Viewing the latest incarnation of "Ladies And Gentlemen, The Rolling Stones" inspired me to reflect back to nearly 4 decades ago when I was a young kid in love with a band that seemed to have the power to unlock all the secrets of what it meant to be young and alive at that time. I recall when "Ladies And Gentlemen, The Rolling Stones" was released there was a positive but rather dispiriting review in TIME magazine...something to the effect that the film demonstrated that the Stones were now just a really good rock and roll band and "no more monsters". The de-mystification of the band - after 10 years as Lucifer's Satyrs - had begun.

It was a strange time because the year of the film's release was 1974 and the Zeitgeist had really changed tremendously in the 2 years since the famous STP '72 tour (an eternity in those heady days of radical musical change). Since that infamous tour - which was hyped to the heavens and followed slavishly by the mainstream media, and peopled by the glitterati of the time (Bianca, Warhol, Nureyev, Terry Southern, Lee Radziwill, and that whole gang), not to mention the usual parasitic entourage of dealers, junkies, groupies and madmen that formed the Caravan of Debauchery that was the STP and accompanied the Stones from gig to gig - the music scene had changed dramatically. The buzz of the music press and the spirit of the times had moved to new heroes and movements like Bowie and T. Rex's Glam, the New York Dolls' anarchic slut-punk, and the nascent Disco scene. Goat's Head Soup and It's Only Rock and Roll had been commercially successful but that visceral feel of revolution, danger, and intense insight into the Zeitgeist that previous Stones records had delivered was not evident on these recordings. The sound on vinyl had softened and become more polished...the music still excellent, but the artistic energy and the power to astonish felt subtly, strangely diminished. The Rolling Stones were no longer the demonic iconoclasts of yore. They were now just another British supergroup raking in millions and flying around in a private jet whilst hobnobbing with the beautiful and famous. The Rolling Stones had almost become part of the Establishment.

Nevertheless I excitedly attended the film in a New York theater in the Spring of 1974. The real treat to look forward to was the Quadraphonic stereo system which was heavily advertised in the posters for the film. The sound, indeed, was a knockout. The film itself was lacking in dynamic in the sense that those of us who had seen Gimme Shelter and then experienced the media frenzy and the knockout performances of the '72 tour were expecting something equally epochal and culturally significant. The film wasn't that at all. It was a catholic, straightforward concert film - albeit a phenomenal one - and that is its strength and simultaneously its weakness.

To be fair, Ladies and Gentlemen was advertised as a straight, no-nonsense concert film - not a documentary...two completely different genres. Nevertheless I was hoping for some insight into the world of the Stones (circa '72) away from the klieg lights. What one gets in Ladies and Gentlemen is the greatest rock and roll band in the world at a blistering peak - Nicky and Stu pounding (and when appropriate, caressing) the keyboards, Jimmy and Bobby blowing out walls of sound, Bill and Charlie creating a malevolent freight train of rhythm pulverizing your innards, Keef crushing everything in his path, Taylor lashing out solos that leave you utterly breathless...and Jagger singing like a man fighting for his life in a maelstrom of barbed wire - what one does not see is the context of the tour...the 'feel' of the band...the sense of 'the times'. And that to me is a shortcoming. The film's sound was spectacular (less so now...the theater where I saw the re-released version had decent sound but nothing compared to the rumbling majesty I remember from `74) and the band was hitting on all cylinders, but the experience was strangely sterile, as most concert films which concentrate solely on the on-stage presentation are.

Let me explain. In my opinion, the Stones are such a force of nature - and in the heady days of the early 1970's still a very powerful cultural phenomenon - that to merely show the band onstage somehow robs the viewer of the Total Experience of the Stones' magnetism and the whirlwind they create(d) with their mere presence. That, as much as the music, explains the phenomenon that is The Rolling Stones. Limiting the viewer's access to the stage presentation in my opinion diminishes the Stones of their secret weapon - their incredible off-stage aura and how that aura sets up their performances. This is heresy to many who revere the film, but I've always thought that the greatest rock film of all times would have been a well-edited amalgamation of Ladies and Gentlemen AND Cokcsucker Blues. THAT - and only that - would have been worthy of the musical and cultural significance of the Rolling Stones 1972 American Tour.

I have for years owned a bootlegged copy of Ladies and Gentlemen and play snippets of it often...especially the transcendent version of Bye, Bye Johnny, which to me is a perfect distillation of the unadulterated love and amazing genius this band has for rudimentary rock and roll music. Their version in this film is transcendent...listen to Taylor's unbelievable guitar-fills and then to Nicky banging away on the piano and then the shit hits the ether when Keef suddenly comes in and blasts everyone against the wall with his Berry-on-Testosterone solos...absolutely stunning. They take a Berry ditty and make it a definitive statement of purpose. Wow.

Listen here and hold on to your panties because this ROCKS:



It is also a joy to see how much Mick and Keef dig the sound they're making and how much fun they are having being so badass. (Yes...the TIME magazine reviewer may have been right...Ladies and Gentlemen somehow de-mystifies the Stones as it simultaneously shows them at their peak. They were "no more monsters". They were now simply the best rock and roll band money could buy. The times had changed and the world had moved on...but then, as now, that was good enough for me. )

I also own a properly dingy bootlegged copy of Cokcsucker Blues which I view to get a feel for the off-stage context of that turbulent tour and the fascinating in-band politics at the time. Both films highlight the STP tour from different perspectives...and it is this complete 360° view that gives me the most satisfaction. One film without the other feels somehow incomplete.

Diamond rings, Vaseline, you gave me disease, well, I lost a lot of love over you.

CS Blues had the drama and oozed with that dirty, filthy aura of Rock and Roll on the Road. L&G is a straight concert film, but I know what you mean. We as fans watch it in the context of the 72 craziness because we know that stuff, have read about it and romanticized it. But if you're just watching L&G as an old Stones concert, it does lose that feel of being epic.

this version SMOKES - "get down, keith" before the solo - SICK

Nicely followed by . . .

Well put Turd On The Run,would have been great to have L&G and CS Blues as a double release.Would the stones( Mick) approve of CS being released?

An excellent piece TotR. CSB is probably the only source of off-stage film that exists from that tour, apart from archive TV news reports. Although there is merit in releasing CSB, I do wonder if some scenes would be cut by the censor's scissors?

As an aside, I recall reading an interview with MJ in which he said that they had asked the director to make documentary which combined live and documentary footage, but he came back with just concert footage, which the band felt was boring.

for sure, they should be together. Paul McCartney shows with his rereleases now how such a treatment could look like

[www.amazon.de]

[www.amazon.de]

I'll play devil's advocate. I used to own CS Blues on a bootleg videotape. I rarely watched it, and when I did, I fast forwarded through much of it. And I am a huge Stones fan. Thinking back on it now, I have a hard time remembering any segments that are worth watching over and over again - certainly nothing of a calibre of Keith grooving to the tape playback of "Brown Sugar", or the band listening to "Wild Horses" from Gimme Shelter. I think L&G is fine the way it is - yeah, it could have benefited from more wide angle shots, but that's a minor quibble. It doesn't capture the real power of a Stones show from that period because, well, it's a film. I can't see how cutting it up and splicing in any scenes from CS Blues would improve it.

ive never had the chance ... even up to now ... to see cs blues. i just always click in for the pleasure ride of a TOTRun post. and agree or disagree always know its time well spent. rock on boy. hey i was at the nyc premiere showings too! were u sitting next to a kid w long hair blue jeans smoking a number? dude that was ME! ><

I think Ladies and Gentlemen can stand on its own without @#$%& Blues. It may just be a straight concert film, but there's nothing wrong with that. I mean, it's the Rolling Stones performing live during their peak years. There was a lot of myth and mystique surrounding them during this period, and I think the fact that we DON'T see that stuff in L+G is fine because it adds to the mystique. We only see them on stage and it's up to our imaginations what happens off stage.

@#$%& Blues does give some insight to what was going on offstage during this period, but frankly I think the film sucks. It's not something you can really sit down and watch more than once, in my opinion and really brings nothing to the table. It's pretty boring, actually.

Quote
Nimrod
I think Ladies and Gentlemen can stand on its own without @#$%& Blues. It may just be a straight concert film, but there's nothing wrong with that. I mean, it's the Rolling Stones performing live during their peak years. There was a lot of myth and mystique surrounding them during this period, and I think the fact that we DON'T see that stuff in L+G is fine because it adds to the mystique. We only see them on stage and it's up to our imaginations what happens off stage.

@#$%& Blues does give some insight to what was going on offstage during this period, but frankly I think the film sucks. It's not something you can really sit down and watch more than once, in my opinion and really brings nothing to the table. It's pretty boring, actually.

Keith Richards and Bobby Keys throwing a TV out of an hotel window! Wow man!

me, I'm glad there's a straight-up concert film without any of the dated offstage attempts at myth-making.

re: Turd's epic 2nd paragraph--is there anything specific to back up his claims that the era turned over between 1972 and 1974? Anyone have a more precise memory?

"Lucifer's Satyrs" - mixed metaphor

Quote
cc
re: Turd's epic 2nd paragraph--is there anything specific to back up his claims that the era turned over between 1972 and 1974? Anyone have a more precise memory?

I don't. But that particulal passage in Turd On The Run's all-over wonderful post is awesome, and catches something not to be discovered by words easily.

This has been an issue I have wondered for long time. Those two years, 1972 to 1974. seemed to be really the years of Big Change for the Rolling Stones, or better: how the band was seen by the public (and the youth generation). In those two years the Stones lost their status as a Big Phenomenon, relevant almost anything that happens in youth culture - they were the symbolc spokesmen for the whole youth movement took place in the 60's. By just being The Stones was enough: all the aura, the myth, rebellion, the relevance, life style, music - it was in them. In 1972 they still rode on its waves - the Beatles did not longer exist; Dylan was still out of picture, and acts like Zeppelin never had that kind of cultural significance the 60's superstars had (one can still read how bitter Page and Plant were for the hype and media success of the Stones, even though Zep records and tickets were selling better). In 1972 The Stones were mythical, immortal figures.

But in 1974 they were "just" a huge big-name rock and roll band. The magic was gone. Like Turd said, GOATS HEAD SOAP and II'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL sold well but they actually were not significant; they couldn't keep the 'relevance factor' or some kind of 'mystery' going on. Perhaps EXILE was a kind of statement what they can do - and there was no way or reason to continue from there any better. But I would also say that the nature of EXILE as represenation of The Stones 'pureness' and playing their version of authentic American music that had been inspiring from the very beginning, was already a sign of going to intentional irrelavance (and just concentrating on music). Just showing that they are "nothing but" a @#$%& great blues-based rock and roll band. Yeah, "Angie" sold better than "Tumblin' Dice", (and think of "Street Fighting Man" selling next to nothing but still being THE song of the year 1968). But that didn't really matter; it sounded as a commercial, a bit cheap trick or 'just' good music (like Elvis through the 60's sold nicely but surely hadn't any larger impact any longer). Perhaps any single or album could not have done it - the era was changing in larger terms, and the fate of the Stones was probably settled had they done anything. The self-reflection of "It's Only Rockn'Roll" (song) was perhaps more accurate than is usually seen.

Getting old - and insignificant - for a guy who had been the projection of youth movement about a decade must have been a helluva situation. We lesser immortals might not never understand what it was to be someone like Mick Jagger in those 60's-early 70's days. Even Lennon was jealous in his bitterness. The way I see it, around the mid-70's, Jagger started really working the pros and cons of his persona and cultural character - in 1975 he already had a kind of 'postmodern' attitude to his stage persona. Then came the punk movenmet that I think really helped him and The Stones to find something like relevance again (but, of course, nothing compared to 1963-72). Playing with the Mick role - making it almost a circus character - continued in 1981/82. From 1989 on, he took the safe and sure nostalgy move, and it has been 'peter pan show' ever since.

Yeah, in this sense the actual release of LADYS AND GENTS as a pure concert footage was a logical move in 1974 - that the Stones were nothing but a wonderful rock and roll band. It showed the band in its total musical glory and peak. They couldn't be any better. It was against this all of their following actions were to reflected and judged (which was a difficult task). But just showing their musical greatness in its pure naked form, something once crucial was lost in the process.

(By the way, Robert Greenfield's STP tour book - its opening pages - is a good reading to 'get' the importance of the Stones had still in 1972.)

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-01 10:30 by Doxa.

Great post, Turd on the run.
I've never considered to watch L&G and CSB together. Mainly because I love every minute
of L&G and there are only so few minutes I love of CSB. But I can see the value of a combination,
just like you wrote. I think CSB would win a lot by getting more musical content and losing
a lot of this "the nose knows" nonsense.

By the way, taking a word in the original headline of this thread - "document" - into concern: I would say that LADYS AND GENTS should not to be seen as a follower of GIMME SHELTER but that of GET YER Y-YA'S OUT (but now in a different medium). Like YA-YA'S it shows the group in its musical strengthness and tightness; all that is needed wihout any theatrics. The band really trusted on their live presence at the time - and why not...

I wonder how much the idea of not being able to release a live album from 1972 tour has to do with the nature of this film.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
cc
re: Turd's epic 2nd paragraph--is there anything specific to back up his claims that the era turned over between 1972 and 1974? Anyone have a more precise memory?

I don't. But that particulal passage in Turd On The Run's all-over wonderful post is awesome, and catches something not to be discovered by words easily.

This has been an issue I have wondered for long time. Those two years, 1972 to 1974. seemed to be really the years of Big Change for the Rolling Stones, or better: how the band was seen by the public (and the youth generation). In those two years the Stones lost their status as a Big Phenomenon, relevant almost anything that happens in youth culture - they were the symbolc spokesmen for the whole youth movement took place in the 60's. By just being The Stones was enough: all the aura, the myth, rebellion, the relevance, life style, music - it was in them. In 1972 they still rode on its waves - the Beatles did not longer exist; Dylan was still out of picture, and acts like Zeppelin never had that kind of cultural significance the 60's superstars had (one can still read how bitter Page and Plant were for the hype and media success of the Stones, even though Zep records and tickets were selling better). In 1972 The Stones were mythical, immortal figures.

But in 1974 they were "just" a huge big-name rock and roll band. The magic was gone. Like Turd said, GOATS HEAD SOAP and II'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL sold well but they actually were not significant; they couldn't keep the 'relevance factor' or some kind of 'mystery' going on. Perhaps EXILE was a kind of statement what they can do - and there was no way or reason to continue from there any better. But I would also say that the nature of EXILE as represenation of The Stones 'pureness' and playing their version of authentic American music that had been inspiring from the very beginning, was already a sign of going to intentional irrelavance (and just concentrating on music). Just showing that they are "nothing but" a @#$%& great blues-based rock and roll band. Yeah, "Angie" sold better than "Tumblin' Dice", (and think of "Street Fighting Man" selling next to nothing but still being THE song of the year 1968). But that didn't really matter; it sounded as a commercial, a bit cheap trick or 'just' good music (like Elvis through the 60's sold nicely but surely hadn't any larger impact any longer). Perhaps any single or album could not have done it - the era was changing in larger terms, and the fate of the Stones was probably settled had they done anything. The self-reflection of "It's Only Rockn'Roll" (song) was perhaps more accurate than is usually seen.

Getting old - and insignificant - for a guy who had been the projection of youth movement about a decade must have been a helluva situation. We lesser immortals might not never understand what it was to be someone like Mick Jagger in those 60's-early 70's days. Even Lennon was jealous in his bitterness. The way I see it, around the mid-70's, Jagger started really working the pros and cons of his persona and cultural character - in 1975 he already had a kind of 'postmodern' attitude to his stage persona. Then came the punk movenmet that I think really helped him and The Stones to find something like relevance again (but, of course, nothing compared to 1963-72). Playing with the Mick role - making it almost a circus character - continued in 1981/82. From 1989 on, he took the safe and sure nostalgy move, and it has been 'peter pan show' ever since.

Yeah, in this sense the actual release of LADYS AND GENTS as a pure concert footage was a logical move in 1974 - that the Stones were nothing but a wonderful rock and roll band. It showed the band in its total musical glory and peak. They couldn't be any better. It was against this all of their following actions were to reflected and judged (which was a difficult task). But just showing their musical greatness in its pure naked form, something once crucial was lost in the process.

(By the way, Robert Greenfield's STP tour book - its opening pages - is a good reading to 'get' the importance of the Stones had still in 1972.)

- Doxa

Jagger had reached the status of establishment jet setter in 1974: he was no longer THE symbol of rebellion, he had become a member of the establishment himself. That wasn't the case yet in 72. At the same time Keith was deep into hard drugs. Another important factor: another pop scene had taken over. Taylor left mainly because he saw no relevant future for the Stones anymore and actually he was right. Besides, popular culture, the Stones and their music included, had become more commercial and finally had been accepted as 'normal'. Another important factor: the Vietnam war ended in 1973, the US troops left Vietnam accompanied by rock music. They played Jumpin' Jack Flash while flying out of Vietnam in their helicopters in April 1975. The 'revolutionary' sixties were definitely over in 1974/75.

i think the backstage stuff, hotels etc.. behind the tour is alot more boring than some people think.
I even think the band members think it's a drag...
It's basically alot of hangers on trying to get involved with the band...being drunk, doing drugs, just hanging around...

sure, throwing a tv out the window is funny....but it's only good when it involves the band itself...not some unknown wantabe. And that's the problem with CSB - it involves too many non-Stones people.

I also think CSB is very boring. However, the live footage is better than the stuff on L&G.
But, to be honest, this much hyped tour doesn't really grab me with the stuff we have.

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

I also think CSB is very boring. However, the live footage is better than the stuff on L&G.
But, to be honest, this much hyped tour doesn't really grab me with the stuff we have.

right, it's got nothing on 1997, say, or 2005...

Quote
CC
re: Turd's epic 2nd paragraph--is there anything specific to back up his claims that the era turned over between 1972 and 1974? Anyone have a more precise memory?

I think Doxa's excellent analysis explains perfectly the dynamic of the change between 1972 and 1974 in the Stones and in the music business. I can tell you that as a young man the change in these two years was palpable to me - and I do have precise memory of this. It was a completely different era, though barely two years had passed. But this was not rare in rock music in those days. The difference between 1966 and 1968 was enormous. The difference between 1967 and 1969 was also tremendous...those days were the halcyon days of rock and every year or two the landscape shifted thoroughly and only a few of the real greats survived still relevant to the next period. This is fodder for another post, another time.

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
i think the backstage stuff, hotels etc.. behind the tour is alot more boring than some people think.
I even think the band members think it's a drag...
It's basically alot of hangers on trying to get involved with the band...being drunk, doing drugs, just hanging around...

sure, throwing a tv out the window is funny....but it's only good when it involves the band itself...not some unknown wantabe. And that's the problem with CSB - it involves too many non-Stones people.

I also think CSB is very boring. However, the live footage is better than the stuff on L&G.
But, to be honest, this much hyped tour doesn't really grab me with the stuff we have.

Quote
Beelyboy
ive never had the chance ... even up to now ... to see cs blues. i just always click in for the pleasure ride of a TOTRun post. and agree or disagree always know its time well spent. rock on boy. hey i was at the nyc premiere showings too! were u sitting next to a kid w long hair blue jeans smoking a number? dude that was ME!

To Beelyboy: the feeling is mutual, brother...and in contrast to what several posters here I most certainly do not find CS Blues boring...I am morbidly fascinated by the halo of death, decadence, ennui and glamour that mixes into a noxious cocktail and wafts through the entire film. It is watching the ultimate Stones home-movie...and as a fan I find it riveting. There are unforgettable, indelible images...Mick and Keef listening to an acetate of Happy, the action on the private jet, Keef scaringly nodding off in a groupies' lap, Jagger ogling Tina Turner, Mick Taylor speaking to a gloriously naked, freshly shot-up groupie, Charlie and Keef getting their make-up applied, Keef looking like Satan's incarnation of what a Rock Demon should look like, Bianca nagging Jagger about a dinner party with her glamorous Jet Set friends and Mick's utter boredom with it, the Stones down South driving through small towns...as alien to the surroundings as if Martians had landed yet with a deep love and bond with the surrounding's musical traditions...the list goes on and on. I don't know how anyone who loves the Stones can find this boring. Yes, it moves slowly but as a document of what the Stones were in a cultural sense and who the Stones were in a personal sense it is nothing short of perfect...in fact the film is Exile On Main Street in living (washed out) color on celluloid...it should have been given away as a free DVD as an accompaniment with the re-release of the album (along with Ladies and Gentlemen, of course). I HIGHLY recommend this film to you, Beelyboy...and I know that - your love for the Stones being as deep as it is - you will find the film engrossing.

One last thing...yes I was at the NYC premiere showing and I saw the film several times again in smaller theaters in Westchester later that year and again a few years after (remember the Rock-Movie Midnight Shows on Fridays that were a staple of movie theaters in NY in the mid-late 1970's?)...and if you were "a kid w long hair blue jeans smoking a number" then that made you one of about 550 fitting that description at that same Premiere (and all the other showings too!) That was a gas!!!

I wish I had a 2 hour bootleg of them jammin' in the bathroom.

I agree that a lot of the movie gets a little boring. That and every copy I've ever owned has always been low gen.

I love seeing them jam with Stevie Wonder! And of course Keith ordering fruit is classic.

I get this next scene confused with "GS" but are they lost in this one going to get lunch in the south and 'Bobby Keys knows a place" is that from CSB or GS?

CSB is way overated IMO

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
i think the backstage stuff, hotels etc.. behind the tour is alot more boring than some people think.
I even think the band members think it's a drag...
It's basically alot of hangers on trying to get involved with the band...being drunk, doing drugs, just hanging around...

sure, throwing a tv out the window is funny....but it's only good when it involves the band itself...not some unknown wantabe. And that's the problem with CSB - it involves too many non-Stones people.

I also think CSB is very boring. However, the live footage is better than the stuff on L&G.
But, to be honest, this much hyped tour doesn't really grab me with the stuff we have.

A lot of the backstage/hotel/groupie/rock star stuff in CB seemed forced and staged. Some of it was banal and sad. If this rather lame home movie had actually been released, it would have been the Stones' "Magical Mystery Tour" - an amatuerish mistake. While I love the band during this period, I think it was good that the film wasn't officially released. It's really a "fans-only" type of film. On the contrary the Maysles did a brilliant job of making "Gimme Shelter" a cultural landmark that transcended the Rolling Stones or mere rock music.

Even though I personally think that Frank's CSB is a masterpiece in its own difficult terms to be commercial enough (as Godard's ONE PLUS ONE is), I think 71 Tele is right in this matter. It only belongs to "fans only" or "nerd art film" categories. But now, after decades, I don't see any reason why to prevent it to be released as DVD. If I recall even Jagger wasn't against the idea. It is interesting piece of history now.

What goes for the content of the film, The Stones shoot to their own feet when decided to hire famous art photographer Frank to do the job. Probably Jagger thought that it was 'hip' to have such a cool guy to do the job (like Godard before him). But being an artist by his own right, Frank wasn't there to kiss anyone's butt (making a PR film). I think the 'message' Frank had was trying to capture the life as he saw and he wanted to show how thin, shallow, stupid and boring the rock and roll life on the road actually is. The film really unglorifies all the myth belonging to cliche of being a rock star on the road. Thanks to few halfly artificial scenes the film is famous for wrong reasons - a kind of document of sex, drugs and rock and roll in its all decadent glory of "most elegently wasted", party all night long, let's throw teles out of window, screw groupies blah blah blah - oh yeah... so it is no wonder almost everyone is disappointed after seeing it - people expect wrong things from it. But I would say it is actually is a very good document of the life on the road. It reveals a lot of the true nature of the game. But I can understand why The Stones were pissed off. They don't look very glamorous in it.

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-05 11:22 by Doxa.