|
|
 |
November 24, 2009 @ 3:16 am
Gimme Shelter is generally considered one of the best rock documentaries ever made, perhaps one of the best documentaries on any topic. Turns out a lot of interesting footage wound up on the cutting room floor. We now know this because the recent reissue of the Rolling Stones’ iconic live album Get Yer Ya-Ya’s Out includes a 27-minute documentary of the same name, cobbled together from Gimme Shelter outtakes. In one scene in Gimme Shelter, Mick Jagger changes his shirt backstage; what the new film reveals is that Keith Richards and Jimi Hendrix were in the room too, geeking out over Keith’s new see-through guitar. So there’s an important artistic lesson here: You don’t need to put in all the good stuff. (And, as freakishly long as this post is, I did cut out some good stuff.)

As portrayed by the filmmakers (the brothers Albert and David Maysles, and editing director Charlotte Zwerin), Gimme Shelter was about the end of the Stones’ 1969 American tour (and, by accident, the end of the Sixties). The Get Yer Ya-Ya’s Out documentary is specifically about the late November 1969 Madison Square Garden concerts that were recorded for the album. As with any Maysles production, nothing comes on a platter; you have to look actively, and if you do that, you will be rewarded, because Albert has a knack for pointing the camera at the most telling thing in the room. Get Yer Ya-Ya’s Out is a pretty loose patchwork, but it’s edited into something resembling a shape, and it tells a somewhat different, much more light-hearted story than Gimme Shelter. It’s also got a dandy punchline. Even more than Gimme Shelter, the performance footage here emphasizes Jagger flapping about the stage like an ecstatic rooster, outfitted like a hippie superhero; the silliness of it is completely overshadowed by the fact that Jagger is vastly more joyous than satanic, exhorting the shaggy audience into ever-higher states of abandon as the band kicks out an ingeniously shambling boogaloo. Keith Richards gets his star turn too: at Muscle Shoals Studios after the Garden shows, while they were working on Sticky Fingers, he plays a soulful, George Jonesy number on piano. (Like an apparition from the past, the Stones’ former keyboard player and then stalwart roadie Ian Stewart walks behind him as he finishes, and Keith peers back at him, seemingly seeking his approval.)

Curiously, Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor are almost completely missing from the film; one has to wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that neither of them are in the band anymore. By contrast, drummer Charlie Watts, who is still in the Stones, gets as much face-time, possibly more, than anybody.
Charlie’s best (and worst) moment is an abortive photo shoot for the album cover on a foggy, deserted stretch of English motorway in winter, somewhere outside of Birmingham, weeks after the tour ended. It’s the same shoot that briefly opens Gimme Shelter, but here we get much more of a sense of what actually went on. Gamely dressed up in medieval garb, Charlie totes guitar cases while astride an adorable donkey. A small photo crew and Mick Jagger look on. “Get rid of the ‘elmet,” Jagger commands. Along for the ride is American journalist Stanley Booth, who would go on to write one of the definitive books about the band and a classic of rock journalism, The True Adventures of the Rolling Stones. It begins raining and they beat a hasty retreat to Mick’s white Bentley. The scene is bleak, pathetic and funny, like something out of Beckett, but it wouldn’t have worked in the film.
It’s also revealing to note the songs they perform: “I’m Free,” “Under My Thumb,” and “Satisfaction,” all of which didn’t make the album, probably because those early pop songs didn’t quite fit the new, hip-rootsy Stones that Get Yer Ya-Ya’s Out sought to portray.

Compared to the meticulously choreographed stadium concerts of today, the informality of it all is shocking – check out Charlie screwing around on the drums in the darkness behind Mick and Keith while they do “Prodigal Son” acoustic-style, or the way Keith abruptly stops playing at the top of the final verse, momentarily flustering Mick. Then Mick announces “Spider and the Lady” but then Keith begins playing a different song. “No,” Jagger announces, “we’re going to do something else,” and they kick into “You Gotta Move.” This is in front of 20,000 people, one of whom is Janis Joplin, smiling and bopping in a huge furry white hat. Before the show, Mick Taylor and Keith busily tune their guitars, a mindless task no major rock musician has done in 30 years.
The Maysles subtly signal the end of the concert by an exquisite shot of Mick hurling a basket of rose petals out in the crowd, the traditional ending for “Street Fighting Man,” perfectly bearing out Stanley Booth’s description of this very same incident: “Then he sailed the basket of red rose petals high out over the crowd where they hung for a moment. Then they started slowly to descend, floating on the high ringing howl that was rising from the crowd.” (Those words blew me away when I was ten years old and still do.) Then a beautiful accident, as Jagger strides off stage, slo-mo, toward the camera in his Uncle Sam top hat, just as the film in the camera runs out in a hot yellow blaze. Show over.

There’s a postscript, a scene at a helipad on a pier on San Francisco Bay. The Grateful Dead are there, cavorting in zonked-out hippie fashion, waiting for an overdue helicopter. Jagger comes sweeping in, surveys the unruly scene. and says with amused disbelief to no one in particular, “What is going on?” He gets the lay of the land from a chuckling and ultra-mellow Jerry Garcia, attired in an outtasite lavender wool poncho, and chats warmly with Ian Stewart. The vibe is sweet and playful.
The chopper won’t arrive until 2:00. “Right, film people, let’s do something!” Jagger proclaims. “We’ve got ten minutes.” He pulls some hippie chick aside and imperiously directs the cameraman (probably Albert Maysles) to go “Tighter tighter tighter tighter tighter tighter” on her face, adorned with a groovy beaded headband and massive square shades. He plants a kiss on her forehead and steps away. Then he orders Charlie, poor, long-suffering Charlie, “Do the same thing as I did. Kiss the young lady, please.”
Watts demurs. “Love is much more of a deeper thing than that,” he replies, with mock hauteur, although he clearly kind of means it too. “It’s not flippant, to be thrown away on celluloid. No.” Jagger laughs at his disobedient drummer. “OK,” he says sheepishly, straight to camera, “we cut.” And then they headed off to Altamont.
November 14, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
 It was fitting that a Robyn Hitchcock DVD arrived in the mail the same week as the Monty Python documentary debuted on the IFC channel — I’d bet a dead parrot that the two share a lot of the same audience. Both Hitchcock and Python cloak a certain degree of self-revelation in a dense, droll smokescreen of Anglocentric absurdism, but to his credit, Hitchcock has occasionally let down his guard, most notably on his 1984 album I Often Dream of Trains. Stark, drumless and acoustic-flavored, its relatively straightforward lyrics a far cry from the obfuscatory non sequiturs that would soon characterize Hitchcock’s songwriting for years to come, I Often Dream of Trains has become a cult favorite — and on the 25th anniversary of its release, why not indulge in the current vogue for replaying one’s old albums in concert? Hence the DVD I Often Dream of Trains in New York (out November 10th on Yep Roc). But the concert — bare bones and shot on video — isn’t the most intriguing part of the disc.
 That would be the lone DVD extra, a 12-minute short that Hitchcock made in 1984. “Beyond Basingstoke” isn’t just a low-budget reverie, a hopelessly elliptical home movie by a playfully arty young man, a visual poem about Englishness, or a misty watercolor memory of the way we were; this amateurish little film is an evocative little memoir about creativity.
Leading up to I Often Dream of Trains, Hitchock’s life and career were between stations. He’d left his old band the Soft Boys but his bid for some sort of stardom, 1982′s Groovy Decay, flopped aesthetically and commercially. Now 30, Hitchcock felt alienated from both the severe post-punk musical landscape and the huge, glossy ’80s mainstream sound. And it was just a grim time, politically and culturally. “[The 1980s] were a baleful future that we refugees from the 1960s were marooned in,” Hitchcock once said. “I never thought I’d get out alive, from Reagan, Thatcher and shoulder pads.” He was surviving by writing lyrics for former Damned bassist Captain Sensible — an amusing gig, but not what Hitchcock wanted to do with his life. Hitchcock wasn’t even sure he wanted to continue being a musician; he dropped music for a while and worked odd jobs, including a stint as a gardener and even — say it ain’t so — a journalist. He was nowhere, and nowhere incubated some of his best work.
 Not coincidentally, he’s nowhere in “Beyond Basingstoke” too. As recorded on grainy Super-8 film (by filmmaker, author and photographer Tony Moon), flickering early morning light plays on Hitchcock’s much younger face (and vintage ’84 haircut) as he sleeps or just daydreams out the window of a virtually deserted London commuter train a lot like the one in A Hard Day’s Night.
Although the soundtrack doesn’t include the title track of I Often Dream of Trains, the film is clearly a companion piece to the song — the tip-off being that it depicts, well, dreaming and trains. The song begins, “I often dream of trains when I’m alone/ I ride on them into another zone.” Which recalls Hitchcock’s description of his working style: “You put yourself in a void. Once you’re in that kind of a void, all sorts of things become possible.” Funnily enough Basingstoke is the last stop on the line before the countryside gets rural. So “Beyond Basingstoke” is about getting to that place, or, rather, lack of place.
Nothing much happens in “Beyond Basingstoke” — truth be told, it’s kind of dull. But that becalmed sensation is exactly what it often feels like when you’re actually hatching something. The soundtrack — some lustrous and meditative guitar playing somewhat undercut by some spoofy, murmured monologues about an invisible chemical and an unusual erotic encounter — is like the relentless subconscious buzz behind even the most uneventful moments, when nothing outwardly seems to be happening, or even trying to happen.
 Breakthroughs often come when you’re just spacing out, peering out of the window of a train — or standing in the shower, washing your hair, and suddenly it occurs to you what you want to say about a 25-year-old short film by an erstwhile alterna-rock demigod. Sure enough, Hitchcock emerged from that lacuna in his life and career with I Often Dream of Trains. As he says during the concert film, the genesis of that album was “a place that was not so much a refuge as a crucible.” But for an artist, perhaps the distinction is meaningless.
October 30, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
One day, when I was in college, a friend offhandedly complained about a lyric in David Bowie’s “Fashion.” I was stunned – he was actually parsing the lyrics as if they were sentences. It had never occurred to me to do that. I was well into my 20s before I tried to piece together Dylan’s lyrics in a sequential way; I always just liked the way his words sounded, perched atop the shambling stacks of guitars, keyboards and drums. I still hear lyrics vertically. Possibly because I’m so easily intoxicated by the potent cocktail of rhythm, harmony, melody and timbre, I don’t tend to hear lyrics in a sequential, narrative way; when I hear music the other part of my brain just shuts down like a kitten seized by the scruff of the neck. I hear words or phrases continuously coinciding and colliding with whatever musical-sonic event is happening at the moment, and the more evocative those collisions, the better the lyrics. (Michael Stipe, Stephen Malkmus and Kurt Cobain have all done it very well.)
So I don’t care about witty, revealing lines or good stories — I simply don’t hear them. It’s one reason I’ve never been able to get into Leonard Cohen and so much of what I call “grown-up music” — music that downplays rhythm and melody in favor of a lot of meaningful words. Maybe “grown-up music” tends not to be as densely musical as most other popular music in order to reduce the intoxicating effect I referred to above, but for me, anyway, it doesn’t work. I just hear volumes of words and nothing synergizing with them. And I always thought I was kind of a freak on this score, perhaps a mild sort of aphasiac, until last night, when I watched 30 Century Man, the intriguing 2008 documentary about celebrated pop enigma Scott Walker.
Buried deep in the DVD extras were out-takes from the filmmaker’s interview with Brian Eno. “Fortunately, I have the talent of filtering out lyrics — I just don’t hear them,” says the great man. ”For me, lyrics in most songs are a way of just getting the voice to do something. I like voices.” My sentiments exactly. Lyrics are just to get the singer psyched to sing. In fact, listening to the lyrics as narrative is antithetical to the complete experience of music. It’s like reading the newspaper while a Coltrane record is playing. It takes you out of the music. Funny thing is, I loved Scott Walker’s 2006 album The Drift, even though it is absolutely word-intensive and virtually devoid of the things that most excite me: hooks, riffs, beats. Walker’s voice is riveting all by itself and that helps. But his lyrics are as sensational, in the true sense of the word, as any great riff or cracking-good guitar solo. And, as Eno points out, their effect is just as ineffable. ”In Scott’s songs,” Eno goes on to say, “lyrics actually draw you further and further into the music. They’re so rich and full of ambiguity that they actually withstand listening to again and again — like music does. They don’t spell it out for you, so you haven’t solved the problem in the first two listens…. It’s not to do with telling someone something, it’s making something happen to someone. Which is what you do with music as well. Nobody ever says, ‘I wonder what the music means’ — you either feel it or you don’t. I think the same should be true of lyrics — you shouldn’t have to think that you somehow flip into a different part of your brain when you listen to lyrics.” Does anybody else hear music this way?
|
 |
|
|
|