Nothing wrong nor unproductive with simply digging the visceral energy and
attitude of rock. MC5 - 'kin' A! But, there's always two aspects of art: the
thing itself and its backstory. A creator working within a relatively
limited pop form such as rock eventually needs to draw on a much wider scope
of inspiration than he may have started with, from his life, and
particularly from the life and artists around him, to avoid being
repetitious or faddish over the course of a long career. That aspect is very
much worth contemplation, by fans and by younger artistes who hope for a
long run for themselves. It can even be said to be the essential meaning of
the work, beyond the songs and sounds. No tower in ivy. This symposium can
be held on a bar stool. Set 'em up, professor.

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Excellent Lou Reed rememberance

No offense but, ugh! "Studying" rock music kills the point. It's like
politely listening to hot jazz in a classical music venue. Rock is of the
gut and heart, not so much of the mind (although the mind plays a role).
Anytime it gets over-studied and over-wraught, it gets boring.

I suppose the analytical among us will say "everything" is worth studying,
and I guess there's an argument to be made there. But I choose not to have
it. For me, certain music is visceral and certain music is intellectual.
They both have a strong effect, when done properly. Lou Reed's best work is
more a gut-punch than a thought-piece. I would argue, that's why his music
inspired so many people to form bands. They didn't know exactly what they
liked about the music, they just wanted to do the same thing. VU's best and
Reed's best reonate in places where other rock music wasn't resonating at
that time, and it's a safe bet that where it resonated deepest was far, far
away from "studying" it.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Lewis" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Excellent Lou Reed rememberance

> I've always felt that an artist like Lou Reed is well within the range of
> our attention; I once wrote a review of the "Coney Island Baby" 30th
> Anniversary reissue for the ARSC Journal that didn't make it into the
> Journal. What was particularly interesting about it was that the issued
> "Coney Island Baby" LP (1975) was an excellent, but inexplicably short
> project. The CD included a batch of unproduced tracks containing versions
> of songs that did not appear in Reed's published oeuvre until "Street
> Hassle (1978)," an album of which the filler material had a strangely
> retrospective feel, but the listener had no frame of reference for the
> selections. The frame of reference was supplied, decades later, by the
> "Coney Island Baby" 30th Anniversary reissue -- these were tunes from
> "Coney Island Baby" that were never finished because Reed's relationship
> with RCA then went south. Reed's career is full of fascinating instances
> like this that involve the vagaries of studio recording, technology -- he
> embraced Manfred Schunke and binaural sound at one point -- revisiting
> selections, ambitious efforts met with commercial and critical
> indifference. There has been a whole range of scholarship that has grown
> around The Velvet Underground as their five studio and two live LPs proved
> only the tip of the iceberg in regard to their recorded output.
> Lou Reed did have contact with scholarship, such as in the incident
> described here:
> He's an interesting guy, and definitely made major -- and positive --
> contributions and changes to pop music; a deep thinker and someone whose
> work tended to have impact in the long term rather than the short. Lou's
> work may not appeal to all tastes -- it never did -- but he is more than
> worthy of study.
> David Lewis
> Lebanon OH