something new in it for ya ?

[www.youtube.com]

Yes, Mick making love to the harmonica in his blue velvet jumpsuit specifically @ 4:00 mark
Wow, the guitars in 1972..
thanks :-)

'Street Fighting Man' @ 20. minutes wowee man, quick, hang on, Mick Taylor rolls, Keith making his moves originally people have wondered about later.

Pretty sure this was 1792...saw it somewhere

this is when they laid claim to the throne-no one has ever played rock and roll music even close to this good before or since.

as i've said before,the stones need a full time curator,this footage along with the leftovers from gimme shelter and hours and hours from other tours need to be cleaned up in the manner of charlie is my darling, saved forever as a testament to what will go down in history as the greatest rock and roll band to ever step foot on a stage-better than the beatles,better than led zeppelin,the who or anyone else that came before or after them.

without question, when all is said and done and the stones no longer roll that is how people will remember them.

Holy Moly....

And again WOW!!

Thanks for posting Tom... that is some killer footage!
Raw unbridled rock and roll... and that Wyman bass too... WOW

spectacular. Thank you Thomas.
___________________________________________________________________

Keith Richards (1973): A live 1972 album nixed
"Another reason for us not doing old songs (onstage) is that Decca have stopped us from releasing new live versions of material recorded on their label.
A whole live album with Stevie Wonder on it recorded on the American tour has been scrapped because they've ballsed that up.
They've got those songs for six years or something. I mean, if we're recording a live show with old numbers on it,
we just can't put the motherfu&%$ out in the first place because recordings of those songs belong to them until 1976 or whatever."
?
[www.timeisonourside.com]

Quote
HankM
Holy Moly....

And again WOW!!

Thanks for posting Tom... that is some killer footage!
Raw unbridled rock and roll... and that Wyman bass too... WOW

yep - ADTL is my favourite part of this movie! True rock n roll...and Wyman nice and loud !! Great stuff

Quote
thomashanck
something new in it for ya ?

[www.youtube.com]

Rather good!

Forcibly reminds me why the Las Vegas-ified version of Midnight Rambler played in Havana annoys me so much. It's a frigging great song, doesn't need the razzle dazzle - it has to be threatening!

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

Quote
CaptainCorella

Quote
thomashanck
something new in it for ya ?

[www.youtube.com]

Rather good!

Forcibly reminds me why the Las Vegas-ified version of Midnight Rambler played in Havana annoys me so much. It's a frigging great song, doesn't need the razzle dazzle - it has to be threatening!

What's Vegas about the HM Rambler? It's not like they loaded it with horns and dancing girls. I think it's a great version. I'll concede that I could live without the "Yo yo yo" singalong but in general it rocks!

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-02-10 11:48 by HonkeyTonkFlash.

Just adding something for the thread: here's the original footage used on the famous "Rocks Off" video. It was originally released on this DVD, as it was previously discussed on this thread and relived on this thread.

Rare Super 8 footage shot by Robert Frank of Rolling Stones In 1971







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-02-10 19:14 by Cristiano Radtke.

Frank could have done a better job, imo.
The footage is primitively shot (yes, on purpose, but it's distracting) and I'm not sure that Frank knew what he was trying to say or how he wanted to say it.
He focused on the sheer weirdness of the scene (to him, as the outsider) and I am not quite sure he was able to make an artistic comment on what was happening.

Quote
Munichhilton
Pretty sure this was 1792...saw it somewhere

Yes, we've seen it: the concert footage here is excerpted from CS Blues.

Quote
wonderboy
Frank could have done a better job, imo.
The footage is primitively shot (yes, on purpose, but it's distracting) and I'm not sure that Frank knew what he was trying to say or how he wanted to say it.
He focused on the sheer weirdness of the scene (to him, as the outsider) and I am not quite sure he was able to make an artistic comment on what was happening.

Edited by Nuno Montiero, 2009.

Not Frank's statement.
And I think Frank makes quite a simple/easy statement with CS Blues.

Nothing in this video that hasn't already been released as part of CS Blues, right?

Quote
wonderboy
Frank could have done a better job, imo.
The footage is primitively shot (yes, on purpose, but it's distracting) and I'm not sure that Frank knew what he was trying to say or how he wanted to say it.
He focused on the sheer weirdness of the scene (to him, as the outsider) and I am not quite sure he was able to make an artistic comment on what was happening.

I agree with you. Maybe if I could see a clearer copy of CS Blues I'd have a different take on it, but (aside from the subject matter) its intentions seem muddled. He's said it's a statement on boredom, the irony or contrast between the dynamism and excitement on stage and everything and everyone surrounding those moments, with the reality off-stage. Is that an artistic comment? Perhaps, though not of any depth. The impact is visceral and largely unpleasant...watching a voyeur, seeing what a voyeur sees.

I haven't seen his other films, but figure that might provide context for CS Blues. As such, I located this one, and watched close to 30 minutes. My reaction is much like with CS Blues, but without the music and a band I love.

Me and My Brother by Robert Frank

As far as I can tell, and I didn't read up on yet, but might later this weekend, it seems to be about Allen Ginsberg and his long-time boyfriend, Peter Orlovsky in around 1965 or '66--as well as (and sort of focusing on) Peter's brother Julius Orlovsky--who is schizophrenic and has recently been sprung, after 11 years, from Bellevue mental hospital in NY. My boyfriend told me about Allen and Peter, having known them in San Francisco, and Peter's brother Julius who my boyfriend met when then stayed in town for several months--my boyfriend told me Allen was very kind to Julius, and gentle (Allen, he said, being a gentle soul in general).

However, not that I see Allen of Peter being unkind, per se, to Julius Orlovsky, but, to me, behaving in a way that's very 1960s, belief that mental illness is not really an illness. And so, in this film they are sort of treating Julius like a chracter or an object--somewhat revered, but also patronizingly toward him, making him sit on stage with them as they perform their, let's just say, avant garde poetry, and try to make him say things into the microphone, and watch while Robert Frank is filming Peter Orlovsky and another man have sex in a room somewhere in Manhattan. Later, in their squalid apartment, Julius is filmed in his underwear in the morning, with his hair pointing in 15 directions sort of hovering, not knowing what to do, and in other scenes he is sort of clenching and unclenching his hands and walking back and forth, while people try to get him to perform or say things, or appear on camera.

There are certain aspects of the '60s I despise. I understand breaking from tradition--of smashing tradition, and not being bound by "your petty morals." Growing up on the fringes of that time I found it, even as a child, to be liberating. But something like this feels grossly exploitative. Julius Orlovsky is in no frame of consciousness to give consent to be filmed and treated in that manner. In on scene, the movie is being shown in an art house theatre--Peter Orlovsky is railing and telling people what is in the newspaper he is holding up is real and the film is fiction. Two semi-straight Manhattanites are pleased at themselves attending the screening and say how much they are enjoying the film. The man proclaims twice, in a square sort of voice, something to the effect of: "YES! This is a very GREAT film. I enjoy it a lot." And there is more narative at that level (apparently written by Sam Sheppard and Robert Frank, and narrated by Christopher Walken). In that segment a woman in the audience complains that they don't need an actor to play Julius, because they have Julius himself. But then we hear Peter Orlovsky reading, as he says, "a hilarious letter from your clinic, Julius!" in which a psychologist chronicles Julius' psychotic break some years earlier when he was a NY City Dept of Sanitation worker--and indicates, in the letter, that apparently while Ginsberg and Orlovsky were traveling around touring doing the aforementioned avant garde reading/performance thing around the country, Julius broke free and disappeared somewhere in the U.S. and they weren't able to locate him.

etc etc etc...

I don't believe I'll watch the remaining hour.

Not sure what Frank's thing is. But it feels "dated" to me. If I had a different kind of sensibility, maybe, I could see it abstractly, as art--but I see it more as an exercise of its mid-60s time when boundaries were being pushed and pulverized, for the sake of doing that. And that the "freedom" granted by Ginsberg and his notoriously crazy lover (sorry, it's true--not casting aspersions at the poor thing--but Peter Orlovsky was at least bipolar, and their relationship was fraught and mad, violent, and tumultuous, with Peter Orlovsky in and out of mental hospitals himself his whole life, and Orlovsky and Ginsberg staying connected most if not all of their lives, certainly succesding in being the antithesis of boring nuclear family/couple relationships they sought freedom from) definitely was a double-edged sword for them, and seems to have been for Julius, who is nearly catatonic and often looks frightened and ghostly in this film.

Ugh. I find it perverse as hell. Perhaps it's the ballsiness to be so unsparingly unconventional and perverse that attracted Mick to Robert Frank. In the end, apparently being the subject to this tawdry hold-up-the-mirror Frank treatment was too much for even Mick. Hence an all-but moratorium on the film.

Still, maybe if I were to see a clean cut of CS Blues I'd pick up something less nihilistic than what I've seen so far.

-swiss



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-02-14 12:41 by swiss.

Quote
CaptainCorella

Quote
thomashanck
something new in it for ya ?

[www.youtube.com]

Rather good!

Forcibly reminds me why the Las Vegas-ified version of Midnight Rambler played in Havana annoys me so much. It's a frigging great song, doesn't need the razzle dazzle - it has to be threatening!

Yeah, I couldn't disagree more. To each their own, but for an audience of a million (give or take) that has never seen the boys before, this version is exactly what was needed. For me, the highlight of a tremendous show, that I have returned to at least a dozen times since I first saw it. It's a one off. A masterful display of inclusion and rapturous release that none of those million or so people will ever forget. The perfect performance for the given situation.