When did the Velvet Underground end?

sal mercuri · Post by **sal mercuri** » 26 Mar 2005 03:07

Here's a question that will probably get a variety of responses:
when did the Velvet Underground end?
a. when John left
b. when Lou left
c. when Sterling left
d. when Moe left
e. May 1973

fire away!

Sal

Saffie · Post by **Saffie** » 26 Mar 2005 05:40

My opinion is, the VU ended when Lous left. He was the vocalist, and when a vocalist (as well as primary lyricist) leaves a band - call the band what you will, but it's not the same band.

tarbaby2 · Post by **tarbaby2** » 26 Mar 2005 06:08

Saffie -

I tend to agree with you, but I think the unique creative and distinctive heart of the band left when John left.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 26 Mar 2005 08:30

When Lou left.

arjan · Post by **arjan** » 26 Mar 2005 09:01

Certainly not 1973. But I want to make a case for (d). I tend to agree with what Doug said in the Final V.U. liner notes about the band doubtlessly changing dramatically when Lou left, but no more so than when John left.

It's got nothing to do with style, anyway. The "original" sound of the VU had gone with John, as the 3rd and 4th album are completely 'mainstream' in execution. So 1971 may as well be considered a post-script of the Loaded/1969 VU -- certainly when Sterling was still in the band, but also on the Anglo-Dutch tour.

Homme Fatale · Post by **Homme Fatale** » 26 Mar 2005 09:42

I'm undecided between b and d. In my opinion Lou was the most important member of the band but then I also kinda agree with Arjan...

dsulpy · Post by **dsulpy** » 26 Mar 2005 15:01

To me, it's not just the vocalist. Those guys who made "Loaded" are no more the V.U. than The Beatles would have been if John and Ringo had walked out, while Paul and George continued to make records together.

My initial impulse was to agree with the poster who put the line after Cale left - because I completely agree that the creative heart of the band was shattered at that point. I'll go with Moe, however, because without Moe's drumming, the feel of the band completely changed - with Moe, they're still the V.U., however crippled creatively - without her, they're Lou Reed and a good bar band.

A similar question is "when is the V.U. the V.U.?" - and I must admit I have no answer for this one. If Lou, Sterling and a bunch of non-original members are considered The V.U., why not Lou and Cale's reunion for "Songs For 'Drella"? Why not the Bataclan show (which includes Nico as well, of course)? And if you say, "because it wasn't billed as The Velvet Underground" then how can we dismiss "Squeeze"?

[Actually, I think in the Bataclan program they ARE billed as The Velvet Underground!].

MJG196 · Post by **MJG196** » 26 Mar 2005 16:27

I'd say when Lou left.

arjan wrote:It's got nothing to do with style, anyway. The "original" sound of the VU had gone with John, as the 3rd and 4th album are completely 'mainstream' in execution.

Now, I don't entirely agree with that. Which "sound" are you referring to? If you are talking about Love Songs, like "Sunday Morning," "Femme Fatale," and "I'll Be Your Mirror," then the third LP also has THAT sound, in "Pale Blue Eyes," "Candy Says," and "Jesus."

If you are talking about lunatic guitar workouts, "What Goes On" is one of the VU's greatest!

If you're talking about story telling combined with an odd delivery, "The Murder Mystery" is a perfect match for "The Gift!"

Any band which holds onto its "Original Sound" gets boring pretty fast if you ask me. It's all in how a band evolves. We all know that by the 3rd LP, Lou was making a huge push for mainstream, so of course their sound would change. But when the band's lead singer, their songwriter, and "personality" departed, the band was pretty much left as a shell.

The Stones didn't end when Brian Jones left, or Mick Taylor (though some might argue about that!), but you can be sure not a single person would believe a Jagger-less Stones would be a true incarnation of The Rolling Stones. (I think that's a fair analogy, don't you!)

Oh, and "Why not Lou & Cale?" well, first of all, it WAS NOT the Velvet Underground and neither of them wanted it to be. It WAS with the impromptu concert in France. Just like Page & Plant. Two former bandmates getting together to make music.

Then again, if you think Pete & Roger, still touring as The WHO, is actually The WHO, then you'll completely disagree with me. I think The WHO died when The Ox bit the dust a few years ago.

dsulpy · Post by **dsulpy** » 26 Mar 2005 17:30

Well, or The Threetles. My own opinion is that it's a JOKE to call "Free as a Bird" or "Real Love" THE BEATLES, and I'm as perfectly able to dismiss that as I am "Squeeze."

And, of course, I'm well aware how "Songs For 'Drella" was billed and intended. I can't help thinking, though - I was at one of those shows and I remember the wall of sound during "Images" and thinking: "God, THIS must have been what the V.U. sounded like!".

Perversely enough, the ACTUAL V.U. reunion leaves me completely cold. There, it sounded like 4 musicians playing the right notes, and the "we're only in this for the money" vibe was so strong it overpowered EVERYTHING for me (I didn't see them live, I'm just going by the released CD/video). Perhaps if someone had reminded Lou Reed what the word "sing" means, it might have been better.

MJG196 · Post by **MJG196** » 26 Mar 2005 17:56

dsulpy wrote:Perversely enough, the ACTUAL V.U. reunion leaves me completely cold. There, it sounded like 4 musicians playing the right notes, and the "we're only in this for the money" vibe was so strong it overpowered EVERYTHING for me (I didn't see them live, I'm just going by the released CD/video). Perhaps if someone had reminded Lou Reed what the word "sing" means, it might have been better.

I am in 100% agreement with you. I do feel, however, that it gave Sterl and Mo a chance to see how all of their fans truly feel about them. Additionally, they finally saw the payday that had been denied them for so long.