Good stuff!

[www.youtube.com]

I'm not sure I saw something new..............

__________________________

Not so much of Keith this time.

1972

Have always found the shots of Keith at about 3:01 to be upsetting. He does not look well.

Great stuff...much clearer than @#$%& Blues.

I just don't get Robert Frank's "art".

His editing is pretty damn confusing and hard to follow.

@#$%& Blues is just a mishmash. I know he did that on purpose
but that movie could have been so much better.

Pecman

Quote
wonderboy
Have always found the shots of Keith at about 3:01 to be upsetting. He does not look well.

I don't think he was that well, either. I think he wrote himself that he was way into heroin when he was in LA in '72. Not sure though.

Thanks for sharing

Quote
LieB

Quote
wonderboy
Have always found the shots of Keith at about 3:01 to be upsetting. He does not look well.

I don't think he was that well, either. I think he wrote himself that he was way into heroin when he was in LA in '72. Not sure though.

He flew to Switzerland in March of 1972 to a drug clinic. I believe he was ambulatory by then.

Quote
wonderboy
Have always found the shots of Keith at about 3:01 to be upsetting. He does not look well.

The drugs don't work, that is certain.

shots of Keith at about 3:01 to be upsetting...........


Really !!!! .... looks okay ta me



ROCKMAN

In need of some sleep, perhaps (and dental attention).

-swiss

Quote
Pecman
Great stuff...much clearer than @#$%& Blues.

I just don't get Robert Frank's "art".

His editing is pretty damn confusing and hard to follow.

@#$%& Blues is just a mishmash. I know he did that on purpose
but that movie could have been so much better.

Pecman

Why they didnt let a Maysles-like approach happen for the 1972 tour is beyond me.
We are left with some doco showing the boring side of the band - groupies, drugs, mundane moments...oh..and some nice concert footage.
What a waste...and you cant even buy the movie in a store...makes perfect sense!

Quote
wonderboy
"Have always found the shots of Keith at about 3:01 to be upsetting. He does not look well.

The drugs don't work, that is certain."

Well tooth-wise he looks like most of my friends, but they're not necessarily into smack...

I agree (as usual) with Rockman, I think he looks GREAT!!!!

Quote
Eleanor Rigby

Quote
Pecman
Great stuff...much clearer than @#$%& Blues.

I just don't get Robert Frank's "art".

His editing is pretty damn confusing and hard to follow.

@#$%& Blues is just a mishmash. I know he did that on purpose
but that movie could have been so much better.

Pecman

Why they didnt let a Maysles-like approach happen for the 1972 tour is beyond me.
We are left with some doco showing the boring side of the band - groupies, drugs, mundane moments...oh..and some nice concert footage.
What a waste...and you cant even buy the movie in a store...makes perfect sense!

I didn't fully "get" CS Blues until I watched those Frank films I'd posted about here, a few weeks ago (which are on YouTube). Frank's worldview/take on humanity doesn't resonate with me at all. I don't "care" about his deep exploration of voyeurism, perversity, decadence--and that several interludes featured in CS Blues are said to have been staged furthers that lack of interest. Undeniably, he, his films, his approach have a place in the history of cinema, cinema verite, documentary--and I do get why Mick (is my guess) might have approached him, or why Frank was recommended to Mick (given who and what Mick was into, at that time), for the '72 Tour. It's probably highly appropriate--taking the long view--for CS Blues to have happened as and when it did. Still, personally, I'm thankful that it wasn't Robert Frank who documented the '69 tour.

-swiss

Keith looks as always great to portray

Comments like 'Keith doesn't look well' always amuse me....it was the early 70s, they'd been on tours that were, to say the least @#$%& hard...often playing two shows a day, in order to be able to that they needed drugs, and in Keith's case lots of them, legal and illegal. Sleep would have been as and when and often not for quite long periods.

The bands these days wouldn't last a year doing what the Stones used to do and, I might add, not really making a lot of money doing it. But at the end of the day that was nearly 50 years ago and Keith is still here and a lot of those who looked healthy at that time are long gone!

Well, as a Keith fanboy and a father of a young man I can say that he looks quite fragile and vulnerable in that snippet. He was miserable at this time (on his way to rehab, 'Coming Down Again') and my heart goes out to anybody in that condition.
And the idea that Keith or any of them 'needed' drugs to function is just bullshit, sorry for saying so.

Quote
wonderboy
Well, as a Keith fanboy and a father of a young man I can say that he looks quite fragile and vulnerable in that snippet. He was miserable at this time (on his way to rehab, 'Coming Down Again') and my heart goes out to anybody in that condition.
And the idea that Keith or any of them 'needed' drugs to function is just bullshit, sorry for saying so.

Not really right, drugs need Keith as a promotion man. He just tested quality before giving his advices.

Strange choice of background music.

Quote
ouroux58

Quote
wonderboy
Well, as a Keith fanboy and a father of a young man I can say that he looks quite fragile and vulnerable in that snippet. He was miserable at this time (on his way to rehab, 'Coming Down Again') and my heart goes out to anybody in that condition.
And the idea that Keith or any of them 'needed' drugs to function is just bullshit, sorry for saying so.

Not really right, drugs need Keith as a promotion man. He just tested quality before giving his advices.

So, is the world in a better place then because of Keith's PR efforts?
I think not.

Quote
jlowe

Quote
ouroux58

Quote
wonderboy
Well, as a Keith fanboy and a father of a young man I can say that he looks quite fragile and vulnerable in that snippet. He was miserable at this time (on his way to rehab, 'Coming Down Again') and my heart goes out to anybody in that condition.
And the idea that Keith or any of them 'needed' drugs to function is just bullshit, sorry for saying so.

Not really right, drugs need Keith as a promotion man. He just tested quality before giving his advices.

So, is the world in a better place then because of Keith's PR efforts?
I think not.

WIthout the drugs, Keith Richards as we know him and what he achieved, would look very different. Do you really think the likes of Let It Bleed, Sticky FIngers, Beggars Banquet and Exile could have been created without a backdrop of drugs? It's not condoning them but take drugs out of Jazz and Rock and Reggae and it would be a poor scene.

Name me one major successful 60s or 70s rock band that were clean, then look at their catalogue and there will lay the answer.

Quote
crumbling_mice

Quote
jlowe

Quote
ouroux58

Quote
wonderboy
Well, as a Keith fanboy and a father of a young man I can say that he looks quite fragile and vulnerable in that snippet. He was miserable at this time (on his way to rehab, 'Coming Down Again') and my heart goes out to anybody in that condition.
And the idea that Keith or any of them 'needed' drugs to function is just bullshit, sorry for saying so.

Not really right, drugs need Keith as a promotion man. He just tested quality before giving his advices.

So, is the world in a better place then because of Keith's PR efforts?
I think not.

WIthout the drugs, Keith Richards as we know him and what he achieved, would look very different. Do you really think the likes of Let It Bleed, Sticky FIngers, Beggars Banquet and Exile could have been created without a backdrop of drugs? It's not condoning them but take drugs out of Jazz and Rock and Reggae and it would be a poor scene.

Name me one major successful 60s or 70s rock band that were clean, then look at their catalogue and there will lay the answer.

Keith was a talented songwriter, very creative, he worked very hard, he was surrounded by other talented people, he came out of the British art school scene, there was an audience for the music, the technology was becoming available, I could go on. Talented artist at the perfect time. The drugs *might* have helped in some ways in the early days (there is a school of thought that Keith was basically medicating himself for some kind of bipolar issues) but in the end stunted him. There were no Gimme Shelters after the '60s.
Crazy that people believe being a junkie helps an artist.

Quote
crumbling_mice

Quote
jlowe

Quote
ouroux58

Quote
wonderboy
Well, as a Keith fanboy and a father of a young man I can say that he looks quite fragile and vulnerable in that snippet. He was miserable at this time (on his way to rehab, 'Coming Down Again') and my heart goes out to anybody in that condition.
And the idea that Keith or any of them 'needed' drugs to function is just bullshit, sorry for saying so.

Not really right, drugs need Keith as a promotion man. He just tested quality before giving his advices.

So, is the world in a better place then because of Keith's PR efforts?
I think not.

WIthout the drugs, Keith Richards as we know him and what he achieved, would look very different. Do you really think the likes of Let It Bleed, Sticky FIngers, Beggars Banquet and Exile could have been created without a backdrop of drugs? It's not condoning them but take drugs out of Jazz and Rock and Reggae and it would be a poor scene.

Name me one major successful 60s or 70s rock band that were clean, then look at their catalogue and there will lay the answer.

Ian Anderson, Bruce Springsteen, Frank Zappa, Angus Young

Roger Daltrey
Rod Stewart
Madonna
Paul Simon
Bill Wyman
U2
Tom Jones
Barry Gibb

Not 'bands' of course...maybe therein lies the problem?

Thinking of the jazz greats...yes a strong link between the music and hard drugs (or alcohol).
But Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong, Oscar Peterson: long and successful careers, strong work ethic, no drug issues though ?

jlowe...

Rod Stewart - use to shove cocaine up his ass to get extra high
Madonna - coke maven, MDMA, ecstacy, tried heroin, in interview admitted smoking a j before going on Letterman, has claimed drugs have been about spiritual elevation
Paul Simon - notorious drug user in the 1970s, mostly pills, also coke
Barry Gibb - Brothers Gibb all did drugs in the 1970s, even to excess

Louis Armstrong total weed head...the rumor/urban myth(?) was the reason he "scatted" was he was generally too high to remember lyrics. But no heroin, certainly.

-swiss



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-03-14 08:45 by swiss.

Thanks Swiss....stand corrected.
I actually thought by 1970 Paul Simon's days as a pill popper etc were behind him.
I guess hanging out with the Saturday Night Live celebs wasn't helpful.