Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: Previous12
Current Page: 2 of 2
Re: Is It True No Stu..
Posted by: hbwriter ()
Date: November 19, 2012 19:36

Quote
blueyestoo
Hi Swiss!
Yes, I would not expect the Stones to be their own best biographers! The value of CH for us lies in how at this point in time they wish to portray themselves -- it's impressionistic -- leaving a definite mood, but still no really solid answers. Very artistic piece of propaganda!

"Very artistic piece of propaganda!"

amen smiling smiley

Re: Is It True No Stu..
Posted by: Anonymous User ()
Date: November 19, 2012 20:15

Sorry having technical difficulties. . .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-19 20:24 by blueyestoo.

Re: Is It True No Stu..
Posted by: Anonymous User ()
Date: November 19, 2012 20:23

Quote
swiss
Quote
blueyestoo
Yeah, no mention of Stu. Fleetingly one of the bouncers getting the band into a car in the beginning? Didn't have the "image" they wanted to project even looking back. Though he was a rock for them from what I understand.

It's remarkable that after 50 years, we have yet to see an historically comprehensive documentary on the Stones. Why? That weaving off the cuff badass image is the way they are, and the way they'd like to keep it. The messiness of their lives is flaunted but delving too deep into relationships and support systems...kind of goes against the grain. I recently saw docs on Jimi Hendrix and Dylan, where colleagues, friends and lovers were interviewed to shed light on their states of mind which was so illuminating. In the case of the Stones, I can see how they would not be willing to invite the scrutiny.


CR: With the Stones as producers it's an artistic product and promo tool. I think it was Mick Taylor who said in the beginning "I don't know if it will demystify anything but it will be fun and entertaining, which is what the band is."

Cause we all know the story is so huge, where do you start to demystify? Just to hear candid reflections on the violence, Brian's passing, addictions, dangers of the lifestyle posed to those in their circle. . .it's rough. Still, I'd love to see an epic documentary pulling all the themes together, difficult and fabulous and contradictory as they all are.

Stu, one day you will come to light. . .

hi blueyestoo -

So true. Mick, often to the credit and service of the band, tightly controls his and the band's story,
image, and personae.

In the same way that those moments I love most of Mick, as a singer and performer, are the very ones
that are most unguarded unrehearsed uncontrived (tho nothing, I suspect, re: Mick is almost ever
wholly any of those things), so too would be seeing/hearing his and the others' stories, flaws and all.

I don't know that we'll ever get a Rolling Stones' approved documentary of that flavor. But eventually,
in due course, there will be many documentaries about the Rolling Stones. Is it possible they simply
prohibit --or make cost prohibitive-- use of their moving images and music if they want to nix a docu about
themselves?It's certainly their prerogative to do so. And, in time, perhaps they'll consider that
multiple perspectives about them will only enhance their legacy.

btw...I know what you meant about the Stones feeling like older brothers. I usually say they're like my
older cousins smiling smiley

-swiss

Hi Swiss!
Yes, I would not expect the Stones to be their own best biographers! The value of CH for us lies in how at this point in time they wish to portray themselves -- it's impressionistic -- leaving a definite mood, but still no really solid answers. Stylish propaganda though!

Re: Is It True No Stu..
Posted by: stonesnow ()
Date: November 19, 2012 21:06

Quote
duke richardson
he's not in Charlie Is My Darling much at all either..

why not..maybe he asked not to be, when it was filmed

That would have been ALO's decision--the same one who thought he didn't look right for The Stones to begin with.

Re: Is It True No Stu..
Posted by: duke richardson ()
Date: November 19, 2012 21:55

Quote
stonesnow
Quote
duke richardson
he's not in Charlie Is My Darling much at all either..

why not..maybe he asked not to be, when it was filmed

That would have been ALO's decision--the same one who thought he didn't look right for The Stones to begin with.

yeah Andrew made sure he himself was in it...

Re: Is It True No Stu..
Posted by: JamesPhelge00 ()
Date: November 19, 2012 22:27

I've done a short blog on my site called 'Stu Blown Away By Crossfire Hurricane?' It covera most points I wanted to make. You can read it here under the Music heading at www.jamesphelge.com

As a courtesy, I sent a link to Brett Morgan - he has read it and replied with just a sort note that reads:

Brett Morgen:
Stu is a vital part of Stones history as are you. your roles have been duly recorded in every book about the RollingStones.

I Well that is it - said it was short. I see he is also quoted else where as saying - If you want history, buy a book - if you want enetertainment, watch CH.' - (Hopefully he means my book Lol..)

I didn't expect him to discuss what should be in his film with anyone else - and I wasn't looking for a debate.It's all his choice of course

So it seems it's not meant to be a historical documentary, more about how the Stone's became acceptable. I note that it seems to start in 1964 - the band had been cleaned up a little already by then - tidier image and used to dealing with press etc...

The other factor of course if you want to do film of the whole thing - there is not much archived footage in existence before 1964, certainly nothing before May '63.

Re: Is It True No Stu..
Posted by: CindyC ()
Date: November 20, 2012 02:43

Quote
JamesPhelge00
I've done a short blog on my site called 'Stu Blown Away By Crossfire Hurricane?' It covera most points I wanted to make. You can read it here under the Music heading at www.jamesphelge.com


No Way! So cool that you are on here! Your book made me laugh a lot, I really enjoyed it.

Best wishes,
CindyC

Wasn't looking too good, but I was feeling real well.

Re: Is It True No Stu..
Posted by: Rockman ()
Date: November 20, 2012 03:16

there is not much archived footage in existence before 1964, certainly nothing before May '63.

...maybe they could dummy up some fake footage from around the
time of Little Boy Blue with Jake Bugg playin' the part of da young Keef ....





ROCKMAN

Re: Is It True No Stu..
Posted by: swiss ()
Date: November 20, 2012 11:05

Quote
blueyestoo
Hi Swiss!
Yes, I would not expect the Stones to be their own best biographers! The value of CH for us lies in how at this point in time they wish to portray themselves -- it's impressionistic -- leaving a definite mood, but still no really solid answers. Very artistic piece of propaganda!

blueyestoo - compelling description! Can't wait to see it, both as a Stones' fan and as an appreciator of documentary smiling smiley

- swiss

Re: Is It True No Stu..
Posted by: Doxa ()
Date: November 20, 2012 11:21

Quote
hbwriter
he's ben surgically removed for not fitting the current narrative, that's all - and it is a shame -

Yeah, faithful pupils of Andrew Loog Oldham they surely are...

- Doxa

Re: Is It True No Stu..
Posted by: swiss ()
Date: November 20, 2012 11:34

Quote
JamesPhelge00
I've done a short blog on my site called 'Stu Blown Away By Crossfire Hurricane?' It covera most points I wanted to make. You can read it here under the Music heading at www.jamesphelge.com

As a courtesy, I sent a link to Brett Morgan - he has read it and replied with just a sort note that reads:

Brett Morgen:
Stu is a vital part of Stones history as are you. your roles have been duly recorded in every book about the RollingStones.

I Well that is it - said it was short. I see he is also quoted else where as saying - If you want history, buy a book - if you want enetertainment, watch CH.' - (Hopefully he means my book Lol..)

I didn't expect him to discuss what should be in his film with anyone else - and I wasn't looking for a debate.It's all his choice of course

So it seems it's not meant to be a historical documentary, more about how the Stone's became acceptable. I note that it seems to start in 1964 - the band had been cleaned up a little already by then - tidier image and used to dealing with press etc...

The other factor of course if you want to do film of the whole thing - there is not much archived footage in existence before 1964, certainly nothing before May '63.

James - had no idea you were on here. Very cool. Appreciate your post above. Anyone looking for the direct link to James' article, click here.

I hadn't heard that the director said: "If you want history, buy a book - if you want enetertainment, watch CH." That's interesting! I'll try to find that interview.

- swiss

Re: Is It True No Stu..
Posted by: filstan ()
Date: November 20, 2012 17:46

Jim you have made a valid point. It is a pity that Stu was not given any attention in the recent CH film. I liked the movie, but obviously there are lots of gaps that a more comprehensive documentary would have/should have revealed. It would be great if someone would be allowed to actually give the rich history of the Rolling Stones the same treatment that was accorded the Beatles with their very well done anthology.

Good to hear from you Jim. We miss you in Chicago!

Re: Is It True No Stu..
Posted by: stones78 ()
Date: November 20, 2012 18:27

If it was up to Keith maybe Brian wouldn't be mentioned as well.

Re: Is It True No Stu..
Posted by: JamesPhelge00 ()
Date: November 20, 2012 21:10

Quote
filstan
Jim you have made a valid point. It is a pity that Stu was not given any attention in the recent CH film. I liked the movie, but obviously there are lots of gaps that a more comprehensive documentary would have/should have revealed. It would be great if someone would be allowed to actually give the rich history of the Rolling Stones the same treatment that was accorded the Beatles with their very well done anthology.

Good to hear from you Jim. We miss you in Chicago!

Hi Fil. Hope you and your family are well. I think of Chicago often..))

Stu's status was quickly forgotten, and the band now probably has people around it who have no idea of who he is or was. You only have to look back over the yeare to see how quickly people starting making the claim of being regarded as 'the sixth Stone'. When someone's wife claimed that... need I say more.

Someone needs to be able to make a documentary without the band putting their influence on it, as to what content suits them publicity wise. Also, It's never going to be possible for a 2 hour film to cover 50 years with any depth.

Re: Is It True No Stu..
Posted by: filstan ()
Date: November 21, 2012 01:39

Stu was always kind of a hero to me for what he did within the context of the Rolling Stones. He was always there, and really he WAS important to the foundation of what was an amazing sound this band was all about.

The question of the recent CH film content as it relates to the band saying thumbs up or down about Stu being discussed/ recognized can be questioned. I guess I don't see in my heart Mick and/or Keith purposely leaving Stu out of the game. Either way his omission in the film was a shame.

A great in depth documentary still hasn't been made about this band. I think some day it will happen, but we we all might be gone by then... Anyway the old stuff remains very cool in this old guys eyes.

Re: Is It True No Stu..
Posted by: stonesnow ()
Date: November 21, 2012 02:47

Quote
filstan
Stu was always kind of a hero to me for what he did within the context of the Rolling Stones. He was always there, and really he WAS important to the foundation of what was an amazing sound this band was all about.

The question of the recent CH film content as it relates to the band saying thumbs up or down about Stu being discussed/ recognized can be questioned. I guess I don't see in my heart Mick and/or Keith purposely leaving Stu out of the game. Either way his omission in the film was a shame.

A great in depth documentary still hasn't been made about this band. I think some day it will happen, but we we all might be gone by then... Anyway the old stuff remains very cool in this old guys eyes.

For such iconic figures, only a Beatles Anthology-type document will suffice, something that could pack 4 or 5 DVDs worth (and 8 or 10 DVDs including outtakes for the bootleg market). But, for this, the members would have to agree to open themselves to a complete warts-and-all discussion about every aspect of their long career, rather than a sweeping, self-serving portrayal as heroes who could do no wrong. It is clear that even this late in life Mick Jagger is not ready for that, and even Keith simply glossed over the last 30 years in his Life memoir. For this reason, only a definitive book treatment will do, and only if done by an outside source.

Goto Page: Previous12
Current Page: 2 of 2


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 2516
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home