Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Avant Garde/Experimental
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

View Poll Results: Choose.
Trout Mask Replica (1969) 26 47.27%
The Velvet Underground & Nico (1967) 29 52.73%
Voters: 55. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-02-2017, 03:52 PM   #251 (permalink)
stay the |fvck| inside
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North of Antarctica
Posts: 33,114
Default

It's understated and in your face at the same time.

It's experimentation is wild and unmatched for the time.

I can't think if another album that sounds like it.

The production is fine.

Lou Reed is a terrible singer but he's more effective than the majority of other singers.

The drone elements and percussion pulled from Theatre of Eternal Music.

It sounds 0% like Lulu.

The soft moments are very beautiful.

The harder moments are raw as **** and have explosive energy.
__________________
At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed.

Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2017, 03:53 PM   #252 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Aalborg
Posts: 7,636
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elphenor View Post
Nico' s only contribution to Sunday Morning is backing vocals

Femme Fatale is a Reed song

Nico is just a guest by the discretion of Warhol on everything but All Tomorrow's party which is the most full band contribution

yes the production is basically trashcan and you are weirdly naive about it kinda cute
Just checking it again and... yes, although it's a very bright voice on Sunday Morning, it clearly isn't Nico. I did sit and mess around with multiple things when I started this, so I misheard that pretty badly. It actually sounds like Lou Reed doing a different voice. Do they have a third singer?
MicShazam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2017, 04:01 PM   #253 (permalink)
Call me Mustard
 
rubber soul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Pepperland
Posts: 1,312
Default

To add to Elph's comments, the VU didn't particularly like Nico. Yes, she was pushed on them by Warhol and I'm sure she was relieved when they parted ways. She did make a nice album at the end of 1967.

I actually bought a copy of the album at the Salvation Army of all places with the banana peel still intact (of course dummy me peeled the banana off like an idiot). I think what makes the album so special is the contrast of the musical styles compared to the happier psychedelia of the period. While much of the music on the radio wanted you to get high and love life, VU was coming from a dark place with songs about pushers and needles. Maybe that's why it took years for people to really get into them.

Maybe some of it has to do with the later success Lou Reed had with his solo career. I don't think he was ever as good as he was with VU though. After Transformer and, with the exception of a couple of songs, he really doesn't do a lot for me.

But I think there was something special with Reed, Sterling Morrison, John Cale, and Maureen Tucker. Nico, admittedly, was more or less along for the ride, but I don't think she takes anything away from the album at all.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pet_Sounds View Post
But looking for quality interaction on MB is like trying to stay hydrated by drinking salt water.
rubber soul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2017, 04:02 PM   #254 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Aalborg
Posts: 7,636
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland View Post
Lou Reed is a terrible singer but he's more effective than the majority of other singers.
This goes back to what I said about how our musical sensibilities differ quite strikingly. Essentially, **** no

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland View Post
It sounds 0% like Lulu.
In didn't mean it as a negative comparison though. It's fine if you disagree, but I really do find that some of the way some shrill, atonal guitar/violin noises relate to a certain Lou Reed vocal approach reminds me very much of some of what Hammett contributed to Lulu. It's what I'm hearing, anyway and I'm only talking about certain moments, certain nuances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubber soul View Post
To add to Elph's comments, the VU didn't particularly like Nico. Yes, she was pushed on them by Warhol and I'm sure she was relieved when they parted ways. She did make a nice album at the end of 1967.

I actually bought a copy of the album at the Salvation Army of all places with the banana peel still intact (of course dummy me peeled the banana off like an idiot). I think what makes the album so special is the contrast of the musical styles compared to the happier psychedelia of the period. While much of the music on the radio wanted you to get high and love life, VU was coming from a dark place with songs about pushers and needles. Maybe that's why it took years for people to really get into them.

Maybe some of it has to do with the later success Lou Reed had with his solo career. I don't think he was ever as good as he was with VU though. After Transformer and, with the exception of a couple of songs, he really doesn't do a lot for me.

But I think there was something special with Reed, Sterling Morrison, John Cale, and Maureen Tucker. Nico, admittedly, was more or less along for the ride, but I don't think she takes anything away from the album at all.
This is interesting. Maybe that's why her vocals (at least to me) seem weaker than usual. If she didn't even feel welcome there.

I do respect what the record and the band has done in terms of their place in musical history and their place in the continuum of influence on future artists, but like I said, I insist on listening to music as if it was released yesterday. Basically, historical importance is fine and all, but what is this album in 2017?

Last edited by MicShazam; 11-02-2017 at 04:14 PM.
MicShazam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2017, 04:04 PM   #255 (permalink)
Zum Henker Defätist!!
 
The Batlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Beating GNR at DDR and keying Axl's new car
Posts: 42,053
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MicShazam View Post
Further thoughts:
I do wonder what this album means to you people on here who will disagree with me the most. When did you listen to it first? You personal history with it, what is so great about it, what it gives you that is yet unmatched by other artists. I'm especially interested in hearing this from Frownland, The Batlord and also you, Elphenor.
Not much personal history tbh. I don't listen to VU that much for no apparent reason, but when I do I very much enjoy them, and this album. I'm not sure when I first heard it but I only came to it and proto-punk in general after joining the forum. I'm assuming it would have been within a year or two at most, so about five or six years ago I suppose. So I'm not a superfan or someone who can't listen to the album objectively.

I like the album quite a bit, but somewhat less so the second half, and while I no longer hate Nico as a dull, pretentious-sounding twat she's still not my favorite thing about the album. So it's not a flawless classic to me, but what's right about it is right as ****. I don't know about alternate tunings and whatever else are supposed to make this so experimental, but I love that it's the sound of what psychedelic rock could have sounded like in an alternate universe, and is remarkably less dated than a lot of that other stuff to boot. It's definitely garagey, but elevated by a hodgepodge of influences that meld seamlessly to create a very diverse tracklist of catchy, interesting songs that can rightfully be taken seriously but don't forget to be accessible as garage rock should be.
__________________
BRING ME THE HORIZON >>>> CHARLES MINGUS
i
The Batlord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2017, 04:07 PM   #256 (permalink)
Boneshaker Baby
 
elphenor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Looking for drugs
Posts: 12,322
Default

it's Reed softening his vocals is all

a comment about all the "50's rock" you hear

it's because Reed's guitar playing is like everything in his ethos, to the point, no chaser, pure as snow

the appeal is that RocknRoll that straight is a gut punch, it's why he's more a godfather of punk than "old rock"
__________________
Just another marketing ploy

"Life sucks. It’s a miserable hell being a living organism"

https://spiderchildrecords.bandcamp.com/
elphenor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2017, 04:13 PM   #257 (permalink)
stay the |fvck| inside
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North of Antarctica
Posts: 33,114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MicShazam View Post
This goes back to what I said about how our musical sensibilities differ quite strikingly. Essentially, **** no
Nah. He's an amazing singer because he communicates emotion so clearly despite his awful voice. It might sound silly but I don't even think his brilliance in that regard is even subjective. Virtuosity doesn't count for everything.
__________________
At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed.

Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2017, 04:24 PM   #258 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Aalborg
Posts: 7,636
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
Not much personal history tbh. I don't listen to VU that much for no apparent reason, but when I do I very much enjoy them, and this album. I'm not sure when I first heard it but I only came to it and proto-punk in general after joining the forum. I'm assuming it would have been within a year or two at most, so about five or six years ago I suppose. So I'm not a superfan or someone who can't listen to the album objectively.

I like the album quite a bit, but somewhat less so the second half, and while I no longer hate Nico as a dull, pretentious-sounding twat she's still not my favorite thing about the album. So it's not a flawless classic to me, but what's right about it is right as ****. I don't know about alternate tunings and whatever else are supposed to make this so experimental, but I love that it's the sound of what psychedelic rock could have sounded like in an alternate universe, and is remarkably less dated than a lot of that other stuff to boot. It's definitely garagey, but elevated by a hodgepodge of influences that meld seamlessly to create a very diverse tracklist of catchy, interesting songs that can rightfully be taken seriously but don't forget to be accessible as garage rock should be.
I did almost bring up the garage rock connection in my comments on the album but I wasn't sure if it would be dismissed as terrible plebbery. Basically I wondered if it was meaningful to call it garage rock just because it sounded raw. Also, is it raw on purpose or by accident? I guess I'm thinking of garage rock as being intentionally recorded with a potato.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elphenor View Post
it's Reed softening his vocals is all

a comment about all the "50's rock" you hear

it's because Reed's guitar playing is like everything in his ethos, to the point, no chaser, pure as snow

the appeal is that RocknRoll that straight is a gut punch, it's why he's more a godfather of punk than "old rock"
The simple and raw approach is probably a better fit than anything more ornate would be. I can't see Reed backed by an orchestra. I also see the Godfather of punk angle. He's got a rawness and a lack of affectation that is mirrored by early punk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland View Post
Nah. He's an amazing singer because he communicates emotion so clearly despite his awful voice. It might sound silly but I don't even think his brilliance in that regard is even subjective.
On this album, I didn't feel it at all, but I do remember there being parts of the Lulu album where his vocals were strikingly raw and emotionally unguarded. I'm essentially saying I liked Reed far more on Lulu. At least on the better cuts.
MicShazam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2017, 04:25 PM   #259 (permalink)
Zum Henker Defätist!!
 
The Batlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Beating GNR at DDR and keying Axl's new car
Posts: 42,053
Default

Not many singers who make me picture the way their mouth moves when they sing quite as vividly as Lou Reed. No wonder he was a famous *******. No way someone with this much effortless attitude could be "one of the guys".

__________________
BRING ME THE HORIZON >>>> CHARLES MINGUS
i
The Batlord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2017, 04:28 PM   #260 (permalink)
stay the |fvck| inside
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North of Antarctica
Posts: 33,114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MicShazam View Post
On this album, I didn't feel it at all, but I do remember there being parts of the Lulu album where his vocals were strikingly raw and emotionally unguarded. I'm essentially saying I liked Reed far more on Lulu. At least on the better cuts.
I like the tone and texture of his voice a lot more on Lulu since he's aged and it's gotten raspy, but his vox on the VU cut deep.
__________________
At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed.

Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2020 Advameg, Inc.