The Velvet Forum

I find listening to The Velvet Underground to be an extremely frustrating experience, particularly Sister Ray, because of the lack of structure. On the one hand the band produces some of the most intelligent, beautiful melodies, but on the other hand their playing is unlistenable. Sister ray is the epitome of my love/hate relationship with The Velvet Underground. I'll be enjoying the song, and then they'll go and do something that, to me, completely messes it up. A perfect example is around 20:25 on the Jan 31 - Feb 2 1969 La Cave performance; organ, la la la, immediately followed by guitar, doo doo doo, very beautiful. I find it to be very climatic, however it sounds out of context to me because it's not preceded by anything I can particularly follow, and right after that they ruin it, in my opinion by deliberately messing up, playing goofy, playing off key. I'm not saying I need complete structure. Sometimes I like how they incorporate unstructured playing into their music. for example, about 15:25 into the Dec 12, 1968 Boston Tea Party performance of Sister Ray, all the way to the "heavy metal" climax. That's an exmaple of really loose playing followed by really tight playing; I think it works really well. Of course I realize that they're improvising when they do Sister ray...

Also am I the only one who thinks that they kind of ruined the end of the studio version Sister Ray by speeding up the end guitar solo? I love it just up until the last few seconds when they speed it up.

I think perhaps you're listening to the wrong group for your aesthetic. You might want to try some Billy Joel records instead.

--Phil M.

I dunno, this might be a valid point worth exploring. The VU's music incorporates improvisation, but is it good improvisation?

I think historically that speed up at the end of Sister Ray presents a nice metaphoric coda for the Cale/Reed relationship within the Velvet Underground at the time. You can almost feel the relief of the split-up right when the song ends. It also sort of aids in giving a whole new feeling to putting the needle down and hearing Doug's brand new voice on the next record.

As for improvisation, I suppose technically they're not so great, but somehow it still sounds good as music. So is it good or not? I think once you try to dissect what's going on in a song too much, either musically or, especially, lyrically, you lose much of the enjoyment. It may seem frustrating to listen to the Velvet's for some people because what they were doing hadn't been defined yet. The "rules" weren't yet established for them to employ like some lesser bands that followed. I don't know what made me think of this, but there's a part in Beethoven's ninth that some people think is flawed, but I think it's great! To me he's showing free will and telling the aristocracy to shove it up their f-holes. Well, now that I'm fully off topic I think I'll end it here. I'm sure I didn't get said what I wanted to say, and if I did I probably didn't say it right.

Sheila Klein wrote:I think perhaps you're listening to the wrong group for your aesthetic. You might want to try some Billy Joel records instead.

--Phil M.

I agree completely. It sounds as if Feelingfresh likes straight-ahead structures without any improv or out-of-the-norm changes. The things FF appears to dislike are the things the VU is known for. You're listening to the wrong band, buddy.

As for Mark's good/band improv question - it's all in the ear of the beholder I guess. Any discussion beyond that turns into intellectual quibble, and honestly, when you intellectualize G/F/C, G/F/C, G/F/C, G/F/C, G/F/C, G/F/C, G/F/C, G/F/C...you are truly overreaching.

I have lived in Sister Ray, and know every turn like the rooms of a home.
Everything in Sister Ray is familiar and comforting to me in its place
including the back porch (the speeded up end, as it was referred to
here).

As for FF I think you have found your band, there is something for everyone
with the VU. Billy Joel provides only so much for so many.
The VU have it all, if there are things FF likes about the VU
then all the power to you as a fan, dislike what you
choose, or as a topic recently offered here "amputate."

"choose to choose
choose to choose
choose to go"

Mark wrote:I dunno, this might be a valid point worth exploring. The VU's music incorporates improvisation, but is it good improvisation?

It's a good point.

First, I don't think that Sister Ray is improvisation. It's a rock jam.

Material such as Melody Laughter or the other early live pieces I would put in the borderline camp of improvisation. Is it good? I don't know. Is it interesting? Compare it to the work of AMM in 66 who created a far more complex and rigorous improvised music. The VU's approach was simplistic by comparison but it served a purpose.

The best VU improv example for me is European Son which is rock and free form and has enough energy and ideas to see it through.

feelingfresh wrote:I find listening to The Velvet Underground to be an extremely frustrating experience, particularly Sister Ray, because of the lack of structure. On the one hand the band produces some of the most intelligent, beautiful melodies, but on the other hand their playing is unlistenable. Sister ray is the epitome of my love/hate relationship with The Velvet Underground. I'll be enjoying the song, and then they'll go and do something that, to me, completely messes it up. A perfect example is around 20:25 on the Jan 31 - Feb 2 1969 La Cave performance; organ, la la la, immediately followed by guitar, doo doo doo, very beautiful. I find it to be very climatic, however it sounds out of context to me because it's not preceded by anything I can particularly follow, and right after that they ruin it, in my opinion by deliberately messing up, playing goofy, playing off key. I'm not saying I need complete structure. Sometimes I like how they incorporate unstructured playing into their music. for example, about 15:25 into the Dec 12, 1968 Boston Tea Party performance of Sister Ray, all the way to the "heavy metal" climax. That's an exmaple of really loose playing followed by really tight playing; I think it works really well. Of course I realize that they're improvising when they do Sister ray...

Also am I the only one who thinks that they kind of ruined the end of the studio version Sister Ray by speeding up the end guitar solo? I love it just up until the last few seconds when they speed it up.

The studio version has it's up and down. That's the nature of a one off rock studio jam. You get one go and this is the document. wart and all. But I think it has enough energy and ideas to keep attention for most of the piece. Personally I don't like any of the post-Cale versions ? they're too normal and with many rock cliches. And do you like European Son?

iaredatsun wrote:Personally I don't like any of the post-Cale versions ? they're too normal and with many rock cliches. And do you like European Son?

What do you mean by "rock cliches"? What do you think of the sequence from about 8:40 - 13:53 in the 3/13/69 Boston Tea Party Performance?

I actually haven't listened to European Son in a long time. I'm gonna have to get back to you on that. I'm at work right now.

feelingfresh wrote:

iaredatsun wrote:Personally I don't like any of the post-Cale versions ? they're too normal and with many rock cliches. And do you like European Son?

What do you mean by "rock cliches"? What do you think of the sequence from about 8:40 - 13:53 in the 3/13/69 Boston Tea Party Performance?

I actually haven't listened to European Son in a long time. I'm gonna have to get back to you on that. I'm at work right now.

feelingfresh. Our opinions are probably quite different here. I am not a musician so it's hard for me to explain what i feel but ...

You earlier said:
> A perfect example is around 20:25 on the Jan 31 - Feb 2 1969 La Cave performance; organ, la la la

This is the kind of organ playing that stops me dead in my tracks whenever I have tried to listen to a post-Cale Sister Ray. I cannot do it. This is what I mean by cliche. It's an obvious, some might say cheesy, musical idea. The kind of organ playing that could be heard in any lesser groups of the time. It actually reminds of the Doors and I don't listen to the VU because I like the Doors (I don't).

So I listened to the other 3/13/69 BTP version at the point to you mention. After the funky bluesy organ parts the guitar takes off and there's a nice noise more like the spirit of the original studio version. The organ is masked in the general cacophony which is an improvement (for me).

What about the 1967 Gymnasium version?