I like the guests on the film. We have to keep in mind that the real performance and the film are two different experiences. I wasn't at the show so I can't tell about the live performance but what Martin Scorcese concoted by using images, moments, camera angles, close ups shows us 3 musicians with 3 different attitudes.
Jack White is honored, dedicated but he also feeds on the Stones laid back "I don't give a shit" vibration. Christina is sexy, feminine, she doesn't compete with Mick but she uses her voice well and Buddy is just the King; the stones play for him.
Rock and roll,
Mops

I don't like Shine A Light album/film at all.
Even I think it's one of the lowest point of The Rolling Stones career. I hate the idiot scenes with the Clintons, the poor ridiculous "story" with Scorseese, the hired model chicks in the front rows, poorly playing warhorses etc.
Even Mick was horrible as singer and actor.
One exception is Buddy Guy of course.

Rio was far better than this, but one of the best ever was Saitama!



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-17 15:40 by 1962.

The playing on SAL isn´t poor at all. It is excellent, fiery and full of vigor and so is the singing. I´ve never noticed anything inferior, poor or subpar on SAL. It´s their second-best live-release so far, just mindblowing. When SAL was released I first listened to the double CD and was blown away and totally amazed how great it was. Watching the DVD completely blew me away.

I cannot understand how someone can be blown away by Saitama and not blown away by SAL. Both are excellent performances, but SAL has brilliant tip of the top camera work.

Quote
HMS
It´s their second-best live-release so far, just mindblowing.

Right.Nothing beats Flashpoint...

Quote
mighty stork
Nobody mentioned the appearance by Bill Clinton.

Maybe if he'd brought his sax...

SAL is a lowpoint, bad playing and posing all over the film.

I think ALL guest spots with the Stones in latter years are lousy. The ones in the film follow the course. And IMO the reason is Jagger.
Jagger used to dominate his stage. This is HIS stage. yet he now tries to adapt to the guest. He is so busy being awkward, yet trying to look not awkward. If it is a girl he is way more concerned about getting their asses into a photo op position. I seen even very strong, nonchalant performers get tangled up in his ball of yarn. Tom Waits on "Rooster" I thought could have been massive; something like "Might as well get Juiced".
Jack White came out, and he set the tone. That is what bothered me. Nothing against JW, but I hate to see Jagger scrambling like that.

SAL is shit. The only saving grace is Buddy Guy.

Hmmm. I wouldn't go as far as 'sh*t' but for me, watching Scorsese try to create a ton of drama about the mystery set list, and trying to guess the first song, when the set list is written on Charlie's plexiglass, cost him his credibility. I loved a lot about the movie, loved the Beacon so much that I made a point of seeing a few shows there, but agree Buddy was outstanding.

Quote
LukeTheDrifter
SAL is shit. The only saving grace is Buddy Guy.

Agreed. Dont like it too much. too much focus on Jagger.
jeroen

Quote
1962
I don't like Shine A Light album/film at all.
Even I think it's one of the lowest point of The Rolling Stones career. I hate the idiot scenes with the Clintons, the poor ridiculous "story" with Scorseese, the hired model chicks in the front rows, poorly playing warhorses etc.
Even Mick was horrible as singer and actor.
One exception is Buddy Guy of course.

Rio was far better than this, but one of the best ever was Saitama!

Yep. It was beyond contrived. Really not sure which is worse: the Stones' performance or that jerk Martin Scorsese. Buddy Guy was good but someone needed to give him a metronome - or the Stones one - so the timing would've stayed in place.

Quote
HMS
The playing on SAL isn´t poor at all. It is excellent, fiery and full of vigor and so is the singing. I´ve never noticed anything inferior, poor or subpar on SAL. It´s their second-best live-release so far, just mindblowing. When SAL was released I first listened to the double CD and was blown away and totally amazed how great it was. Watching the DVD completely blew me away.

I cannot understand how someone can be blown away by Saitama and not blown away by SAL. Both are excellent performances, but SAL has brilliant tip of the top camera work.

Must be some really good weed.

I'm quite happy with the show footage and performances...but yes, all that contrived b*llocks rather detracts from the whole.

Can't say that I'm too fond of guest appearances by anybody if I'm honest. They always seem in some way to interupt the flow of the show.

[the likes of Buddy Guy and Bo Diddley [VL Tour] excepted ...nice to give the those old pioneers & warriors some appreciation & exposure ]



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2016-12-19 16:23 by Spud.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
1962
I don't like Shine A Light album/film at all.
Even I think it's one of the lowest point of The Rolling Stones career. I hate the idiot scenes with the Clintons, the poor ridiculous "story" with Scorseese, the hired model chicks in the front rows, poorly playing warhorses etc.
Even Mick was horrible as singer and actor.
One exception is Buddy Guy of course.

Rio was far better than this, but one of the best ever was Saitama!

Yep. It was beyond contrived. Really not sure which is worse: the Stones' performance or that jerk Martin Scorsese. Buddy Guy was good but someone needed to give him a metronome - or the Stones one - so the timing would've stayed in place.

All of this.

On the other hand, Glastonbury.

Yes, horrible film. Keith dont even bother to play the guitar...on his own songs...End of the coke era.
2012 - WOW!!!

Quote
Bjorn
2012 - WOW!!!

Fall 2006.

Aside from the experience of seeing it in a movie theatre, which was fantastic (just as AT THE MAX was fantastic seeing in the iMax theatre), I was floored by the guest spots: what a waste of time.

I caught myself wincing as the movie progressed though. When the live album came out I thought it would be nice... after 2 plays I hated it. I watched the movie again... wow. Just awful. The contrivance is really obvious. The second time around I really noticed things that just flew by in the movie theatre.

Christiana Aguilera was... wrong (the idea of Sheryl Crow was much better, especially after experiencing Live With Me with Christina). Jack White was... wrong. Why does he sound like a hobbit getting stepped on? Buddy Guy was OK but even that was off. Of the three guest spots, Buddy Guy was the best but after watching it for a second time that's the only positive thing I have about it, that it was Buddy Guy, because otherwise it was bad.

Combine SHINE A LIGHT with THE BIGGEST BANG and it's a huge let down. It makes LSTNT a much better movie. Not a good time for The Rolling Stones.

Guests are beneath THE Rolling Stones in my opinion. Never has made any sense to me (other than MT in 1981 for obvious reasons)

The only live Stones guest appearance I've ever seen and truly appreciated and never tire of seeing again and again is the walk-on by the dog at Altamont.