VU songs no. 4 - The Murder Mystery

[Count Machuki]

It's like listening to two language records at the same time.

Kind of a Burroughs/Gysin cut-up set to music for those parts.

[Magilla]

I think it's pretty bloody good. I suspect that old-cranky-trousers put it on as a bit of a "fuck you" to his audience (such as it was).
Remember, it's the odd song out on an album full of melodic, often gentle, pop songs. Thus it serves as both a palate cleanser and a "fuck you" to anyone who thought he still couldn't do innovative, arty songs, as per the previous two albums.
And if this song had been on either of the first two albums no one would mind, as it suits those albums more than the third. Don't be surprised or dislike it, it's a weird, experimental song by a weird experimental band, simple as that.

[waldo jeffers]

Can you imagine if they replaced it with The Ocean?

to be fair, you could pick any two of the songs from the VU collection for the spot.

[The G Experience!]

That scratchy rising guitar does give the track an exciting momentum. The problem is that momentum is killed when they go into that slow, tuneless duet between Cale and Tucker. Had that bit been replaced with something else it would have been much better.

[Snarfyguy]

...that slow, tuneless duet between Cale and Tucker.

I thin that's Sterling Morrison on the section with Mo Tucker.

[Charlie O.]

...that slow, tuneless duet between Cale and Tucker.

I thin that's Sterling Morrison on the section with Mo Tucker.

Doug Yule. (Morrison's doing the talky bits opposite Reed.)

[Snarfyguy]

...that slow, tuneless duet between Cale and Tucker.

I think that's Sterling Morrison on the section with Mo Tucker.

Doug Yule. (Morrison's doing the talky bits opposite Reed.)

Ah, thanks.

[pcqgod]

I think it's one of the better tracks on that album.

[algroth]

I think it's pretty bloody good. I suspect that old-cranky-trousers put it on as a bit of a "fuck you" to his audience (such as it was).
Remember, it's the odd song out on an album full of melodic, often gentle, pop songs. Thus it serves as both a palate cleanser and a "fuck you" to anyone who thought he still couldn't do innovative, arty songs, as per the previous two albums.
And if this song had been on either of the first two albums no one would mind, as it suits those albums more than the third. Don't be surprised or dislike it, it's a weird, experimental song by a weird experimental band, simple as that.

I agree with much of that, and I think it's also the reason why, contrary to some claims here, this isn't their "Revolution 9". It seems like a natural part of VU which has always been there and which follows in the footsteps of tracks like "The Gift" before it, at least in spirit. I really enjoy that side of VU, arguably more than their more straight rock n' roll one (though this does not mean that I don't find the rest of this record to be magnificent either).

[The G Experience!]

I actually meant to write Reed rather than Cale, who had already left by then. And even if I had've written Reed I still would've been wrong!

[penk]

I think it's a bit crap.
I think it's them doing the token weirdy song on an otherwise fairly poppy song, and not doing it very well. It is there because they thought they should have a weirdy song on the record, not because they had an idea they thought was good and wanted to run with.

[jimboo]

I think it's a bit crap.
I think it's them doing the token weirdy song on an otherwise fairly poppy song, and not doing it very well. It is there because they thought they should have a weirdy song on the record, not because they had an idea they thought was good and wanted to run with.

You are talking about revolution no 9 yes?

[jimboo]

I voted 'good'. It's totally "their 'Revolution 9'". Nowhere near as great as "Rev. 9", but...what is.

I consider it a bit of a chore these days, a bit irksome for all of its seeming apparent ambition/intended effect - yet...it does create a bit of a menacing atmosphere. So, yeah!

Rev no 9 , their rev no9.Where do you people get this shit from , do you only understand things if it somehow can correlate with the Beatles?

For better or worse, The Beatles are a template for what rock bands did. If that's the yardstick that's still used to put other acts' work into perspective, it's not really anybody's fault. It's just our culture.

When you write 'It's just our culture' who the fuck are you talking to?

[Snarfyguy]

When you write 'It's just our culture' who the fuck are you talking to?

Your mother.

[jimboo]

Lol

[Count Machuki]

It is there because they thought they should have a weirdy song on the record, not because they had an idea they thought was good and wanted to run with.

This comment could be a great jumping-off point for us to start bickering about the value of authorial intent, especially considering the song we're talking about.

I don't think I'm up to it right now.

[No Show Baron]

"poor"

A failure.

[toomanyhatz]

I might well have my VU-Goggles on, but I love it. Another example of when rock and roll lyrics are great without necessarily conveying a specific meaning. Lou's said so before- dig in and you can even find something he didn't intend. At least back then he got very gutteral and non-communicative and just used words for their sound value. Shame he gave that up- it's the main thing that makes the Velvets so much better than his solo career.

[Rank Bajin]

I like the ascending guitar riff but the rest of it is hard work, shoddy and unformed and far too long. Not their best, then.

[Magilla]

Tip: it's interesting to listen to with all the sound in one speaker, as you get one set of vocals singing / speaking only one of the two lyrics, then swap to the other speaker to hear the other set, rather than the jumble you usually hear when coming through both speakers.