Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New Yorker) Video Fifty years ago, as headliners, the Rolling Stones had to follow "arguably the most electrifying performance in the history of postwar American music"   (newyorker.com) divider line 34
    More: Video, humans, Sissy Spacek, James Brown, Forest Whitaker, Glenn Miller, Cate Blanchett, Jamie Foxx, Loretta Lynn  
•       •       •

4508 clicks; posted to Video » on 30 Jul 2014 at 4:52 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



34 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-07-30 03:14:53 PM  
The Stones were always pretty crazy in that way, this instance for example didn't stop em from making Rock and Roll Circus, it did delay it ever seeing the light of day however...

The Stones were actually pretty good in that one too, a very solid Sympathy in fact, just nothing at all compared to the Who on that night. That was a monster little set
 
2014-07-30 03:49:50 PM  
Holy damn, but the last five minutes of that are amazing.

I mean, it's all farking incredible, but wow.
 
2014-07-30 04:05:04 PM  
James Brown was the greatest.  I really wish someone had bothered to film his 1962 performance that became what I think is the greatest live record ever recorded James Brown Live at the Apollo.  The energy level on that record is like the TAMI show but it just doesn't let up over the whole album.  It's the one concert I would most like to see if I had a time machine.

A SEX time machine.
 
2014-07-30 04:07:45 PM  
Unfortunatley it's hard to find too much of the circus I referenced, but here's a good Quick One from that Who set linky. Tough to follow that.

Whole show is on Netflix though, highly recommended!

I also saw the Stones in 89 with GnR opening for em at their very peak, it was another case of them following something amazingly insane... for 1 night, the last show of that stand was the beginning of the end for GnR when things first started to truly fall apart in front of the spotlight.

Props to the Stones though, they were always willing to put themselves in a tough spot to follow just to be a part of a great show
 
2014-07-30 05:03:01 PM  
Prior to this show, Mick Jagger did a lot of just standing in front of the mic. Watch him suddenly start jumping around when he has to follow James.
 
2014-07-30 05:06:39 PM  
I'm a big fan of his short-lived variety show.
 
2014-07-30 05:12:58 PM  
Well after all it  IS a man's world.
 
2014-07-30 05:26:30 PM  

foo monkey: I'm a big fan of his short-lived variety show.


Don't forget his set at the Player's Ball in tribute of Dr. Detroit
 
2014-07-30 05:37:18 PM  

mediablitz: Prior to this show, Mick Jagger did a lot of just standing in front of the mic. Watch him suddenly start jumping around when he has to follow James.


at this very same show Jagger even does a little James Brown style dancing (though it does seem to wind him).

Rolling Stones T.A.M.I. Show 1964 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxd9q6XZOW4
 
2014-07-30 05:40:08 PM  
"arguably the most electrifying performance in the history of postwar American music"

Um, wonder who they had in mind that was more electrifying prior to WWII? Glenn Miller? Bing?
 
2014-07-30 05:58:18 PM  

MizzouGuy: "arguably the most electrifying performance in the history of postwar American music"

Um, wonder who they had in mind that was more electrifying prior to WWII? Glenn Miller? Bing?



The Rite of Spring' incited a riot in a Paris theater
 http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/29/4375736/igor-stravinsky-rite-of-s pri ng-100-anniversary-paris-riot
 
2014-07-30 06:08:56 PM  

MizzouGuy: "arguably the most electrifying performance in the history of postwar American music"

Um, wonder who they had in mind that was more electrifying prior to WWII? Glenn Miller? Bing?


You could probably find some sick Bukka White shows that unfortunatley will never be found on you tube from that era, but audio is certainly out there.

/see also Willie Dixon
//The Godfather would approve of either of these choices!
 
2014-07-30 06:17:55 PM  

martissimo: The Stones were actually pretty good in that one too, a very solid Sympathy in fact, just nothing at all compared to the Who on that night. That was a monster little set


I don't want to sound like an apologist for the Stones but I can see why they were blown away by The Who. It was a combination of two causes. The Who were touring before filming the Circus so they were nice and tight. Second, filming at the Circus went long. Well on into the early morning. The Stones were tired. Not just from the time but because they were also busy concentrating on making the film. And if truth be told I don't think they were completely straight at the time.
On top of that, the guys in The Who were phenomenal musicians.
 
2014-07-30 06:48:55 PM  

MizzouGuy: "arguably the most electrifying performance in the history of postwar American music"

Um, wonder who they had in mind that was more electrifying prior to WWII? Glenn Miller? Bing?


Possibly Cab Calloway in 1934

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8yGGtVKrD8
 
2014-07-30 07:00:31 PM  
 there can be only one.
 
2014-07-30 07:43:19 PM  
I have never understood why people love James Brown so much.  His voice grates my nerves, the dancing is fine, but the same exact moves over and over, his band is great... and he's a woman-beating, megalomaniac asshole.

But it seems like everyone else in the world is somehow turned on to him in a big way.  The reviews and critique always seem to come back to, "It's about SEX, man!  It's SEXY SEXUAL SEXYTIME!!!"

OK.  So it's about sex.  Great.  Lots of things are.

I just don't get it.
 
2014-07-30 08:26:34 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: I have never understood why people love James Brown so much.  His voice grates my nerves, the dancing is fine, but the same exact moves over and over, his band is great... and he's a woman-beating, megalomaniac asshole.

But it seems like everyone else in the world is somehow turned on to him in a big way.  The reviews and critique always seem to come back to, "It's about SEX, man!  It's SEXY SEXUAL SEXYTIME!!!"

OK.  So it's about sex.  Great.  Lots of things are.

I just don't get it.


It's largely the same thing with Citizen Kane, or with Elvis Presley, or with lots of classic literature or videogames or pretty much anything else. The arts advance. There have been people that have done the same things later and better. If you watch the old classics, especially without the benefit of nostalgia, it's basically impossible to see them the way they would have been seen at the time. Things wind up looking limited, unpolished, repetitive, unfocused (or sometimes too focused). But everything builds on everything else. Someone has to do it first. Then somebody else can look at it and say "I can do that better, or build it into something broader." Then somebody else can look at that and improve on that, and so on until you get to today and tomorrow.

James Brown now looks to me pretty much the way he looks to you -- energetic, impassioned, but unpolished and repetitive. But all of the other later acts that I consciously or unconsciously look to for comparison when I make those judgements were probably influenced in some way, directly or indirectly, by that man. He moved the needle.
 
2014-07-30 08:36:54 PM  

KickahaOta: Benevolent Misanthrope: I have never understood why people love James Brown so much.  His voice grates my nerves, the dancing is fine, but the same exact moves over and over, his band is great... and he's a woman-beating, megalomaniac asshole.

But it seems like everyone else in the world is somehow turned on to him in a big way.  The reviews and critique always seem to come back to, "It's about SEX, man!  It's SEXY SEXUAL SEXYTIME!!!"

OK.  So it's about sex.  Great.  Lots of things are.

I just don't get it.

It's largely the same thing with Citizen Kane, or with Elvis Presley, or with lots of classic literature or videogames or pretty much anything else. The arts advance. There have been people that have done the same things later and better. If you watch the old classics, especially without the benefit of nostalgia, it's basically impossible to see them the way they would have been seen at the time. Things wind up looking limited, unpolished, repetitive, unfocused (or sometimes too focused). But everything builds on everything else. Someone has to do it first. Then somebody else can look at it and say "I can do that better, or build it into something broader." Then somebody else can look at that and improve on that, and so on until you get to today and tomorrow.

James Brown now looks to me pretty much the way he looks to you -- energetic, impassioned, but unpolished and repetitive. But all of the other later acts that I consciously or unconsciously look to for comparison when I make those judgements were probably influenced in some way, directly or indirectly, by that man. He moved the needle.


Fair enough.  But his voice still grates my last nerve.
 
2014-07-30 08:49:51 PM  
 
2014-07-30 10:51:38 PM  
ONE MORE TIME FOR THE NIGHT TRAIN
 
2014-07-30 11:02:23 PM  
The jb's man, the jb's
 
2014-07-30 11:07:40 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Holy damn, but the last five minutes of that are amazing.

I mean, it's all farking incredible, but wow.


When I was 9, or 10 my dad started showing me clips, and playing me old stax records. I was always blown away by early JB performances. Unequaled energy.
 
2014-07-31 12:04:57 AM  

KickahaOta: Benevolent Misanthrope: I have never understood why people love James Brown so much.  His voice grates my nerves, the dancing is fine, but the same exact moves over and over, his band is great... and he's a woman-beating, megalomaniac asshole.

But it seems like everyone else in the world is somehow turned on to him in a big way.  The reviews and critique always seem to come back to, "It's about SEX, man!  It's SEXY SEXUAL SEXYTIME!!!"

OK.  So it's about sex.  Great.  Lots of things are.

I just don't get it.

It's largely the same thing with Citizen Kane, or with Elvis Presley, or with lots of classic literature or videogames or pretty much anything else. The arts advance. There have been people that have done the same things later and better. If you watch the old classics, especially without the benefit of nostalgia, it's basically impossible to see them the way they would have been seen at the time. Things wind up looking limited, unpolished, repetitive, unfocused (or sometimes too focused). But everything builds on everything else. Someone has to do it first. Then somebody else can look at it and say "I can do that better, or build it into something broader." Then somebody else can look at that and improve on that, and so on until you get to today and tomorrow.

James Brown now looks to me pretty much the way he looks to you -- energetic, impassioned, but unpolished and repetitive. But all of the other later acts that I consciously or unconsciously look to for comparison when I make those judgements were probably influenced in some way, directly or indirectly, by that man. He moved the needle.


TV Tropes calls your theory Seinfeld Is Unfunny
 
2014-07-31 12:21:25 AM  
I thought the Stones were nervous about following Jan & Dean
 
2014-07-31 02:01:28 AM  
I dunno. I think of James Brown as having a tight band, and there it sounded as though the horn section couldn't consistently hear the drums to keep in time.
 
2014-07-31 02:24:35 AM  

MizzouGuy: "arguably the most electrifying performance in the history of postwar American music"

Um, wonder who they had in mind that was more electrifying prior to WWII? Glenn Miller? Bing?


Check out the King of Swing, Benny Goodman, at Carnegie Hall in 1938. Especially "Sing, Sing, Sing (With a Swing)". Gene Krupa played drums like nobody did before him.
 
2014-07-31 08:03:51 AM  

Hoopy Frood: I dunno. I think of James Brown as having a tight band, and there it sounded as though the horn section couldn't consistently hear the drums to keep in time.


Agreed, those horns were a mess and not a hot mess.

Wonder if they got fined after the show...

http://www.redbullmusicacademy.com/magazine/fred-wesley-interview
 
2014-07-31 10:06:11 AM  
TV Tropes calls your theory Seinfeld Is Unfunny

But Jerry Seinfeld IS not funny....
 
2014-07-31 10:40:04 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: I have never understood why people love James Brown so much.  His voice grates my nerves, the dancing is fine, but the same exact moves over and over, his band is great... and he's a woman-beating, megalomaniac asshole.

But it seems like everyone else in the world is somehow turned on to him in a big way.  The reviews and critique always seem to come back to, "It's about SEX, man!  It's SEXY SEXUAL SEXYTIME!!!"

OK.  So it's about sex.  Great.  Lots of things are.

I just don't get it.


I tend to agree.  While recognizing his greatness, I'm much more of a Sam Cooke, Al Green, Wilson Pickett, Otis Redding kind of guy.  Maybe I don't like the funk quite as much, although this isn't true -- I have Sly and the Family Stone and Parliament, etc., on my iPod.  I think James Brown projects "Look How Hard I'm Working!  I'm The Hardest Working Guy In Show Business!"  Which is great, but that's not what I respond to.
 
2014-07-31 12:15:59 PM  
James Brown was a musical genius who's music in some of his works cannot be put down on paper because of the odd rhythms and breaks. He was later to develop a type of music called "funk", or "hitting on the one", emphasizing the first beat of the measure. He's an American original who will not be forgotten like many of today's corporate, autotuned artists..Along with his musical genius , he was a consummate showman, the complete package.
 
2014-07-31 12:56:53 PM  

Pentaxian: TV Tropes calls your theory Seinfeld Is Unfunny


Not quite the same thing, I think. Seinfeld Is Unfunny is just based on the premise that everyone copies the leader, so someone looking back without nostalgia sees the leader as being just like the copies ("that's so overdone"). I think that in a lot of cases it's more than that: later artists polish/refine/improve/broaden the leader's techniques, so the leader winds up looking like an inferior version of the later acts.

(Also, what did I ever do to deserve getting fed a TV Tropes link? Why not just call my boss and have me fired?)
 
2014-07-31 01:45:20 PM  

HairBolus: mediablitz: Prior to this show, Mick Jagger did a lot of just standing in front of the mic. Watch him suddenly start jumping around when he has to follow James.

at this very same show Jagger even does a little James Brown style dancing (though it does seem to wind him).

Rolling Stones T.A.M.I. Show 1964 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxd9q6XZOW4


I didn't watch the whole clip. I assumed the Stones were at the end. I watched this on a 60's series on CNN recently. It was funny seeing all the clips of Jagger standing at the mic, then SUDDENLY being so animated when he had to follow James Brown.
 
2014-07-31 02:31:36 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: KickahaOta: Benevolent Misanthrope: I have never understood why people love James Brown so much.  His voice grates my nerves, the dancing is fine, but the same exact moves over and over, his band is great... and he's a woman-beating, megalomaniac asshole.

But it seems like everyone else in the world is somehow turned on to him in a big way.  The reviews and critique always seem to come back to, "It's about SEX, man!  It's SEXY SEXUAL SEXYTIME!!!"

OK.  So it's about sex.  Great.  Lots of things are.

I just don't get it.

It's largely the same thing with Citizen Kane, or with Elvis Presley, or with lots of classic literature or videogames or pretty much anything else. The arts advance. There have been people that have done the same things later and better. If you watch the old classics, especially without the benefit of nostalgia, it's basically impossible to see them the way they would have been seen at the time. Things wind up looking limited, unpolished, repetitive, unfocused (or sometimes too focused). But everything builds on everything else. Someone has to do it first. Then somebody else can look at it and say "I can do that better, or build it into something broader." Then somebody else can look at that and improve on that, and so on until you get to today and tomorrow.

James Brown now looks to me pretty much the way he looks to you -- energetic, impassioned, but unpolished and repetitive. But all of the other later acts that I consciously or unconsciously look to for comparison when I make those judgements were probably influenced in some way, directly or indirectly, by that man. He moved the needle.

Fair enough.  But his voice still grates my last nerve.


You got no soul.  Couple of hours I could make you right.  Just right.
 
2014-07-31 04:36:34 PM  
mudpants:

You got no soul.  Couple of hours I could make you right.  Just right.

Or settle back and listen to some Don "No Soul" Simmons

http://youtu.be/5VIrpWj-eEU
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report