Buftex Posted November 19, 2012 Author Share Posted November 19, 2012 (edited) I just saw Crossfire Hurricane off my DVR & it was truly great, it stopped after 1981 (no mention of 82) with no Vegas crap until the end credits rolled (the contrast was jarring ). My only complaint as usual with these documentaries is that they only show clips of songs & I would rather see the whole song intact. I was pretty disappointed with it. It went from being a Beatles "Anthology" type treatment of about 10 hours, down to a 3 hour "full history of the band" to a less than two hour flik that didn't really have much of a narrative, and, was, essentially a "best of" all the recent Stones DVD releases put out by Eagle Rock Entertainment. There was nothing in there I hadn't already seen...I was expecting much more. In my view, this was just a 110 minute reminder to younger fans about the days when the Stones were "cool", and not the old guys they are now. Sort of a justifiacation, if you will, of the high dollar ticket prices they will, no doubt, command for a tour next summer...bummer. Really, they had a chance to sit down and talk to Mick Taylor, and Bill Wyman, the only two guys to leave the Stones a live to tell, and they had no insight to offer? I love the Stones, and I realize, the stuff after 1981 pales in comparison to their vintage stuff....but I still love the band...I would have liked to heard/seen more about what makes them tick now...other than $$$. The sort of glib "You can't stay young forever" comment by Jagger, right before they cut to the one modern day performance by the band (as the credits role) kind of pissed me off...no ****, you can't stay young forever..so, is that Jaggers way of saying, don't pay attention to the last 30 years of our 50 year career? I know Rico would urge "exactly!" Would have been cool to see what these guys have been biding their time with, all the years between tours, and infrequent albums. There was no new insight on any facet of their history. Anyway, Rico, if you want to see the full performances, just buy/rent "Ladies and Gentlemen the Rolling Stones", "Charlie Is My Darling". "Exile On Main Street", "Rock 'N' Roll Circus" or "Gimmie Shelter", and you will get about 90% of what made up this "documentary", and more performances than this thing had to offer. I will say, "Charlie Is My Darling" was far more revealing to me, as a die-hard Stones fan, than "Crossfire Hurricane". If this flik hadn't been billed as so much more than it was, I would have enjoyed it immensely....but it did not live up to the advance billing, at all. Edited November 19, 2012 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 "Charlie Is My Darling". We're gonna have to talk about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 I was pretty disappointed with it. It went from being a Beatles "Anthology" type treatment of about 10 hours, down to a 3 hour "full history of the band" to a less than two hour flik that didn't really have much of a narrative, and, was, essentially a "best of" all the recent Stones DVD releases put out by Eagle Rock Entertainment. There was nothing in there I hadn't already seen...I was expecting much more. In my view, this was just a 110 minute reminder to younger fans about the days when the Stones were "cool", and not the old guys they are now. Sort of a justifiacation, if you will, of the high dollar ticket prices they will, no doubt, command for a tour next summer...bummer. Really, they had a chance to sit down and talk to Mick Taylor, and Bill Wyman, the only two guys to leave the Stones a live to tell, and they had no insight to offer? I love the Stones, and I realize, the stuff after 1981 pales in comparison to their vintage stuff....but I still love the band...I would have liked to heard/seen more about what makes them tick now...other than $$$. The sort of glib "You can't stay young forever" comment by Jagger, right before they cut to the one modern day performance by the band (as the credits role) kind of pissed me off...no ****, you can't stay young forever..so, is that Jaggers way of saying, don't pay attention to the last 30 years of our 50 year career? I know Rico would urge "exactly!" Would have been cool to see what these guys have been biding their time with, all the years between tours, and infrequent albums. There was no new insight on any facet of their history. Anyway, Rico, if you want to see the full performances, just buy/rent "Ladies and Gentlemen the Rolling Stones", "Charlie Is My Darling". "Exile On Main Street", "Rock 'N' Roll Circus" or "Gimmie Shelter", and you will get about 90% of what made up this "documentary", and more performances than this thing had to offer. I will say, "Charlie Is My Darling" was far more revealing to me, as a die-hard Stones fan, than "Crossfire Hurricane". If this flik hadn't been billed as so much more than it was, I would have enjoyed it immensely....but it did not live up to the advance billing, at all. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helpmenow Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Just got the stones fifty book today for 29 dollars from amazon, nice book. Another printed chinese book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Best Player Available Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I was pretty disappointed with it. It went from being a Beatles "Anthology" type treatment of about 10 hours, down to a 3 hour "full history of the band" to a less than two hour flik that didn't really have much of a narrative, and, was, essentially a "best of" all the recent Stones DVD releases put out by Eagle Rock Entertainment. There was nothing in there I hadn't already seen...I was expecting much more. In my view, this was just a 110 minute reminder to younger fans about the days when the Stones were "cool", and not the old guys they are now. Sort of a justifiacation, if you will, of the high dollar ticket prices they will, no doubt, command for a tour next summer...bummer. Really, they had a chance to sit down and talk to Mick Taylor, and Bill Wyman, the only two guys to leave the Stones a live to tell, and they had no insight to offer? I love the Stones, and I realize, the stuff after 1981 pales in comparison to their vintage stuff....but I still love the band...I would have liked to heard/seen more about what makes them tick now...other than $$$. The sort of glib "You can't stay young forever" comment by Jagger, right before they cut to the one modern day performance by the band (as the credits role) kind of pissed me off...no ****, you can't stay young forever..so, is that Jaggers way of saying, don't pay attention to the last 30 years of our 50 year career? I know Rico would urge "exactly!" Would have been cool to see what these guys have been biding their time with, all the years between tours, and infrequent albums. There was no new insight on any facet of their history. Anyway, Rico, if you want to see the full performances, just buy/rent "Ladies and Gentlemen the Rolling Stones", "Charlie Is My Darling". "Exile On Main Street", "Rock 'N' Roll Circus" or "Gimmie Shelter", and you will get about 90% of what made up this "documentary", and more performances than this thing had to offer. I will say, "Charlie Is My Darling" was far more revealing to me, as a die-hard Stones fan, than "Crossfire Hurricane". If this flik hadn't been billed as so much more than it was, I would have enjoyed it immensely....but it did not live up to the advance billing, at all. I like your review and agree for the most part. But, as far as Mick Taylor goes, I could see Jagger wanting him out of the picture for any commentary. A lot of animosity towards him then and until just recently for leaving the band. Part of it was Taylor blaming the stones for him being a junkie in the 70's. And having his royalty payments shutdown. I caught him in Oxford a few years back he appeared to be living the life of a pauper. I think they have cut him a check recently. Wyman is a head scratcher though since he was and still is the bands main archivist. As for additional must see stones flicks ****sucker blues in it's complete original uncut form is pretty good. Good luck finding it unless a 10th gen VHS copy will do. If the Stones tour in 13, rumor has it the nosebleads will remain at $95 (for US shows) plus whatever those scumbag "service" charges are. As always the promoters want SRO gigs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helpmenow Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I think cutting a check for taylor is the best thing ole bum rush jagger could. At least ronnie was out there with him playing over in england. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gomper Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Good thoughts all the way around. At this point, what is the harm of a brutally honest retrospective piece ( ala Richards "A Life")? The Taylor omissions are glaring to say the least because some of us consider his contribution to be part of the band's best work. Maybe the guys had little to say in the production of it (which I find hard to fathom) and it comes across as sort of the piece you'd see if they died in a plane crash. On the bright side, we'll always have this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helpmenow Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Jimmy miller helped in that era as opposed to don was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Are these the stones that roll of which you speak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted November 21, 2012 Author Share Posted November 21, 2012 I gotta ask Nanker and Gomper, are your screen names Rolling Stones references, or just coincidence? When I first heard about this documentary, they were hailing at a "Bealtes Anthology" type project, with the Stones full involvement. They were promising hours of private, previously unseen footage...there was none of that. It ended up being a two hour video essay on Rolling Stones chic. I am as big a Stones apologist as there is, so, if there hadn't been so much advance word about what this would be, I would not have been so disappointed with the finished project. I have a theory that Richards book, where he spends about a third of it ripping Jagger, may have taken some of the urgency off this project for the band, or, morevoer, Jagger. For the last 30 year, the Stones have been, essentially, a collective of 4 or 5 corporate entities (Jagger, Richards, Watts, Wood and Wyman to an extent) who come together every 5 years or so to make an album to promote a tour (in that order), so telling their story from 1981-2012 wouldn't likely be all that interesting to the casual fan. However, I think there are a lot of Stones fans (like myself) who are more than casual. Jagger and Richards have had their share of public fueds over the years...and to be fair, most of the shots have come from Keith, ripping Jagger for his Peter Pan complex...while I generally agree with Keiths' assesment of Jagger, I can understand why Jagger would have been less than thrilled to talk about all of this stuff. Jagger, to me, just doesn't seem to have put the Stones into their historical context...he still thinks (or pretends anyways) that they are making records as relevant as ever. Keith has more musical credibiltiy, and he has said, on numerous occaisions, he is under no illusion that the band has another "Exile On Main Street" left in them. From what I gather, the Stones "full cooperation" on this project ended up amounting to each one sitting down for interviews. That was the voiceover stuff you heard. Mick never lets his guard down, so he isn't giving anything up, and Keith pretty much speaks in rock-n' roll speak/cliche at this point ("I never had a drug problem, just a police problem"), Charlie has been "blunted" by reality almost since the begining...so I was hoping Wyman (still listed as the official "Rolling Stones Historian"), Wood and Taylors' interview stuff would have been more than surface stuff. I would have loved to see more about what these guys have been doing all these years, between their Stones projects. Watts has about 8 jazz albums out, Wyman left the Rolling "!@#$ing" Stones to head his own cover band, Keith immersed himself in Jamaican music (Wingless Angels projects are awesome) and hob-knobbed with almost everyone with any musical credibility in the rock/blues world...and Jagger has had numerous projects, most of them not so satisfying. If they covered the last 30 years of the band, in the context of the Rolling Stones, it would be hard for Mick to come out lookig good. I think Jagger is smart enough to realize this, but doesn't want to acknowledge it. So, I think that is why we came away with this puff piece on the history of the band. I couldn't help but notice that Jagger was the "executive producer" on the film....that is telling. Oh well...just downloaded a 1982 "Live at Leeds" show, and a 2005 Phoenix Club warm-up show off the Stones Archices site...great stuff... Good thoughts all the way around. At this point, what is the harm of a brutally honest retrospective piece ( ala Richards "A Life")? The Taylor omissions are glaring to say the least because some of us consider his contribution to be part of the band's best work. Maybe the guys had little to say in the production of it (which I find hard to fathom) and it comes across as sort of the piece you'd see if they died in a plane crash. On the bright side, we'll always have this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj8lRssjN48 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 I like your review and agree for the most part. But, as far as Mick Taylor goes, I could see Jagger wanting him out of the picture for any commentary. A lot of animosity towards him then and until just recently for leaving the band. Part of it was Taylor blaming the stones for him being a junkie in the 70's. And having his royalty payments shutdown. I caught him in Oxford a few years back he appeared to be living the life of a pauper. I think they have cut him a check recently. Wyman is a head scratcher though since he was and still is the bands main archivist. As for additional must see stones flicks ****sucker blues in it's complete original uncut form is pretty good. Good luck finding it unless a 10th gen VHS copy will do. If the Stones tour in 13, rumor has it the nosebleads will remain at $95 (for US shows) plus whatever those scumbag "service" charges are. As always the promoters want SRO gigs. It's been a few years since I last downloaded it, but there are/were torrents out there of much better quality than 10-th gen VHS, I think Jointrip is the best DVD. Oh well...just downloaded a 1982 "Live at Leeds" show, and a 2005 Phoenix Club warm-up show off the Stones Archices site...great stuff... That 1982 Leeds show is noteworthy not only for being Stu's last show, but also the Rolling Stones final show.... having been reincarnated in 1989 as the Vegas Stones. RIP Rolling Stones, thanks for the memories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gomper Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 I gotta ask Nanker and Gomper, are your screen names Rolling Stones references, or just coincidence? BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We finally have a winner!!!!!!!!!!! I've been on this board 9 years and you're the first to get it!!! Congrats for being a true Stones fan!!! As I'm sure you know it's off the Request album. Not their best work but I just love the song title Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helpmenow Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Pledge and Alexis korner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted November 22, 2012 Author Share Posted November 22, 2012 I gotta ask Nanker and Gomper, are your screen names Rolling Stones references, or just coincidence? BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We finally have a winner!!!!!!!!!!! I've been on this board 9 years and you're the first to get it!!! Congrats for being a true Stones fan!!! As I'm sure you know it's off the Request album. Not their best work but I just love the song title "By the lake with lilly flowers...she moans with a sigh...I echo her cry..." Dig that song too, but I can still not figure out why it is called "Gomper". True, "Their Satanic Majesties Request" may not be their best work, but it still has a couple of great songs..."2000 Light Years From Home" is a favorite of mine... it is also one of those records, I think, that has aged very well. "Gomper" is a pretty nice song...lots of Brian Jones texture on there. Obviously, the bands sort of self-conscious attempt at answering "Sgt Pepper". Love the Wyman song "In Another Land". I have a 45 of that tune, with a funny psychedelic picture sleeve...its' worth a few bucks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted November 22, 2012 Author Share Posted November 22, 2012 We're gonna have to talk about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 "By the lake with lilly flowers...she moans with a sigh...I echo her cry..." Dig that song too, but I can still not figure out why it is called "Gomper". True, "Their Satanic Majesties Request" may not be their best work, but it still has a couple of great songs..."2000 Light Years From Home" is a favorite of mine... it is also one of those records, I think, that has aged very well. "Gomper" is a pretty nice song...lots of Brian Jones texture on there. Obviously, the bands sort of self-conscious attempt at answering "Sgt Pepper". Love the Wyman song "In Another Land". I have a 45 of that tune, with a funny psychedelic picture sleeve...its' worth a few bucks! The Lantern is the best song on the album IMO. Other than boots, I didn't keep too much of my vinyl, but I do have a 3D cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted November 22, 2012 Author Share Posted November 22, 2012 (edited) Jimmy miller helped in that era as opposed to don was. Good call! There are certain guys I respect, but they tend to put too much on an imprint on their productions...Don Was, Jeff Lynne, and Daniel Lanois come to mind...they seem to hit a nerve with an artist,and tap the best of them, but then they grind that nerve down, until it starts to sound like their album, instead of the original artists...Lanois kind of killed Emmylou Harris for me...I used to love her records. Now, even when he doesn't produce her stuff, his production sound is such a part of her sound, it might as well be him behind the knobs. Was is kind of that way too..but, to be fair, I also think he hitched on to the Stones when they were kind of creatively tapped. Can't get blood from a stone, so to speak... The nuggets from the "Vegas Stones" era are far between...but I kinda liked this one from "Bigger Bang", a Don Was production...lyrics are kind of nonsense....but kind of reminiscent of "Fignerprint File" or "Miss You" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvvJbxl4Vmk [ Edited November 22, 2012 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I gotta ask Nanker and Gomper, are your screen names Rolling Stones references, or just coincidence? great stuff... No accident here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helpmenow Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Always wondered who brought don was aboard? Keith? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helpmenow Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 O2 arena show was good, watching it you tube. Mick Taylor brought a sound to midnight rambler that I haven't heard I wanna be your man sounded good including mick's great looking outfit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts