Rock and general music related cinema

[S. Cane]

So, I thought we could have a movie thread.

I am always searching for good movies about rock and roll, both documentaries and bios...

Last night I watched Martin Scorsese's "The Last Waltz":



A 1978 production featuring not only the Canadian guys from The Band, but also Eric clapton, Ronnie Wood, Joni Mitchell and others... I am a Scorsese fan all the way so...



And tonight I'll re-watch "Let it be", the 1970 movie:



A very close look of the last days of the Beatles, with a footage of the infamous "rooftop concert" in Savile Row.

[FrankJohnson]

So, I thought we could have a movie thread.

I am always searching for good movies about rock and roll, both documentaries and bios...

Last night I watched Martin Scorsese's "The Last Waltz":

A 1978 production featuring not only the Canadian guys from The Band, but also Eric clapton, Ronnie Wood, Joni Mitchell and others... I am a Scorsese fan all the way so...

GREAT stuff!!!
I had a chance to play with this guys - who was also in that movie -

[ch willie]

Nice. I can't bring myself to watch Let It Be. I love that album and think it's gotten a bad rap, especially considering the standards that album birthed. But the film bums me out big time.

I hate movies about musicians usually. They all have the same structure as sports movies. Band / guy / athelete show great talent. Then a challenge arises, and it looks like the hero's headed toward failure, but then something happens, an at the last minute, the hero pulls a win out of his ass.

My favorite rock movie is Pirate Radio / The Boat that Rocked. It's not about a band, but rather about great DJs who had a passion for music and broadcast great records.

I also love The Who' Tommy, which does not fit the afore mentioned formula.

As for live performance film, I really dig the stuff on the "Led Zeppelin" DVD set that came out a few years back.

The Concert for Bangladesh is my favorite live film of any group.

Clapton's 24 Nights and Pink Floyd's Delicate Sound of Thunder videos reinvigorated my love for Strats and all things Fender.

Forget the name of the Stones live tour with Mick Taylor, probably the Exile tour or a bit later, but damn they rock the whole time. Then there's the wonderful Rock and Roll Circus.

[S. Cane]

I myself like to watch Let it be.

It shows the Beatles not as the superstars, but in the studio, recording, making mistakes, starting over a song, taking five, arguing... I like to see backstage material. Seeing great musicians do exactly what I do every week as a musician makes me feel even better when I play.

[Doc W]

Some of the early rock and roll movies are a lot of fun. The plots are pretty thin and everything is lip-synched, but I love to see all the old gear. It is also amusing to see rock and roll stars playing themselves, involved in the plot in some way.

Here are a few of my favourites (and I noted a few of the stars in each). Btw, watch these with your guitar buddies and don't force family members to watch them. They will not thank you. But they are fun for guys like us (just what does that mean, you might ask?). Best watched with other nerds and lots of popcorn and cold beer. There are a lot more of this type. You just need to do a bit of slumming.

Don't Knock the Rock (1956)
- Bill Haley and the Comets, The Treniers, Little Richard

Rock Around the Clock (1956)
- Bill Haley and the Comets, the Platters

Rock Rock Rock (1956)
The Moonglows, The Flamingos, Chuck Berry, The Johnny Burnette Trio, Lavern Baker

The Girl Can't Help It (1956)
- this is my fave - don't miss it
- Julie London, the Platters, Fats Domino, Little Richard, Gene Vincent and His Blue Caps

Hot Rod Gang (1958)
- mostly a teenage delinquent movie, but it has a brief appearance by Gene Vincent.
- I love hot rod/ delinquent movies. How can you not? Bad ass before the Stones

[Rickenjangle]

In keeping with what Doc says - I love "That Thing You Do" for its rags-to-riches plotline, great Beatles-and Beach Boys-esque music, and the fabulous gear they have.

I like that old blues-with-Ralph-Macchio movie Crossroads as well, mainly for the great music (which of course they totally ruin in the end, as "Eugene" reverts back to using his classical themes and "Jack Butler" tries to win the 'cutting heads' contest by playing like Steve Vai, fer crimony's sake!) - some of the best music in the movie is in the soundtrack/background. The acting blows, for the most part...but still, it's about the blues.

Here's one, and I'm getting prepared to duck...I like Eddie and the Cruisers.

[melody]

I'm so tired of The Beatles I could puke... The first boy band, why grown men gush over them is beyond me.

As far as the others (Stones, Clapner, Hendrix, The Who and all the other so called greats) there is so much good music from that era that's is massively over looked it's sad to think all the focus is on the main stream pop bubble gum music like The Beatles....

[ch willie]

I gush because they were a lot more than a boy band. To slag them off with that is ridiculous.

[S. Cane]

Ok, I'll bite although I still think this is a joke.

But if you're serious, Melody, I think you should listen to them more and rethink.

The Beatles were never just a boy band, and they went further than anybody back then when it comes to complexity, psychodelism and progressiveness (sorry, my English is odd, rusty and not my mother tongue, so...).

Seriously, listen to Please Please Me, Revolver, the White Album, Sgt. Peppers and then watch the movie Let it Be, in a row and with an open mind. All that was done and accomplished in the 60s!

Then we talk again.

P.S. I am much more of a Led Zep/Sabbath/Whatever fan than a Beatlemaniac, but as a music lover and a musician, I can't possibly not like them, let alone say they were "just a boy band".

That would be like saying that Dylan was just a frustrated folk singer or that Jimmy Page is a sloppy soloist, the Stones were just second to the Beatles, and such prejudicial nonsense...

Sorry, I really respect your taste, but I had to express my point of view...

[Doc W]

I'm so tired of The Beatles I could puke... The first boy band, why grown men gush over them is beyond me.

As far as the others (Stones, Clapner, Hendrix, The Who and all the other so called greats) there is so much good music from that era that's is massively over looked it's sad to think all the focus is on the main stream pop bubble gum music like The Beatles....

As they say in science, you're not even wrong you are so far off.

[ch willie]

Like a few more on these pages, The Beatles and specifically McCartney are responsible for my love for the guitar. Without them, I doubt that I would ever have picked one up. I'd probably have stuck with the piano, but I would have missed out on a lot of wonderful things.

De Melo, I love watching The Beatles at work and wish there were video of happier times and happier work. Let It Be is a great album, though it is much maligned. Maybe I'll watch the film again. Of course, I'm waiting like a lot of fans for a remastered version, and with luck, they'll add a lot more footage, or add it as an extra. The plans of Beatles and Beatles' families are mysterious.

[melody]

Oh I see some ruffled feathers to each their own I guess...

So if I am so wrong riddle me this....The first band to mass market lunch boxes bobble heads you name it the Beatles did it come on people be real with yourself it's true they where the start of boy band hype..

So let's all over look some of the greatest music ever to be recorded in favor of a band that was mass marketed hyped up cereal bowl hair cut suit and tie to a beard and dope... Of yeah they where great!

[S. Cane]

Thing is, nobody is overlooking any band here.

Who said anything about other musicians not being good or even better? But it's like comparing apples and oranges, partner.

Who was better? Beatles or Stones? Probably the stupidest question ever. They were never alike, so no comparison to be made here, for instance.

You don't like the Beatles, that's perfectly ok. They are not my favourite band either...But I don't agree with this denial of greatness.

[Rickenjangle]

Melody, I have to respect your opinion - in fact, when it comes to arts - music in particular - to have an opinion, to express a liking or disliking for a band or song or whatnot can never be wrong.

But while the Beatles were - admittedly - overhype'd and marketed and merchandised to within an inch of their lives (and continue to be so) there is a vast difference between, say, the Fab Four and One Direction. And that difference is, in my opinion, the fact that all of the Beats played their own instruments; they paid their dues in the seedy clubs of Hamburg; they wrote their own material; they left behind a body of work that has endured for generations.

One Direction is a collection of 5 pretty English lads who were put together for their ability to sing on pitch, look handsome and dreamy, and follow choreographed dance moves. Also to spend some time working the tabloids, gently, to generate even more (generally wholesome) publicity for the band.

You hate the Beatles? Fine. Love the Stones? ME TOO. Dave Clark Five, Herman's Hermits, The Animals, Gerry & the Pacemakers, the early Who, the early Kinks...to name a few...all very worthy British Invasion bands, all talented, all mining that same rich vein of folk, pop, skiffle, country, and a little blues from time to time - and none of them as innovative, as mind-blowingly talented as the Beatles.

So have your opinion...express it here...or anywhere - but don't be surprised if people lob some rotten tomatoes your way, 'cause the Fab Four were not "just" a boy band.

Just my $.02.

[Doc W]

Oh I see some ruffled feathers to each their own I guess...

So if I am so wrong riddle me this....The first band to mass market lunch boxes bobble heads you name it the Beatles did it come on people be real with yourself it's true they where the start of boy band hype..

So let's all over look some of the greatest music ever to be recorded in favor of a band that was mass marketed hyped up cereal bowl hair cut suit and tie to a beard and dope... Of yeah they where great!

My feathers are not in the slightest bit ruffled and I really didn't want to get into this, but here goes.

I am not a "music fan," but a musician and I am also interested in history,including the history of popular music. The Beatles occupy a particularly pivotal place in that history, not only because they were, as you say, a marketed boy band. But let's get the "boy band" thing out of the way first. Now, I could be wrong, but I hear you saying that their popularity was the result of a conscious and deliberate process to gain a large audience. Well, that's called "show biz" and virtually every famous performer, from the early days of Italian opera until now, have participated in that process. In terms of 20th youth music, Frank Sinatra was the first to attract a large, screaming crowd of preteen and teen girls, quickly followed by Elvis.

The mass manufacturing of lunch pails (and I can't believe you think that is evidence for or against ...someone) didn't really get going until the post war years, so Sinatra likely missed the boat on that, but there are tons of Sinatra collectibles out there from the 1940s when he was "Frankie" to zillions of teens. Elvis really cashed in on that market as well. There is absolutely no doubt that both Sinatra and Elvis were in no small measure the product of vigorous and aggressive marketing, and, not being dummies, they both knew it. But no one is going dismiss the profound impact both had on the world of popular music.

I think that you want to see these other bands as somehow more "authentic." This is an argument that goes way back. Go ahead and argue for that position but dismissing The Beatles from popular music history because their management was particularly good at mass marketing sounds like sour grapes to me. You accuse others of missing the point because of their hero worship, but I think that is exactly what you are doing. You just like your heroes more than theirs. I think it would be more productive to look how popular music changed with The Beatles and what happened in their wake with other bands, such as the ones you mention.

Over to you!

[ch willie]

They worked their asses off to learn their craft, and they kept learning. And they kept taking all those influences, skiffle, jazz standards, country, that new music called rock and roll, and they turned them into something new. Sure, they wanted to be successful, but they also wanted to excel at the art of music.

It is easy to be put off by the mop top bull. But it was a different time. As Lennon said, they came to America and everybody had haircuts like monkeys--referring possibly to the burr and flattop. So those mop tops were not just a marketing gimick. It was a conscious decision to buck the norm.

And even though they're my favorite group, I don't spend much time comparing them to the other great British groups. I love a lot of them and have listened to groups like Floyd, Zep, and Stones as much as I've listened to the fab four.

[Volumeknob]

Rock .....music......cinema........can't forget this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc80...layer_embedded

[S. Cane]

Ok, I tried to resist. But I had to troll just a little bit.

Melody:

[Doc W]

Melody, I have to respect your opinion - in fact, when it comes to arts - music in particular - to have an opinion, to express a liking or disliking for a band or song or whatnot can never be wrong.

I think we need to distinguish between taste and history. I don't have to like The Beatles to understand their significance in the history of popular music. I feel pretty much the same as you about Mel's taste. A mild shrug. Whatever. The problem is the step he takes from there. I think that Pink Floyd is pretentious kitsch and I just can't listen to much without getting irritated or laughing. That doesn't mean that the band was not important in the great scheme of things.

[melody]

I stand by the statement first boy band it's a fact.. I see some reading into somethings I never said...No sour grapes here just pointing out the obvious...
My point being, Get otta the rut of that era they are not God's they are\where just people. I do have a huge respect for the production, arrangements of some of the music but the bubble gum hyped I wanna hold you hand, love me do and others.. I don't understand why grown men would gush over that music..If you like it I'm cool with that just don't think I should have to too never been one to go with the masses...

Turn one any Classic radio you and I will hear the same old tunes over and over day after day year after year... It's pretty sad to think of all the great music of that era most choose listen\play too the same old tired ass songs..Some great tunes of these bands are just over looked...

It's rock and roll, with reckless abandon fighting the norm so don't shrug my comments off like some educated fuddy duddy...Calling that statement ridiculous in it's self is just that... I like to think that is what makes music great I don't have to like what you do..

[S. Cane]

Just outta curiosity, which bands do you like?

[Old Ranger]

Ya'll sound like a bunch of teenage girls arguing over lip gloss in the school lunchroom.

Suggestion: Just drop it. Neither one of ya are gonna budge on this. That's blatantly obvious. So just forget it.... We're all burning up time at a rapid pace everyday on this planet as it is. And now you're wasting yours over this? Really?

[melody]

Ok, I tried to resist. But I had to troll just a little bit.

Melody:

LMAO!!!

Just outta curiosity, which bands do you like?

I like a lot of music from a lot of genre's Rory Gallagher to Johnny Cash to me a good song is a good song, Just don't want to hear the same old same old every day...

[Doc W]

Ya'll sound like a bunch of teenage girls arguing over lip gloss in the school lunchroom.

Suggestion: Just drop it. Neither one of ya are gonna budge on this. That's blatantly obvious. So just forget it.... We're all burning up time at a rapid pace everyday on this planet as it is. And now you're wasting yours over this? Really?

I agree, Ranger. I am not trying to convince anyone to "like" anything. Some people like tomatoes, some don't. However, I don't have to "like" WWII in order to understand its place in history. Some folks think that their taste is what determines history. Must be fun to have so much power.

In any case, you're right and with that, I hereby leave the lunchroom.

[melody]

I'm not trying to influence you or anybody else.. I know the history of them not trying to change that either, some folks think because they have a piece of paper that says they are smart so they think they are.. .

[S. Cane]

Melody, how about Led Zeppelin and the Stones?

(not kidding or anything, I actually like people who have their own view on clichés, and I am interested in what you think of those).

[melody]

I like the older Stones stuff with Mick Taylor and Kieth's solo stuff kick's some serious ass the xpensive winos are one helluva band..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWyKE3O9Tpo

Zep meh they don't do much for me...

[Doc W]

I'm not trying to influence you or anybody else.. I know the history of them not trying to change that either, some folks think because they have a piece of paper that says they are smart so they think they are.. .

What is that supposed to mean? lol

[S. Cane]

Well, Melody. I happen to be a Stones fan all the way (I actually much prefer them over the Beatles) and Keith Richards is one of the guitar players that incluenced me the most...

Many people say he has technique limitations, but that's exactly why I consider him a genius. The man just oozes mojo with a telecaster in his hands.

[ch willie]

Hey, I gots one of them papers!

de Melo, you said it about Keith. I don't give a shit if Keith can't play it like Hendrix or Joe Satriani (not knocking them): Keef knows how to rock a guitar and how to play for the song. I aspire to have half as much mojo as Keef.

Speaking of films and The Stones:
Cocksucker Blues
Rock and Roll Circus
and kill me if you want: any damn concert video of them ever.

[Volumeknob]

I am certain ol Keef could care less about the "haters" ----everytime he looks at his bank statement..... lol

I know the war of Beatles VS Stones has raged for years. Its like comparing Pavarotti and Steven Tyler ---no doubt they both are excellent....popular.....and wealthy (well one still is)
Beatles seem more technical and accomplished to me skilled logical.
Stones are what you put on at a party to get white folks to dance.....and they been playing that same card longer than I been alive! Gotta be doing something right!!

Personally love them both.....for different reasons. ANd I like it that way.

[S. Cane]

Beatles and Stones are definitely oranges and apples.

Keith himself stated in his autobiography that the Stones NEVER tried to compete with the Beatles, they actually tried to be as different as they could.

Beatles' roots are mostly the 50's rock and roll and skiffle until they started to get psychodelic, while the Stones drank a lot from the blues fountain and never changed their style much.

[Volumeknob]

Right what you said, EXACTLY -----Lawyers ---- just have a way with words ;)

[ch willie]

Beatles and Stones were friendly. The competition was a media / pr thing.

I love my Beatles--and I love the Stones, Zeppelin, Clapton, J Beck, Floyd, etc...

Apples and Kumquats.

[dirtdog]

I'm kinda with Melody on this one. I just don't care for most of the Beatles' music nor to listen to them all that much. A lot of it sounds like gimmicky kids music to me. More hype that I generally care for.

However, I can appreciate what the Beatles did and do moreso now after reading the book about the Beatles in the studio a few years back.

I'm just more of a Stones guy and dig the stuff that influenced them.

Back on topic: I've been watching a lot of documentaries about studios and musicians - of course, Standing in the Shadows of Motown, but also Twenty Feet from Stardom, Sound City, Muscle Shoals, For the Love of Music - Nashville Story and other stuff like Searching for Sugarman, Beware of Mr. Baker and so on....