Yesterday the Freeview channel that is at 10pm (UK)
I wouldn't get too excited judging by the following review but it has to be worth a view:
"Documentary. A cheap film that charges through half a century of the Stones in an hour and consequently offers very little that's new, thus failing to live up to the title. With no Stones music or band interviews, contributors Paul Gambaccini and David Hepworth have an awful weight to carry, and are barely helped by an injudicious gabble of a narration that sounds like it's being delivered by a p[osh Martian. Nevertheless, those archive clips of the Stones in the 60's never get old, so it's an easy enough watch." (Radio Times)

It's a pick of the day choice despite the savaging which shows how bad the tv options are tonight!

What documentary ?
Are you talking about this ?


The Rolling Stones: Truth and Lies


What more can anyone say about rock’s great survivors? The answer, to go by this formulaic documentary, is not much but it at least has some decent archive footage and pithy observations from rock experts Paul Gambaccini and David Hepworth. It’s at its best when it explores why the band used to ruffle feathersfor behaviour which was actually relatively mild. SH
[www.telegraph.co.uk]



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

Its actually on at the minute (from 5 pm) - although you can catch it on yesterday+1 at 6 pm.

It isn't that new - I remember seeing it about 18 months ago on one of the cable channels - and I wasn't impressed.

Yes, i get the impression Paul Gambaccini isn't really much of a Stones fan !

What a pile of old crap that was. You'd have to work pretty hard to make a documentary about the Stones tedious but they managed it. There may have been an original thought in there somewhere but if so I yawned at that point and missed it.
I'd only ever heard Gambaccini slag them off before & I guess the only reason he got the gig was for his Asperger's chart knowledge. The best thing he seemed to be able to think as a tribute was that they are still alive... Unlike him.

Ah but Tseverin. Have you ever experienced the suckiness of Rolling On (1990 docu). It's worse. Imagine a one hour docu that has 45 minutes about the sixties and 15 minutes about the rest. That said Truth & Lies is a pile 'o vile. It's from 2005 or 2006 btw. It was new around the ABB Tour. After seeing it I had such an urge to nail the director to the @#$%& cross. What an abomination.

JumpingKentFlash

I think Paul Gambaccini is more interested in the social aspect relating to the Stones music, more than the actual quality of the music itself. I think the truth is the Stones are indelibly linked with the sixties, and although they were never truly linked with the political aspects directly, despite the odd politically linked song (Street Fighting Man especially), they were very much a part of youth culture, and were used as an example of the changing attitudes, especially in terms of a more liberal approach to lifestyle, be it sex, drugs, or whatever else may have been going down. Think of their most popular songs of the time. In many instances they were reflecting or perhaps influencing the changes that were happening - 'Satisfaction', 'Paint It Black', 19th Nervous Breakdown' 'Lets Spend The Night Together', 'Street Fighting Man', 'Gimmie Shelter' etc. This is possibly why Gambaccini believes their true relevence ends in 69, because Altamont proved the death of a dream, certainly within what members of the youth culture had in mind that music could perhaps change the world, and post Altamont it was pretty much time to get on with the music and forget the social and political aspirations to make change (despite one or two individuals intent on hanging on). That's where music becomes more framentary, without the collective ideals and goals, and the Stones musical themes become more inward and about themselves and less about what's going on in the world around them. In terms of the Stones producing the greatest music, 1968-72 may well be their finest period, certainly in terms of the quality of their albums, but in terms of their importance in a more social sense (bad boys of rock, influencing the attitudes of the youth etc, Jagger's influence as a perceived rock 'n' roll satan etc.) 69 is pretty much the cut off point. In 1971 the Stones lapsed back to being entertainers, and extremely good ones at that. They never really expressed themselves in such blatant social/political terms again. They were predominantly still writing about sex and drugs, but it had pretty much turned inward. The Stones were primarly great rock 'n' roll stars.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-27 10:29 by Edward Twining.

Have the DVD. It's not that impressive, IMO.

Thanks for reminding me of 'Rolling On' Kent, I just had to reach for the sick bag. Yes that was possibly even worse.

You make a good case for Gambaccini Edward & far more articulately than he did, but I still think he's a tosser.

Well, Tseverin it is quite clear the Stones aren't Gambaccini's favourite group!

Quote
Edward Twining
I think Paul Gambaccini is more interested in the social aspect relating to the Stones music, more than the actual quality of the music itself. I think the truth is the Stones are indelibly linked with the sixties, and although they were never truly linked with the political aspects directly, despite the odd politically linked song (Street Fighting Man especially), they were very much a part of youth culture, and were used as an example of the changing attitudes, especially in terms of a more liberal approach to lifestyle, be it sex, drugs, or whatever else may have been going down. Think of their most popular songs of the time. In many instances they were reflecting or perhaps influencing the changes that were happening - 'Satisfaction', 'Paint It Black', 19th Nervous Breakdown' 'Lets Spend The Night Together', 'Street Fighting Man', 'Gimmie Shelter' etc. This is possibly why Gambaccini believes their true relevence ends in 69, because Altamont proved the death of a dream, certainly within what members of the youth culture had in mind that music could perhaps change the world, and post Altamont it was pretty much time to get on with the music and forget the social and political aspirations to make change (despite one or two individuals intent on hanging on). That's where music becomes more framentary, without the collective ideals and goals, and the Stones musical themes become more inward and about themselves and less about what's going on in the world around them. In terms of the Stones producing the greatest music, 1968-72 may well be their finest period, certainly in terms of the quality of their albums, but in terms of their importance in a more social sense (bad boys of rock, influencing the attitudes of the youth etc, Jagger's influence as a perceived rock 'n' roll satan etc.) 69 is pretty much the cut off point. In 1971 the Stones lapsed back to being entertainers, and extremely good ones at that. They never really expressed themselves in such blatant social/political terms again. They were predominantly still writing about sex and drugs, but it had pretty much turned inward. The Stones were primarly great rock 'n' roll stars.

Another good reading, Edward. But I disagree on your 'Altamont landmark', I think it went on until end 1973. Only at that time the most important effects and 'results' of the sixties had become some sort of 'common property'.

The Stones were the 'producers' as well as the 'products' of the sixties at the same time. After the effects of the sixties steadily had ebbed away somewhere around the mid seventies, the societal relevance of the Rolling Stones ended for good and all. Imo that factor has played a more important role in their decline since the mid seventies than has been recognized so far. They got into a social vacuum, almost automatically becoming jet setters and rock stars. That way they were indeed, as pmk251 has voiced it elswhere, "the victims of their own success".

I think we are talking about the counterculture here, Kleermaker, which has many different aspects relating to its many ideals and causes. I think the re-election of Richard Nixon in 1972 had a major bearing on its future, however, whom many of the radical thinkers wanted out of office, although the hippy movement began to die a little earlier. Unfortunately, things do not tie in neatly with regards to when it ended full stop, so to speak, because there were so many different strands and causes. There was a lot of corruption within the counterculture leadership also, in addition to a lack of cohesion generally.

It would have been interesting to see whether the Stones shift in terms of the lyrical emphasis would have happened had it not been for Altamont. Of course, the Stones were never a predominantly political group in anyway, but they did have a thread of social commentary running through their albums which made them somehow relevent beyond being just pop stars, be it Sympathy For The Devil, Street Fighting Man, Gimmie Shelter, or Midnight Rambler, on their last two sixties albums, which came to an abrupt end after Altamont. The seventies was very much a dawning of a new age generally, anyway, in musical terms what with the more colourful and less serious glam rock, which was perhaps the first time the Stones had experienced a younger generation of artists and fans growing around them. I think the Stones became more colourful too, certainly by 73, and the sixties philosophies and attitudes by then started to seem a world away, in more general terms for everyone connected with music. Perhaps only the question of black civil rights may still have been proving a significant issue.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-28 10:30 by Edward Twining.

Edward, I distinct roughly three periods in the Stones' career, especially on stage.

1. The HAPPENING period: during this time (1964 - 1967) the Stones gave a voice to the postwar feelings of dissatisfaction of many young people. This explains the overwhelmingly screaming audiences that didn't come to a Stones concert to listen in the first place to the music itself but to express their feelings of discontent. Think also of the 'hooliganism' that took place in many concert halls. The Stones were pre-eminently the symbols of resistance against the establishment. They provoked and canalized those feelings at the same time and were so also the product of this 'counterculture' by a process of action and reaction.

2. The LISTENING period: during this time (1969 - 1973) the 'counterculture' had matured and reached its peak. Societal and (mostly vague) feelings of political dissent were nilly voiced by the Stones. The Stones were at that time the utter symbols of social 'maladjusted' behaviour, in that way nilly having an 'example function'. Their public performances confirmed that.

3. The ENTERTAINMENT period: from the mid seventies on the Stones lost their societal and counterculture relevance and became part of the establishment themselves, being members of the jet set. They had become living legends as well. They were no longer a threat to the societal order and so they became harmless. They still had a reputation, but nobody took that seriously anymore. So father and son went peacefully together to a Stones concert, enjoying the show, because the concerts had turned into bigger and bigger SHOWS. Their nilly willy role as symbols of peace, freedom, social change, protest against the Vietnam war etc. had been played out for good.

I think the start of their entertainment function also meant the beginning of the end of the great Stones concerts. Of course the music changed as well. It became music with a wink. In the end it was only rock and roll. Not more not less. Anyway, the inspiration had gone and the many DVD's from the entertainment era bear witness to that fact very obviously. Compare for example Ladies and Gentlemen with Let Spend the Night Together (1981), Atlantic City (1989) and Shine a Light (2006).

kleermaker,i believe in 71 the Stones simply became a great rock 'n' roll group, where their music kept evolving, especially with the more prominent use of brass, and the harder blues rock edge, where there was that significant change in the studio, partly through the introduction of Mick Taylor. This also really marked the end of the Stones in any explicit way relating to the counterculture, certainly where the violent images about social change within their music was concerned, although the liberal attitudes to sex and drugs remained, although even in that regard the Stones were singing more about themselves than having an intention in wanting to influence others. To a large degree the Stones had turned in on themselves. True, live, they still performed powerful songs like Street Fighting Man, Gimmie Shelter etc. but even then the emphasis tended to shift from the actual lyrics of the songs to a sort of musical virtuoso rock sound, especially given the increased sense of freedom Mick Taylor was being afforded in concert. That's not to say the Stones were not at a peak at this period - the 72-73 tours were my favourite in terms of their musical performances, because in particular they seemed a lot looser (less stiff) than on their 69 tour, but it's also true to say that their cultural importance had also begun to diminish somewhat. This was of course the era when they were (perhaps self) proclaimed the greatest rock 'n' roll band in the world, along perhaps with their rivals The Who and Led Zeppelin, so their ideals also had perhaps shifted. However, it wasn't until later that they became an accepted part of the establishment. This period pretty much marked them down as rock 'n' roll gypsies.

The Stones took heed i believe to what happened at Altamont, and i believe, much like Bob Dylan a few years earlier, there was an inner shrewdness to their response, perhaps a sort of self preservation, unlike Lennon who by 72 had thrown himself fully into counter culture radicalism, despite it being very much in its dying days. However, even he came to a sort of realisation when he realised his actions may result in him losing all hope of remaining in the US. If he had only known what was around the corner.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-29 10:13 by Edward Twining.

Kleermaker, like I said in the other thread I find your description accurate. But I make a few adjustements considering the change from the phase 2 to 3 (that I don't take to be so radical as it is quite usually seen).

I would say that the grains of 1975 tour are actually made during 1973 tour where the music seemed to start a bit circus-like. They took much freedoms in musical theatrics compared to their previous tours. Even though the results are mostly superb, and the band hottest ever, one can in introspect read the signs of individual showmanship taking over the command of tightness of the whole group. No need to mention names here... That is also the road of "free play" and even sloppiness they would "master" in the following tours.

But I think what needs to consider seriously when talking about the transformation of live performances from 1973 to 1975 is the actual output - the music - they had the time. That is: what has happened outside the concert venues and how they were seen by the public. GOATS HEAD SOAP and IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL albums were quite marginal entertainment music compared to the super hot material with which they had toured from 1969 to 1972. How can earth one can fascinate "cool" and "reflective" youth with sugar-like "Angie" or self--parodical "It's Only Rock'n'Roll" (first with its musical style and the second with its main statement the Stones willingly seem to giving up demands for any street credibility or relevance). By their recent own music the Stones have made them by 1975 nothing obsolete rock and roll gods that had no relevance outside their own game. By 1975 the bulk of The Stones setlists started to be the classical period from late 60's to early 70's (as it been ever since) - the songs that once resonated with the climate of the times. So it is not just the band that had transformed, it was their audience as well. Their audiences were not any longer warmed up with the recent hottest music on radio. For surely one could hear the new Stones songs there but they weren't the coolest and hottest thing any longer.

There is huge difference in band that goes to tour first time ever with songs like "Jumping Jack Flash", "Street Fighting Man", "Sympathy For The dEvil", "Gimme Shelter", "Midnight Rambler", "Brown Sugar", or EXILE than with GOATS HEAD SOAP, IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL or BLACK&BLUE. Actually the creative downhill of The Stones in the 70's was a huge one, compared to what they just few yaers earlier had done. This was reflected in their performances: circus and showmanship taken more role like filling up the creative vacuum.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-29 11:24 by Doxa.

Just to continue a bit of the point of my post.

If we look the nature of 1975 tour compared to previous ones, I think the change is best seen in Jagger's performance. What the band was in 1975 musically doing was the same old thing they have done since 1969. The foundation of their set lists was based on strong 1968/69 material, with just few additions from the 70's albums. When the band wanted to put the big gear on, and get the audience going on, they would play "Sympathy", "Jumpin' Jack Flash", "Gimme Shelter, "Street Fighting Man", "Honky Tonk Women"... so it was Jagger's being playing his Jumping Jack Flash persona for some 6 years by then. He had perfected the role in every sense, and I think he felt like artistically emptying out the whole character. He wasn't a safe and sure entertainer then yet but still a vital performer who seemingly had a drive for a new self-expression, and who hated repeating the same formula. By his intentionally sloppy singing and circus-like act, he just started to make fun of his own persona. But Jagger still put himself 100% to the show, and I think for that reason some of his performances are not just unique but his greatest ever. I think the whole band felt the same: they wanted evolve their sound and keep it fresh (and like Jagger, they had more or less perfected it in 1972/73). Because their basic repertuare and basic sound was kind of cemented - they couldn't really find a new sound or new inspiring songs until 1978 - they just fooled around with it. I think that's the "point" of decadent sound of 1975/76 tours. It was not just having a new guitarist; it was the whole band going a through an odd phase or an end of an era. I can not think how they could have "evolved" the sound they created in 1969 any further of that. They sort of "deconstruct" it.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-29 11:09 by Doxa.

Quote
Edward Twining
kleermaker,i believe in 71 the Stones simply became a great rock 'n' roll group, where their music kept evolving, especially with the more prominent use of brass, and the harder blues rock edge, where there was that significant change in the studio, partly through the introduction of Mick Taylor. This also really marked the end of the Stones in any explicit way relating to the counterculture, certainly where the violent images about social change within their music was concerned, although the liberal attitudes to sex and drugs remained, although even in that regard the Stones were singing more about themselves than having an intention in wanting to influence others. To a large degree the Stones had turned in on themselves. True, live, they still performed powerful songs like Street Fighting Man, Gimmie Shelter etc. but even then the emphasis tended to shift from the actual lyrics of the songs to a sort of musical virtuoso rock sound, especially given the increased sense of freedom Mick Taylor was being afforded in concert. That's not to say the Stones were not at a peak at this period - the 72-73 tours were my favourite in terms of their musical performances, because in particular they seemed a lot looser (less stiff) than on their 69 tour, but it's also true to say that their cultural importance had also begun to diminish somewhat. This was of course the era when they were (perhaps self) proclaimed the greatest rock 'n' roll band in the world, along perhaps with their rivals The Who and Led Zeppelin, so their ideals also had perhaps shifted. However, it wasn't until later that they became an accepted part of the establishment. This period pretty much marked them down as rock 'n' roll gypsies.

The Stones took heed i believe to what happened at Altamont, and i believe, much like Bob Dylan a few years earlier, there was an inner shrewdness to their response, perhaps a sort of self preservation, unlike Lennon who by 72 had thrown himself fully into counter culture radicalism, despite it being very much in its dying days. However, even he came to a sort of realisation when he realised his actions may result in him losing all hope of remaining in the US. If he had only known what was around the corner.

Yeah, spot on. When the Stones hit the road again in 1969 they had the most relevant material ever any rock band have to tour behind. And the way they played the hot material was tight as hell with "no bullshitting attitude"; just the five-men raw unit, and the songs in their solid arrangements. They just needed to transform the songs from their studio arrangements to electric guitar-driven concert numbers and play them with a concentration, and that was all that was needed. A statement of anything what rock would mean as a culture phenomeon. The soundtrack of the times.

But the 1969 tour was also a kind of zero point ar a point of departure from which all their following tours would evolve from. Like Edward says from 1971 on, the band was basically just a great rock and roll band who concentrated on their repertuare and means perfected and changed; adding horns, changing arrangemnents, the solo guitarist taking more role, etc. I would say the change of the climate, and the Stones transforming from the 60's rebellous group, idols of the counter-culture to a wealthy group of great rock and roll performers happened quite rapidly. Yeah, the decadent gypsy image would remain and to be perfected along the seventies, but hey-day of the Stones being a kind of youth ideal's projection or a dangerous musical representation of the times was gone. Even STICKY FINGERS and EXILE being as awesome albums as they were, the touch they had with the nerve of the times with BEGGARS and LET IT BLEED was gone. They couldn't - or didn't want to - offer the soundtrack to the sentiments of the world any longer.

Yeah, perhaps Altamont did have something to do with it.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-29 12:17 by Doxa.

I'm always fascinated by discussions such as this but sometimes find myself thinking that "it was only ever Rock n Roll".

The Stones were never slow to pick up on what the media or society expected of them, nor to exploit it.

That said: neither they nor anybody else could be held up for ever as cultural figureheads for youth and social revolution.

They got older, were no longer youth...and the "social revolution" ran its course.


It wasn't the Stones in particular who became an entertainment package...it was the relevance and impact on society of "60s & 70s pop culture" as a whole which declined as we came out of that latter decade.

[Punk was maybe Just the rebellious death rattle of "political pop culture" ;^)]

As for the Stones. They were just a band who were good enough and lucky enough to make it really big.

They continue to be just that...plying thir trade in whichever way they feel appropriate to the changing times.

I'm not sure they took the perceived socio-political relevance attached to their work in the "golden period" any more seriously than the other fashionable band wagons they've periodically hitched their cart to.

Yeah, that dvd is was all over Ebay for next to nothin a couple years back. Someone sent me a copy and it was so generic and boring I donated it to the local library.