Velvet Underground Trainspotting Question

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.

Richman is the real deal, he's really just like that

He has the benefit of having been there at the time -- everyone in the movie was there at the time whether they were music people or relatives. That's part of what made it interesting imo. Richman was their first superfan and went on to have his own career, the ur-superfan. I would say this is at most a cousin of standard rock doc talking heads rather than an example of it.

He is also very weird and potentially annoying, but that is just his personality and not a feature of the film

otm x 2

Yeah I'm not a huge Richman fan but he is obv a genuine and honest person. I thought he was charming and actually I thought he provided an interesting counter-point to some of the other people talking about them in sort of an abstract way or discussing their influence or influences he was talking the nitty-gritty of band-dynamics. It was an interesting reminder that a lot of times gets lost in the fog of myth-making that the VU, esp later in the Yule-era were a working band, playing shows, arguing, driving to gigs, dealing with weirdos in Boston who want to know what kind of amps they use, classic underground US rock band shit.

Also I realized that Mo wearing that Jets sweatshirt totally destroys the long-standing Stills beef that Jagger stole the idea from him, when in reality they both stole it from her

Look, he's great. But he's definitely playing that role here in arguably the most excusable way, as mentioned, someone with an actual unique first hand experience to share. It's just when I hear those sort of stories "Five seconds of silence... people were hypnotized!" in my mind I go "maybe they just weren't sure the song had ended?". I do get skeptical of "myth-making" dramatizations like that. I don't mean to sound so cynical though.

https://4columns.org/dayal-geeta/the-velvet-underground

Geeta D has some criticism of the doc too

Look, he's great. But he's definitely playing that role here in arguably the most excusable way, as mentioned, someone with an actual unique first hand experience to share. It's just when I hear those sort of stories "Five seconds of silence... people were hypnotized!" in my mind I go "maybe they just weren't sure the song had ended?". I do get skeptical of "myth-making" dramatizations like that. I don't mean to sound so cynical though.

I tend to hate that stuff too, though Richman's line is pretty innocuous compared to things like this:

https://i.ibb.co/ggr599k/Untitled.png

Who knew Jim Reeves had it in him?

The thing is, whether the audience weren't sure if the song had ended or not, Jonathan Richman undoubtedly believes they were hypnotized.

well yeah, that's true about any anecdote like that in any documentary

Richman was the best bit of a totally meh documentary.

I liked the different colours behind the interviewees. And the music.

my only complaint would be that i would have enjoyed more/different richman tbh, he had a very unique & interesting relationship with that band which provided him with a perspective that few others were privy to. i would have loved some more stories about that from him, maybe replacing stuff like Mary Woronov bagging on hippies for being addicted to less-cool drugs than NYers, etc. but thats asking it to be a different doc, this is definitely more of a tribute/celebration than an informative historical thing

Feel Richman is necessary in the context of the Velvets story as told of a band against the grain, that mystified audiences and didn't sell records. He got them, very much, and went out and started a band (a la Eno's dictum).