For me, Exile On Main Street is the great end of the sixties the-game-is-up record. You can also really crank it up and dance to it, which is always a great selling point with me. Beggar's Banquet is a great record, too, although, like Sandra, I'm completely sick of "Sympathy For The Devil." That song and "Midnight Rambler" for me epitomize the cheezy let's-shock-teacher school of rock that became unbearable- and laughable- by about 1974.

Review of Martin Scorsese's Shine A Light from this morning's The New York Times; and yes, it has a Dorian Grey reference:


Only Rock ’N’ Roll, but They’re Still at It

By STEPHEN HOLDEN
Published: April 4, 2008

As you scrutinize the aging bodies of the Rolling Stones in Martin Scorsese’s rip-roaring concert documentary “Shine a Light,” there is ample evidence that rock ’n’ roll may hold the secret of eternal vitality, if not eternal beauty.

Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and Ronnie Wood, the quartet’s three skinny members, certainly look their ages. But there is nothing stodgy about them. The strenuous rock ’n’ roll life has left them sinewy and lean, like longtime marathon runners. (The staid, above-it-all drummer, Charlie Watts, is the exception.)

Mr. Jagger’s lined face, with its deflated balloon lips, suggests a double exposure of Dorian Gray and his infamous portrait, at once defiantly youthful and creepily gaunt. The simian Mr. Richards, whose upper arm flesh has shriveled, resembles an old madam chewing over her secrets. As he plays, his lips dangling a cigarette, he leans back into his snarling guitar and a joyful grin spreads across his face. He could be the world’s happiest young older man: Peter Pan as a wizened Gypsy fortuneteller.

For the Rolling Stones appear supremely alive inside their giant, self-created rock ’n’ roll machine. The sheer pleasure of making music that keens and growls like a pack of ravenous alley cats is obviously what keeps them going. Why should they ever stop? At the heart of the gizmo, Mr. Jagger whirls, leaps, struts, wiggles his tiny hips and sashays around like an androgynous tart prowling a street corner at 3 a.m.

Ultimately the movie is Mr. Jagger’s show. If his long-running circus act is ridiculous when you analyze it, conjoined to the Stones’ music, it becomes a phenomenal high-wire exhibition of agility, stamina and cheek. He was 63 when the concert was filmed over two nights at the Beacon Theater in New York in the fall of 2006. From certain angles, when the blazing lights hit his face, he suggests an agitated zombie with a full head of hair. But if you squint until your vision blurs, he is the same tireless, taunting cock of the walk that he has always been.

The film, which used 18 cameras, many operated by eminent cinematographers, is an unabashedly reverent tribute to the Stones made in the same spirit as “The Last Waltz,” Mr. Scorsese’s elegiac 1978 movie of the Band’s farewell concert, and his more recent Bob Dylan biography, “No Direction Home.” That said, it is far less ambitious, and less overtly romantic.

This is a concert film with frills that places you on the stage with the band and, with a finely trained eye, observes the musicians’ interactions with one another and with the audience. The visual rhythms and unobtrusive editing reflect the contradictory status of the Stones as a majestic rock institution and a gang of down-and-dirty bad boys thumbing their noses at propriety while scooping up all the girls.

Although there is no frantic cutting back and forth, the cameras are continually on the move. As the movie artfully shifts its gaze, it helps you see much more than you could if you actually attended the concert. The audience is largely ignored.

Mr. Scorsese is a besotted rock ’n’ roll fan who wholeheartedly embraces its mythology. Its scruffy guitar heroes and roustabout rebel-prophets are the musical equivalents of the hotheads and outlaws who populate so many of his films. Almost every shot of “Shine a Light” conveys his excitement.

Prefaced by preconcert footage and interwoven with excerpts from television interviews from the Stones’ younger days, going back to 1964, “Shine a Light” makes no attempt to explain the Stones or to tell their story. All it wants to do is to give you the best seat in the house and the best sound you could possibly hope for.

The program is a best-of selection that concentrates on Stones classics, including “Jumpin’ Jack Flash,” “Shattered,” “Some Girls,” “Tumbling Dice,” “Sympathy for the Devil,” “Start Me Up” and “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction.” The only misfire is the quaint, quasi chamber-pop ballad “As Tears Go By,” a hit for Marianne Faithfull in 1964, which sounds incongruous in Mr. Jagger’s parched delivery. Otherwise, the full-tilt rock concert roars along like a steam engine. A horn section, a keyboardist (Chuck Leavell), a bass guitarist (Darryl Jones) and three backup singers augment the band.

There are three special guests: in ascending order of interest, Jack White, who trades vocals with Mr. Jagger on “Loving Cup”; Christina Aguilera, who shares the vocals on “Live With Me” and bestows demure pecks on the cheek to the musicians as she leaves the stage; and the great blues guitarist and singer Buddy Guy performing an old Muddy Waters song, “Champagne and Reefer.” (There is also the Clinton family in the audience, on hand to celebrate Bill Clinton’s 60th birthday.)

Like Muddy Waters, whom I saw in the Beacon Theater shortly before his death in 1983 at 70, Mr. Guy, 70 when “Shine a Light” was filmed, is a mighty blues presence, one who puts the Stones in historical perspective. Muddy Waters was an ominous force of raw blues aggression. Mr. Guy, though equally imposing, is a more benign, patriarchal figure.

Beside him, Mr. Jagger and company are mischievous bohemian whippersnappers churning up variations on their elders’ musical bedrock. It is obviously a thrilling game to play into your 60s and beyond, if you’ve still got the juice. And the Stones have the juice. But it is ultimately just a game.


SHINE A LIGHT

Opens on Friday nationwide.

Directed by Martin Scorsese; director of photography, Robert Richardson; edited by David Tedeschi; music by the Rolling Stones; produced by Victoria Pearman, Michael Cohl, Zane Weiner and Steve Bing; released by Paramount Pictures. Running time: 2 hours 2 minutes.


http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/movies/04shin.html

I like the Stones but I don't much see the point of this.  I would have liked to see a reunion of the early 70s Stones (with Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor) playing tunes from that crucial era.  Just the five of them.  No guests.  

Now that would have been interesting.  

I would hesitate to call what Scorsese's doing "documentary."  It's more like pre-planned filmed event.  Even The Last Waltz (much of which, apart from Levon, was overdubbed afterward).  

What's the point of these movies?  

Quoted from adamzero

What's the point of these movies?  

I doubt there's much of a point at all, but there's probably ample reportage on how the machinery of old time rock biz continues to grind along with its gears of celebrity intact even today. Naturally it's a bit absurd, though: the sixties are as remote from us as that decade was from the era of silent film, and the sight of pensionable rock musicians singing their old songs of adolescent rebellion can't help but induce cringes. If you want to hear the Stones, give your local football stadium a pass and go listen to the old Decca catalog instead.

Quoted from adamzero

What's the point of these movies?  

?????  What's the point of most cinema but top entertain and make money? Though I'm sure Scorcesce, like Stone, believes he's tapping into the rich vein of contempory american culture yardy yardy yardy.
Personally, I think a documentary" (and come on, now one really believes what they see on the screen is real -Shea Stadium anyone? ) about the Stones 40 years on is a good a topic as any. All post modern irony and crap. And it's a neat little trick telling their story through how they appear today. More "cinemaric" than just splicing together archive footage. I think it worked for The last Waltz and will probably work again.
Though I think to make Harrison's post Beatle career interesting will stretch his storytelling skills to the max.

Quoted from Kevin

All post modern irony and crap.

Wouldn't doubt it.

I have a feeling that Scorsese will turn George Harrison into the Travis Bickle of the Beatles . . . I can just see De Niro looking into a mirror in a dramatic recreation, muttering over and over, "You within me or are you without me?"

cool...i was not aware

I would have to agree with some of the others, the Stones are probably the 2nd greatest band ever.  

Gimmie Shelter
(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction
The Last Time
Jumpin' Jack Flash
Let's Spend The Night Together
Honky Tonk Women
Paint It Black
Ruby Tuesday
Get Off of my Cloud
Wild Horse
Sympathy for the Devil
Under My Thumb
You Can't Always Get What You Want
19th Nervous Breakdown
It's Only Rock and Roll
Angie
Beast Of Burden
Brown Sugar
Start Me Up

Just to name a few!  They really have a wide range of hits and have been around for a long. Fans young and old love them. They really are a top-notch band.

Hi. I'm gonna make a mix tape for my dad who's turning 53 very soon. And I want to include a collection of Rolling Stones ballads. I got almost every RS album here in my home, but I'm definitely not a fan (love Beatles, hate Stones  :lol: ), so I'm asking to anybody who really likes them about their best ballads...

The ones I know are:
Angie
Out of Tears
Wild Horses
As Tears Go By
Lady Jane
Streets of Love (is this a ballad...?)

And that's it.
If anyone can help me I would be really grateful.  

Stones ballads? I'd go with "Lady Jane" from Aftermath and "Almost Hear You Sigh" from Steel Wheels myself. "Beast Of Burden" from Some Girls is pretty good too, and if you've got the nerve, use "Dead Flowers" from Sticky Fingers instead of "Wild Horses." "Sweet Black Angel" from Exile On Main Street and "Everybody Need Somebody to Love" from The Rolling Stones No 2 aren't really ballads but they're very good and would certainly fit. Unless your dad's got a taste for soppy football stadium ballads, just pretend "Angie" and "Fool To Cry" don't exist.  

I love the Stones -- in my book they're in the holy trinity of rock bands, along with the Beatles and Led Zeppelin.  While I get the Beatles vs Elvis rivalry, and the fact that generally a fan falls into either one camp or the other but not both, I don't see that with the Beatles vs Stones.  I don't relate to the idea of being a fan of one of these bands but not the other.

A previous poster mentioned "Wild Horses" and how it was about Mick's reaction to Marianne Faithfull's OD; I'd heard it was written by Keith and it was to his kids and how he felt when he left them to tour -- I'll have to look into that.

The Stones did something that in my opinion not even the Beatles topped, in that they released five consecutive albums which could be considered all-time greats: Beggar's Banquet, Let it Bleed, Get Your Ya-Yas Out (one of the all-time great live albums), Sticky Fingers and my favorite, Exile On Main Street.  Exile is not that easily accessible, but on repeated listens it grows on you.  Now I think there's not one weak song on the album.

Mr. Mustard, great! The Beatles and Led Zeppelin - my favourites! However, i dont like everything from Stones. Nevertheless it `s no doubt they are beyond comparison and above a lot of bands.