Reed solo

arjan · Post by **arjan** » 18 Dec 2004 10:27

Doctor Bob wrote:I felt the same about Neil Young's Zuma, and Lou really loved that record

Wow, Lou likes a Neil record? Would've thought that Young and Reed were mutually incompatible. But then again, I thought the same about Reed and Dylan.

Doctor Bob wrote:Actually the only thing I probably achieved is making myself want to listen to all 37 albums again. All at once.

Wouldn't it just be easier to play MMM? Sound of 37 Lou albums playing at once would probably closely resemble that

Technophallus · Post by **Technophallus** » 18 Dec 2004 10:58

Chance wrote:
Stephen Says wrote:you do enjoy Transformer, don't you, Chance?
Don't have it, actually. Now there's an oversight, it's got the rep as one of his best. I like Bowie during that timeframe, he was killer, but I don't know about Lou as glam. Seems too garish/contrived, even if he thought some in the genre were stealing his ideas. Nobody over 14 should be wearing black nailpolish.

Sorry if this comes off as brusque, but to criticize a glam album or artist for being contrived/garish is to completely miss the point- in fact, contrived garishness is exactly what glam was all about.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 18 Dec 2004 19:19

arjan wrote: Wow, Lou likes a Neil record? Would've thought that Young and Reed were mutually incompatible. But then again, I thought the same about Reed and Dylan.

Yes conventional wisdom would certainly have that. But you know how contrary Lou can be-he claimed he loved the guitars on Zuma.

As for Dylan, perversely enough Lou had never particularly listened to much Dylan before Bob passed that compliment about 'Doing the Things That We Want To'...the comment was made to Sylvia Reed and when she told Lou what Dylan had said he promptly went shopping and returned with his arms full of Dylan records which he hasn't stopped praising since. In fact you may have noticed that as recently as last week he has listed Dylan's new autobiography as a recommendation on his website-I'm certain Sterl wouldn't have stood for any of that!

Chance · Post by **Chance** » 19 Dec 2004 00:53

Technophallus wrote:Sorry if this comes off as brusque, but to criticize a glam album or artist for being contrived/garish is to completely miss the point- in fact, contrived garishness is exactly what glam was all about.

Yeah, not a bad point. Maybe what gets me is that I know the music Lou was making five years before "Transformer," so the glam stuff seems too stark a departure, whereas, groups like T. Rex, Sweet and Bowie are familiar to me mainly from the glam point forward, so from my perspective, that style feels cool and right for them.

If anything though, the question is why I'd bear low expectations on an album I haven't even heard. Since my impressions are mostly based on strange pictures of Lou in whiteface and studded leather, not on any musical appraisal, maybe I owe it a spin.

Actually, the Doc's great post made me feel like going back and giving some of those records another listen. "A staggering work of colossal genius." Don't hold back, Bob, how do you really feel?

Stephen Says · Post by **Stephen Says** » 19 Dec 2004 01:48

Listen to Transformer late at night in the dark, and picture it all in your head. When he says "New York City is the place... where they said hey babe... take a walk on the wild side..." I get a rush of melancholy through my whole body... Something about the way he says certain lines is so poignant.

Technophallus · Post by **Technophallus** » 19 Dec 2004 03:12

Chance wrote:
Technophallus wrote:Sorry if this comes off as brusque, but to criticize a glam album or artist for being contrived/garish is to completely miss the point- in fact, contrived garishness is exactly what glam was all about.
Yeah, not a bad point. Maybe what gets me is that I know the music Lou was making five years before "Transformer," so the glam stuff seems too stark a departure, whereas, groups like T. Rex, Sweet and Bowie are familiar to me mainly from the glam point forward, so from my perspective, that style feels cool and right for them.

If anything though, the question is why I'd bear low expectations on an album I haven't even heard. Since my impressions are mostly based on strange pictures of Lou in whiteface and studded leather, not on any musical appraisal, maybe I owe it a spin.

Actually, the Doc's great post made me feel like going back and giving some of those records another listen. "A staggering work of colossal genius." Don't hold back, Bob, how do you really feel?

A big influence on Glam was The VU/Warhol scene of remaking yourself, Lou has said that was something that attratced him to glam, because he learned from Andy that you could be whoever you wanted. I know it's hard to watch an artist change styles to something that is popular, especially someone as intensely original as Lou. But I really like the album and don't think it's such a departure, sonically or thematically. As for Bolan and Bowie, they had both been around in various musical forms since the mid 60s, so glam was as much a stylistic switch for them as it was for Lou. They just did it a bit before him. Along ther lines of the original thought- I'm not really a diehard solo Lou Reed fan either. I enjoy Berlin (infrequently, I'm not a sycopath), Transformer, and a few others.

Homme Fatale · Post by **Homme Fatale** » 19 Dec 2004 09:00

Wow, I'm surprised to learn that some people don't rate, let alone own a copy of Transformer. I think that album deserves its classic status as much as anything by the VU. Lou's best solo album, easy. And I think it's probably the most Velvets-ish of his albums as well, it sits nicely alongside the banana album and the "lost album" stuff (well, a lot of it is that stuff, of course).

Homme Fatale · Post by **Homme Fatale** » 19 Dec 2004 09:10

Doctor Bob - I really enjoyed your post, very cool!

I absolutely agree with your assessment on Lou Reed, Berlin, Metal Machine Music, Coney Island Baby, Rock & Roll Heart and Street Hassle.

Transformer "overrated" though? That I can't even begin to understand. And Sally Can't Dance is an album that I think I've always liked better than, I think, pretty much anyone else, including its creator. I really love most tracks on this album and the production. Shit, I even like the cartoonish album cover! One of my faves, say what you will.

Doctor Bob · Post by **Doctor Bob** » 19 Dec 2004 14:01

Thanks to HF and Chance for the props re my last post

HF I agree that Sally is underrated, and I'm glad it has a champion like yourself. I like all the records so you're preaching to the converted here

As for Transformer, when I say 'overrated', I certainly don't mean that it isn't a great great records-that it undeniably is. But when I turn up at random people's parties and see that they have no VU albums and nothing else by Lou Reed, but clearly have Transformer displayed proudly in their collection, I get the feeling like well gee its a good record and everything, but it is certainly not Reed's best work from my point of view. All the songs are catchy and cool and 5 of them are just stunning-I mean the obvious 4 that I mentioned in my long post, and Andy's Chest which has some of Lou's most beautiful poetry: 'And curtains laced with diamonds dear for you/And all the Roman Noblemen for you/And Bats that with a kiss turn prince for you'...but the other half of the material is still cool but slightly trivial don't you think, with its repeated references to cross-dressing and homosexuality and NYC cocktail boredom? And I love all those songs as well, but in the bigger picture I really don't think they stand up against Lou's best material be it Sister Ray, Pale Blue Eyes, The Kids, or whatever. I hope that seems like a reasonable comment; contrast for instance with Berlin on which each and every moment of each track is worth more than the entire retrospective box sets of any other artist alive, bar Leonard Cohen. Whoops I got carried away again-hey Chance, you did tell me not to hold back this time!

For me the main point to reiterate is that I think all the main 70's albums are must haves. And I think most people have already either listened to them and decided they're not up their alley, or already own them and love them like HF does. But what I really entreat people not to overlook is some of the 90's material which is mindblowingly powerful. Anyone who hasn't done so yet, for the love of God listen to John Cale's spoken word piece 'A Dream' on the Reed/Cale collaboration Songs for Drella. If that doesn't leave you chilled to the core with its hightened, ethereal, otherworldly beauty, then let me know and I will personally send you a refund on the record cost via paypal. Well not really but you get my drift. And Magic and Loss: the Rock Poet is at his Rock Poetic peak. Reed on the radiation used to fight cancer: 'The same power that burned Hiroshima/Causing 3-legged babies and death/Now shrunk to the size of a nickel/To help this man regain his breath'

I have nothing more to add. (Well that's a blatant lie actually but I can't sit around here doing this all day now can I)

MeirRachel · Post by **MeirRachel** » 30 Dec 2004 13:41

I've heard quite a few VU fans who are not enthralled by the solo stuff of Lou, John and Moe.

I think on the one hand that the level of quality that they put together in one band would rarely if ever be matched which is exactly what makes them special.

On the other hand, I think of VU music and the transition to the solo stuff is basically the expected metamorphosis of the music. Take any band or singer that has longevity and they had to constantly redefine themselves in order to grow.

IMHO, I love the solo stuff but they'll never be able to get past the glory years with the VU. I think that's just an impossibility. Kind of like comparing these days to days gone by with the selective remembrance of the best times and conveniently forgetting the bad ones.