just came on.

i wish there were documentaries with the same reverence and passion for less "dinosaur acts" (c) low

so it's a bit of a double-edged sword there.

as to worthy of reverence, to each his own, but do we really need another rolling stones/bob dylan/puke/puke/puke documentary?

so that seemed like a logical extension.

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.

It's not on the Stones or Dylan for having musical legacies, cultural impact & peaking during the time period they came about in that happens to lend itself to better myth-making & entertaining narrative.

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.

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

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*

>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.

>>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.
>

It was pretty terribly done if I'm being honest, I saw it in the theater & own it but have probably watched it in full three times tops compared to countless times for a good music doc or concert film.

Rappaport fucked that all up thinking that nonsensical 'spat' was worth more than it was.

No one cared & in the end it just came off embarrassing.

Keith & Mick have fucked each others girls, Keith has written in print about his 'tiny todger' & called him a faggot, they've come to blows on several occasions as have other band members & Mick has griped about having to basically deal with Keith in a ten-year-period of zombie-state during the 70's due to his heroin habit but the filmmaker doesn't rely on any of that to spin the band's historical narrative meanwhile Michael Rappaport basically made a 90-minute film about Phife's addicition to sweets & Q-Tip's lack of understanding of it.

Horrible decision by an amateur filmmaker & supposed fan. I seriously could have made a better movie with a camera phone & some clip-licensing.

As for Spike not doing it that's more on Spike (though honestly I'm not even sure Spike is a Tribe fan, he might have made a great one on PE but they've spent the past 20 years desecrating their own legacy really so I'm sure he's now not interested in doing so).

But Spike is a great documentarian, I'd be cool with seeing him make a good one on a musical act based on 4 Little Girls, When The Levees Broke, The Original Kings Of Comedy & Jim Brown: All American while giving him a pass for the misfire that is Kobe Doin Work.

Not even Spike could make a day-in-the-life of an unlikable psychopath on the job in a regular-season NBA game captivating.
>
>>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.
>
I still need to see it too but let's be honest, there's probably a reason neither of us hurried to catch it and that's my point: there's not a lot of acts that lend themselves as well to that kind of treatment.

Those Wilco & Radiohead docs were *boring as fuck*.

Just painfully dull.

I thought Jigga's 'Fade To Black' was strong, might be one of the few on more recent acts that has been because along with the career narrative it had an angle & an event to piggyback sorta like 'The Last Waltz' did.

On the rock or singer-songrwriter front the best music-related doc of the past decade or so is probably 'The Devil & Daniel Johnston' but not due to the actual music made by its subject.

>
>>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.

Again I can understand subject fatigue (tho really all it requires is just to skip it like I did Shine A Light) but I'm happy for this special & Marty's PBS Dylan one existing.

The 'Marley' doc was a bit choppy but still worthwhile as well.

If younger filmmakers want to cover more recent acts with similar treatments & gravitas, I welcome it but it's a bit tougher because very few acts currently in their prime are going to lend themselves to that the way Dylan, Marley, The Stones do for a plethora of reasons.

>But Spike is a great documentarian, I'd be cool with seeing
>him make a good one on a musical act based on 4 Little Girls,
>When The Levees Broke, The Original Kings Of Comedy & Jim
>Brown: All American while giving him a pass for the misfire
>that is Kobe Doin Work.

yeah, that was really my point, that he is a great documentarian with obvious expertise in black culture and music


>I still need to see it too but let's be honest, there's
>probably a reason neither of us hurried to catch it and that's
>my point: there's not a lot of acts that lend themselves as
>well to that kind of treatment.
>
>Those Wilco & Radiohead docs were *boring as fuck*.
>
>Just painfully dull.

i would say they were intentionally sterile; it was an artistic choice that fit thematically for those bands, which clearly lack the fireworks of a rolling stones.


>I thought Jigga's 'Fade To Black' was strong, might be one of
>the few on more recent acts that has been because along with
>the career narrative it had an angle & an event to piggyback
>sorta like 'The Last Waltz' did.

agreed, although personally i preferred the studio footage just because it was more fun for me to watch than the live performances... i'm a long-time jay fan with oddly no interest in ever seeing him live. to your point, it was a captivating film and a perfect example of what i am asking to see more of.


>On the rock or singer-songrwriter front the best music-related
>doc of the past decade or so is probably 'The Devil & Daniel
>Johnston' but not due to the actual music made by its
>subject.

i've been meaning to see that for years, not sure why i haven't since everything i've heard has been positive. although watched, enjoyed, and appreciated, this is sort of a different class of documentary than i am talking about that are big events, even garnering theatrical releases. i just think there is a little more room than the same few dinosaurs that get returned to year after year in the media. maybe it's just a matter of time and the people of our generation(s) will be doing justice to these musicians in the coming years, but young people seem so fickle about music that i'm just not sure about that. still, i don't mean to make this an age or recent music critique, a lot of older artists deserve some of the spotlight regularly given to the stones, dylan, the beatles, zeppelin, etc. there is room for a lot more stories to be told by many storytellers. as people/musicians are unique, so, too, do they deserve treatment unique to them.


>The 'Marley' doc was a bit choppy but still worthwhile as
>well.

another i plan to see soon

>>But Spike is a great documentarian, I'd be cool with seeing
>>him make a good one on a musical act based on 4 Little
>Girls,
>>When The Levees Broke, The Original Kings Of Comedy & Jim
>>Brown: All American while giving him a pass for the misfire
>>that is Kobe Doin Work.
>
>yeah, that was really my point, that he is a great
>documentarian with obvious expertise in black culture and
>music
>
Yeah, a no-holds-barred Prince or Stevie doc done by Spike would be fantastic, the former having next to no chance of happening & the second being doubtful as well.
>
>>I still need to see it too but let's be honest, there's
>>probably a reason neither of us hurried to catch it and
>that's
>>my point: there's not a lot of acts that lend themselves as
>>well to that kind of treatment.
>>
>>Those Wilco & Radiohead docs were *boring as fuck*.
>>
>>Just painfully dull.
>
>i would say they were intentionally sterile; it was an
>artistic choice that fit thematically for those bands, which
>clearly lack the fireworks of a rolling stones.
>
'intentionally sterile' because there's really not much to say there in either case.
>
>>I thought Jigga's 'Fade To Black' was strong, might be one
>of
>>the few on more recent acts that has been because along with
>>the career narrative it had an angle & an event to piggyback
>>sorta like 'The Last Waltz' did.
>
>agreed, although personally i preferred the studio footage
>just because it was more fun for me to watch than the live
>performances... i'm a long-time jay fan with oddly no interest
>in ever seeing him live. to your point, it was a captivating
>film and a perfect example of what i am asking to see more
>of.
>
>
>>On the rock or singer-songrwriter front the best
>music-related
>>doc of the past decade or so is probably 'The Devil & Daniel
>>Johnston' but not due to the actual music made by its
>>subject.
>
>i've been meaning to see that for years, not sure why i
>haven't since everything i've heard has been positive.

see it, it's worthwhile but more as a 'King Of Kong: Roll Full Of Quarters' style human-interest story than as a music documentary.

I still have never listened to a full Daniel Johnston album.

>although watched, enjoyed, and appreciated, this is sort of a
>different class of documentary than i am talking about that
>are big events, even garnering theatrical releases. i just
>think there is a little more room than the same few dinosaurs
>that get returned to year after year in the media. maybe it's
>just a matter of time and the people of our generation(s) will
>be doing justice to these musicians in the coming years, but
>young people seem so fickle about music that i'm just not sure
>about that. still, i don't mean to make this an age or recent
>music critique, a lot of older artists deserve some of the
>spotlight regularly given to the stones, dylan, the beatles,
>zeppelin, etc. there is room for a lot more stories to be told
>by many storytellers. as people/musicians are unique, so, too,
>do they deserve treatment unique to them.
>
Leonard Cohen got a movie & that was dissapointing as well.

>
>>The 'Marley' doc was a bit choppy but still worthwhile as
>>well.
>
>another i plan to see soon

>>i would say they were intentionally sterile; it was an
>>artistic choice that fit thematically for those bands, which
>>clearly lack the fireworks of a rolling stones.
>>
>'intentionally sterile' because there's really not much to say
>there in either case.

again, to each his own, but as i said, there are multiple modes of film making that can be applied. i love meeting people is easy, and i wasn't and am still kinda not a wilco fan but really enjoyed i am trying to break your heart, so that aesthetic works for me because it felt true to the bands and what they were going through.


>see it, it's worthwhile but more as a 'King Of Kong: Roll Full
>Of Quarters' style human-interest story than as a music
>documentary.

great doc and another example of going to subjects that may not be obvious (like an umpteenth stones or dylan pic). talented film makers can present them in an interesting and entertaining way, and a lot of musicians deserve the treatment.

>>>i would say they were intentionally sterile; it was an
>>>artistic choice that fit thematically for those bands,
>which
>>>clearly lack the fireworks of a rolling stones.
>>>
>>'intentionally sterile' because there's really not much to
>say
>>there in either case.
>
>again, to each his own, but as i said, there are multiple
>modes of film making that can be applied. i love meeting
>people is easy, and i wasn't and am still kinda not a wilco
>fan but really enjoyed i am trying to break your heart, so
>that aesthetic works for me because it felt true to the bands
>and what they were going through.
>
I like Wilco but I have to admit the funniest & most memorable thing to me was not the movie but the Isaac Brock quote about it back around the time 'Good News' came out. Dude was like: Y'know, I watched that Wilco movie that's supposed to be all traumatic, and I was like, boo-hoo-our drummer got put in a *mental institution*

That one line from an interview cracked me up enough that I still remember it a decade later.
>
>>see it, it's worthwhile but more as a 'King Of Kong: Roll
>Full
>>Of Quarters' style human-interest story than as a music
>>documentary.
>
>great doc and another example of going to subjects that may
>not be obvious (like an umpteenth stones or dylan pic).
>talented film makers can present them in an interesting and
>entertaining way, and a lot of musicians deserve the
>treatment.

It needs to be an engaging narrative tho along with being a musical one unless it's going to be a pure concert film like Sign O' The Times, so far a lot of the attempts on more 'contemporary' acts have fallen short of that.

I heard the Metallica one is great in sometimes unintentional ways because of that band's extremely high douche factor.

>I heard the Metallica one is great in sometimes unintentional
>ways because of that band's extremely high douche factor.

i loved some kind of monster and found it fascinating. it was, or rather the band was, a total mess. it's one of the most entertaining docs and music films i've ever seen.

>>I heard the Metallica one is great in sometimes
>unintentional
>>ways because of that band's extremely high douche factor.
>
>i loved some kind of monster and found it fascinating. it was,
>or rather the band was, a total mess. it's one of the most
>entertaining docs and music films i've ever seen.

yeah, I pretty much don't like those dudes (well, really I mean James & Lars at least, don't know Newstead enough & Kirk seems okay) nor cared about them musically for the past couple decades so I wasn't going to put a lot of effort into catching it but I still want to see it from a trainwreck entertainment perspective.

fuck you.

I guess maybe because I know so much of The Rolling Stones' story backwards & forwards at this point I wasn't expecting much but I was pleasantly surprised at how entertained I was.

The chronology of events is wholly familiar but for someone who isn't as versed in them this could be a good introduction.

There's a decent amount of photos/footage that I can't recall seeing before & they pull nicely from previous docs both widely replayed (Gimme Shelter) and rarely shown (the famously shelved D.A. Pennebaker 'Cocksucker Blues').

Just happened to come home from dinner to turn on the TV right at the 'And Now, HBO Presents...' promo.

Within the first five minutes I'm hearing a Keith-lead-vocal-and-piano-demo while the camera catches Jagger sniffing coke off the end of a switchblade just before going onstage at MSG in '72.

From that point forward, I was hooked. The next two hours passed pretty quickly.

It wisely sticks to the first twenty years of their career when the 'next' album still mattered & it's crisply edited by Brett Morgen (of Robert Evans' 'The Kid Stays In The Picture' fame).

Worth a look for diehard, casual fans or those altogether unfamilar I'd say.

http://twitter.com/Menphyel7


"F you Im better in tune with the Infinite"