May 052008
Who knew this one required a special tuning?
Mar 092007
Lou and band – complete with porn ‘staches – sounding the way his music’s always been meant to sound…at least until his next album and tour.
Who knew this one required a special tuning?
Lou and band – complete with porn ‘staches – sounding the way his music’s always been meant to sound…at least until his next album and tour.
Beautiful! Are those ‘staches sans irony? Holy shit! What a time capsule. Did those guys just pick a groove every night, and segue into that Sweet Jane riff after a few minutes? Everybody here who plays in a band should glue those mustaches on for a night. It’s gotta amp up your playing machismo. That, or two tennis balls and a kielbasa down the pants, Zoot Allures-style. Rawk!
Let’s get serious about Lou for a moment. I’ve been listening to a lot of John Cale lately. Thanks to dimeadozen, I’ve downloaded shows from 1981 (that punk-era band), 1985 (a solo show), 1995 (with a string quartet), and two band shows from this past January.
It all got me thinking about John Cale versus Lou Reed. Reed’s “profile” (however you want to define that) has certainly been way higher over the past 35 years.
Why?
It’s pretty easy to argue that the VU sound (you know, the one that sold only 1,000 LPs but a band was started for each one sold) owes at least as much to Cale as to Reed.
And I’ll take Cale solo over Reed solo. It’s been a long time since Reed did anything I find worthwhile (although I’ll confess to not buying anything since “Magic & Loss”; based on what I’ve read, I don’t think I’ve missed much. The Raven, anyone?).
Reed had a lot of great stuff up ‘til the late ‘70s. But so did Cale. Since then, I think Cale outstrips Reed. I have always loved Berlin; still do, but I don’t think it holds up as well as Paris 1919.
So why that profile? The Bowie effect? Laurie Anderson? Bi-sexuality? The blond hair and ‘stache?
And are there other R&R hall of famers (small caps so as to distinguish from Wenner’s Hall of Fame) who don’t deserve the props when compared to members of the same band?
Al (long time reader, first time poster)
Great questions, Townsman Al (and WELCOME TO THE SHOW). I think what’s helped Cale is that he tends to play within a narrow range. To me, the only time he overreaches his abilities is that late-70s period, when he tried to rock out. I don’t think his voice could handle the rocking, and he seemed to have a worse feel for arranging a rock band than ’70s Lou Reed and John Lennon at their lowest points.
Since recovering from that hectoring rock phase, he’s kept it simple and humble. It suits his voice and his lack of diversity. I’m sure this last comment will bug some, but so be it. I like Cale a lot, but I put him in the same league as Patti Smith: artists who don’t really have a feel for the breadth of rock ‘n roll yet who manage to make good music on the strength of their idiosyncratic personal syle.
Reed, through the years, has never left the hectoring side of his art alone, and he often stretches beyond his comfort zone, with awkward results.
In baseball pitching terms, Cale is a Jaimie Moyer/Woody Williams type – veteran control artist who’s accepted his lack of velocity, while Reed is a frustrating, gutsy if dimwitted power pitcher who’s always fighting with the cerebral/conditioning aspects of the game – say a Kevin Millwood or Chan Ho Park.
As for your last question – wow, I’ll have to think about that. I’m always willing to argue that Ringo’s solo Greatest Hits album is nearly as good as if not better than the other standards Beatles’ solo GH albums, but that’s not by any means the same thing as what you’re suggesting re: Cale and Reed. I’ll come back to it.
The intro could not do anything more to promise an orgy in a ’70s porn movie, could it? This may in fact be the way Lou’s music was meant to sound.
Yes, the moment when the camera cuts to the bassist, with 5:48 remaining, is especially fraught with leering sexuality.
What an awesome collection of berry-ticklers!
Funny, he seems virtually affectless to me, but then again 70s porn actors (the male ones anyway) are kind of emotion-free.
I did a little research and discovered that the bass player is Prakash John, whose credits also include Alice Cooper and a early Parliament/Funkadelic.
Yeah, I figured that was Prakash John. Good to see him after all these years of loving that name.
I think you’re mistaken about Cale’s late 70s early 80s rock. I think that Cale took a while to get his singing together and despite my love of Paris 1919, his singing still seemed uncomfortable on that record. On Fear he really found his voice and, despite your stated dislike of Slow Dazzle, I think he mined a very entertaining vocal approach through his hard rock era. I saw Cale a lot in that period and his bands were quite good but his performances were great. Way over the top in a way that Reed probably never could match, dense, rocking. he would just shred his voice and his shows had a weird air of danger that was thrilling.
You know I love Fear; in fact, I listened to it today, as I do every other week. If you were “entertained” by Slow Dazzle, more power to you, my friend. That album is one of the ultimate turds that ever graced my turntable. No combination of drugs and alcohol could get me into a state to enjoy it. You are one of the most rigorous and fierce music fans on this generally hearty list. The stuff you can handle is admirable, if sometimes frightening to consider. Honi Soit is no picnic either, but at least I can laugh my way through most of it. Perhaps it’s all a matter of Guts.
Do you hate Helen of Troy too? To me Fear, Helen of Troy, and Slow Dazzle are of a piece and each has its own merits. I love the fact that Island released the three of them as a 2-CD package.
And I agree with geo about Cale as a singer. Live he really learned to let loose. There was a song from the Honi Soit period about being a fighter pilot or something where he would do this countdown (“T minus 10 and counting” etc) that built to a bone-rattling and larynx shredding crescendo. It was very impressive.
No, I don’t hate Helen of Troy. It’s OK. I love the cover for that one.
“Entertained” referred to his live performances with a band circa 78-81. He had these great bands, very good players if somewhat sounding like hired guns, and Cale’s playing and especially his singing was totally wild and committed. But yeah, I do like Slow Dazzle, but I see that it is musically and lyrically clumsy and oafish, and not in a good way, version of Fear. Can’t you even get your head around Mr. Wilson, a curiously odd shout out song in the middle of theatrical horrorshow?
Not even “Mr. Wilson”, George. I really disliked that album. Helen of Troy is OK, and Honi Soit is unintentionally funny. I like the song “Guts” enough, but again, I’m also laughing at it as I listen along.
What I do like is Cale’s work on both the album he did with Eno and the one he did with Reed. I need to pick up one of his more recent albums some day.
Mr. Mod, let me get this straight. Lou strays from his comfort zone whereas Cale doesn’t. Lou fails when he strays but somehow that justifies his higher profile. Do I have that right?
I guess I need examples of where Lou has strayed because it’s not in my collection. which is pretty much complete up to the late ’80s.
Oh, wait, you must be talking about Metal Machine Music…
It seems to me all the substantial straying (in a rock & roll context, I’m not talking about Cale’s “classical” music side trips) was in the VU and I don’t see that as being Lou’s doing to any greater extent than it was Cale’s.
Maybe some solid (i.e., non-baseball) examples would help me see what you are saying.
Al
np – Lou Reed – Coney Island Baby (was Lou hectoring here? or straying?)
Let me say this: I have always found John Cale easier to hear than Lou Reed. Even when his songs fail, they do so melodiously, and pleasantly. Lou Reed, even at his most powerful, sounds, to me, massively uncomfortable. My sense is that no one at all appreciates in Lou Reed what he appreciates in himself: the great white hope of liberating Delmore Schwartz into the soulful dance-driven snake-oil show of James Brown. If you like him, then you like him for standing up in all his non-poetic non-dancing whiteness to bear witness to the indigestible caucasian unsoulfulness of rock and roll. Cale, though often inadequate at his posturings, is never more than twenty degrees off the bow of hip. Reed, even when he harpoons “Rock Poet” broadside, only gets his peg-leg flopping on the side of the whale by dint of effort and balls. It is the risk, and 70-30 failure, that renders Lou Reed more worthy of post-modern-bard status than the 50-50 hipper-than-thou of Cale.
General Slocum wrote:
See, I appreciate exactly what he appreciates about himself. No one fails like Lou Reed. As Jesus died for our sins, Lou fails for our self-delusions. I experience any personal growth from Cale’s failures.
I said:
Lou Reed, even at his most powerful, sounds, to me, massively uncomfortable. My sense is that no one at all appreciates in Lou Reed what he appreciates in himself: the great white hope of liberating Delmore Schwartz into the soulful dance-driven snake-oil show of James Brown.
Mr. Mod said:
See, I appreciate exactly what he appreciates about himself. No one fails like Lou Reed. As Jesus died for our sins, Lou fails for our self-delusions. I experience any personal growth from Cale’s failures.
I say:
You yourself are there for the failure and the discomfort as much as for the ostensible Lou he tries to put forth. I like the Christ analogy! And it’s true: Cale failing gives much much less than Lou failing. Even calling them “Cale” and “Lou” is telling. When I was a kid our neighbor was “Uncle Paul” but his wife was always “Mrs. Krause.” I’ve been relistening to Paris 1919, though, and liking it. As well as the Church of Anthrax cuts I’ve been able to find (Cale with Terry Riley.)