Interviewing him today - anything you wanna know that i might not think to ask?

I understand that you ask all the obvious questions like what they are going to do with the materials that were not included in the CH doc
Can you ask him what was the relationship between Mick and Keith and whether Jagger had plans for the anniversary tour at the time he began working on the movie

I'd be interested to know why he chose to basically end in the late 70's around the time of Keith's Toronto bust. Surely the following years of Jagger and Richards at each others throats would have been very interesting from a documentary point of view...or was it simply because he was paid by them to end it at that point?

I think he did a brilliant job.

He took on an enormous project, and made a lot of very smart decisions, like using only the voices from current interviews (to keep focus on the subject discussed, and avoid the distraction of "look how old he looks now..." ).

I know that a lot of people here were disappointed that it didn't cover recent years, however I thought that was another wise choice, in terms of story arc. The story of the band is also the story of popular culture/society, and by 1972, they had actually "made it," and if they weren't entirely respectable (yet) they (or at least Mick) had become mainstream-embraced celebrities.

Illustrating the world that they came out of was also very well done, and key to young people understanding what makes them so important.

Brilliant use of Stones-music-as-soundtrack. "Moonlight Mile" playing under Hyde Park crowd footage while the death of Brian was discussed was incredibly moving. I'm an old Stones fan and I know the story inside and out, and here I was watching this and tearing up...



I know that this film didn't meet everyone's expectations, and you can't please everyone. But I think he did a helluva great job. Please pass that on.

Did it ever cover any of the earliest times of the band? The origins of its members?

Yes, and most importantly, what will be done with all those hours of unused interviews? And what might be in them that he found interesting?

Why in the world did he leave out all mention of how Allen Klein ripped the band off?
In the commentary on the disk he said the aim was to present the band's history as an archetypal "hero myth"
so it makes no (0) sense to leave out one of the hardest tribulations they went through and (well nigh miraculously) emerged from.
Even if it was a case of the band saying "no" to that topic because of changes in their relations with ABKCO,
eppur si muove, you know?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-06 18:54 by with sssoul.

hbwriter--have you seen any of these shows? just wondering

...this Mick Taylor conversation on the board here deserves the attention ..I'd be interested in your and Morgen's take on it..

Why no reference at all to Ian Stewart?

Besides, with the inclusion of Ian's story the end of the film (the tattoo you tour) would have made more sense.

C

Quote
with sssoul
Why in the world did he leave out all mention of how Allen Klein ripped the band off?
In the commentary on the disk he said the aim was to present the band's history as an archetypal "hero myth"
so it makes no (0) sense to leave out one of the hardest tribulations they went through and (well nigh miraculously) emerged from.
Even if it was a case of the band saying "no" to that topic because of changes in their relations with ABKCO,
eppur si muove, you know?

I don't think it would have been an interesting subject for the audience the film was addressed to. And it would have been impossible to cover exhaustively in a slot of 30/40 seconds.

C

He had said that Bill poured out his heart to him. Could he possibly elaborate or be more specific? What was the rehearsal filming like and will it ever be shown? Thanks.

Quote
duke richardson
hbwriter--have you seen any of these shows? just wondering

...this Mick Taylor conversation on the board here deserves the attention ..I'd be interested in your and Morgen's take on it..

D-- will be going to Anaheim - and I think MT is being sorely underutilized - make it a sloppier rock and roll show - let him linger as he feels - the one on one off is too slick for me -

Quote
liddas

Quote
with sssoul
Why in the world did he leave out all mention of how Allen Klein ripped the band off?
In the commentary on the disk he said the aim was to present the band's history as an archetypal "hero myth"
so it makes no (0) sense to leave out one of the hardest tribulations they went through and (well nigh miraculously) emerged from.
Even if it was a case of the band saying "no" to that topic because of changes in their relations with ABKCO,
eppur si muove, you know?

I don't think it would have been an interesting subject for the audience the film was addressed to. And it would have been impossible to cover exhaustively in a slot of 30/40 seconds.

C

Sure it would be interesting, if it's presented in an interesting way; and it doesn't have to be long & drawn out.
Look at how the excellent documentary Let It Bleed covered it.

That part of the story is a huge revelation to people who don't about it,
and who perceive the Stones as an obnoxiously powerful institution
that's just always been there, always been rich, and always been obnoxiously powerful.
And in any case it's a major incident in the band's history.

And I'd like to hear what the director says about it, regardless of your esteemed opinion, liddas dear. :E



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-06 19:58 by with sssoul.

Brett is very cool- think you'll like this-

one thing Brett that really stood out - that even the most casual fan knows more about the Stones than Mick