>so that seemed like a logical extension.

i was just talkin' music in general


>I'm familiar to the point of near-exhaustion with Dylan or The
>Stones, nonetheless I enjoyed this special & the PBS' Scorsese
>one on Dylan because both were done well.
>
>Why beef about them existing, it's not like they're taking a
>slot that would have gone to a younger act if either hadn't
>been made.
>
>I'd love to see lots of folks get the full-scale feature-film
>documentary treatment.

that's really all i'm saying, with it implied that the same effort and financing could have been put forth to document artists that haven't been covered so in depth already.


>I mean your thought was what Rappaport tried to give Tribe
>this treatment & fucked it up horribly because he's a limited
>actor turned amateur filmmaker.

it definitely could have been better. if scorsese is making these dylan dylan dylan dylan and dylan and stones pics, what if spike lee had made the tribe pic? or something. i appreciate the attempt at least.


>I'm sure that Cameron Crowe Pearl Jam one was boring as shit
>as well because frankly from a personality standpoint the band
>is.

i still need to see pearl jam 20. this is the kind of thing i am talking about, however. it doesn't always have to be a classic rocker getting the deluxe treatment.


>Pearl Jam's war with Ticketmaster or Phife being mad Tip
>thinks he's a fat jealous runt are just not as interesting
>onscreen as the debacle at Altamont, Hyde Park two days after
>Jones died, the steps of Washington with MLK or the mad folks
>at Newport Folk Festival.
>
>*shrug*

but why must the same stories be told over and over? if more artists were getting similar documentary treatment i wouldn't complain, but it's just dull as a music and movie fan for the same few people to get covered even if no documentary on them is the same as the last or the next.