Quote
Eleanor Rigby

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Doxa

P.S. Even though Mathijs is famous here for his anti-Brian stance, I think he also has admitted, like Jimmy Miller has, that Brian is "all over BEGGARS BANQUET". I think those very scenes of ONE PLUS ONE do support this interpretation; even though Brian's contribution cannot be heard in the final recording, his spirit and blues-touches were much involved in the process of creating the song.

Just for the record: I do NOT have a "anti-Brian stance"! I think Brian was instrumental in the development of the Stones, and he has laid down many great parts. I do think though that he was a mediocre (technical) musician, and I loath all this worshipping, all these claims about how Brian was the true genius and how he really wrote all those classic Rolling Stones songs.

Mathijs

I believe Brian Jones was one of the best English slide guitar players in the 60's..

One of the best? Not really. His slide parts on Be Your Man, Can't Be Satisfied,
Little Red Rooster, Doncha Bother Me, No Expectations are quite simple, really.
However, they are very effective. That's the beauty of it.
HIs real credit is bringing slide playing to the forefront, to the charts,
exposing other bands and listeners. Plus adding color with those other instruments, sitar, organ, tamboura, Mellotron, etc...
IT doesn't matter if he was an expert on those instruments or not,
One does not gave to be a virtuoso to make a song come alive.

Quote
Mathijs

I refered to the (apperently) outtakes where Mick shows the band the song on his own. On this ballad version it sounds like he plays open E -he seems to fret only the E and A fret on the 12th, 10th and 5th fret. On this version Jagger also plays the A chord in the turn-around.

I have listened again and again to this tape as it was my introduction to open E some 2o years ago. This is my recollection, and of course I stand corrected if Jagger is in standard tuning.

But the real question seems to be: does NO ONE knows the outtakes I am talking about? The tape I had was recorded from a vinyl boot, and it MUST be widely known!

Mathijs

Seems like it's just the sound from the film thats on many bootlegs? The film shows Mick and Brian are both tuned to standard, Keith open D with a capo at 2nd fret.

Are you meaning the 'sealed his fate' change from A to E? Brian plays the quick A-E once the progression has resolved to E after the 'sealed his fate' A to E change.

The film doesn't show Mick or Keith playing an A chord during the resolved E where Brian throws it in. Mick does play an A chord as per the progression, with Keith throwing in the passing G during the 'sealed his fate' A to E chord change.

Like I said this is much fuss about nothing, Brian did lots of great things, but singling out the use of an A chord 'lick' during a short scene from a film is rather silly.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Doxa

P.S. Even though Mathijs is famous here for his anti-Brian stance, I think he also has admitted, like Jimmy Miller has, that Brian is "all over BEGGARS BANQUET". I think those very scenes of ONE PLUS ONE do support this interpretation; even though Brian's contribution cannot be heard in the final recording, his spirit and blues-touches were much involved in the process of creating the song.

Just for the record: I do NOT have a "anti-Brian stance"! I think Brian was instrumental in the development of the Stones, and he has laid down many great parts. I do think though that he was a mediocre (technical) musician, and I loath all this worshipping, all these claims about how Brian was the true genius and how he really wrote all those classic Rolling Stones songs.

Mathijs

With respect, I think your hatred towards the Brian Jones worshipping goes a bit too far and affects into your judgments. I believe people like His Majesty and myself - who are some sort of Brian Jones fans - do not like either that stupid, childish and tasteless Brian Jones-religion that is especially practised in plases like LARS board, but I think we should not kill the man and his contribution due this cult. (Anyway, I enjoy reading your 'one man war' against Brian Jones army in Wikipedia, although I little bit wonder of your motives - why is it such a big deal to "straighten out" things related to Brian Jones, or be so hard on the evidential base of the claims). I mean, you seem to be over-critical whenever something related to Brian Jones is concerned, for example, pointing almost everytime that was Jones is (techically) "mediocre", or what he does is extremely "simple". Those are true, but very strange to point out in the context of the Rolling Stones where every musician - expect Mick Taylor and some of their backing musicians - are techically very (at best) mediocre players plus the fact that the technical ability has never been any defining feature of The Rolling Stones. Why to make such a big deal with Brian Jones then? To me it looks like using different criteria towards him than towards the others.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-11 10:25 by Doxa.

Good post, Doxa (again I might say).

But I fear a board for fans will never be completely possible without any bias that originates
from feelings of fans towards individual members of the band, both positive and negative.
I can understand that, although I agree with you that as long as facts are discussed
those emotional biases have no place in the discussion.

In this topic Brian's role during the creation of Sympathy is discussed on basis of what
we can see in the movie. I guess Brian's chords are not technically what one would call great,
but Keith's famous guitar solo is not technically great either, Still no one will discuss
the fact that his solo is very effective and really lifts the song to the level of greatness.

We all have our fantasies about how the songwriting actually took place and since none
of us were present at the time, we are clutching at straws like the One plus One movie
to get some information and feed more speculation. Did you notice how Nicky plays some
licks on the Hammond (at the 5 minute mark) that recall Traffics Dear Mister Fantasy?

How come no one mentions the great parts in the One by One movie where there's no Rolling Stones involved? I admit, i never understood a minute of the friggin' film!

"Bluesy Chord" my arse but on seperate topic anyone notice the way jagger plays barre chords? i.e doesnt barre the fret but uses index figer on the B string. I have noticed that before-means he doesn't strike the top or bottom E strings, thus leaving out the root note

Yeah the poetry parts. I guess that's what was considered as "high art" in the early
70s, but it's not my cup of tea either.

Quote
ozziestone
"Bluesy Chord" my arse but on seperate topic anyone notice the way jagger plays barre chords? i.e doesnt barre the fret but uses index figer on the B string. I have noticed that before-means he doesn't strike the top or bottom E strings, thus leaving out the root note

He doesn't fret the B string notes on all of the chords and he does let the high E and B strings ring out though, well atleast in the One Plus One footage.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
ozziestone
"Bluesy Chord" my arse but on seperate topic anyone notice the way jagger plays barre chords? i.e doesnt barre the fret but uses index figer on the B string. I have noticed that before-means he doesn't strike the top or bottom E strings, thus leaving out the root note

He doesn't fret the B string notes on all of the chords and he does let the high E and B strings ring out though, well atleast in the One Plus One footage.

this is a pretty common thing to do when one is learning to go beyond the standard chords, as mick is at this stage, just beyond novice.

Quote
tomk

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Doxa

P.S. Even though Mathijs is famous here for his anti-Brian stance, I think he also has admitted, like Jimmy Miller has, that Brian is "all over BEGGARS BANQUET". I think those very scenes of ONE PLUS ONE do support this interpretation; even though Brian's contribution cannot be heard in the final recording, his spirit and blues-touches were much involved in the process of creating the song.

Just for the record: I do NOT have a "anti-Brian stance"! I think Brian was instrumental in the development of the Stones, and he has laid down many great parts. I do think though that he was a mediocre (technical) musician, and I loath all this worshipping, all these claims about how Brian was the true genius and how he really wrote all those classic Rolling Stones songs.

Mathijs

I believe Brian Jones was one of the best English slide guitar players in the 60's..

One of the best? Not really. His slide parts on Be Your Man, Can't Be Satisfied,
Little Red Rooster, Doncha Bother Me, No Expectations are quite simple, really.
However, they are very effective. That's the beauty of it.
HIs real credit is bringing slide playing to the forefront, to the charts,
exposing other bands and listeners. Plus adding color with those other instruments, sitar, organ, tamboura, Mellotron, etc...
IT doesn't matter if he was an expert on those instruments or not,
One does not gave to be a virtuoso to make a song come alive.

One of the best? Yes...and this is not only my opinion but opinions of musicians from Britain.
People seem to think that a great guitarist is a person who can play a trillion notes in 10 seconds, or play hundreds of notes with a slide...that is easy.
As you mention above, it's the simple but effective methods that people such as BJ, Keith R (in his hey-day), P Townsend etc.. who get their messages across with their guitar...these are the true brilliant musicians.

Quote
His Majesty
Like I said this is much fuss about nothing, Brian did lots of great things, but singling out the use of an A chord 'lick' during a short scene from a film is rather silly.

How is it silly? That clip on One Plus One is the ONLY video footage of Brian Jones working with the Stones in the studio. For fans of the 1960's Stones, this is gold. The clip, in my humble opinion, reveals some things about Brian like how he interacted with the others in the studio, how coherent he was at that time, and how he was still able to contribute meaningfully to making music. Yeah, I've singled out that A chord, as I believe it's evidence that Brian still had the magic touch in early 1968. Thank you.

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
One of the best? Yes...and this is not only my opinion but opinions of musicians from Britain.
People seem to think that a great guitarist is a person who can play a trillion notes in 10 seconds, or play hundreds of notes with a slide...that is easy.
As you mention above, it's the simple but effective methods that people such as BJ, Keith R (in his hey-day), P Townsend etc.. who get their messages across with their guitar...these are the true brilliant musicians.

You bring up some good points. When you think of slide guitarists of the 1960's, you think of Brian Jones. And I've always been a proponent of the following musical principle: LESS IS MORE.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
neptune
How is it silly? That clip on One Plus One is the ONLY video footage of Brian Jones working with the Stones in the studio. For fans of the 1960's Stones, this is gold. The clip, in my humble opinion, reveals some things about Brian like how he interacted with the others in the studio, how coherent he was at that time, and how he was still able to contribute meaningfully to making music. Yeah, I've singled out that A chord, as I believe it's evidence that Brian still had the magic touch in early 1968. Thank you.

Although it's a nice clip, I think it reveals nothing at all regarding what Brian could do and what his true talents were. Too bad there were no cameras during the Aftermath sessions as that would really show what he could and did do (Satanic Majesties as well).

Quote
tomk

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
neptune
How is it silly? That clip on One Plus One is the ONLY video footage of Brian Jones working with the Stones in the studio. For fans of the 1960's Stones, this is gold. The clip, in my humble opinion, reveals some things about Brian like how he interacted with the others in the studio, how coherent he was at that time, and how he was still able to contribute meaningfully to making music. Yeah, I've singled out that A chord, as I believe it's evidence that Brian still had the magic touch in early 1968. Thank you.

Although it's a nice clip, I think it reveals nothing at all regarding what Brian could do and what his true talents were. Too bad there were no cameras during the Aftermath sessions as that would really show what he could and did do (Satanic Majesties as well).

Aah, to think of that they had the making of "Paint It Black" on film...

- Doxa

At least Brian was an excellent harmonica player.

Quote
Bärs
At least Brian was an excellent harmonica player.

But not a good swimmer, obviously.

How was Brian with cricket? (thinking of the beggars banquet photo shoot)

Quote
Doxa
Anyway, I enjoy reading your 'one man war' against Brian Jones army in Wikipedia . . .

Doxa, you mean Mathijs is Heteren? I would never have guessed!

Quote
Doxa


Mathijs

With respect, I think your hatred towards the Brian Jones worshipping goes a bit too far and affects into your judgments. I believe people like His Majesty and myself - who are some sort of Brian Jones fans - do not like either that stupid, childish and tasteless Brian Jones-religion that is especially practised in plases like LARS board, but I think we should not kill the man and his contribution due this cult. (Anyway, I enjoy reading your 'one man war' against Brian Jones army in Wikipedia, although I little bit wonder of your motives - why is it such a big deal to "straighten out" things related to Brian Jones, or be so hard on the evidential base of the claims). I mean, you seem to be over-critical whenever something related to Brian Jones is concerned, for example, pointing almost everytime that was Jones is (techically) "mediocre", or what he does is extremely "simple". Those are true, but very strange to point out in the context of the Rolling Stones where every musician - expect Mick Taylor and some of their backing musicians - are techically very (at best) mediocre players plus the fact that the technical ability has never been any defining feature of The Rolling Stones. Why to make such a big deal with Brian Jones then? To me it looks like using different criteria towards him than towards the others.

- Doxa[/quote]

Sorry I used the word "loath" as I actually mean "dislike". I don't have any hate towards anybody.

I am a big fan of the Brian Jones period, I just simply love the Aftermath to Beggars period, probably just as much as you and His Majesty do. I only get irritated by this group of people who seem to masturbate over every picture of a bloated Brian. I like to stick to the truth, and if we don't know the truth I like discussions based on what we do know. I really get irritated by some people (and indeed many on Wikipedia) who turn the truth in order to "proof" again and again the genius of Brian Jones, even on parts where he simply did not have any talent. No, Brian was not a song writer, no he did not write Ruby Tuesday, get over it and enjoy everything else Brian has done for and with the Stones.

Mathijs

I don't think it's correct to refer to Brian and his influence on the band from the musical point of view only.
Brian influence on the band was from the beginning, and it was mainly his behaviour, his image, his attitude towards life, sex, drug, and a specific kind of music, the american blues, that was underrated in UK.
I think that the lines written by Andrew Oldham on the backcover of the First record: The Rolling Stones are not just a group but a WAY OF LIFE were in major part referred to Brian.
He was a Rolling Stone, giving to this name the meaning we give today, before the band of The Rolling Stones was even created.
For people like me, that were kids at the time of Brian, he was the rebel, same as James Dean or Steve McQueen and doesn't matter whether they were good actors or not. It's what they represented that was important for us.
In conclusion, maybe Brian was not a talented musician but he was the genuine rolling stone and I'm definitively convinced that there've been no other Rolling Stones without him.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-13 12:01 by straycat58.

Well, apart from all those chords, the truth will be somewhere in the middle like most times.

For shure Brian wasn't a musical genius or instrumental virtuoso.
But he had a great deep feel for things and he gave a lot to the Stones 60's songs.

BUT, - apart from that I think nobody who wasn't there at the time doesn't really realize HOW important Brian was in the early years! They don't have a clue!

Keith was still very much in the backround (kinda like George Harrisson) and in many countries he was even more popular than Jagger!
And Brian was responsible for much of the Stones public image than which made them so big in the first place and in the early years it all centered around Brian.

The fans were crazy about him and all the musicans wanted to meet him.
Look at the first cover! Brian with his golden hair gave the greatest impression as the last in row!
Within a few years Mick stepped in the foreground alone, later followed by Keith.

But in the beginning, we all were impressed by Brian.
And remember, we didn't have all those pics and the knowledge from today.

In 63-65 Brian was SO special in those b&w times!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-13 01:38 by CousinC.

Brian most certainly was a talented musician!

I'll single out one of his great performances, the often cited I Wanna Be Your Man solo. In the context of the times, the music of 1963, it is a truly inspired, raucous, wonderful piece of slide playing, simple, energetic and completely spot on!

It sounds like something Jeff Beck would have played circa 1966 or so.



There's loads of musical highlights from Brian to point out, but this One Plus One footage ain't one of them imo.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-13 17:48 by His Majesty.

Quote
gimme_shelter
How come no one mentions the great parts in the One by One movie where there's no Rolling Stones involved? I admit, i never understood a minute of the friggin' film!

The Black Panthers were hardly "great." An anti-social hate group hardly worth talking about.

Two plot summaries can be read here: [www.imdb.com]
Black Panthers: [en.wikipedia.org]

He’s Lost Control: Sympathy For the Devil and Godard in 68
By Karina Longworth
posted 8 months ago




Sympathy for the Devil has a bad reputation. Like most of the work produced during Jean-Luc Godard’s so-called “revolution” period in the late-60s and 70s, it rarely screens without a disclaimer advertising its difficulty. The synopsis selling last month’s screening of the film at New York’s Film Forum (as part of a month long tribute to Godard’s work of the 1960s) was just 55 words long, but it managed to contain three red flag inferences of Sympathy’s “difficulty” (italics all mine): the “camera endlessly prowls,” it’s “shot in long, long takes,” it’s “deadening and hypnotic.” A Reverse Shot blog entry led off with the poster quote: “One helluva cocktease.”

One million critics with a common case of blue balls can’t be entirely wrong, but writing off the film formerly known as One Plus One as a novelty from a filmmaker determined to be difficult (not to mention attempting to sell it by scaring the audience away) is a lot easier than actual engagement. Certainly, Sympathy is a provocation––political, formal, pop cultural––before it’s a coherent work of narrative drama; certainly, most of its most memorable moments involve juxtaposition of political critique with infantile sex farce. But the same could be said for the average YouTube video, and the kids seem to be able to eat those up without a warning label. If it comes off as impenetrable, it may just be because no penetration is needed––everything Godard wants to say is laid into the film’s surface. If anything, Sympathy for the Devil is a blatant (and, at times, blatantly transparent) cinematic flail from a filmmaker at a crisis point.


As Richard Brody tells it in his recently-released Godard bio Everything is Cinema, Sympathy was an historical accident, Godard’s third scrape of the barrel in an attempt to make good on a contract with an English production company. After a “pro-abortion” polemic fell through when London overturned the relevant law, Godard turned to the British music scene instead of its never-to-be-born youth, only settling on the Stones when the Beatles weren’t available (or, rather, when John Lennon declined to star In Godard’s proposed Trotsky biopic, and subsequently decided that the Beatles’ recording sessions were not to be filmed).

Godard arrived in London to begin shooting Sympathy on May 30, 1968, after a fairly busy month. Though he initially planned to shoot in May, the production was pushed back whilst Godard inserted himself in the protests over the ouster of Henri Langois from the Paris Cinematheque, thus playing a key role in the forced shutting down of that year’s Cannes Film Festival. Jean-Luc also made a film about the student uprising in Paris with Philippe Garrel, which was stolen by a stranger immediately after it was finished. By the end of all that, the filmmaker (who, like the Stones, had first hand experience in making a living off of counterculture celebrity prior to the events of May––had been raking in up to $30,000 a month on the U.S. college circuit) no longer felt moved to document the Stones’ slice of the culture. His British producers had every intention of holding him to his contract. And so the first four-day shoot began on June 1; Godard returned to London in August to shoot more, after having cranked out another film about the goings-on in Paris, A Film Like Any Other, in the interim.

Feeling fundamentally changed by the events of the spring, Godard denounced old friends like Francois Truffaut and announced that he’d from then on reinvent the way he made and thought about films. “Culture is an alibi of imperialism,” he told the Sunday Times at the time. “So we have to destroy culture.” Never a fan of Godard’s work or the French New Wave project at large, and eventually insistent that his hand-selected rival was nothing but a Situationist poser, this was the kind of Godardian statement that Guy Debord couldn’t ignore. In the 12th edition of the Situationist Internationale, published the following summer, Debord rolled his eyes thusly: “Godard, following the latest fashions as always, is adopting a destructive style just as blatantly plagiarized and pointless as all the rest of his work.” Where Godard insisted in its wake that May 68 had re-energized him and had made him more determined than ever to break ranks with the bourgeoisie, a year later Debord begged to differ. “Godard was in fact immediately outmoded [italics his] by the May 1968 revolt, which caused him to be recognized as a spectacular manufacturer of a superficial, pseudocritical, cooptive art rummaged out of the trashcans of the past.”

I wouldn’t have gone to the trouble of digging up the relevant Debord quote if I didn’t think he had some kind of point, but I do think his argument assumes that Godard had more control over his ability to express himself through craft in June of 1968 than I think physical evidence really suggests. The actual substance of Sympathy feels less violently destructive or precisely argumentative than unsure, immature. In the same Sunday Times interview, Godard said he wanted it to be “almost like an amateur” film; for better or worse, he succeeded.

Structurally, the film is almost comically simple. Long shots of the Rolling Stones in the recording studio, tracked and pinned by Godard’s camera as they work through the arrangement of the song that gave the film its ultimate title, are woven in and out of various staged tableau in which iconic images of the day’s political pop are propped up against its precepts, both word and image coming in for simultaneous reverence and rape. Why are the takes so long? Godard refused to do more than an assembly edit. The statement, from that interview with the Times, in which he boasts of his desired anti-professionalism: “I’m trying to make it as simple as possible, almost like an amateur film. The length of the takes are decided by Kodak––I’ve four or five choices of lengths of film available from them and I’m quite happy with that.”

Is this punkish defiance, or is it laziness? Of course, the latter and a certain form of the former can travel in the same bundle, but this feels almost more like deliberate self-sabotage. Godard’s chosen title for the film was One Plus One, a reduction of his method of collage to the simplest possible equation. Aggressive indifference and obsession with process may simply be tactics towards the lowering of expectations. But the more notable artifact of Godard’s stated attempt to regress is evident in the film’s sense of humor. At virtually every turn, actual political critique is either subverted by or subsumed within a dick joke.

Early on he introduces us to a band of black militants, who hang out in a dockyard full of broken down Fords and drive-in movie screens, a wasteland where the scraps of American culture are, as a upper-crust-English accented voiceover informs us, are a virus, like “spores spread to the west winds.” Soon this voiceover seems to consist of the wholesale reading of work of historically revisionist erotic fiction; if Debord had any airtight evidence that Godard’s “invention” was nothing but cut-rate Situationsim, it’s the literary softcore featuring Brezhnev and The Pope heard here. The militants themselves toss each other rifles whilst chanting Black Panther texts. At first we assume the guns are for use against The Man, but they turn out to be aids for the ritualized rape and murder of blonde white women. The most facile segment involves a reading of Mein Kampf in a titty mag boutique––it’s all just stuff to masturbate to, get it?

And of course, the Stones themselves, just trying to make a little bit of rock n’ roll in the middle of this polemical hell, are the biggest dick joke of all. They’re the English rockstars known for their catchy tunes about one night stands, perfecting their anthem about the devil’s right place, right time role in political history. And for all his reluctance to actually give the Stones fan what it’s assumed that he wants, Godard must have gotten a kick out of Jagger’s lyrical finger-pointing: “Who killed the Kennedys? After all it was you and me.” Could there be a better symmetry for a film about the linking of political tragedy to desire? Sympathy for the Devil might have been too literal/commercial for Godard’s taste, but it’s the better, more evocative title in the end.

The film’s highpoint, the section where Godard seems most on top of his powers, the zenith of Sympathy’s positing of crumbling revolution with sex farce, is the scene embedded above, known as the Eve Democracy sequence. Godard’s then-wife, Anna Wiazemsky, is hounded through a forest by a camera crew. The crew lob at Wiazemesky a series of increasingly obtuse questions and statements, to which Wiazemsky invariably responds with a simple yes or no. “Orgasm is the only moment where you can’t cheat life?” asks the interviewer. Wiazemsky appears to think about that for a moment, and then responds with a nod of her head, “Yes.” Her contemplation wasn’t merely acting, it was total illusion––the questions were being asked in English, which Wiazemsky didn’t speak, and Godard was off camera, giving her hand signals to suggest when she should say yes or no. According to Brody, it was not just a scene but a personal stunt, the director’s attempt at getting back at the obstinately uninterested in revolution Wiazemsky for refusing to appear in A Film Like the Others because she “did not share the ideology.”

That Wiazemesky didn’t understand what she was saying no to is maybe the most powerful concrete idea contained in the entire film. It’s a parallel to the fair weather revolutionaries with whom Godard was, at that point, so frustrated. It also seems like an aggression against his own political impotence. At Cannes, he had made a speech including himself in the lament for the lack of “a single film showing the problems of the workers or students today.” His first attempt to rectify that lack, the film made with Garrel, was lost; his own lover refused to support him in its second attempt. The most compelling bit of his third attempt amounts to a public sex game with his newish wife, and that he’s able to con her into going along with it stands as his thinly veiled demonstration of male dominance. For all the talk of Godard’s talk of breaking from his cinematic concerns of the past, this is a direct extension of the real life/cinematic life game playing that marked his films with Anna Karina. Let it not be said that Godard completely abandoned his romantic project.

[blog.spout.com]

Quote
neptune

Quote
Doxa
As far as I know, the scene does not start from the zero. They had been jamming the tune earlier (if I remember Jagger even refers there what they did with it the day before or something.)

The scene indeed does not start from the very beginning and, yes, the Stones had already been working on SFTD from perhaps the previous day. And, yes, the clip certaintly doesn't reveal any genius qualities from Brian. However, this obviously appears to show Brian first learning the song. You can clearly see Mick teaching him the parts of the melody. And, most importantly, you see Brian adding the bluesy chord changes as the jam progresses, all within the span of about three minutes. Point here is that it only takes Brian a couple minutes to add an important component to the jam. It kind of hints at how creative a musician Brian was even at a time when he was supposedly at the ebb of his career with the Stones. Can you imagine if he was truly inspired and interested, how productive he would be?

I absolutely agree; during the chorus, "please to meet you, hope you guess my name" . . . boom bamm damm damm . . . very pleasing to the ear!

Interesting info Edith G., thanks. I'm currently reading that Brody book and just happened to have read about 1+1/SFTD a coupla days ago. One bit of trivia not mentioned above: many of the questions asked of Eve Democracy were taken from a "Playboy" (Jan. '68 issue) interview w/Norman Mailer.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-18 08:18 by Glam Descendant.

Sympathy For the Devil is the worst movie I've ever seen. Brian's A-chord is the only bright spot.

I remember when I saw One Plus One in a theater (pre VCR) in LA.
When that scene came on with the Panthers in that junkyard shouting
all their slogans (or whatever it was), the audience at first was silent,
but then they started laughing hysterically, like it was a comedy routine.
Then the audience started shouting back, noting racial, just imitating
the tone they were using, and the laughter got even more hysterical.

>Sympathy For the Devil is the worst movie I've ever seen.

You are one lucky person.