As you are doubtless aware, the song's original recorded incarnation -- on the Velvet Underground's (for me life-changing album) Loaded, in November of 1970 -- was edited down from a longer version. Somebody -- Lou himself, perhaps, or maybe somebody at the record company (this has been lost in the primordial mists of time and in any case has been much argued) decided to excise the song's bridge, which was finally restored for the 1995 Velvets box set Peel Slowly and See.
In case you haven't heard it in a while, here it is -- usually referred to by fans as that "Heavenly wine and roses thing" -- for your audio delectation.
Which leads us, inexorably, to the subject of the weekend's business. To wit:
Does the inclusion of the "Heavenly Wine and Roses" bridge hurt or help "Sweet Jane" as a song?
Discuss.
Ahem. So as I suspect no one will be surprised to learn, my feeling is it hurts. Big time. IMHO what's particularly great about the familiar version of SJ is the sheer simple perfection of the four greatest chords in the history of rock; anything that interferes with that is like drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa, i.e. nothing short of blasphemy.
But that's just me. What do YOU guys think?
And don't hold back -- you won't be bruising my fee fees, I promise you that. 😎
And in the meantime -- have a great weekend, everybody!!!
13 comments:
As long as the original version exists, I'm fine with the variations. In these days of multi-disk releases of cutting room floor excerpt take 47 (lookin at you, Bob) you can take or leave what you want, I'm too old to care.
Hans shot first,
Better without the middle section as it achieves near R&R perfection without it.
I agree Loaded is an all-time great R&R album. All four of the original VU albums are. Very few other musical acts could pull off Jesus & Sister Ray equally well.
From my understanding Lou wanted the middle section included and it's removal added to the reasons he left the band.
Captain Al
If we had first heard the song with the bridge, I think we'd probably dislike the edit. That's usually the way it works.
As another listener who wore out the 1969 Live album, I've always liked its low-key take of 'Sweet Jane.' In that instance, the bridge works much better than in the long studio take; it also leads nicely back into the chorus. Methinks songsmith Lou wanted to break up the samieness of the world's greatest riff before recapitulating it.
I'm with Steve on this one - sounds like the bridge is from another universe.
i'm not a musical scholar but wouldn't this part at the end be called a coda in fact? similar to the soft instrumental part at the end of the song Layla original version. i like it and think it adds more depth to the song. this is even more obvious in the cowboy junkies cover of the song.
rs
Yes. Eggs ackley. 😎
Off topic but a big F U to Kiss for playing the Kennedy center
The driving intensity of the original is diluted by the bridge. I agree it's great to have both versions, but !'m glad the edit is the original we all grew old with. It's rock'n'roll perfection.
Listen to the Live in Italy version, without the bridge and with Robert Quine and Lou playing fantastic guitar with great tone…rock and roll perfection.
That was Me.
I have mixed feeling about Lou generally, and I think he made as many crap records as good ones. I love this song, and the bridge/coda part would be fine with different lyrics. The days of wine and roses bit is just lazy writing.
I don't mind the "extra" bit. It works to bring a softer vibe that builds to the "la la la-las" and Lou's joyous Sweet Janes and organ/keyboard fade out.
The Cowboy Junkies' version brings a certain excitement with the bridge that elevates the... low-key approach. Skipping the Bm throughout was a mistake, in my opinion.
Post a Comment