Talk:1969: The Velvet Underground Live

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Rock music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Review?[edit]

Musically, 1969 finds the band in top form. Doug Yule, John Cale's late-1968 replacement, fits well into the band and performances are tight. Highlights are Reed and Morrison's interwoven rhythm guitar play and Yule's organ parts on "What Goes On" and "Ocean".

To me this sounds very point of view-ish, and should perhaps be deleted, as it makes it sound more like an album review. Does anyone have any objections?

222.153.4.159 (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Unless the description can be attributed to a music critic, I think it should be deleted. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, i have deleted the mentioned section

Laker Eight (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second favorite album -- flat?[edit]

The complaint that there was no audience mic misses the point that these recordings catch the band in a relaxed and natural attitude. The songs come across as they were meant to, neither with the overamped intensity of White Light, nor with a self-consciously laid back quality as a reaction against White Light that the Velvet Underground album was. To me this is the natural follow-up to VU & Nico. Yes, the feeling is 'Live in the Studio' rather that live at a venue, but that is my favorite kind of album, just capture what they play on four-track tape and leave the mix-down to two-track stereo as simple as possible. Their debut album was unselfconscious, they just played what they where currently playing live just they way they normally did without anybody to tell them what they had to do to sell themselves. Yes, they cleaned it up for the studio and were very careful to get the perfect take, but it was their take on the songs, no one else's. This album was like that.

Now that I mention it, it was Andy Warhol who supplied the artistic freedom according to his own ethos. It would be interesting to study how his theories helped to produce the first album even though he did not really produce it.

Stephen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.93.176 (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

"There is little ambiance or audience sound, however, because no audience mic was used and so the only ambience the listener gets is whatever little the vocal and drums mics picked up."

This is not a necessary practice of recording musicians, to also record the audience. Ambiance? This album has great ambiance in my opinion, but that is POV, so I wouldn't expect it to be part of this encyclopedia entry.

"This makes the record sound relatively flat and small and makes it seem that only a handful of people were present."

This is definitely point of view, and prejudices new listeners to the album, and not worthy of an encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antilog (talk • contribs) 14:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]