[HN Gopher] The year Lou Reed gave up on music
___________________________________________________________________
The year Lou Reed gave up on music
Author : benbreen
Score : 41 points
Date : 2023-09-23 03:27 UTC (19 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| jonstewart wrote:
| RIP. I loved reading this article last night. I don't understand
| the disdain expressed here in the comments, but there's much I
| don't understand about the HN comments. Here's a great video of
| Sweet Jane from a concert in Paris, 1974:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc26EFI1_nw
| hackandthink wrote:
| So Lou Reed had written "Walk on the Wild Side" before he
| recorded his first solo album which did not feature this song.
|
| Actually I like his first album more than "Transformer":
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Reed_(album)
| classichasclass wrote:
| And here I thought this was going to be about "Machine Metal
| Music," which is perversely listenable if you are a fan of tape
| hiss (no Dolby required). A nice, gauzy snapshot of a tumultuous
| time.
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| Machine Metal Music is great. I didn't listen to it for the
| longest time because I was told it was just white noise, but it
| is...not that.
|
| Used to listen to it while studying to block out background
| noise.
| ciconia wrote:
| https://archive.ph/xetF0
| baby wrote:
| Please stop sharing paywall articles
| dang wrote:
| If there's a workaround, it's ok. Users usually post
| workarounds in the thread.
|
| This is in the FAQ at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
| and there's more explanation here:
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989
| achairapart wrote:
| Fun fact: Lou Reed poems were published in a "Special Poetry
| Supplement" to The Harvard Advocate[0] (as Louis Reed!) around
| that time (1971).
|
| There is a poem called "The Coach and Glory of Love" that is in
| fact the very song "Coney Island Baby" from the homonymous album
| released later in 1976[1].
|
| [0]:
| https://theadvocateblogdotnet.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/from-...
|
| [1]:
| https://theadvocateblogdotnet.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/pg...
| jdblair wrote:
| I'm half-way through the article and Sweet Jane is stuck in my
| head. I listened to "The Very Best of the Velvet Underground" so
| much on my Walkman in the late 80's that I wore the tape out.
| 6stringmerc wrote:
| Ugh talk about a guy who basically shot up any talent he had,
| went through two livers, and can rot in hell for Lulu.
|
| That's right. He was involved with Lulu. Kinda makes the worship
| look stupid in my book. The Andy Warhol of his lane.
|
| Edit - for the record, I go just as hard on KISS (no makeup as
| benchmark) and Garth Brooks (Chris Gaines) and Prince (doctor
| shopping opiates instead of hip surgery because Jehovah's
| Witness) and all I ask is to have Don Henley's lawyer.
| meandave wrote:
| who is lulu
| IndrekR wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lulu_(Lou_Reed_and_Metallica_a.
| ..
| foldr wrote:
| That's a lot of anger directed at some people who made some
| music you don't like.
| coldtea wrote:
| That's just low effort picking a popular opinion for a hate
| target.
| hermiod wrote:
| Lulu is Metallica's only good album though.
| aodonnell2536 wrote:
| Warhol and Reed were buddies, as far as I'm aware
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| "Reed clomped down the staircase and out onto the avenue. He
| stowed his guitar in the trunk of his parents' car, and Sid Reed
| drove home to the old house in Freeport, where his son would be
| staying for a while."
|
| Sounds like something out of a Wes Anderson movie. Guess it
| should be the mom not the dad though.
| raydiatian wrote:
| Why do people unironically like "Walk On The Wild Side"
|
| Answer: "can I kick it? Yes you can."
| bwanab wrote:
| It's funny that they picked the relatively short time between VU
| and Walk on the Wild Side to focus on instead of the long period
| prior to New Sensations. I saw him at the Beacon in the early
| 90s. What a great show. As he famously said, "You can't beat two
| guitars, bass, and drums."
| ramblerman wrote:
| I think Lou Reed is a "true artist" outside of the commercial
| realm, which is a quality to his credit but also to his
| detriment. Sometimes these artists also forget they are
| entertainers.
|
| I saw him 15 years ago in Leuven, Belgium and he played a great
| concert with all his new songs, ofc at the end of the night the
| crowd was crying out for more, especially "perfect day" and "walk
| on the wild side". He conceded and did play them but with great
| disdain, and it was obvious that he loathed playing them. 15
| years later that is really all I remember from the concert.
|
| As a comparison, I also saw the rolling stones (7 years ago in
| edinburgh), who in contrast were more than happy to play their
| classic hits, with the original vigour and energy. And it is one
| of my best memories.
|
| I understand both, but it seems the line between artist and
| entertainer is a fine one and I can't help but think that the
| artists who share in the joy of entertaining are probably happier
| in the process.
|
| I guess what I'm trying to say is that Lou Reed is a bit of a
| tortured soul who probably makes his own path harder than it
| needs to be - and this article confirms that.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Sometimes these artists also forget they are entertainers._
|
| That's exactly what I (and many others) expect from artists. We
| don't want sing-and-dance men and women to amuse us.
| musicale wrote:
| Without the performing part you're not really a performing
| artist anymore.
|
| Performing artists are free to alienate their audiences if
| they wish, but the consequences aren't necessarily positive
| for anyone.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Without the performing part you 're not really a
| performing artist anymore._
|
| Performing is not the same as entertaining.
|
| Performing just means putting up a performance, that is
| playing in front of an audience. It could be a "top hits
| meddley crowd pleaser"or it could be an expression of
| things you want to explore as an artist, or anything in
| between.
|
| > _Performing artists are free to alienate their audiences
| if they wish, but the consequences aren 't necessarily
| positive for anyone._
|
| That's for the artist to decide. Some artists could not
| give less fucks about the consequences, and if they did
| they'd be in boy bands.
| alpineidyll3 wrote:
| People who create new things with real impact always end up
| paying a price. Directly or indirectly there is a thermodynamic
| necessity that work will emit heat. Some people prefer to live
| reversible lives and that's fine, but to irreversibly change
| the world you're going to pay.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Being a victim of one's own success is a common fate for
| artists. We see this in edgy animated shows all the time where
| something shocking eventually turns into fan service.
| motohagiography wrote:
| If you do something impossibly difficult that you are the only
| person in the world who can do it (being Lou Reed), and if you
| grow or change or don't do it the way other people who can't do
| it expect, the whole world turns on you and hates you for
| failing to maintain their illusions and their belief that their
| memories have meaning in the present.
|
| I sympathize w/ not wanting to play those songs. Imagine you
| had this huge multi-decade personal journey, and no matter what
| you build or become, nobody will let you be anything other than
| the guy you were for a few weeks as a kid when you first wrote
| that song long before most of them were even born.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| It seems that so many people my age mustered out of finding
| new music sometime in their college years. As they age they
| return to that music to, I imagine, remember that time in
| their life.
|
| I asked a co-worker what he would listen to to remember this
| time of their life? Maybe I'm an idiot. Maybe no one wants to
| remember their 30's, their 40's, their 50's....
|
| Anyway (off on a tangent) the point is that people go to Lou
| Reed concerts to remember when they were in college making a
| mix-tape including "A Perfect Day" for their boyfriend.
|
| While I feel bad for the artist "artistically", plenty of
| artist are of course making bank by playing wineries to
| 50-somethings that now have deeper pockets and want their
| love shack, baby.
| zemvpferreira wrote:
| The phenomenon you're describing is certainly true, but the
| cause doesn't resonate. I'm almost 40 and super happy with
| my life, much more than when I was in college. However I
| still gravitate towards music I've known for decades rather
| than listening to new stuff. I actually find listening to
| new music mostly unpleasant now, which is weird because I
| consumed records like mad till 25 or so.
|
| I do believe there's neural plasticity we can lose as time
| goes on. Maybe those people, and myself, got busy for a
| while and forgot how to listen to new music, is all.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Anyway (off on a tangent) the point is that people go to
| Lou Reed concerts to remember when they were in college
| making a mix-tape including "A Perfect Day" for their
| boyfriend._
|
| I think those are precisely the type of audiences someone
| like Lou Reed would hate to have.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| > so many people my age mustered out of finding new music
| sometime in their college years.
|
| There's a collective pull too. If you're open minded enough
| to appreciate new music, but your peers usually don't, you
| end up enjoying things alone or only able to musically
| connect with college age people. The ability to enjoy music
| with the other similar age peers around you will generally
| pull you to the older stuff they enjoy too. (Unfortunately
| hasn't worked for me)
| SanderNL wrote:
| I feel for the man becoming a millionaire doing that
| degrading hard work of being an entertainer/artist. Real
| frustrating that must have been. I feel deeply for those
| struggling millionaires that keep plowing on, for.. for..
| humanity's sake.
| Angostura wrote:
| That rather reminds me of this sketch from the old BBC comedy
| show Big Train https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1YNEtaHbzA
| whartung wrote:
| I remember when David Bowie essentially announced his "Greatest
| hits, and I'm not going to play them again" tour. Simply, he
| wanted to give the fans a last chance to see their old
| favorites, but not be hindered by them in the future. I don't
| know how that worked out for him, I imagine fine. It's not like
| he was needing the money.
|
| But I think that was a fine response to this problem artists
| have with deep catalogs. I remember seeing a Van Morrison
| concert, and I didn't recognize a thing he performed. Not just
| the songs, the style of music.
|
| If you want to hear the hits, there are a bunch of tribute and
| cover bands that will play those. Considering the composition
| of many modern incarnations of older bands may well not include
| any of the original performers, even the acts themselves are
| essentially cover artists, they just get to use the name and
| logo.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| The correct answer here is that the business layer in between
| Lou and his fans should be honest in what Lou intends to play.
| jonstewart wrote:
| Lou Reed died ten years ago.
| flir wrote:
| The whole damn thread is in the present tense. I was
| starting to think I'd missed a resurrection or something.
| [deleted]
| musicale wrote:
| Didn't stop 2Pac.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| What a poor attitude honestly. He's lucky enough to come up
| with hit songs that have been known for decades, he should be
| smiling anytime someone asks him to play one because that means
| he made it in a way the vast majority of musicians never do.
| stcroixx wrote:
| I agree, but of course Lou would not have. He chose to be
| miserable most of his life. There's no way his life could
| have turned out that he would have been satisfied with.
| jjulius wrote:
| Respectfully, it's this take that is poor. Musicians don't
| owe people anything and aren't obligated to smile any time
| anyone asks them to perform something. Some musicians will
| enjoy playing the same song a million times, while others
| have a different relationship with that music that may
| necessitate them feeling the need to "move on" from it. Music
| will always mean different things to different people.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| If anything its showing disrespect towards his fans who pay
| for his life. Ok, maybe he felt one way or another about
| the song or the time it was written or who knows. That
| being said you should be mature enough to set that aside
| and understand the value this song has brought to your
| fans. He's a professional musician after all and should
| probably not pout about it at this point. Its not like this
| is some new concept with the job of professional musician
| on tour, its part and parcel.
| jjulius wrote:
| >If anything its showing disrespect towards his fans who
| pay for his life.
|
| If anything, fans who don't know that Lou Reed wouldn't
| be too keen on mining his past aren't the strongest fans
| and the attitude they demonstrate can also be deemed
| disrespectful.
|
| >Its not like this is some new concept with the job of
| professional musician on tour, its part and parcel.
|
| A professional musician's job is to make music that they
| want to make, full stop. What you're describing - bucking
| up, putting on a smile and doing as your fans demand -
| crosses into entertainer/star territory. Lou was a
| musician first, and an entertainer/star last. That, too,
| is not a new concept. I have to fault the audience for
| showing up expecting someone to be something that they
| clearly are not and never were.
| popularrecluse wrote:
| Not everyone makes music for the consumption and enjoyment of
| other people. Sometimes it's just a side-effect.
| mannykannot wrote:
| Fair enough, but here, we are considering the situation
| where Lou Reed chose to perform before a paying audience.
|
| Dave Brubeck, who performed almost to the end of his life,
| never seemed tired of playing 'Take Five' as the finale to
| his set, and it was not even his composition.
| maleldil wrote:
| And the audience should be aware that he didn't like
| playing those songs. There are many artists that are like
| this, and it's fine. You're not entitled to the artists
| playing your favourite songs.
| jjulius wrote:
| The difference is that Brubeck and Reed each have
| different approaches to music. That's great that Dave
| loved playing 'Take Five' for the entire span of his
| career, but there's nothing wrong with other artists
| wanting to move on from something they've done in the
| past. The idea that artists owe us something or should
| play whatever the crowd wants with aplomb is misplaced,
| in my opinion.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| I could care less if he plays whatever song. Oftentimes a
| set list depends on what you've been rehearsing. But he
| chose to play it with an attitude according to the
| commenter. Thats what I think is the poor behavior.
| People aren't paying a ton of money to see him act like
| that.
| mannykannot wrote:
| The point here is that it is implausible that Lou Reed
| was, in fact, uninterested in "[making] music for the
| consumption and enjoyment of other people" when he was
| performing for a paying audience (well, I'll grant that
| he might have been uninterested in whether they _enjoyed_
| the performance.)
| whstl wrote:
| It is perfectly plausible. Plenty of musicians enjoy
| playing live for lots of factors other than "wanting
| others to enjoy". Whoever else is on the ride gets to
| enjoy too, but that not the main goal. Also, this is how
| most artists make money, so there's that. This argument
| is like saying that pro sports players wouldn't/shouldn't
| play in stadiums if their main goal isn't the consumption
| and enjoyment of other people.
|
| Also more on topic: it is also not implausible that he
| enjoys playing his current songs for an audience, but
| doesn't really enjoy playing older songs.
| mannykannot wrote:
| Sure, there are others in the same boat, and all that
| means it that is is not just about Reed.
|
| Of course artists are free to become disdainful of the
| very works that made them popular in the first place, but
| by accepting a paid gig you are taking on some tacit but
| well-understood obligations that cannot reasonably be
| waived away on the grounds of this new-found disdain.
| jjulius wrote:
| If the audience isn't aware of who they're paying to go
| see and what that artist is "about", then I fault the
| audience, not the artist.
| mannykannot wrote:
| Unless there are good reasons to think otherwise, the
| audience can reasonably assume that what the performer
| has sold to the public, and is what has made them popular
| enough to have an audience for the performance, is, to a
| large extent, what they are about.
| Optimal_Persona wrote:
| You're absolutely correct! But in this case - part of
| what Lou Reed sold to the public since the very beginning
| of the Velvet Underground was a palpable contempt for
| mainstream notions of what was "acceptable" whether in
| terms of sonics (his solo "Metal Machine Music" album),
| lyrical content ("Heroin", "I'm Waiting for My Man",
| "Sister Ray") or attitude. So I'm genuinely surprised
| that long term fans of Lou's would be surprised that he'd
| play the hits with a begrudging sneer.
| jjulius wrote:
| Reducing an artist to being "about" one or two of their
| biggest hits when they have a massive catalogue that has
| clearly demonstrated an effort to branch out is an act of
| ignorance, to my mind.
| mannykannot wrote:
| It's not like the audience expects a performer to perform
| just one or two hits, and no artist is entitled to demand
| his audience values his other work as highly as he does:
| acclaim has to be earned. Being condescending to the
| audience just looks even more entitled.
| jjulius wrote:
| > ... no artist is entitled to demand his audience values
| his other work as highly as he does: acclaim has to be
| earned.
|
| Totally true, listeners are under no obligation to enjoy
| a certain body of the artist's work over the hit(s) they
| love. But art being art, listeners aren't in a position
| to dictate what the artist is doing. If the artist starts
| doing something else, that's their prerogative - they're
| exercising their artistic freedom and staying true to
| themselves. If the listener isn't onboard, that's totally
| fine, but it's time for the listener to walk away at that
| point, rather than attempt to continue to impose their
| will upon the artist.
|
| I've obsessed over numerous musicians only to end up
| moving on after their style changed. I might be bummed,
| but they're the artist, it's their work and their right
| to move wherever they see fit. I'm just along for the
| ride, if I so choose to be - so is the rest of the
| audience.
| whstl wrote:
| There is absolutely no obligation, especially if you're
| specifically touring to showcase new work.
|
| And two can play this game: it is not-so-tacit, but very
| "well-understood" that some artists don't enjoy playing
| old hits. Insisting on it on the grounds of ignorance (by
| reducing an artists to one or two of their biggest hits,
| as another poster said) or in the grounds of "but I
| wanted to hear it" is more disrespectful than what you're
| complaining of.
| coldtea wrote:
| How about he was interested in giving a performance on
| his terms, and based on what he wanted to artistically
| convey, to people who could appreciate that and came for
| that, and not to be a performing monkey for people?
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Then he could have just not played the song instead of
| getting an attitude about it.
| coldtea wrote:
| You'd still be complaining in that case that "he got an
| attitude and refused to play the song".
|
| And perhaps he cared to not hurt them by not playing it
| at all, but was hurt himself and pissed that they cared
| for the "hits" and didn't appreciate his performance. How
| about that?
|
| The thing is, it's his concert. The artist choses the
| songlist. Would they pull the same shit on Miles Davis,
| or do they think because it's rock, the singer is their
| performing monkey?
| mannykannot wrote:
| Unless he had made this clear beforehand - and apparently
| he had not - then the audience can justifiably feel that
| there had been an element of bait-and-switch to the
| performance. (I suppose you could argue that churlishly
| and begrudgingly performing that which had induced the
| audience to pay him for recorded and live performances in
| the first place was part of Reed's public persona!)
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Unless he had made this clear beforehand - and
| apparently he had not - then the audience can justifiably
| feel that there had been an element of bait-and-switch to
| the performance_
|
| If the audience didn't knew who Lou Reed was, and what
| songs he likes to play in concerns and how, then they
| were not paying attention. Perhaps they went in thinking
| it's some crowd pleaser performing a meddley of their
| hits? That's not "bait and switch" that's more like "they
| bought pigs in a blanket".
|
| > _I suppose you could argue that churlishly and
| begrudgingly performing that which had induced the
| audience to pay him for recorded and live performances in
| the first place was part of Reed 's public persona!_
|
| I'd go further and say that it was also part of his
| sincere preferences and character.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Billy Joel had something to say about this. "Oh, you're an
| artist, not an entertainer. No-one made you sign a record
| deal. You made plenty of money. Just shut up and be happy
| for your fortune."
| coldtea wrote:
| That's why Billy Joel is much shallower.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Maybe so, maybe far more 'populist'. But he also has a
| point. How much do you get to play the tortured artist
| feigning disdain for popular appeal when you signed with
| first small, but then multiple increasingly large record
| labels? I mean, don't sign with RCA and Warner and act
| like popular appeal isn't putting food in your mouth, by
| your own choice.
|
| And this is said as someone who loves much of Reed's
| catalog.
| coldtea wrote:
| Artisty, being brooding, merely having standards and not
| wanting to be a song-and-dance man, is orthogonal to
| being on a record label, large or not.
|
| Getting on label is just a deal to package your output
| and sell it. Doesn't have to come with compromises,
| especially if you don't do avant guard music but
| something that does have a livable audience anyway. You
| dont owe them to "sell even more".
|
| In other words, the middleman pressing your records and
| distributing it, doesn't have to be your artistic
| advisor, on how you write or what songs you perform.
| Sure, if you want to put some water in your artistic
| wine, you can always do it. And if they don't like you,
| they can always drop you.
|
| > _I mean, don 't sign with RCA and Warner and act like
| popular appeal isn't putting food in your mouth, by your
| own choice._
|
| Sales of your music is what is "putting food in your
| mouth". You don't owe them money, you MAKE them money.
| Not to mention most artists in the 60s and up to the 80s
| with those big companies got horrible record deals and
| revenue sharing percentages anyway. They made the company
| $50 million (after expenses) and maybe they saw 5 of
| those, if they were lucky.
|
| So your choice is merely going to a company with more
| reach, to sell what you write to more people, not to tell
| you to change what you write so that it sells more. They
| didn't sign a songwriter-for-hire, but a specific
| songwriter with specific tastes.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| I don't overly care for the success of the label, but the
| only reason to sign to larger labels is to improve your
| exposure and sales. Those people buying your music are
| what puts food in your mouth. You don't have to bow and
| conform to their every whim, but continuing to accept
| their money while sniffing haughtily that you're not
| about that is disingenuous and fake naivety.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _I don 't overly care for the success of the label, but
| the only reason to sign to larger labels is to improve
| your exposure and sales._
|
| Yes. How is that related to having to compromise your art
| to do it? You can do it, and they can take it or leave
| it. They signed you, after all, no? At worst, the label
| doesn't think you're viable, and they drop you. The way
| Billy Joel puts it in that quote is like you have some
| obligation to be more commercial, just because you signed
| to a big label or because you sold records.
|
| > _Those people buying your music are what puts food in
| your mouth._
|
| When they paid for a record, they got the songs in it,
| didn't they? Did anybody tell them they have some right
| on your future artistic direction too? Or what songs you
| play at your concerts and how? They bought a specific
| record or concert ticket, not stocks on the artist. They
| can always not buy more records if they don't like their
| new music.
|
| > _but continuing to accept their money while sniffing
| haughtily that you 're not about that is disingenuous and
| fake naivety._
|
| I'm not sure I understand the argument. You, as an artist
| put out some albums. People buy them. Perhaps they like
| them so much they buy a million of them. What exactly
| obligation does that give you? Didn't they get an album
| in exchange for their money, as promised?
|
| Do you implied anywhere that you're "all about selling
| records"? If anything, by refusing to put out what they
| want you or what would sell more (e.g. more of the same),
| you imply that you're NOT about selling records. And not
| just imply it, but you also support this fact with your
| bottom line, risking not selling or alienating the record
| buying public.
|
| So, it's neither "naive", nor "disingenuous", or
| "haughty" from the side of the artist. Sounds quite
| sincere. And it's not for the faint of heart, either,
| which is why there's no shortage of the opposite:
| "whatever the company wants", or "whatever will sell"
| audience pleasing artists.
|
| Also, if the artist is "continuing to accept their
| money", this means they continue to give them their
| money. This means they still appreciate what he gives
| them, so he's not wrong by them, is he? The rest can
| always not give the artist their money.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Then he shouldn't have signed a record deal to sell his
| music to consumers if he felt that way about it. Its the
| definition of the job he chose.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-23 23:01 UTC)