The Velvet Forum

Talking of the 3rd album, never seen a 'Something Different' promo before with the details of a Boston Tea Party gig added.

It says "The Velvet Underground appearing nightly on MGM Also!" Anyone know what this is exactly?

It could always be a typo? Maybe instead of "on MGM" it should have been "c/o MGM?" They did attribute the review to "Lester Banks," so a second typo wouldn't be so odd.

Bleach. Nice ad - thanks for the upload.

Is Mo doing her best impression of Dr. Zoidberg?

iaredatsun wrote:Is Mo doing her best impression of Dr. Zoidberg?

For those who didn't get it:

bleach wrote:Talking of the 3rd album, never seen a 'Something Different' promo before with the details of a Boston Tea Party gig added.

It says "The Velvet Underground appearing nightly on MGM Also!" Anyone know what this is exactly?

Fusion Magazine May 26, 1969
(Page 326 Inevitable Catalogue)

The one you reproduce here IS NOT from Fusion. Is it a poster? or from another Boston area Magazine/Newspaper?
Thanks
Alfredo

Hi Alfredo, its a poster.

The phrase "The Velvet Underground appearing nightly on MGM" is meant as a play on words; as if to say, Appearing nightly at the live performance listed above, and appearing nightly on your turntable (on MGM), if you buy the damn album. The "also" treats the single as an adjunct to the LP which is the main focus of (that part of) the ad.

When I first got the 3rd album, in my early 20s, I was confused by the credit, repeated here, of "written, arranged and conducted by" the VU. Ignorant of matters of musical creation, I didn't realize that the latter two parts of that formula, at least, were meant also as a sort of play on words, a sly reference to the relative simplicity of the group's music vis a vis that of fully-orchestrated composition; in other words, that rocknroll requires no such formal arranging (let alone conducting) as does, say, orchestral music or even big-band jazz.

With greater hindsight today, I realize that the "written by" component of the credit was equally sly yet quite a bit less playful, and was most likely part of Steve Sesnick's machinations to dominate intra-band politics and revenues. I doubt Lou Reed chuckled over it when the album came out.

--Phil M.

iaredatsun wrote:

leamanc wrote:In listening to it, it's clear that the 1985 and 1996 reissues of the Valentin Mix were both remixes and remasters (at least the 1985 version was a remix; the 1996 CD is probably just a remaster). Bass is very heavy compared to the other Valentin pressings and it's not as "clean" sounding, either. I know there was some controversy in 1985 that VU used contemporary (for the time, mid-1980s) mixing techniques, and I'd say they did the same when they remixed the 3rd album. The differences are subtle, but this mix definitely sounds more from the late 1960s than the 1985 and 1996 Valentin mixes. I was always amazed at how "modern" the Valentin mix sounded in comparison to the Closet Mix, but now I guess that's because the version I was used to was mixed and mastered with more modern techniques.

Leamanc, you think they remixed the 3rd LP in 1985? That's the first time I've heard anyone suggest that. I'll have to go back and listen again but it sounds unlikely that they'd go to the expense and trouble of a remix for that boxset, if that's the source of your copy. Could be they just sourced it from somewhere else. Aren't some of those '85 masters German, or did I imagine that?

It's worth keeping in mind how much the sound of a recording can be changed during mastering to disk. A case in point is the MFSL mastering of Beck's Sea Change compared to the original 2002 Geffen version mastered by Bob Ludwig ? like listening to chalk and cheese.

Sorry for the late reply...

I have indeed learned that remastering can have dramatic effects that one might attribute, in error, to remixing (for example, learning that the 4th album in the Sundazed box set was not remixed, but remastered only). But the 1985 reissues of all three original LPs state that they were remixed AND remastered in the liner notes.

As noted above, I do like the '85 mix of the 3rd album, but the first album '85 mix sounds awful to me. (And the liner notes state that the remix was done "under the supervision of Tom Wilson"!) I first heard this mix on the CD from that era, and chalked up the awful sound to crappy CD mastering techniques of the day, but the '85 vinyl I picked up last year sounds just as bad. For example, "All Tomorrow's Parties" has the vocals cranked up really high, then the instrumental passages are way quieter... and "murkier". That's the best way I can describe it.

Continuing on my side tangent on mixes of the first album...I swear allegiance to vinyl, but my all-time fave version of that album is now the mono mix in the 45th anniversary CD set. It hits you in the gut with its sheer force, yet you can make out all the instruments clearly. Wow! Before that, the 1997 MFSL CD was the best to my ears.

Leamanc, you think they remixed the 3rd LP in 1985? That's the first time I've heard anyone suggest that. I'll have to go back and listen again but it sounds unlikely that they'd go to the expense and trouble of a remix for that boxset, if that's the source of your copy. Could be they just sourced it from somewhere else. Aren't some of those '85 masters German, or did I imagine that?

It's worth keeping in mind how much the sound of a recording can be changed during mastering to disk. A case in point is the MFSL mastering of Beck's Sea Change compared to the original 2002 Geffen version mastered by Bob Ludwig ? like listening to chalk and cheese.[/quote]

Sorry for the late reply...

I have indeed learned that remastering can have dramatic effects that one might attribute, in error, to remixing (for example, learning that the 4th album in the Sundazed box set was not remixed, but remastered only). But the 1985 reissues of all three original LPs state that they were remixed AND remastered in the liner notes.

As noted above, I do like the '85 mix of the 3rd album, but the first album '85 mix sounds awful to me. (And the liner notes state that the remix was done "under the supervision of Tom Wilson"!) I first heard this mix on the CD from that era, and chalked up the awful sound to crappy CD mastering techniques of the day, but the '85 vinyl I picked up last year sounds just as bad. For example, "All Tomorrow's Parties" has the vocals cranked up really high, then the instrumental passages are way quieter... and "murkier". That's the best way I can describe it.

Continuing on my side tangent on mixes of the first album...I swear allegiance to vinyl, but my all-time fave version of that album is now the mono mix in the 45th anniversary CD set. It hits you in the gut with its sheer force, yet you can make out all the instruments clearly. Wow! Before that, the 1997 MFSL CD was the best to my ears.[/quote]

I'm gonna have to listen again; to me nothing beats the original mono vinyl. Of course I haven't heard any vinyl in 6 months since Isaac took my turntable.

A few details about the 1985 releases from Feb. 9, 1985 issue of Billboard.