Page 3 of 4

Posted: 29 Mar 2005 02:14
by sars
Can't you ask about all the departures, or is that against the rules?
I'd say "the end" was probably when Moe left on the band's return from Europe, because that was the last time the "Velvet Underground" did a solid, organised amount of touring. Just my $0.02.

Posted: 29 Mar 2005 09:31
by arjan
mg196 wrote:Actually, Moe is credited w/ playing bass & drums on Loaded.
Umm, bass? :?
mg196 wrote:There are plenty of pics of her w/ the guys in the studio.
Yeah, and don't forget the I'm Sticking with You outtake -- she may not have been able to drum, but she sang alright.

Posted: 29 Mar 2005 09:42
by arjan
Mark wrote:the band didn't split and reform, they simply continued without Lou. I think there is a case for saying the final end of the Velvets was at the end of this phase
Well put, Mark, and this is what I was trying to say. It's all a matter of evolution. The band evolved to be in this state and that's why the end was when Moe and the boys flew back to the US while Doug went on to record Squeeze. There is no continuity between the 1971 tours and that Doug Yule album, putting the breaking point between those two activities.

What's "muddying" this discussion is how we feel about the VU and we all, of course, feel strongly about a certain "feel" and "attitude", a spirituality if you like, that we nearly all agree left or was mortally wounded when Lou quit. But in all fairness, the band continued on and this must be considered in any true history of the Velvets, just like the Byrds continued on even when everybody except McGuinn had left, or Pink Floyd beyond Barrett or even Waters? (or Yes, or Genesis, &c.).

And the 1993 tour... I was glad I could witness it and I had a good time, but it wasn't a Velvets reunion. It was Lou Reed, John Cale, Sterling Morrison and Maureen appearing on the same stage.

Interesting to note, BTW, that Willie Alexander himself did not consider the band to truly be the Velvets, he saw it as a ghost band (see short interview I did with him on the Foggy Notion website, Articles section).

? Which brings up the interesting comparison/question: is Gilmour Pink Floyd's Doug Yule? :P

Posted: 29 Mar 2005 10:52
by jimjim
I would say when they finished 'Loaded'. The band you hear on 'Max's' sounds tired, flat and perfunctory at times. Lou's soul doesn't seem to be in it anymore. Moe leaving (albeit for personal reasons) took out a vital element to the band - their raw r&r energy. When they went out as a threesome in Spring 1970 following this it looked like they had covered the problem well with a good temporary solution. But bringing the stiff Billy Yule in as replacement for their NYC dates was a very bad idea as a) he was shit and b) Lou now believed there was a coup d'etat being set up by Sesnick-Yule.

The Loaded sessions ripped Lou's voice to shreds so key moments on the album were taken over by Doug and as a consequence once Lou left, Yule along with Sesnick argued (wrongly) that he was now the creative force in the band and arranged the credits so. To make things worse for Lou they butchered the album for maximum commercial appeal against Lou's wishes but as he had gone by then - no dice.

Yeah, August 26th 1970 for me was the end of the VU.

PS The post-Lou VU weren't bad but, Moe & Doug aside, they were in effect a tribute band.

Posted: 29 Mar 2005 11:47
by lostblues
When did the Velvet Underground end?
1993!

(having a fun day...)
;-)

Posted: 29 Mar 2005 14:56
by dsulpy
"But in all fairness, the band continued on and this must be considered in any true history of the Velvets, just like the Byrds continued on even when everybody except McGuinn had left, or Pink Floyd beyond Barrett or even Waters? (or Yes, or Genesis, &c.). "

Not quite. When ALL connection is severed with the original band - well, it's just not the band anymore. It's a bunch of guys and the right to use a name.

And I think I've read Moe say she doesn't appear on "Loaded" at all... or am I hallucinating?

Posted: 29 Mar 2005 15:24
by arjan
dsulpy wrote:or am I hallucinating?
No, you're not. Maureen isn't on Loaded. But that album wasn't the end for the band.

Maureen returned from pregancy leave. Doug moved to lead vocals and guitar and Walter Powers came in the band to play bass. They continued to tour the US and Canada in 1970 and 1971. Somewhere in late 1970, the Yule/Morrison/Powers/Tucker line-up recorded two songs for Atlantic that remain unreleased.

Sterling did not leave until August 1971, when he left to pursue an academic career at the University of Texas at Austin. He was replaced by a keyboard player and singer called Willie Alexander. This band toured the UK and the Netherlands in 1971 and early 1972 and drifted apart when the tour ended, with Walter, Willie and Maureen returning to the US and Doug remaining in London to record Squeeze on his own.

So, at least until August 1971, it wasn't a bunch of ringers at all, it was Sterling, Moe and Doug with a new (and quite good) bass player called Walter.

Gabriel vs. Collins

Posted: 29 Mar 2005 16:15
by arjan
And while I'm at it defending at least the 1970-1971 postscript period :wink: ...

The "deniers" have a relatively easy job dismissing the post-Lou band because the post-Lou V.U. died relatively quickly and certainly inconspicuously: Sesnick got them nowhere and Atlantic had lost faith. And Squeeze is enough of an abomination to make them even more hardened in their denial.

But what if, instead of a Doug-alone Squeeze, the band had recorded a (few) solid team effort(s)? A clutch of the better Doug songs, some Willie Alexander contributions, or, better still, some Sterling music? The discussion would've been so much easier. "All" we would have on our hands was a Peter Gabriel vs. Phil Collins-style debate. Perhaps you'd prefer one phase of the band over another but there would be no dismissals, no denials.

I'm the first to admit that Lou Reed was the prime songwriting and singing force within the band. And when he left prospects for the band became dire. But to dismiss everything that happened since is too much slavish Reedcentricity for me.

In any case ─ what I wouldn't have given for the band to have had a proper manager instead of an uninvolved Warhol or a diabolic Sesnick. Speak of diabolic, anybody notice the way Paul Morrissey dismisses Lou Reed in Nico:Icon?

Re: Gabriel vs. Collins

Posted: 29 Mar 2005 17:34
by Homme Fatale
arjan wrote:But what if, instead of a Doug-alone Squeeze, the band had recorded a (few) solid team effort(s)? A clutch of the better Doug songs, some Willie Alexander contributions, or, better still, some Sterling music?
Had Sterl and Moe been on that LP it would certainly have been more interesting and also more people (including myself) would (have to) consider it a real Velvet Underground record. Too bad that never happened.

Re: Gabriel vs. Collins

Posted: 29 Mar 2005 20:50
by arjan
Homme Fatale wrote:Had Sterl and Moe been on that LP it would certainly have been more interesting
Which is why I'm so anxious to hear those She'll Make You Cry / Friends recordings that Doug, Sterl, Walter and Maureen made in late 1970! They must be around somewhere in Atlantic's vaults.