Talk:Sweet Jane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Songs (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Rock music (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

was this released as a single?[edit]

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)

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

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. -- 18:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The Bridge[edit]

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. -- 19:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That was me, and I was right, except since then, I have read where Doug Yule (or possibly Sesnick, or even Morrisson) said (paraphrase) "Lou was THERE and he was VERY clear about removing that bridge." I sure wish I renenbered where I read that.
--Ben Culture (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Jack and Jane[edit]

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.

Image copyright problem with Image:Loadedalbum.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Loadedalbum.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What's it about?[edit]

...the lyrics.
--Jerome Potts (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha!, a friend of mine wrote me this:

--Jerome Potts (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I know he was known for being able to improvise lyrics on the spot, but he was also someone who thought a lot and had ideas, and when someone like that improvises they're usually drawing on stuff that's been rolling around in their minds for a while. Given the times, and his reference to "protest kids" (who in those days used to say "Never trust anyone over 30") and the Stutz Bearcat (which was the coolest car in its day), maybe he was thinking about how youth and hipness are ephemeral but this old couple's love was solid and lasting. But then he has to slip some doubt in there, talking about those "evil" people who tell you this and that... only the catch is, this and that are mostly true (women don't often faint, villains often do blink their eyes, and maybe life is just to die). So it's like he's adopting a deliberately naive point of view there. Maybe he was thinking - maybe even a little wistfully - that a little naivete might not be such a bad thing.
But I don't know. I haven't found anything written on the subject by a reliable source. Where is Christopher Ricks when we need him? --Rosekelleher (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

To whoever wrote "Structure and history of the song"[edit]

Thank you! That is one of the best things I've read in an article about a song; I wish there were more songs as well-explained as this. CSWarren (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Content relocated[edit]

The following content was relocated today in an edit-down of the History section of the article:

The version of "Sweet Jane" on 1969: The Velvet Underground Live is an early version with a simpler chord progression (three-chord instead of four-chord chorus) and a notably different lyric. It was recorded during October or November 1969. The chord progression consists of three basic major chords over two measures, in D, (D-A), G, (G-A), D, used both in the verses and the chorus. Instead of opening with a standard verse, this version starts with what will later be used as a transitional pre-bridge piece, using the same chords as the verses but a different melody ("Anyone who ever had a heart wouldn't turn around and break it"). After one chorus, there are two measures of D, followed by the bridge, consisting of two progressions: D C#m G# A B B (x2), over which the "Heavenly wine and roses" lyrics are sung, followed by E B D A (x2), accompanied by "la-la-la...". The coda of the song, which follows, is like the chorus.

The full-length version of "Sweet Jane", released on Loaded: Fully Loaded Edition, was recorded in early 1970. A Bm chord has been added to the main riff: D (D-A) G (Bm-A) D. The new version starts with a new introduction, and a verse. The chorus begins as a two-chord plagal cadence and its second part has the new four-chord riff. The start of the early version of "Sweet Jane" has been changed to a pre-bridge piece, which has been inserted before the chorus preceding the bridge. The bridge is used to transition from the E B D A sequence to a plagal cadence version of the chorus, D G (dropping the transitional A and Bm chords).

The version of "Sweet Jane" that was originally released on Loaded in 1970 was edited to remove the bridge. If left the "Anyone who ever had a heart" part to transition from a four-chord riff to the two-chord plagal cadence. This simplifies the original song effectively to two progressions: D (D-A) G (Bm-A) for verses and D G for the chorus.

Reed has performed "Sweet Jane" in two keys: the 1969 and 1970 versions were in D. On 1972's American Poet, 1973's Rock 'n' Roll Animal, and 1978's Take No Prisoners, the song is in E, while on 1984's Live in Italy the song is back in D.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Fan Page. A reference to a published source where the above original research appears would be sufficient; as it stands, it is Original Research (in addition to being beyond the general scope of the encyclopedia). Wikiuser100 (talk) 08:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree with the decision to ...relocate?... this material. This is, after all, "Sweet Jane" we're talking about; it's right up there with "Johnny B. Goode" and "I Want to Hold Your Hand" in significance! Besides, what material you did leave, was wrong: The version on 1972's American Poet is in D, not E.
--Ben Culture (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


Lotsa material needs footnoting here. Wtf? 127W111 (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Lone Justice cover[edit]

Lone Justice released a live version of Sweet Jane on their double 7" single from '87 "I Found Love" (Geffen). The same version appeared on the 1999 comp This World Is Not My Home and another, different live version on the 1993 BBC Radio 1 Live In Concert set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)