Talk:Sweet Jane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

was this released as a single? i know that it was a pretty popular song of theirs, but only found it referenced as an album track. Joeyramoney 03:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep. In Canada, Holland, Portugal, Spain and the United States, though not the UK. --Fantailfan 02:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• sigh* i meant the original. i'll take that as a no. Joeyramoney 19:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't be patronizing, please. It appeared as a Mott the Hoople single in 1972, AND as the first song on on their 1972 comeback-from-the-dustbin-of-failed-bands release. The Mott single was not released in the UK for reasons which are unknown and unimportant to me. I see neither purpose nor value in putting a Mott album track/single on a song track from VU's Loaded from two years previously other than to have something to mark the song. That can easily be handled by a link.

In addition, it is silly to make a Mott The Hoople single redirect to a Velvet Underground album two years earlier. While the song is a key part of the Velvets' history in 1970, in 1972 as a Mott the Hoople single it is part of a different history. Bowie gave it to them to do, and placed it at the start of All the Young Dudes, for a purpose. Mainman was also working on Lou Reed's comeback at the time and the Bowie-Reed-Mott connection was extremely important for all three.

Finally, it breaks Mott's single chronology. It misrepresents both the history of the Hoople and VU and Reed. I strongly object and am reversing it.--Fantailfan 00:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

how am i being patronizing? if i wanted to know about what mott the hoople did with the song, i would ask on that discussion page. and i'm not going to get into some childish argument over whether something should or should not be an article, but both infoboxes for each release were included on one page, so it disrupts no ones' chronology. it represented both songs by both bands, even when it was a VU original. i'm not even going to touch on the notablility issue. Joeyramoney 17:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

My comment about patronizing was reference to the sigh. In addition, I may have misunderstood the point you make above, that it does not disrupt the chronology. Blame it on early-morning self-righteousness. I still feel that Mott's version is significant in and of itself and *should* be separate from VU's on that basis. ... Have you seen Talk:Sweet Jane (Mott the Hoople version)? How could a Sweet Jane single - either by the famous also-rans Mott or the canonized Velvets - be non-notable? Argh. Sometimes I think I'm talking into the wind. I prefer the Rock 'n' Roll Animal version myself, but then I'm a sucker for guitar noodling... --Fantailfan 19:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The song also appears on . . . .

I didn't start this list, but I doubled the size of it. Whew! I drew the line at mentioning compilations that included the studio version. Anyway, now it's just a big paragraph of album titles, and it might look better as a list with its own section. --63.25.10.40 18:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bridge

Who removed the bridge? This article says Warner Bros., but various VU books have Reed blaming it on Doug Yule and manager Steve Sesnick. Then again, Reed wasn't there when the album was mixed, having left the band abruptly.

I'm responsible for the paragraph on the restoration of the bridge, including the line "This section is somewhat flawed, with uneven vocal levels and off-key harmonies -- thus, even serious fans may prefer the edited version they're familiar with." I realize that might be verging on POV (or original research, for that matter), so if anybody's got a problem with it, feel free to remove that line.

Considering the uneven quality of the bridge, and Reed having been an unreliable source from time to time, I wouldn't be surprised if he had okayed the decision himself in the first place -- but it's catchier to claim The Man done him wrong, out of sheer commercialism. Anyway, I don't think anybody's ever taken responsibility for the edit. --63.25.10.40 19:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jack and Jane

I have no evidence but from just listening to it, the song "Jack and Jane" off Squeeze sounds like a "sequel" to "Sweet Jane." If that's on purpose I think it should be mentioned.