Rolling Stones docu from 2006. (Review.)
(Why Scorcese? Isn't he kind of over-qualified? Any half decent documentarist can do a band docu.)
Imagine showing this film to the twenty-year-old Mick and Keif. I find it hard to imagine any other reaction than sheer horror. :-)
I'm not sure that this means that it's necessarily wrong to be playing the same music forty year later. But it is interesting that rock and roll, which was intimately connected with youth and rebellion is now being played by sixty-year-old super-established men. I guess the question is, was youth and rebellion what rock was, or merely something we associated with it for little reason?
It's an interesting question. I think rebellion is a part of what rock n roll is, because all the best rock has an element of that in it. But then, there's also been plenty of great rock music that's not rebellious at all, so it's only one aspect of it. At its heart, it's just great music.
ReplyDelete"I find it hard to imagine any other reaction than sheer horror. :-)"
Hm, I dunno if that'd necessarily be the case. In those days, I think wanting to be rich and famous was a popular reason to get into it in the first place. Of course, these days if you admit to wanting to be rich and famous, you're a sell-out and a poser and all these other dumb little labels that don't actually mean anything.
I said to Pope Julius II, "Look man, I can get you a guy to paint your ceiling for half that, and nobody will be able to tell the difference." Julius he says to me, "Marty's over qualified too, but he's also too short to paint ceilings."
ReplyDelete