The greatest album of all time discussion board

[Paul]

I haven't listened to "Sister Ray" or the album WL/WH in about 3 years; I'm gonna put it in the rotation this week....From what I remember, I didn't like "Sister Ray" at all. And, the version of WL/WH is way better on Lou Reed: American Poet live in NY 1974 than on the album, IMO. I also think "heroin", the "rock version" is better on that ablum as well....

[Kensterberg]

pcook said:

thorny said:

Sister Ray. What album is that on?

White Light/White Heat

It may be blashphemy around here, but that's my least favorite VU album; Loaded and the self-titled are my favorites.

White Light/White Heat is easily my least favorite VU record. I enjoy Loaded and the self-titled the most, as well. But IMO The Velvet Underground and Nico is probably their best record, all things considered.

All things considered, I'd put the VU's output in this order:

1. The Velvet Underground and Nico
2. The Velvet Underground
3. Loaded
4. White Light/White Heat

And if it's purely in terms of personal enjoyment, then Nico drops to third and the other two move up to the top. Hell, there are (a lot of) days when I'd keep Loaded at the very top of my enjoyment list. I love that record.

[Rit]

DED, did you just say that White Light White Heat is your fave? other than "Sister Ray"?

there's hope for you yet, young'un.
That means you see something in it. And there's loads to see in it. It's boundaries are different from even the VU&N album, let alone the selftitled.

(*my dyslexic fingers won't stop making huge gramattical errors, so forgive all the edits*)

[Rit]

i love all the Velvet Underground albums. Each is wildly different from the rest. Each has an entire genre unto itself.

[Galactus]

I like Bowies VU covers better then the orginals as well...

[Rit]

Here's a nugget of info:

Lou Reed is hardly the genius of VU. He was a jerk, prick, and a piss-off artist. If i met him, i'd likely punch him out, just for the fun of it.

umm, you get the point. The Velvets works becaose of the mix of Morrison, Yule, Cale, Tucker, as well as Reed. It was a fine collective, with a very MATURE standpoint from which they chose to create music. They were the first to do so, that's their glory. They didn't invent the wheel, they just imported beatnik maturity about life into pop music.

[Galactus]

OK but since then so many others have done it better.

[Kensterberg]

Damn, bet you didn't expect such a rush of posts with such a simple post, did ya Paul?

Which brings me back to a point that Luke and Riley had brought up earlier, and that I think merits further discussion. Why is it that we aren't talking about OK Computer, Achtung Baby, or some other record with the same passion that we're using to defend (or attack) records made when we were either kids, or not even born yet? I think there are a couple of reasons for this.

First, there's the valid point that Rocky brought up about an album's influence. This is certainly an important component for any "greatest" album in rock claim, and it's easier to see that influence with the passage of time. It's also much easier to be influential (and innovative) within a developing genre. Rock and roll in the sixties and seventies was very much an evolving medium, something that could still be radically changed and transformed. Today, it appears to be a mature form, where there just isn't much innovation going on.

But frankly, I don't think this would matter that much to us if it weren't accompanied by other, more subjective and personal factors. Let's be quite frank about this: the reason that we've brought up these records is because they inspire passion in us. I love Nevermind, I love Nirvana, but I could never write up the same kind of lengthy rant on the merits of Nirvana that I can pull out of my ass for London Calling, VU&Nico, Who's Next, or Born to Run, at the drop of a hat. Why? Because Nevermind doesn't inspire me. Similarly, there are lots of albums from the nineties that I like, even love, but none of which connect with me in that very special personal regard that elevates one artist over all others.

I think that there are a couple of factors here. First, as we get older, we tend to be less committed to art or music as being the absolute pinnacle of experience. We become jaded, even we music geeks eventually run out of new bands to inspire us, in part b/c the young kids coming up don't speak for us, don't share our experiences, don't represent us.

A large part of the appeal of rock and roll from the fifties through the nineties was the role it played in establishing a particular identity for each upcoming generation, a social shorthand and identity. But in the late nineties, whatever was actively happening in rock and roll became secondary to multiple revivalisms. What new trend has really emerged in the new millenium? Even the best bands of this decade appear to be working more within established sub-genres, for the most part, and are content to merely rearrange the sounds of the past into something that passes for "new" while still offering the reassurance of the old and familiar. I just don't hear anything today that is as completely forward looking as The Velvet Underground and Nico was in '66/'67. Nor do I hear anything that so comprehensively ties up everything rock and roll has been or is likely to become as the Clash did on London Calling.

And in part, I think this is because rock and roll has been largely cast into two competing and mutually exclusive camps: that of "rock star" vs. "indie artist." With the exception of the Velvet Underground, all of the serious contenders for "greatest album" status were released by bands who were pretty damn popular, and were on major labels with major promotional budgets. And for that matter, the VU were on a major label, and certainly did get wide release of their material. They just didn't sell well enough to become "rock stars" at the time, although that certainly was what they were shooting for.

Even in the seventies, it was expected that the really great artists would sell large numbers of records. The Who, David Bowie, Pink Floyd ... all these and more sold plenty of records, while also blazing new trails (whether you like Floyd or not, they were responsible for the development of a certain kind of art-rock) in music. Bruce Springsteen's commercial break-through (Born to Run) was also his third album, and was easily the best thing he'd recorded to that point. But today, is there anyone out there who could unify the rock audience the way that the Beatles or Stones did in the sixties? or even to the much lesser degree that Springsteen and Bowie did in the seventies? Perhaps the more important question is, are there any artists out there even TRYING to do this?

And this is where I think you can make a case for Nirvana as the last true rock and roll stars. They were the last band to truly cut across the entire spectrum of rock and roll and make everyone who had any interest in the music at all pay attention to them. Just as you couldn't ignore the Beatles in the sixties (even if you hated them), you couldn't pretend that Nirvana didn't exist. But after Kurt killed himself, it seems like he took rock's messianic pretensions with him. The bands who've come up after Nirvana look like smaller, intentionally less demanding and less inclusive acts. Cobain knew that what he was doing was huge: just like Lennon, or Springsteen, or Miles Davis, or Joe Strummer, Kurt knew that the world was paying attention to him, that he had every rock ear tuned in to him to see what was coming next.

But he couldn't handle it. And his cautionary tale seems to have worked too well, for rock and roll seems to have been practically cleared of its would-be messiahs in its aftermath. Even U2, the biggest of all spiritually big bands, don't have quite the same grandious ambitions that they did before Kurt's death (ZooTV was every bit as pretentious and messianic as anything they did in the eighties, but as Pete Townshend has said, it's not pretentious if you can pull it off, and they did, in spades). Bono is no longer trying to save the world when he goes out on stage. The world may be a better place with his activism in a more political arena, but rock and roll is poorer for it.

And this, ultimately, is why we don't talk about new albums as among the best ever. If you're going to make the best album in rock and roll, well, experience tells us you have to be going for it. Pet Sounds, VU&N, London Calling, Born to Run, Abbey Road, all of these were made by bands who were setting out to not just make the best record they could, but to make records that would knock people's socks off. They all were ambitious, self-absorbed, and positively inspiring. With the death (or at least dormancy) of rock's messianic impulses, also comes the death of the intentionally great rock and roll album. And if the album doesn't make the artist passionate about it, it's not going to inspire us to write odes to it.

So that's my buck-fifty worth of thoughts on this. I'm sure that the thread has moved on and this is no longer relevant, but maybe some of you will read the whole damn thing. And then tell me why I'm wrong. Because I really want to be wrong about this.

well the dogs on main street howl because they understand if I could just wrench one moment into my hands,
mister I ain't a boy -- no I'm a man -- and I believe in a promised land

[rockysigman]

ded said:

Actually, other then Sister Ray WLWH is probably my favorite VU album.

That's just quite frankly weird to me. I certainly understand not liking "Sister Ray" -- it's a pretty difficult listen, and, well, as much as I love that song, I do realize that I never would love it the way I do now if I hadn't previously forced myself to sit through the first couple difficult listens -- but that song really encapsulates that whole album to me. And from what I can tell (and feel free to correct me), it's not just that you don't like the song, but you really seem to actively dislike it.

To each his own I suppose, but I just can't connect really disliking that song but still really liking the rest of the album. Other than it's length, "I Heard Her Call My Name" is just as difficult sonically. And lyrically "Lady Godiva's Operation" is just as perverse (and intentionally ridiculous). "Sister Ray" is a microcosm of the rest of the album (although perhaps I may be misusing the word, as it's almost as long as the other 5 songs!).

[Galactus]

Well, actually I think in the last fifty years, which is pretty much the life span so far of rock there's really only a hand full of albu you could honestly argue to be the greatest album of all time...of course we pretty much agree there isn't just one, the mojority will naturally be from the sixties and seventies becuase after it's infancy that period of discovery is bound to be the most widely ground breaking. However there are albums from almost every period that could be contenders...since one of the biggest qualifiers is lasting influence it's hard to tell about album released in the last fifty years. I do beleive that Tool, Radiohead, Nirvana...possibly The White Stripes or Interpol in the future...honestly deserve to be in the conversation. I certainly don't feel that music is any less good now then it was then. No I don't believe we're going to see another mass market superstar explosion like with Nirvana. That's one of the reason I keep saying comeercialism isn't the biggest qualifier...however in a time when commercialism was the market it has to be considered. It is clearly harder for bands to break new ground becuase so much ground has already been broken...which is another reason "they did it first" will only go so far, there has to be something said for someone dooing it better. So what will the new criteria for greatness be? I don't know, that's one of the reasons I created this thread.

[rockysigman]

ritalinpants said:

Here's a nugget of info:

Lou Reed is hardly the genius of VU. He was a jerk, prick, and a piss-off artist. If i met him, i'd likely punch him out, just for the fun of it.

umm, you get the point. The Velvets works becaose of the mix of Morrison, Yule, Cale, Tucker, as well as Reed. It was a fine collective, with a very MATURE standpoint from which they chose to create music. They were the first to do so, that's their glory. They didn't invent the wheel, they just imported beatnik maturity about life into pop music.

Well...I'm not sure what Lou Reed being a prick has to do with him being a genius or not. John Lennon was a prick. Bob Dylan was (at times) a gigantic prick. A lot of geniuses are pricks.

I agree that the VU was more than Lou Reed with a backing band. It was a collective (well, on the first three albums anyway--on Loaded it was really just two guys, Lou Reed and Doug Yule, and Yule's role was mainly placate Reed, at least up until he tried to take the band over). But Lou Reed was certainly the genius among geniuses in that band. John Cale was probably just as important in creating the sound of the band on the first two albums, and Moe Tucker and Sterling Morrison were irreplaceable, but none of that would have been possible without the write songs. And the songs were almost completely all Lou. Cale was vital when it came to arrangements, and Sterling probably had more input than he is usually credited for, but they were Lou's songs.

[Galactus]

rockysigman said:

ded said:

Actually, other then Sister Ray WLWH is probably my favorite VU album.

That's just quite frankly weird to me. I certainly understand not liking "Sister Ray" -- it's a pretty difficult listen, and, well, as much as I love that song, I do realize that I never would love it the way I do now if I hadn't previously forced myself to sit through the first couple difficult listens -- but that song really encapsulates that whole album to me. And from what I can tell (and feel free to correct me), it's not just that you don't like the song, but you really seem to actively dislike it.

To each his own I suppose, but I just can't connect really disliking that song but still really liking the rest of the album. Other than it's length, "I Heard Her Call My Name" is just as difficult sonically. And lyrically "Lady Godiva's Operation" is just as perverse (and intentionally ridiculous). "Sister Ray" is a microcosm of the rest of the album (although perhaps I may be misusing the word, as it's almost as long as the other 5 songs!).

Honestly it's been awhile since I've listened to any of the albums in their entirety, I usually listen to a Toklon approved mix when I'm in the mood to listen to them...yes it has Sister Ray and Heroin on it. For some reason I think I remember liking WLWH the best, I know the song is one of my favorites. Maybe if I listened to all of the albums today I'd feel different.

[rockysigman]

ded said:

I usually listen to a Toklon approved mix when I'm in the mood to listen to them...yes it has Sister Ray and Heroin on it.

Wow, how's it got any room for anything else?

[Paul]

Ken, I think most of that post is spot on. When the 90's came around, bands/people didn't want to be rock stars (Vedder/Cobain), and did what they could to put an end to it; obviously Pearl Jam took a much different approach than Nirvana. To me, a lot of the problem lies w/ the record companies as well. 1994 was a bad year, and after Kurt died and PJ stop being rock stars, record companies needed to fill a huge void. As a result, the market was flooded w/ crappy, and at best mediocre Nirvana and Pearl Jam copy-cats. Shortly after is when rock really went down, and hip-hop/rap really took over. Now a days, it's all about being "hot", and staying up w/ the latest fads and trends, and not creating them. People talk of the Strokes being the "it" band, but they do nothing but already re-hash what's been done. A lot of this can fall under the "Visionary" thread too, b/c in my mind the greatest rock album of all time has to be visionary. One reason we may not include the likes of Radiohead and Nirvana is simply b/c it's too early to tell. The Beatles, VU, Hendrix, etc... all have had 40 years to have their albums stand the test of time. OK Computer has only had 8 years.

Your also right about rock being associated w/ an identity of a generation....I'm a Gen X'r, Pearl Jam and Nirvana were being hailed as the leaders of Gen X....Now, nothing has come around, it's all pretty lame really. Many bands today still copy the foundation set in the 90's, even w/ fashion. Many of the styles of the 90's are still in; in 1995, 1985 was dead. No remnants of the 80's seemed to survive once Nirvana took off, everything changed. I guess where I'm going w/ all of this is no revolution in music has happened since the early 90's, and as long as greedy record companies continue to manufacture and produce mass assembly lines of the same crap, there may never be one again. It's time for the indie scene to take over, or become a major player as it did in the mid 80's. Oh, can I blame MTV for most of this crap as well? They used to help the scene w/ the likes of Headbangers Ball, and 120 Minutes, not it's the 33rd installment of real world (a joke in and of itself), and crap about spoiled rich bratty girls 16th birthday party. Oh, and Clinton didn't help matters by signing the FCC Telecomunications Act of 1996. It's like big brother in the form of Clear Channel is force feeding music to us....and they wonder why record sales continue to tank. They blame MP3 downloading, I blame them for releasing crappy album after crappy album.

Sorry, that turned into a bit of a rant, and was off topic.

[Galactus]

Here's the track list...I've often though about dropping Sister Ray adding probably three or four more songs. Though In a weird way I see how it's centerpeice of the mix...


1) I'm waiting for the man 4:39
2) Femme fatale 2:38
3) Venus in furs 5:12
4) All tomorrow's parties 5:57
5) Heroin 7:12
6) There she goes again 2:41
7) I'll be your mirror 2:14
8) White light / white heat 2:47
9) Sister Ray 17:27
10) What Goes On 4:55
11) Pale Blue Eyes 5:41
12) Beginning to See the Light 4:41
13) Stephanie Says 2:50
14) Sweet Jane 3:55
15) Rock and Roll 4:47