Do Lawtalkers Dream of Electric Sheep?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
So one of the nine or so public television stations in the Bay Area is going through its pledge drive, and my Tivo picked it up because they're airing a real drug trip of a concert film, apparently lost to history until now: "The Rolling Stones Rock & Roll Circus." Just. Wow. 1968 never before seemed so 1968-y. It's like a concert film as imagined by Sid & Marty Krofft. No, it's like a concert film as imagined by Bob Odenkirk and David Cross satirizing Sid & Marty Krofft.

Stones, Who, Tull, Taj Mahal, Faithfull, and an impromptu supergroup with Lennon, Clapton, Richards, Mitch Mitchell, and (regrettably) Ono.

The highlight is the one Who song: "A Quick One While He's Away," which I only became familiar with thanks to the Rushmore soundtrack. Just watching Keith Moon is a revelation.

Show this flick to Sebby and Diane Keaton and they'll be fucking each other on the living room floor within five minutes.

I should not be posting now. Not with this much cheap wine and, tip my hat to SF, a few Speak Easy imperial pale ales in me (amazing beer, really). But damn, AG, if you haven't seen that movie yet, let me add some dumb trivia. The guitar player for Jethro Tull in that flick is Tony Iommi. He left Black Sabbath due to some disagreement and played with Jethro Tull for a few weeks before regaining his sanity and going back to Black Sabbath.

Odenkirk. The genius overlooked. Nothing against Cross. Just sayin.'

And the best of Rushmore (really a strange comment considering everything about the film was perfect, from Schwartzman to the tunes to Murray) was the Creation tune, "Makin' Time."

Diane wouldn't have a dilettante like me. I don't even know the blond hash.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk Personally, I blame the goyim.

It's true we Catholics* own the sex hang ups, but we didn't start circumcision. That's all on you.

*Born as such, not maintained. I wouldn't have any of the religions, as I've made clear. Nothing but division and silliness in any of it.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Diane wouldn't have a dilettante like me. I don't even know the blond hash.

Pooty store is open to anyone who has carved an apple bong and used it. Properly. And can air drum The Ocean with precision timing.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Pooty store is open to anyone who has carved an apple bong and used it. Properly. And can air drum The Ocean with precision timing.

Sunnybunny's rapid decline in stature began with a general offer of hand jobs she had no intention of honoring. Just a friendly warning from one who not knew the blond hash, but paid for books and food and such by dealing it.

[SlaveNoMore]

Atticus Grinch
So one of the nine or so public television stations in the Bay Area is going through its pledge drive, and my Tivo picked it up because they're airing a real drug trip of a concert film, apparently lost to history until now: "The Rolling Stones Rock & Roll Circus." Just. Wow. 1968 never before seemed so 1968-y. It's like a concert film as imagined by Sid & Marty Krofft. No, it's like a concert film as imagined by Bob Odenkirk and David Cross satirizing Sid & Marty Krofft.

Actually, it was lost to history until about 10 years ago - when they released it on both VHS tape and CD (both of which I own).

As the story goes, Jagger was very upset that The Who upstaged the Stones (and they did), so he shelved the project.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
1 what ncs said.

2 I remember when T and i used to fight here. I would kick his ass in the arguments, but barely. I remember in the middle of fights other posters would step in and take his side. I always thought that was sort of strange because the people stepping up weren't nearly as good fighters as he is. He didn't need their help.

2. It was clearly an outrageous comment -- so outrageous it almost seemed like taking it seriously would elevate it somehow. I also don't bother to argue with crazy street-preachers. Anyhow, whether or not it was meant to be serious -- I disagreed with it (first post).

After that, four female socks were upon him immediately -- mocking him rather than screaming at him. (A tone somewhat similar to that in my post.) I saw no need to pile with more.

S_A_M

[Icky Thump]

Unlike some former posters, I am not concerned whether I'm ridiculed, ignored or accepted but whether one or several people were genuinely hurt rather than left thinking I'm a dick.

Did not expect to be taken seriously and should have used an Andy Kaufman sock or something.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
As the story goes, Jagger was very upset that The Who upstaged the Stones (and they did), so he shelved the project.

As far as I'm concerned, The Who always upstaged The Stones and always will. I mean, I still have the strong impulse to rip off my clothes and strut around the room drinking straight from a bottle of red wine whenever I hear "I'm a fleabit peanut monkey, All my friends are junkies" but.....other than that, The Stones never did it for me. It was like bubble gum rock. The preppies listened to them in grade and high school, which was always a buzzkill. As for concerts, their parents drove them there - how subversive could they be? Anyhow, thanks AG for that link. I am going to check that out for sure.


Anyhow, it's too bad (for me) Townshend is gay. He was pretty homely back then and is the only guy I know who looks better at 50 and 60 than he kid at 20, even bald:
Maybe he grew into his nose. That bastard is tall, too. Met him in person. Impressive build.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
As the story goes, Jagger was very upset that The Who upstaged the Stones (and they did), so he shelved the project.

If I'd been him, I'd have shelved it because Yoko's caterwauling turned a literal circus into a metaphorical one. The expression on the violinist's (!?!) face is incomparable -- if there's a facial expression for "John Lennon, musical genius, is fucking up the Beatles and will eventually cause them to break up for THIS?," he was making it.

Awk.

Ward.

[Sparklehorse]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Anyhow, it's too bad (for me) Townshend is gay.

Huh? According to Wikipedia, he lives with a woman:

For many years Townshend refused to confirm or deny rumors that he was bisexual. In a 2002 interview with Rolling Stone magazine, however, he explained that, although he engaged in some brief same-sex experimentation in the 1960s, he is heterosexual. Townshend now lives with his long-time partner, musician Rachel Fuller. He currently lives in Richmond, England.

Link

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sparklehorse
Huh? According to Wikipedia, he lives with a woman:



Link

does she have sons?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
As far as I'm concerned, The Who always upstaged The Stones and always will. I mean, I still have the strong impulse to rip off my clothes and strut around the room drinking straight from a bottle of red wine whenever I hear "I'm a fleabit peanut monkey, All my friends are junkies" but.....other than that, The Stones never did it for me. It was like bubble gum rock. The preppies listened to them in grade and high school, which was always a buzzkill. As for concerts, their parents drove them there - how subversive could they be? Anyhow, thanks AG for that link. I am going to check that out for sure.


Anyhow, it's too bad (for me) Townshend is gay. He was pretty homely back then and is the only guy I know who looks better at 50 and 60 than he kid at 20, even bald:
Maybe he grew into his nose. That bastard is tall, too. Met him in person. Impressive build.

Comparing the Stones and the Who is like comparing the Stones and the Beatles. Two entirely different styles of music. The Stones were a blues rock band. The Who were precursors to heavy metal.

But if we're speaking generally about the power of the product created by the bands, the Stones absolutely destroy the Who, and probably crush Zeppelin and the Beatles as well. Lick for lick, the Stones have put out more timeless classics than any band in history, the majority of which all came before 1972.

The Who are impressive, but their finest, Who's Next, doesn't hold a candle to Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers or Exile on Main Street. Pete Townsend wishes he could have written anything with the soul and groove of Jumpin Jack Flash or Brown Sugar. And recall the Who were gifted a lot of limelight that would have been rightly taken from them by the highly underrated Kinks, were the Davies brothers not stupid enough to wind up getting themselves barred from the USA after their first tour.

The Who are # 4, behind the Beatles, Stones and Zeppelin. In my book, the Stones are # 1, but I bow to consensus that the Beatles will always be the gold standard by which everything else is judged.

But you're right as to live performances. The Who are much better and more impressive live band the Stones could ever hope to be.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If I'd been him, I'd have shelved it because Yoko's caterwauling turned a literal circus into a metaphorical one. The expression on the violinist's (!?!) face is incomparable -- if there's a facial expression for "John Lennon, musical genius, is fucking up the Beatles and will eventually cause them to break up for THIS?," he was making it.

Awk.

Ward.

Lennon's a genius, no doubt. But I think George was the best all around writer/musician. I think Lennon would have probably embarrassed himself more, with little help from Ono, had he lived. He has some incredible peaks in his solo catalog, but there's a lot of junk in there as well.

None of them put out any solo work coming even close to All things Must Pass. If there was an Allman Brother in the Beatles, it was Harrison. That record is just fucking astounding.

[Sparklehorse]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
does she have sons?

I know you're just trying to be provocative but if you read further down in the Wiki link, you'll see that he was exonerated.

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Comparing the Stones and the Who is like comparing the Stones and the Beatles. Two entirely different styles of music. The Stones were a blues rock band. The Who were precursors to heavy metal.

But if we're speaking generally about the power of the product created by the bands, the Stones absolutely destroy the Who, and probably crush Zeppelin and the Beatles as well. Lick for lick, the Stones have put out more timeless classics than any band in history, the majority of which all came before 1972.

The Who are impressive, but their finest, Who's Next, doesn't hold a candle to Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers or Exile on Main Street. Pete Townsend wishes he could have written anything with the soul and groove of Jumpin Jack Flash or Brown Sugar. And recall the Who were gifted a lot of limelight that would have been rightly taken from them by the highly underrated Kinks, were the Davies brothers not stupid enough to wind up getting themselves barred from the USA after their first tour.

The Who are # 4, behind the Beatles, Stones and Zeppelin. In my book, the Stones are # 1, but I bow to consensus that the Beatles will always be the gold standard by which everything else is judged.

But you're right as to live performances. The Who are much better and more impressive live band the Stones could ever hope to be.

Every now and then, you are completely and totally full of shit.

This happens to be one of those times.