Underdeveloped phases in the V.U.'s history

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 19 Jul 2005 00:40

i think the "live in amsterdam '71" show was available on http://chocoreve.blogspot.com/... great site by the way.. i'm not sure if it was the whole show however...

"Fall 1971 tour line-up in Amsterdam, from left to right: Moe Tucker and her daughter Kerry, Willie Alexander (who replaced Sterling), Doug Yule and Walter Powers."

setlist.
1.Waiting For The Man (4:54)
2.Bare Changed (3:31)
3.Some Kinda Love (6:51)
4.White Light White Heat (4:33)
5.Hold On (4:58)
6.What Goes On (4:02)
7.Cool It Down (4:07)
8.Back On The Farm (7:04)
9.Oh Sweet Nuthin' (8:21)
10.Sister Ray (15:02)
11.Rock'n Roll (4:43).

sars · Post by **sars** » 19 Jul 2005 04:37

I saw the Warhol South bank show in class last year and the bit of the Cronkite show that they had was him standing in a theatre talking generally about underground movies. didn't say anything about warhol/velvets/piero heliczer, nor did it show any of them.
the piero heliczer page says moe was in venus in furs and it was finished late 65/early 66.

arjan · Post by **arjan** » 19 Jul 2005 08:50

Anonymous wrote:i think the "live in amsterdam '71" show was available on <url>

Thanks, but it's more readily available on Final VU and what's more important, that's the "Alexander" lineup. I was talking about the just-after-Lou-left lineup that still featured Sterling.

How I wished, when I heard about Final VU being released, that it contained contributions by Sterling... Would've upped the quality considerably. As it is, the only contribution by Sterling on the entire box set is the CD cover photos (which feature a YMPT concert shot).

arjan · Post by **arjan** » 19 Jul 2005 09:19

paddy wrote:please Arjan won't you realize once and for all that the Velvet Underground ended in August 1970?

No. Because they didn't, for better or worse.

Note that I take a more subtle stance re. the end of the Velvets though: I see the end in late 1971 when Alexander, Powers and Tucker were sent back to the States. I could be a formalist and claim that, since Sesnick and Yule still held the rights to the name The Velvet Underground (as of the post-Loaded lawsuit in which Reed regained sole songwriting credits for Loaded but lost rights to the band name), the 1972 tour etc. technically still was The Velvet Underground. But I don't because I don't think so. Same with Squeeze, technically VU but really Doug's solo debut. I think Powers and Alexander deserve more credit for their contribution to the band, period.

paddy wrote:Yule himself would be much more highly regarded now if the Velvets had called it quits when Reed went back to Long Island.

Undoubtedly ─ but why put all the blame on Yule? Why not blame Sterling and Maureen too for continuing?

───

And on an entirely different note, if anyone wondered why Maureen's drumming style is so different on Final VU as opposed to the studio albums, it's because by that time she had taken to playing a regular drum kit, albeit in an elementary style. In fact, I believe I read somewhere she had done so since early 1970, which begs the question, was she asked to because it made the band's sound more mainstream (working towards Loaded)?

Kill Mick · Post by **Kill Mick** » 19 Jul 2005 09:44

mg196 wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Two of the founder members, Sterling & Mo (ok, almost a founder in Mo's case) certainly didn't think so.
Actually, read some interviews where Mo and Sterl discuss that post-Lou period. They DID think the VU was dead after Lou departed. Yule said that Sterl just stopping going to gigs!

Well, looking back on it years later Mo & Sterl may have felt the VU ended when Lou left, but I'm not as convinced they thought so at the time. Sterl played on for another year, Mo for maybe 18months, quite happily using the name and obviously considering themselves to be the VU. If they really thought the band was over after Lou left, why not change the name then (a la Joy Division/New Order)?

Looking back on history makes it nice and easy to say when things started and stopped, but I think at the time there was no doubt in Mo and Sterl's minds (and of course Doug's) that the VU carried on after August 1970.

Ondrej · Post by **Ondrej** » 19 Jul 2005 11:57

I remeber someone standing before a theatre talking generally about underground movies in Warhol South bank show, but I had no idea it was Walter Cronkite.

Walter Cronkite Show / Making Of An Underground Film include VU with Moe and Angus! By the way there is one "mystery" musician in line up: bass player, see: http://mujweb.cz/www/heliczer/filmography/muf.htm
If someone is able to find his name, you all get a small gift from me.

Ondrej

Mark · Post by **Mark** » 19 Jul 2005 12:14

Ondrej wrote:By the way there is one "mystery" musician in line up: bass player, see: http://mujweb.cz/www/heliczer/filmography/muf.htm
If someone is able to find his name, you all get a small gift from me.

Well... I would presume it's a male cast member from the Venus In Furs film, so according to the cast list on your site it could be Chas Stanley or perhaps even Heliczer himself. Does either of these seem likely?

What's the best source for the Making Of An Underground Film clip Ondrej? Do you have the full excerpt, complete with the original sound?

dsulpy · Post by **dsulpy** » 19 Jul 2005 12:27

"Well, looking back on it years later Mo & Sterl may have felt the VU ended when Lou left, but I'm not as convinced they thought so at the time."

Well, chances are they were simply thinking of making a living. It wouldn't have entered their head that they were "betraying a legend" because at that time the V.U. were nothing more than a commercial failure.

paddy · Post by **paddy** » 19 Jul 2005 13:52

Arjan,

I'm not putting the blame on Yule. I think we all know here Sesnick's the one to blame. I guess that when Lou left the band, Sesnick was all "come on guys, he'll be back, we gotta finish that Max's thing or we're not getting paid". Then he told them "hey, Lou's let us down, he 's gone weird, but we don't need him, we've just released a brilliant album. We've got to promote it, we're on the brink of success, we'd be crazy not to tour..."

After all, that "he let us down, he's gone weird but we don't need him" thang sort of worked for Pink Floyd.
Sort of.

arjan · Post by **arjan** » 19 Jul 2005 15:40

paddy wrote:I'm not putting the blame on Yule. I think we all know here Sesnick's the one to blame.

Yep, I'm all with you on that, to be sure. But it was still the band's call either to change names or disband altogether.

The point I'd like to make here is: it's too easy to dismiss the latter-day phase simply because they had no success. What if, to pursue your Pink Floyd metaphor, they had released their Momentary Lapse of Reason? It might very well be an album that fans of the previous phase wouldn't like (just like there are Cale-aficionados who do not care much for The Velvet Underground and Loaded). But there would be another VU phase (just like with the Cale era vs. the Yule era), very distinct but Velvet Underground nonetheless.

If it can happen to, say, The Byrds, Deep Purple, Genesis (mtbih) and Pink Floyd, why not The Velvet Underground? And allow that Reed did not disband The Velvet Underground (which he could easily have), but left them (to their own devices, I should say).