There is an audience present. But no audience between tracks. Doesn't sound high quality though it is soundboard. Sounds like the same band. Does not sound like a compilation. It is a mystery to me. Checked all the setlists to Lou shows I have. Nothing even comes close to matching. It doesn't seem like I have heard these performances before. Only listened once so far.

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.

I think NEW YORK is very strong lyrically, in terms of its cohesion within the subject matter with regard to the goings on in New York. Each song pretty much looks at the dealings with living in New York, from the perspective of waste poverty, disease etc, - desperation does seem very much the prevading theme. I like 'Romeo Had Juliet, 'Dime Store Mystery' and 'The Last Great American Whale' especially. However, as a whole, and on a more musical level, i believe NEW YORK to be Lou at his most maintream. Not that that's bad necessarily, because the lyrics are the focal point of the album, and not necessarily the music. However, over repeated listens, i believe the album can begin to sound like Lou is tirading pretty much against everything in sight, and that can begin to sound just a little grating after a while, not that he hasn't got a point to what he's saying, mind. That's perhaps also one of NEW YORK'S strengths, too, because it is the attention to detail within the lyrics relating to living in contemporary NEW YORK, that has given the album so much well deserved praise. However, if i'm honest i like the best songs on THE BLUE MASK more, and that's perhaps true of LEGENDARY HEARTS and NEW SENSATIONS too.

I have found LEGENDARY HEARTS in particular, to be a slow grower, because in many ways it isn't so diverse musically as THE BLUE MASK, or as contemporary sounding as NEW SENSATIONS. To a degree, i believe it's less immediately gripping, but immediate reactions can prove deceiving. I find LEGENDARY HEARTS to possess a newly discovered warmth and maturity, on the part of Lou, and arguably, LEGENDARY HEARTS finds that at its purest.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-19 18:47 by Edward Twining.

LEGENDARY HEARTS will be given a spin with fresh ears and an open mind. Now I have something to listen to this afternoon!

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?

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.

In this ongoing tribute to Lou Reed, this song must be posted. As the lyrics go, I've been in that same damn place on many a Saturday Night. Love relationships, in life, come & go, especially in your 20s & 30s. The way this song is crafted leads to a conclusion of "Screw it!".

It's over and she is not coming back, ever. "Oh, woh, woh, something tells me that you're really gone you said we could be friends but that's not what's not what I want" tells it all.

Alone, and just happy to have a lemon squeezer, daydreaming, network news, and a frozen tv dinner. Nice. He really had a way with words.

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
TeddyB1018

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?

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.

Thanks for the info. I should have recognized the Bottom Line stuff especially as I listened to all the Bottom Line 83 stuff on wolfgangsvault.com just before Lou died and that includes the night they taped. One of those shows has The Day John Kennedy Died which I didn't know he did on that run. Still glad I downloaded it. I have never heard Spanish Fly.

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.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-20 23:53 by Chris Fountain.

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.

This may have already been posted, but I figured I'd throw it up here anyway. Lester Bang interviews Lou Reed, originally published in 1973.


[www.theguardian.com]



The Gaurdian has been running a series of profiles of musicians from Rock's Backpages. Some very cool articles are there, including the 1987 Jagger interview 'No one should care if the Rolling Stones break up, should they?'


Worth checking out the series, some really great stuff there.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-24 14:41 by latebloomer.

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.

The full-length song Berlin first appeared on Lou's first solo album. What appears on Berlin is essentially an intro that sets up the ensuing brilliance.

Quote
latebloomer
Lester Bang interviews Lou Reed, originally published in 1973.

Thanks for posting the Lester Bangs interview of Lou Reed, latebloomer.

The words he uses to describe that precocious preteen at the end of the article are priceless!

Also, regarding how he supposedly "calls out" Reed as a phony in this article, perhaps Bangs just doesn't understand the demons chasing his subject at that point in his life, and Mr. Bangs had a few demons himself plaguing him to the very end of his days. Overweight, drunk, and rambling--Reed at that point resembles quite a lot another fiery-tempered, hard-drinking, free-spirited poet: his mentor, Delmore Schwartz. Perhaps it was just Reed's way of coping with what he viewed as artistic potential not realized and his work not being appreciated by the broader public the way he thought it should be--which also preoccupied Delmore Schwartz in later years as one who had the great potential and published several great works, but whose efforts fell short of the famous destiny he thought he would always achieve. And so Delmore took refuge in his morning gin.

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.

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.

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
loog droog

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.

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

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
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

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.

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).

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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-25 22:51 by Chris Fountain.

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.

Personally I prefer when Lou plays guitar. Therefore prefer the Lou and Quine lineup or Lou and Rathke

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
Chris Fountain

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.

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.

Lou, along with fellow Velvet Sterling Morrison, co-wrote and plays guitar on the title track of Nico's 1967 album, the song Chelsea Girls.

"Here they come now, see them run now.... Chelt-sea girlt-s...."





And here's Nico performing a live version in one of the rooms of New York's Chelsea Hotel.

Quote
ab

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
Chris Fountain

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.

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.

Yes i will. I have to admit to having not listened to the LIVE IN ITALY album for quite a while. I don't think i have renewed it from the vinyl days even. I do have a number of bootlegs from the Robert Quine/ Fernando Saunders era, and not one of them comes close to what the group achieved at the Bottom Line Club on the A NIGHT WITH LOU REED live DVD, from 1983. Maybe the use of keyboard player tends to dilute the performances somewhat, i'm not entirely sure. I find Lou's performances around the NEW YORK/SONGS FOR DRELLA/MAGIC AND LOSS era, a little dry and clinical, for my tastes, too, but things did pick up considerably around the late nineties and the beginning of the new millenium (when he was promoting SET THE TWILIGHT REELING and ECSTASY).

I liked Lou best when he stopped bothering with wearing the make up etc. Sometimes i feel his image around 73/74 detracted from the core of what his music was all about (and that also goes a little with the live addition of the Hunter/Wagner arena rock guitar partnership). The make up was of course the influence of glam rock and specifically David Bowie, but Lou always struck me as being a too earthy and raw for it all. He was never really a David Bowie clone beneath it all.

Previously unreleased bonus tracks on new deluxe edition of "White Light White Heat"

[dangerousminds.net]

^ I have that track "I'm Not A Young Man Anymore" from a boot called April Sounds, along with five other tracks from the Gymnasium gig.

This track is rapidly disappearing from YouTube, likely in anticipation of it's "official" release on the deluxe White Light, White Heat.





Also from that gig is an absolutely ruthless version of Sister Ray. Just listen to those dirty-sounding guitars.

Cool post - IANAYMA groove is sleek! What makes that recording unique is the fact that Lou Reed never cared about how many were in attendance. One very special, unselfish quality, which always will be remembered.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-27 01:40 by Chris Fountain.

That's just being professional. There's nothing quite like playing a third set, after midnight on a sub-freezing weeknight in late December, when there are more people onstage than in the audience (and one of the audients is the guitarist's wife). If they bothered to stick around, you respect that they did and play as hard as you can.

Lou a Bowie clone? Even Bowie would find that laughable. Bowie referred to Lou as The Master when they were making Transformer.

Quote
ab


Lou a Bowie clone? Even Bowie would find that laughable. Bowie referred to Lou as The Master when they were making Transformer.

No, of course he's not, but Lou needed Bowie as a way of gaining commercial recognition, and had Bowie (and Ronson) not been involved with the making of TRANSFORMER, the album would not have gained the recognition it had, subsequently. The truth is Bowie was the star in 1972, prior to TRANSFORMER, and not Lou (obviously!). Bowie took a lot from Lou in a musical sense, of course, but around the 73/74 period, Lou's image was directly influenced by Bowie, and back then, without prior knowledge of the wonderful contribution Lou had already given us, in the Velvet Underground, it may have been easy to conclude that Lou may have been riding on Bowie's coat tails. In a sense, Lou's profile back in the early seventies did become larger, and his reputation too, in the more mainstream press. However, the longer he went on, and as the Bowie connection began to fade, Lou's profile to the larger musical audience began to diminish.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-27 11:19 by Edward Twining.

In a piece from New York magazine, journalist Joshua David Stein reveals having taken a walk on the mild side with Lou Reed in a final interview just a week before he died.

[www.vulture.com]

SONGS FOR DRELLA, the album reflecting the life of Andy Warhol shouldn't be forgotten either. I think it's the strongest of Lou's late eighties/early nineties trilogy of albums NEW YORK/SONGS FOR DRELLA/MAGIC AND LOSS. It certainly isn't as accessible as NEW YORK, but i feel it has more to offer over the longer period. MAGIC AND LOSS shares its slightly more sombre mood (at least when compared with NEW YORK), yet it is nowhere near as effective. I think working with John Cale went a long way to making this album the success it was, at least in a creative sense. Those classical overtones Cale gives the album, creates a slightly overblown and surrealist feel, to many of those songs. It's a long way from the predictability within the arrangements for MAGIC AND LOSS, which i find, despite being meticulously conceived, rather sleep inducing. Reed and Cale complimented each other so effectively on SONGS FOR DRELLA it is unfortunate they couldn't have continued working together occasionally. I know they reunited later for the Velvet Underground tour, with pretty mixed results, for me, but that was about recycling the past primarily.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-03 16:58 by Edward Twining.