Yes, that is where the interview is from.

Nice interview...

Quote
Bliss
I disagree that Robert Frank was simply showing the reality of the tour...I feel he edited it to show how depraved and banal it was. I am sure there must have been many charming moments showing positive, admirable aspects but they did not make it off the cutting floor. He wanted the film to show the worst aspects of the Stones because he disliked and disapproved of them. Of course, he could not show the depraved and banal elements if they were not there to capture on film, but apart from the wonderful concert footage, there was little that was positive or uplifting in his film.

I can relate to your criticism but I have some difficulties to really imagine what the supposed "positive, admirable aspects" (that were edited out) might actually have been like? My question is not rhetorical but a real one. What those kind of scenes - back stage, hotel rooms, road, parties - have had actully been like, how drug-taking, sex, back stage dialogs, destroying hotel rooms - would have been more 'nicer´'? Maybe it was actually so banal as it looks like through Frank's camera. I think he actually captures the essentials - sex, drugs and rock&roll - in that film. We might have our romantic, glorified ideas of that but maybe in reality it actually is not like our wild, mythical dreams.

I think everyone can testify this at home: isn't it great to go to pub, get drunk, and do whatever, and you feel yourself the happiest son of bitch in the world, you love everybody and everybody loves you (you think). Maybe you broke a beer class or two - just for fun - in the process. Anyway, think of someone having had filmed your pub-adventure and then you (try to) watch it afterwards. In most cases you will find it boring and banal. I don't think the mythological rock and roll life style is essentially any different. Perhaps it is a lot better, like with our pub adventures, just to be told afterwards (in books, interviews, etc) - "oh I did this and I did taht hahahahha" - but if one actually is able to watch it documented I don't think it so fun or inspiring at all...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-01-31 18:32 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
What those kind of scenes - back stage, hotel rooms, road, parties - have had actully been like, how drug-taking, sex, back stage dialogs, destroying hotel rooms - would have been more 'nicer´'? Maybe it was actually so banal as it looks like through Frank's camera. I think he actually captures the essentials - sex, drugs and rock&roll - in that film. We might have our romantic, glorified ideas of that but maybe in reality it actually is not like our wild, mythical dreams.

It's neither good nor bad, but it still is mythical. It's a way of life like any other that may or may not appeal to one. There are probably businessmen and politicians behaving like that as well, but they're not that interesting because they're not creative artists.

How could Robert Frank have made a more positive but still truthful film about the '72 tour?

Here are a few suggestions:

Mick and Bianca were at the height of their stupendous physical beauty at that time; RF could have done long, beautiful close-ups.

Both Charlie and Marshall Chess could have given warm, interesting interviews; equally, Keith is known for his wit and humour in interviews.

I am not sure if any Stones children were there, but they could have been filmed with their parents.

Bobby Keys is always good for a laugh.

JW: One of the most famous stories told about Chess is Keith Richards’ tale about turning up at the studio in 1964 to record The Rolling Stones’ second album only to find Muddy Waters painting the ceiling. It’s not true, is it?

MC: No truth in it at all. But Keith maintains to this day that it actually happened. I’ve laughed in his face many times as he’s insisted he saw Muddy up a ladder with a paint brush in hand.

Excellent! Marshall is now an official Keith Myth Buster!

I think Keith's Muddy Waters comment was first in the 1970 interview with Robert Greenfield, for Rolling Stone. is that right?
it's got me wondering why Keith even said it in the first place...
I mean, did he mistake Muddy for someone else that he saw up on a ladder?

What is the deal with this? or could Marshall Chess be wrong? possibly Keith really did see MW painting, maybe helping out for awhile, at the studio, and Chess wasn't there, ...? this is kinda weird.

No. No. And no. He didn't see Muddy painting the ceiling, he didn't see anybody painting the ceiling. No one was painting the ceiling.

Quote
duke richardson
I think Keith's Muddy Waters comment was first in the 1970 interview with Robert Greenfield, for Rolling Stone. is that right?
it's got me wondering why Keith even said it in the first place...
I mean, did he mistake Muddy for someone else that he saw up on a ladder?

What is the deal with this? or could Marshall Chess be wrong? possibly Keith really did see MW painting, maybe helping out for awhile, at the studio, and Chess wasn't there, ...? this is kinda weird.

"25 x 5" was the first time I heard it mentioned.

Its not that weird. Its been more or less rubbished by everyone else who was present. Keith has a very fertile imagination. Marshall has consistently rubbished it for years.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-02 02:50 by Gazza.

Quote
Bliss
How could Robert Frank have made a more positive but still truthful film about the '72 tour?

Here are a few suggestions:

Mick and Bianca were at the height of their stupendous physical beauty at that time; RF could have done long, beautiful close-ups.

Both Charlie and Marshall Chess could have given warm, interesting interviews; equally, Keith is known for his wit and humour in interviews.

I am not sure if any Stones children were there, but they could have been filmed with their parents.

Bobby Keys is always good for a laugh.

but if had done these things, he wouldn't have been Robert Frank. He was out to make the kind of film he wanted, not that Stones fans wanted, nor necessarily a "true" one in an objective sense.

To be true, any suggestion here, Charlie giving nice interviews, Keih playoig with his son, Mick and and her beauiful wife posing for comeras, sounds like peolple don't actually wan to reality bite with sex and drugs and rock&roll. The Rolling Stones, the greatest rock&roll band in the world, and what they are good at, are no like that.

- Doxa

Muddy did help them unload their gear, did he not? That would emphasise he was not a divo.

Re Robert Frank; my point, which I will not belabour again, is that he had an agenda, to show the RS in an unflattering light. I believe there were certainly moments of beauty on that tour which he could have depicted if he chose to. Marshall Chess supports my view in this interview. But none of us will ever be able to do more than speculate.

Quote
Bliss
Re Robert Frank; my point, which I will not belabour again, is that he had an agenda, to show the RS in an unflattering light. I believe there were certainly moments of beauty on that tour which he could have depicted if he chose to. Marshall Chess supports my view in this interview. But none of us will ever be able to do more than speculate.

Mavbe we are splitting hairs here but I don't think Chess is really supporting your view, but more that of the film being a good representation of reality, or this the way I read this passage:

When he was editing the film I told him that this was a true lesson in realism. The film really showed what it was like to be a huge rock’n’roll band on the road and at their very peak. He caught the excess but he also caught the monotony, the ego trips, the darkness of it all

Anyway, I guess our differing views are now documented enough by now!

- Doxa

How is it that "realism" has come to mean only showing the unpleasant stuff?

Quote
Green Lady
How is it that "realism" has come to mean only showing the unpleasant stuff?

good question, but this has tended to be the case in both art and literature. "Realism" is the way prior conventions are torn down when they are no longer convincing. It usually comes with a somewhat aggressive and negative focus.