(TV) lou vs. cale: what becomes a legend most?

[wal00@hampshire.edu]

a friend and i are in the process of compiling songs for a worst of Lou Reed 
anthology (for 90 min tapes, of course), and boy are the prospects 
overwhelming! is it only funny to us that the same person who released 'growing 
up in public', 'mistrial', 'sally can't dance', 'street hassle', 'new 
sensations', etc. remains so highly regarded? i mean, there's some good stuff, 
but most of it's just crap. 'growing up in public' might just be the most 
hilarious record i've ever heard. and the covers to some of those albums? don't 
even get me started... Lou's been in a remarkable slump for a long, long time. 
when was the last _good_ Lou record? John Cale has had a much more admirable 
career than Lou, certainly ('paris 1919', 'academy in peril', 'helen of 
troy', 'vintage violence'). 'guts' is a damn funny album, tho. especially if 
you think about it in the same context as the terrific minimalist stuff w/ Tony 
Conrad. to me, Cale demonstrates a more thorough understanding of his own 
music, and a clearer vision, than Lou. Lou just seems to be floundering around 
in the studio with a bunch of hot-shot session musicians that he doesn't know 
what to do with. however, in terms of post-Velvets solo output, Nico's albums 
beat the pants off those two geezers any day.

the Zombies are amazing. the 4-disc box is delectable thru and thru. and you've 
gotta admit, the Fabs are a bit overrated. 

willie
--------------
To post: Mail tv@obbard.com
To unsubscribe: Mail majordomo@obbard.com with message "unsubscribe tv"