Velvet Underground Trainspotting Question

DeCurtis bio was the only one I actually read. Steered cleared of the Howard Sounes for one because he seemed kind of mean-spirited, although I do seem to remember not minding his Dylan book too much.

So many Lou books out there: Aidan Levy, Mick Wall, Peter Doggett, not to mention Victor Bockris let alone Bettye Kronstad’s book.

the Bockris bio is garbage though

Quel surprise.

ffs

His co-write with John Cale, What’s Welsh for Zen, is pretty good though, although at least one ILX0r, not me, thought Cale came off pretty bad.

Haven’t read the one he wrote with Bebe Buell so can’t comment on that.

Pretty sure John avoided mentioning his father was English on that (xp)

Yes, I don’t remember that being in there either.

the Bockris bio is garbage though

One might have suspected that he wasn't an impartial observer when he referred to Lou Reed as "simian" and misquoted "Heroin" in his earlier Burroughs biography.

Haven’t read the one he wrote with Bebe Buell so can’t comment on that.

It's the worst "junk" book I've ever finished; the highlights are her selling Johnny Winter's beard shavings as cocaine and her listing of Elvis Costello's nasty nicknames for Prince. (Worst "serious" book I've ever finished: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.)

Ugh

The Bockris bio of Warhol is shite as well.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

lol I remember reading that when I was 20 and trying really hard to 'get' what it was about, but it's bullshit.

What about some of the other Warhol bios?

The Bob Colacello one is quite good and revealing in its way. Holy Terror.

I'm not a huge DeCurtis fan either but I thought his Lou bio was surprisingly good and perceptive

The Warhol diaries are pretty good for skimming. I think there's an index which makes combing through it for notable names easier.

Thanks. There are also Wayne Koestenbaum and Blake Gopnik.

Quite a few Nico books these days (DO U SEE?) as well

'Popism: The Warhol 60s' - written by Warhol himself and Pat Hackett - gives a much better sense of the, um, Warhol 60s than the bios do.

Yeah, that one looked like it might be good to me as well, thanks.

I watched Nico Icon doc on YouTube a few years ago: it is a trip, with beguiling visuals, incl. commentators (whose commentaries meanwhile refract through several languages).

Here's his sister, who is a therapist, I think:
https://medium.com/cuepoint/a-family-in-peril-lou-reed-s-sister-sets-the-record-straight-about-his-childhood-20e8399f84a3 Her take, of course2015---she may have said all she has to say, but if there's ever more, I'd like to read it---a bio would continue in familial and related context, I take it, and hopefully with backstory re his xpost Red Shirley doc about their cousin---could be good contrast with the Andy drugs etc. perspective, filling out the overview.

Good to see how much Moe music is online---

The fact that Warhol was a hoarder and kept boxes of cultural bric-a-brac that he labeled according to chronology served to position him well to tell his own story with accurate detail. And of course he was the consummate observer. That's why Popism is so good. That and the Diaries are canonical must-reads. You put those two together and you're left with a gap from 1970- mid 1976 which the Colacello book covers very effectively.

Both Nico Icon and the book it is based on, by James Young, published under various titles, are well worth your time.

B-b-but Josefa, what about The Philosophy of Andy Warhol (From A to B and Back Again)?

As a biography of the early '70s period? It's great but it's low on factual material iirc.

No worries. Just messing with you.

parachuting in (rather annoyingly, sorry) to ask if i should make the effort to see this at the small theater in my area (which is showing it once, i believe) or if i'm fine to watch it on my 55-inch TV. thank you!

is the peter doggett book on lou any good? everything i’ve read of his has been solid.

Was asking myself the same exact question

There seem to be two books actually

Alpine, I had read reviews of the "sensory overload," strobing, editing, etc. and thought it would be fun to experience in a theater. I ended up watching at home and was fine with that. (And you have a much bigger screen!) Depends on your love for VU I guess. I saw Summer of Soul in a theater and was glad I did.

I watched it on my ipad up close, it worked for me

I watched it on my iPhone when it dropped. *gasping* *pearls clutched* I know I missed out, but I just couldn't wait, sorry.

Do not have an Apple device, so will wait for it in local grindhouse (in thee 60s after midnight flick dive sense). Also I saw Summer of Soul in a theater and was glad I did. O Hell Yes.

parachuting in (rather annoyingly, sorry) to ask if i should make the effort to see this at the small theater in my area (which is showing it once, i believe) or if i'm fine to watch it on my 55-inch TV. thank you!

― alpine static

I highly recommend watching this in a theater. you won't regret it.

so much of this is meant to be cinema footage in the first place (Warhol, Anger, Deren)

I almost went over the the Film Forum to see it but couldn’t quite get it together.

Grabbed a neat shot of Moe playing bass from the clips used in the doc of Ron Nameth's film of their Poor Richard's shows in 66 (Lou in hospital, Angus on drums, Cale on vocals, Moe on bass):

https://i.ibb.co/j4NpvRB/vlcsnap-2021-10-24-10h06m32s756.png

Excellent!

thanks all. gonna try to get to the theater.

I don‘t recall seeing Geeta around here recently, but she isn‘t so keen:

A new piece by me: I reviewed the big new Velvet Underground documentary. Spoiler alert: I didn’t like the movie. (Love the band, though.) https://t.co/zheXsgZOnt

— Geeta Dayal (@geetadayal) October 29, 2021

Don't think she has been here for years so was just coming here to post that (planning to see this at the weekend).

I reviewed this too and was similarly slightly underwhelmed https://www.uncut.co.uk/reviews/dvd/the-velvet-underground-134504/

Interesting that you and others liked Richman so much in this. He was charming but for me was exactly what I’m tired of in rock documentaries- a talking head with exaggerated stories that are all variations of “and everyone’s jaws hit the floor; nobody ain’t seen nothing like this before”. Feels like most docs are just compilations of people telling stories like that and this one (otherwise) wasn’t that.

I have no idea how you could watch Jonathan Richman in this and think of him as a typical rock doc talking head. Seriously.

The Richman parts felt like a parody of rock documentaries, like he conveniently brought a guitar to the interview so he could show that they played like this and this, but when they played together they made sounds nobody heard before and magic happened.

It's a long way from Bono talking about Horslips or whatever, he actually had a direct relationship with the band for a start.

I said he was charming! I winced a bit at his stories though.

Ah well, mileage will vary after all.

I liked Richman. But then, I don’t watch a lot of music documentaries.