Tell Me :
Talk
Yep, a frontman is not really that important. They really should have laid their focus on Charlie because drumming is what it's about in a Rock'n'Roll band, or, wait, MacLagan, because he's such a nice bloke. But Jagger? Naaah.
Yeah, absolutely. You nailed it, retired_dog - who the fock cares about Jagger at the Stones gig?
Take a Led Zeppelin DVD. You get to see a lot of all the bands members. I guess because the camera man thought they were all equally important/talented. Whereas on Live in Texas & Ladies and Gentlemen it's nearly all Jagger.
Of course Mick Jagger is "action man" but all The Stones are hugely talented. Yet they get ignored...
Absolutely agree, I think the film is amazingly good, and it looks stunning - it is indeed like finding a lost Live treasure
Ronnie I thought was wonderful, his playing so fluid, some vert tasty fretwork!
The film as a whole is my favourite Rolling Stones live document
Let's not get carried away here
There ain't exactly much competition
More like who the fock cares about the rest of the band at the Stones gig?
This is because the filmmakers as well as all the public can not take their eyes off Jagger - he has huge stage presence - not because they believe that others are less important than Mick. Charlie said once - "people are always looking at Mick, he's mesmerising"
In that case the others in the band may aswell stay in their hotel rooms (or van
) and let Jagger take the stage alone and sing to a backing track (while doing his "Jagger-isms"). Seriously who'd give a toss? No one wants to look at them anyway..
[sarcasm]
I agree with what james said - "To criticise Some Girls Live in Texas though for too much Mick? That's like complaining about a joint having too much THC in it."
It's my fav by far Stones concert movie and Beast Of Burden is just perfect - exactly the way it is
You can't blame "the cameraman". There were more than one,and the show was shot from different angles. In the end the director decides which angles are used in the final cut, and his imagination reflects the behaviour of the majority of the people in the audience - their eyes are glued on Jagger most of the time.
True. Some of those close ups of Plant's tight jeans in 'The Song Remains The Same' were a bit much.
It's his nipples I have a problem with.
He's just a youngie...he'll lern.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
live in texas
Posted by:
mandrax1972
()
Date: September 26, 2012 16:53
watched Live in Texas last night - WAY too much Jagger...and Ronnie's playing is hurting
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
Munichhilton
()
Date: September 26, 2012 16:59
Well at least its in Texas.
That's Ft Worth the price alone...
That's Ft Worth the price alone...
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
Youngie
()
Date: September 26, 2012 17:00
Too much Jagger so it's like MICK JAGGER & The Rolling Stones...
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
Edith Grove
()
Date: September 26, 2012 17:28
Too much "looking up at the stage."
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: September 26, 2012 17:31
Quote
Youngie
Too much Jagger so it's like MICK JAGGER & The Rolling Stones...
Yep, a frontman is not really that important. They really should have laid their focus on Charlie because drumming is what it's about in a Rock'n'Roll band, or, wait, MacLagan, because he's such a nice bloke. But Jagger? Naaah.
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: September 26, 2012 17:50
Quote
retired_dogQuote
Youngie
Too much Jagger so it's like MICK JAGGER & The Rolling Stones...
Yep, a frontman is not really that important. They really should have laid their focus on Charlie because drumming is what it's about in a Rock'n'Roll band, or, wait, MacLagan, because he's such a nice bloke. But Jagger? Naaah.
Yeah, absolutely. You nailed it, retired_dog - who the fock cares about Jagger at the Stones gig?
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
1962
()
Date: September 26, 2012 18:01
too much complain
Live in Texas is great
Live in Texas is great
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
loog droog
()
Date: September 26, 2012 18:03
I couldn't believe how good this film was when I saw it last year.
It documents the Stones on a white-hot night. Seeing it now is like finding buried treasure.
I can't believe that a fan would view this film, that is overflowing in it's greatness, as a disappointing half-empty glass.
It documents the Stones on a white-hot night. Seeing it now is like finding buried treasure.
I can't believe that a fan would view this film, that is overflowing in it's greatness, as a disappointing half-empty glass.
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
Youngie
()
Date: September 26, 2012 18:08
Quote
retired_dogQuote
Youngie
Too much Jagger so it's like MICK JAGGER & The Rolling Stones...
Yep, a frontman is not really that important. They really should have laid their focus on Charlie because drumming is what it's about in a Rock'n'Roll band, or, wait, MacLagan, because he's such a nice bloke. But Jagger? Naaah.
Take a Led Zeppelin DVD. You get to see a lot of all the bands members. I guess because the camera man thought they were all equally important/talented. Whereas on Live in Texas & Ladies and Gentlemen it's nearly all Jagger.
Of course Mick Jagger is "action man" but all The Stones are hugely talented. Yet they get ignored...
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
IrelandCalling4
()
Date: September 26, 2012 18:13
Quote
loog droog
I couldn't believe how good this film was when I saw it last year.
It documents the Stones on a white-hot night. Seeing it now is like finding buried treasure.
I can't believe that a fan would view this film, that is overflowing in it's greatness, as a disappointing half-empty glass.
Absolutely agree, I think the film is amazingly good, and it looks stunning - it is indeed like finding a lost Live treasure
Ronnie I thought was wonderful, his playing so fluid, some vert tasty fretwork!
The film as a whole is my favourite Rolling Stones live document
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
Youngie
()
Date: September 26, 2012 18:15
Quote
loog droog
I can't believe that a fan would view this film, that is overflowing in it's greatness, as a disappointing half-empty glass.
Let's not get carried away here
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
Youngie
()
Date: September 26, 2012 18:15
Quote
IrelandCalling4
The film as a whole is my favourite Rolling Stones live document
There ain't exactly much competition
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
mandrax1972
()
Date: September 26, 2012 18:17
maybe it's time for you to retire - DOG. didn't say jagger isn't important or we should focus on Watts / Maclagan...too much Jagger
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 26, 2012 18:18
Quote
loog droog
I couldn't believe how good this film was when I saw it last year.
It documents the Stones on a white-hot night. Seeing it now is like finding buried treasure.
I can't believe that a fan would view this film, that is overflowing in it's greatness, as a disappointing half-empty glass.
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
Youngie
()
Date: September 26, 2012 18:18
Quote
proudmary
Yeah, absolutely. You nailed it, retired_dog - who the fock cares about Jagger at the Stones gig?
More like who the fock cares about the rest of the band at the Stones gig?
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: September 26, 2012 18:24
Quote
YoungieQuote
retired_dogQuote
Youngie
Too much Jagger so it's like MICK JAGGER & The Rolling Stones...
Yep, a frontman is not really that important. They really should have laid their focus on Charlie because drumming is what it's about in a Rock'n'Roll band, or, wait, MacLagan, because he's such a nice bloke. But Jagger? Naaah.
Take a Led Zeppelin DVD. You get to see a lot of all the bands members. I guess because the camera man thought they were all equally important/talented. Whereas on Live in Texas & Ladies and Gentlemen it's nearly all Jagger.
Of course Mick Jagger is "action man" but all The Stones are hugely talented. Yet they get ignored...
This is because the filmmakers as well as all the public can not take their eyes off Jagger - he has huge stage presence - not because they believe that others are less important than Mick. Charlie said once - "people are always looking at Mick, he's mesmerising"
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
jamesfdouglas
()
Date: September 26, 2012 18:37
The Rolling Stones' shows have always been Mick-centric, he's the frontman. He's by far the most famous, and the one that most people watch. Essentially he's the "star" of the group (with Keith leading "the rest" in most peoples' minds). It's true that people EDITING stones's films focus more on Jagger, since that what most people (aka, not obsessed fans who dissect everything they do) care most about at a Rolling Stones show. It's been that way from Ed Sullivan to Shine a Light.
I like to see more of what's going on with the other members for sure, but those feelings usually set in after multiple viewings of a video, and yes, this to me is also the best concert film/video of theirs that I own, and it's my Stones-Go-To video to rock out with.
To criticise Some Girls Live in Texas though for too much Mick? That's like complaining about a joint having too much THC in it.
[thepowergoats.com]
I like to see more of what's going on with the other members for sure, but those feelings usually set in after multiple viewings of a video, and yes, this to me is also the best concert film/video of theirs that I own, and it's my Stones-Go-To video to rock out with.
To criticise Some Girls Live in Texas though for too much Mick? That's like complaining about a joint having too much THC in it.
[thepowergoats.com]
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
Youngie
()
Date: September 26, 2012 18:51
Quote
proudmary
This is because the filmmakers as well as all the public can not take their eyes off Jagger - he has huge stage presence - not because they believe that others are less important than Mick. Charlie said once - "people are always looking at Mick, he's mesmerising"
In that case the others in the band may aswell stay in their hotel rooms (or van
) and let Jagger take the stage alone and sing to a backing track (while doing his "Jagger-isms"). Seriously who'd give a toss? No one wants to look at them anyway..[sarcasm]
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: September 26, 2012 18:58
Quote
YoungieQuote
proudmary
This is because the filmmakers as well as all the public can not take their eyes off Jagger - he has huge stage presence - not because they believe that others are less important than Mick. Charlie said once - "people are always looking at Mick, he's mesmerising"
In that case the others in the band may aswell stay in their hotel rooms (or van
[sarcasm]
I agree with what james said - "To criticise Some Girls Live in Texas though for too much Mick? That's like complaining about a joint having too much THC in it."
It's my fav by far Stones concert movie and Beast Of Burden is just perfect - exactly the way it is
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
retired_dog
()
Date: September 26, 2012 19:21
Quote
YoungieQuote
retired_dogQuote
Youngie
Too much Jagger so it's like MICK JAGGER & The Rolling Stones...
Yep, a frontman is not really that important. They really should have laid their focus on Charlie because drumming is what it's about in a Rock'n'Roll band, or, wait, MacLagan, because he's such a nice bloke. But Jagger? Naaah.
Take a Led Zeppelin DVD. You get to see a lot of all the bands members. I guess because the camera man thought they were all equally important/talented. Whereas on Live in Texas & Ladies and Gentlemen it's nearly all Jagger.
Of course Mick Jagger is "action man" but all The Stones are hugely talented. Yet they get ignored...
You can't blame "the cameraman". There were more than one,and the show was shot from different angles. In the end the director decides which angles are used in the final cut, and his imagination reflects the behaviour of the majority of the people in the audience - their eyes are glued on Jagger most of the time.
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: September 26, 2012 19:39
.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-26 19:54 by Max'sKansasCity.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-26 19:54 by Max'sKansasCity.
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: September 26, 2012 19:41
Quote
Youngie
Take a Led Zeppelin DVD. You get to see a lot of all the bands members.
True. Some of those close ups of Plant's tight jeans in 'The Song Remains The Same' were a bit much.
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
dewlover
()
Date: September 26, 2012 19:43
Rolling Stones > Too Much Jagger...Is That What's Called An Oxymoron??
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
vermontoffender
()
Date: September 26, 2012 20:18
Live in Texas kicks ass.
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
GravityBoy
()
Date: September 26, 2012 20:48
Quote
GazzaQuote
Youngie
Take a Led Zeppelin DVD. You get to see a lot of all the bands members.
True. Some of those close ups of Plant's tight jeans in 'The Song Remains The Same' were a bit much.
It's his nipples I have a problem with.
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: September 26, 2012 20:49
Quote
proudmaryQuote
retired_dogQuote
Youngie
Too much Jagger so it's like MICK JAGGER & The Rolling Stones...
Yep, a frontman is not really that important. They really should have laid their focus on Charlie because drumming is what it's about in a Rock'n'Roll band, or, wait, MacLagan, because he's such a nice bloke. But Jagger? Naaah.
Yeah, absolutely. You nailed it, retired_dog - who the fock cares about Jagger at the Stones gig?
He's just a youngie...he'll lern.
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
rollmops
()
Date: September 26, 2012 22:19
I totally disagree with your statement Mandrax because Jagger was hilarious and it would have been a waste to miss any of theatrics that night. The rest of the band was focus on their playing and not as entertaining as Jagger. But the show was great because all of them did a fantastic job. In my opinion during that show Jagger was just to exciting to watch for the camera to skip any of his act.
Rock and Roll,
Mops
Rock and Roll,
Mops
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
flacnvinyl
()
Date: September 27, 2012 01:12
Best. Stones. Concert. Film. Ever.
I wish there was more non-Jagger shots (could definitely do without those gratuitous crotch-shots) but overall the film is fantastic.
I wish there was more non-Jagger shots (could definitely do without those gratuitous crotch-shots) but overall the film is fantastic.
Re: live in texas
Posted by:
Rip This
()
Date: September 27, 2012 03:03
Live in Texas is so good...you don't mind hearing the war horses at the end!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Broesel2404 , einte , Nosnibourbos , P@py , roobar58 , spunky , stereomanic , StonyRoad , wiredallnight
Guests:
2025
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10