VU tracks on NYC Man

For discussion of all aspects of the New York legends.
User avatar
Mark
Head held high
Posts: 1004
Joined: 15 May 2004 21:13
Contact:

VU tracks on NYC Man

Post by Mark » 14 Mar 2004 22:16

I saw Lou's sleevenotes for his NYC Man compilation lately, complete with lenghty details about how fab (he thinks) all the tracks sound compared to the original releases. Just wondered whether anyone who has this release had noticed any significant difference in sound quality on the Velvet Underground songs - can you *really* hear how hard John's hitting the piano on Waiting For The Man etc etc?

Also, which versions of Rock & Roll and Sweet Jane are included? The common 'butchered' versions or the restored mixes from PSAS?

User avatar
Homme Fatale
Head held high
Posts: 430
Joined: 06 Mar 2004 12:22
Location: between thought and expression

Post by Homme Fatale » 15 Mar 2004 08:32

Lou's audiophile rantings are really boring, especially seeing as that's so not what the first couple of Velvet Underground albums were about. I did think I was noticing some slight changes in the tracks, drums mixed down/vocals mixed up kind of thing. "Jane" and "R&R" were the butchered versions, god knows why - how many times did Lou complain about "them" editing the most important parts out of "Sweet Jane" and when he gets a chance to fix it he doesn't (this time he even edited out the intro) and he rarely plays the song live in it s full form either... I don't get it.

lostblues
Head held high
Posts: 296
Joined: 08 Mar 2004 17:20
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by lostblues » 15 Mar 2004 12:16

Homme Fatale wrote:Lou's audiophile rantings are really boring, especially seeing as that's so not what the first couple of Velvet Underground albums were about. I did think I was noticing some slight changes in the tracks, drums mixed down/vocals mixed up kind of thing. "Jane" and "R&R" were the butchered versions, god knows why - how many times did Lou complain about "them" editing the most important parts out of "Sweet Jane" and when he gets a chance to fix it he doesn't (this time he even edited out the intro) and he rarely plays the song live in it s full form either... I don't get it.
I saw Lou in 2000 and he played the butchered version of Sweet Jane. The "wine & roses" were gone... Who understands this?!

MrRain422
Posts: 1
Joined: 06 Mar 2004 19:09
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Contact:

Post by MrRain422 » 17 Mar 2004 02:23

I read an interview a few years back where Lou said that, although he prefers the version with the bridge himself, its pointless to do it live. His reasoning is that the live show is for the audience, and since, to the vast majority of the audience that section isn't part of the song, there's no reason to play it. Not sure if I agree with him on that, but I understand it at least.

User avatar
Homme Fatale
Head held high
Posts: 430
Joined: 06 Mar 2004 12:22
Location: between thought and expression

Post by Homme Fatale » 17 Mar 2004 08:05

I remember quotes along those lines as well, but the vast majority...? The song has been released in many different forms, beginning with Max's and 1969 in the '70s - I'm not sure that the vast majority would only be aware of the "original" Loaded version. Especially now that you can't even buy the butchered version anymore! Most new young fans are more familiar with the full lenght version because that's what's available on CD now.

lostblues
Head held high
Posts: 296
Joined: 08 Mar 2004 17:20
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by lostblues » 17 Mar 2004 10:11

Good guess, homme!
But I didn´t see any "younger People" at the concert! I was feeling like a baby (I´m 35 years...) surrounded by elder fans.... Kinda strange, because in the old yellow forum and of couse here there are lots of young people that recently discovered VU. Maybe they are not that much interested in the Lou Solo releases/gigs (what I can quite understand!)???

Post Reply