From Iwatchstuff, "Following in the footsteps of The Beatles' Yellow Submarine and The Monkees' cartoon-like hijinks, Mick Jagger of The Rolling Stones is producing an animated film called Ruby Tuesday, based on the song of the same name. From what I recall, the lyrics to the song just repeat the dilemma of some gal named Ruby Tuesday leaving him. Seems a bit loose for the plot to an animated film, but nothing blatant psychadelia can't fill in enough to make it "bitchin' if you're stoned."
The film will be produced by... wait a minute, Luc Besson? I thought you retired, asshole!"
9 comments:
"Terrible song"?
Are you nuts?
Yeah, I like that song too. The one I hate is "I'm just waiting on a friend." Yuck.
On that note, while I'm not too intrigued by the movie Children of Men, there's a beautiful orchestral version of Gimme Shelter on the trailer. Wait for Clive to finish his little opening bit.
Yeah, I'm just not a Stones fan. They fall under my category of "Super Groups I Don't Get", which includes The Who and Led Zeppelin.
Heh. I love the Stones, and I can get behind Zeppelin, but I'm constantly amazed at how much I can't stand The Who.
I'mnotMarc was in a Who cover band and they were really good...but I had to admit afterwards that the show was somewhat diminished for me by my HATRED of the music.
And there's been a couple times I've been places with some unsatisfying music in the background and it turned out to be them.
i thought we agreed never to speak of those shows again, octo.
The only Who song I can tolerate is "Eminence Front", probably because it doesn't sound like a Who song.
(cracking Simpsons teen voice)
Sorry, Mr. Entwistle!
"Eminence Front" is a Townshend-written song
I totally love all three of those bands, and it's something of a rhetorical challenge to try to convey what I like about them to others. (I especially like The Who.)
Someone could say "you can't argue about art" etc. but then what's criticism? Arguments for the quality of art are advanced all the time, and they certainly affect my opinions. Octo has seen me change my mind about lots of art based on shrewd persuasive rhetoric from him and from others.
With music it's obvously different. If someone "doesn't get" the Stones and want to try, I can certainly help. In my experience it has a lot to do with contextualizing the art: Someone says, "I'm tired of all these spooky little girls in horror films" and one of us says, "It's JAPANESE" and the complaint is somewhat nullified. With the Stones it's about blues. The Stones were considered a "London Blues band" during the mid-sixties, and it's not that they "became" a rock-and-roll band later so much as that the Stones actually changed rock-and-roll itself and made it more blues-oriented (Followed by Clapton etc.). When you trace the lineage of slave-songs to blues to Rock to English Rock, it really helps you appreicate INSTRUMENTALLY and structurally why the Stones are so good. The Stones are like Hemingway and The Who are like Fitzgerald, really, in terms of their formal approach.
In general, I take a "Jack Black" attitude about how the blind spots in people's musical tastes are almost all caused by historical ignorance or unfamiliarity with the past. Growing up, I stopped liking Billy Joel's "Scenes From An Italian Restaurant" the moment I first heard Springsteen's "Thunder Road" and realized it was the same song except original and vastly better. Understanding Talking Heads by way of Earth Wind and Fire and funk origins; understanding Radiohead by way of Talking Heads and Pink Floyd; understanding Pink Floyed by way, again, of American blues guitar traditions...well, maybe I can't change anyone's mind about their tastes, but I can at least try to add detail to the picture.
Post a Comment