|
Mel Belli |
ROLLING STONES
Under Review: 1962-1966
Available on DVD
August 8, 2006
Through MVD
MVD and Sexy Intellectual are pleased to announce the home viewing
release of Rolling Stones: Under Review for U.S. distribution on DVD.
This 90-minute film reviews the music and career of one of rock music's
true giants during their formative years. The documentary includes rare
musical performances never before available on DVD, and obscure footage
such as rare interviews and private photographs of and with band
members.
There is also review, comment, criticism and insight from: esteemed
former Melody Maker journalist and early Stones champion, Chris Welch;
former NME editor in the 1960s and friend of the band, Keith Altham; the
Stones bodyguard and driver throughout the period of this film, Tom
Keylock; 1960s RnB vocalist and colleague of the group, Chris Farlowe;
original Rolling Stones member and Pretty Things guitarist Dick Taylor
and many others besides.
Featuring Live and Studio Recordings of these Classics: Satisfaction,
The Last Time, Not Fade Away, Little Red Rooster, Come On, and many
others.
Bonus Video
1. Special Feature 'Stones Stories'
2. The 'Hardest Rolling Stones Digital Interactive Quiz In The World
Ever'
3. Full contributor biographies
4. Beyond DVD section
|
|
glencar |
Let's hope this is not another "Rolling On"! |
|
Gazza |
Keith Altham's stories are always a riot |
|
wintersway |
dick taylor original, please, i dont consider a couple of rehearsals in front of four people before they even had theyre name an original member, besides none of the stones ever even mention him |
|
Gazza |
he was there a lot longer than that, in fairness - he played with them live until October 1962 and also on their first studio demo session that same month
regardless of how little they choose to mention him (which is no big deal as they're not averse to even cropping Bill out of photos!) he was still a bonafide original member |
|
MissJaneDoe |
Oh great, another chance for everyone to talk smack about Brian Jones. I can already picture a wasted Keith rambling about what a druggie Brian was.
Blah blah blah |
|
Gazza |
quote: MissJaneDoe wrote:
Oh great, another chance for everyone to talk smack about Brian Jones. I can already picture a wasted Keith rambling about what a druggie Brian was.
Blah blah blah
none of the current Stones have anything to do with it, so I reckon youre safe....
plus as its only up to 1966, I doubt there'll be too much about Brian being a 'druggie'....
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
pdog |
It might be good, but it reminds me of a few releases were people talk about The Stones, no music, no live footage, just talking...
A book might've been more fun. |
|
stonedinaustralia |
quote: wintersway wrote:
dick taylor original, please, i dont consider a couple of rehearsals in front of four people before they even had theyre name an original member, besides none of the stones ever even mention him
dick taylor was a crucial element in the stones story and he provided an important link between mick and keith
to go off topic a bit - the mention of dick taylor and the huge joint that i have just smoked have caused me to think on the notion of the importance of an any one individual or event in the course of history
i dont know the population of the london musical community that the stones grew out of - Alexis Korner's band being the focal point for that imho - so you wonder if mick and kleith had not met on that train station platform would they, if they had continued to follow their commitment to the music, have crossed paths in any event at some stage...and given that they had already known each other since the age of four well they could have quite likely done something resembling the stones as they are
|
|
Riffhard |
quote: Gazza wrote:
none of the current Stones have anything to do with it, so I reckon youre safe....
plus as its only up to 1966, I doubt there'll be too much about Brian being a 'druggie'....
[Edited by Gazza]
True Gazza. I think this deals with the era prior to Brian's druggy period. This is the Brian's Women beating period. Which,ofcourse,was right after the Brian impregnates and leaves women and children behind period.
He was such a gent!
Riffy |
|
MissJaneDoe |
quote: Riffhard wrote:
True Gazza. I think this deals with the era prior to Brian's druggy period. This is the Brian's Women beating period. Which,ofcourse,was right after the Brian impregnates and leaves women and children behind period.
He was such a gent!
Riffy
Aw, go climb a coconut tree!
|
|
The_Worst |
"Under Review" is a series...Don't get your hopes up guys...I have a Pink Floyd & a Who one....It's just a bunch of music critics talking about the albums...They show footage but usually don't have the full legal rights to play the Stones official recordings so they usually have a cover band playing the songs... |
|
MissJaneDoe |
quote: The_Worst wrote:
"Under Review" is a series...Don't get your hopes up guys...I have a Pink Floyd & a Who one....It's just a bunch of music critics talking about the albums...They show footage but usually don't have the full legal rights to play the Stones official recordings so they usually have a cover band playing the songs...
Hm, I wonder which band it will be. The Counterfeit Stones is a good band - the singer does a good Mick. |
|
Soldatti |
quote: The_Worst wrote:
"Under Review" is a series...Don't get your hopes up guys...I have a Pink Floyd & a Who one....It's just a bunch of music critics talking about the albums...They show footage but usually don't have the full legal rights to play the Stones official recordings so they usually have a cover band playing the songs...
Thanks for the warning. |
|
wintersway |
quote: Gazza wrote:
he was there a lot longer than that, in fairness - he played with them live until October 1962 and also on their first studio demo session that same month
regardless of how little they choose to mention him (which is no big deal as they're not averse to even cropping Bill out of photos!) he was still a bonafide original member
if you say so , but in my book and alot of others , dick taylor was not and is not considered a rolling stone, be fair now he is just a blip on the radar screen, if that |
|
pdog |
quote: wintersway wrote:
if you say so , but in my book and alot of others , dick taylor was not and is not considered a rolling stone, be fair now he is just a blip on the radar screen, if that
His blip called The Pretty Things did some cool stuff... Blip or not, cool is cool to me, and success is measured by everyone in different ways...
The real question is, did he ever play with them, when they were called The Rolling Stones? The answer solidifies any arguments as to whether he was a Stone or not! |
|
Gazza |
quote: wintersway wrote:
if you say so , but in my book and alot of others , dick taylor was not and is not considered a rolling stone, be fair now he is just a blip on the radar screen, if that
If your definition of when the Stones started is the day they got a record contract with Decca, then maybe
However, the band started in July 1962, played several gigs and also first entered a recording studio that year. Taylor was present for all of that - which is a far cry from "a couple of rehearsals in front of four people before they even had their name " |
|
MemoFromTinaTurner |
I don't know nor do I care if Dick was an original member or not, all I know is that The Pretty Things kicked all kinds of ass. Brilliant band. Their first two albums are incredible and still sound great nowadays.
Signed,
The Midnight To Six Man...
|
|
wintersway |
I am not slagging the pretty things man, taylor had a great band there, but he is not an original stone is my point , thats all |