"It Might Get Loud" . . . just saw it !!!

[El Tedesco]

Right. Whatever makes the box office ring.

Jimmy is a Grand Master. His unique harmonies, esp. of the later years were unprecedented and still are unsurpassed.

[T_red7882]

Originally Posted by El Tedesco

That is right. Too many times we're being served "legends" etc. created by commercial interest groups, whoever the may be.
There aren't that many "legends" out there.

I went back and watched the trailer. That's all I can go by, at this point.
They are using "Icons" as a term to describe the landmark position of the players.

I was looking up some youtube clips involving Jack White, since I really know as good as nothing about him.

What I found, is heavily relying on visuals, as most anything that is produced today throughout the commercial section of the musical arena.

U2 obviously came in at the right time, when 'music videos' were starting to sprout all over the landscape, which greatly supported their venture, as their sound is very favorable to the creation of visual support and most of their tracks were probably designed to hit the market together with a video interpretation.

Those aspects were not an option when Zeppelin's Whole Lotta Love was rioting the air waves.

thats a huge load right there.

all hail the might zeppelin (who i love, jimmy page is one of my top 5 faves) and the ways they were limited in medium!

U2 created a buzz via college radio and live shows... not thru music videos. do some research.

and the dude from alberta who can't recognize or name a u2 song... i guess you live in a cave?

in the end, this is a movie about the guitar, and they chose three extremely recognizable guitarists that pop culture identifies with. The edge is in a very elite company of about 10 living guitarists that everyone knows, whether or not people like his playing.

[sixstringbastard]

I can't wait to see this move. I'm a fan of all three of these artists, I grew up learning to play Zep and U2 tunes in high school/college bands. Jack White has three bands with some very unique rocking music. He's a helluva songwriter and guitar player.

I wish the d-bag haters would go the f home. I don't slag on their middle aged white guy (M.A.W.G.) blues artists that they are always trumpeting about.

Kinda sound like the parents back in the day did when they complained about Elvis and The Beatles. lol

[T_red7882]

Originally Posted by sixstringbastard

I can't wait to see this move. I'm a fan of all three of these artists, I grew up learning to play Zep and U2 tunes in high school/college bands. Jack White has three bands with some very unique rocking music. He's a helluva songwriter and guitar player.

I wish the d-bag haters would go the f home. I don't slag on their middle aged white guy (M.A.W.G.) blues artists that they are always trumpeting about.

Kinda sound like the parents back in the day did when they complained about Elvis and The Beatles. lol

hahaha! i LOVE the M.A.W.G. reference. so true, so true. I might not like every guitarists playing, but i don't waste my time ripping on them for being succesful. It seems that here, people love to rip on the edge, keith richards, brap paisley, john mayer, and a few others. why bother? i can scream about how overrated so and so is, but what is the point? why not celebrate another musicians success?

[PeteMac]

This is a movie about the creative process, not the guitar. They could just as easily made the same movie with 3 painters, or photographers, or 3 sculpters.

If you're wanting to see a "guitar movie", this aint it.
There is very little guitar porn in it (well . . . a little!)
There's no huge jam session (though you really should sit through the end credits !)
It's about 3 guys going through the creative process and arriving at different points whilst using the same tool.

But it is good !!!

[johnny7]

When I think of guitar legends, I tend not to focus on their commercial success or the band they are. I focus on their sound. Is it unique? Does it add to the song? Is it dynamic? One can add many other criteria to this but in the end it is about the song and the creative process to get there. Having said all that....and not having seen the movie. I will probably buy it. Just like I bought "Shut Up and Sing" about the Dixie Chicks, and why I bought "Standing in the Shadows of Motown". (Just to name a few.)

John

[TG]

Originally Posted by Bill

I think other choices would appeal to me more, but I understand that the producers weren't interested in making "It Might Go Straight to Video."

So they looked at the music-loving, movie-ticket-buying public and asked themselves three questions:

"Who was one of the most popular and influential rock guitarists of the 60's and 70's?"

"Of the 80's and 90's?"

"Of the 2000's?"

+1

[tcadam]

Originally Posted by T_red7882

thats a huge load right there.

all hail the might zeppelin (who i love, jimmy page is one of my top 5 faves) and the ways they were limited in medium!

U2 created a buzz via college radio and live shows... not thru music videos. do some research.

and the dude from alberta who can't recognize or name a u2 song... i guess you live in a cave?

in the end, this is a movie about the guitar, and they chose three extremely recognizable guitarists that pop culture identifies with. The edge is in a very elite company of about 10 living guitarists that everyone knows, whether or not people like his playing.

Thanks for saving me the trouble of typing that.

[1293]

Originally Posted by T_red7882

the guitarist of a band that has been one of the biggest in the world for 30 years not a legend? sitll making number one records after 30 years... and not a legend? i'd think a 50 year old would have better perspective. the edge is not a blues playing gun slinger, but he is definetely a legend.

I guess it takes longer to achieve legendary status these days. It was easier in the old days. Guys like Page, Townshend, Clapton, etc. were legends before they were 10 years into their careers.

[T_red7882]

Originally Posted by 1293

I guess it takes longer to achieve legendary status these days. It was easier in the old days. Guys like Page, Townshend, Clapton, etc. were legends before they were 10 years into their careers.

welll that was in the 60s and 70s

[jonzer]

I'm not a big U2 fan. I think having Edge in this is a great choice because he comes from a unique perspective. I think it's really cool to feature this guy after his 30 years of being in about the biggest band in the world (consistently), and to have him in awe of Jimmy Page....that's great.
Jack White is a great choice too because of his perspective and creativity, and he's greatly influenced by the top of the food chain here, Jimmy Page.
Jimmy Page is a great choice of course because, well, he's Jimmy Freaking Page.

This movie could feature three players I'm not a fan of and I would still be interested since it's a focus on the instrument...and if the guys had unique perspectives on it.

If someone like Carlos Santana was in this he'd do all in his power to make it all about Carlos Santana. Rock stars always have egos but I think there is a humbleness that comes with the three guys selected. It's really cool to see people with a lot of accomplishments and success like Edge and White be simple music fans. It's also cool to see Page still excited about playing guitar.

Keith Richards would have been an interesting choice but we wouldn't have been able to understand anything he'd say.

[El Tedesco]

Originally Posted by T_red7882

thats a huge load right there.

I always thought the difference between likes and dislikes is a very simple distinction.

Originally Posted by T_red7882

all hail the might zeppelin (who i love, jimmy page is one of my top 5 faves) and the ways they were limited in medium!.

I am not somebody who easily hails anybody, but in this case I have to chime in, even though, I evolved into completely different musical spheres, almost leaving the Zeppelin era far behind.

Originally Posted by T_red7882

U2 created a buzz via college radio and live shows... not thru music videos. do some research.

You're not trying to convince me that U2 is foreign to the broader spectrum of MTV?
Creating a buzz is one thing, breakthru is another.

Originally Posted by T_red7882

and the dude from alberta who can't recognize or name a u2 song... i guess you live in a cave?.

I reckon even you will at one point or another quit memorizing song titles

Originally Posted by T_red7882

in the end, this is a movie about the guitar, and they chose three extremely recognizable guitarists that pop culture identifies with. The edge is in a very elite company of about 10 living guitarists that everyone knows, whether or not people like his playing.

Nobody is disputing those aspects, yet pop culture is not a generic, single track, one color kind of a thing. To make a movie on it's essentials is a very daring act to begin with.

[T_red7882]

Originally Posted by El Tedesco

I always thought the difference between likes and dislikes is a very simple distinction.

I am not somebody who easily hails anybody, but in this case I have to chime in, even though, I evolved into completely different musical spheres, almost leaving the Zeppelin era far behind.

You're not trying to convince me that U2 is foreign to the broader spectrum of MTV?
Creating a buzz is one thing, breakthru is another.

I reckon even you will at one point or another quit memorizing song titles

Nobody is disputing those aspects, yet pop culture is not a generic, single track, one color kind of a thing. To make a movie on it's essentials is a very daring act to begin with.

U2 have consistently been the biggest band in the world for about 30 years, MTV does not do that. if you believe that, you obviously don't understand how the music world works, and... i mean, have you seen bono's mullet from those days? and the videos????

MAWG alert! sour grapes his MAWG guitarist didn't get picked. alert!

[El Tedesco]

Originally Posted by T_red7882

U2 have consistently been the biggest band in the world for about 30 years, MTV does not do that. if you believe that, you obviously don't understand how the music world works, and... i mean, have you seen bono's mullet from those days? and the videos????

MAWG alert! sour grapes his MAWG guitarist didn't get picked. alert!

Wow, that's some serious dough here.

No, I haven't watched any MTV during the past 30 years. I guess that explains why I don't understand the music world and the fact that it isn't me who is the "biggest" music act out there ... consistently since 30 years.

How do you define "Biggest"?

Let me ask you this, if you don't mind: "Do you resemble a typical example of the U2 generation?"

Ps, I still think Iron Butterfly struck it bigger with a single hit, then U2 with their 30 year consistency.

That's only me, I hope you have a good sense of humor.

[T_red7882]

I am 27, and didn't have MTV until the age of 14 (mid 97), which was long after U2's peak, which was between 87-93 with joshua tree, rattle and hum, achtung baby, and zooropa. So, considering I was 5-11 when U2 was their biggest, i am definetely not representative of the typical u2 fan.

Biggest to me means... best selling, award winning, news making, biggest grossing tours, trend setting, influential, the band that dominates the music world. I mean, U2 is all those things. Big bands have come and gone (some still remain, but not at their peak) since 1980 like the police, metallica, nirvana, pearl jam, soundgarden, guns n roses, smashing pumpkins, green day (currently at their commercial peak)... but U2 have the best selling album (so far) of 2009. their 2004 hit, vertigo, legitimized digital downloads, and after that singles massive downloading success, billboard started including digital downloads in their charts.

I just really don't see what is so debateable about calling u2 the biggest act of the last 30 years. who else comes close? other acts have had huge short lived success (like garth brooks, but only in america) true, but in terms of international success and longevity... there's no one else. who would you nominate?

[redstringuitar]

Originally Posted by TG

It hasn't got much bigger than it was in 1957...

Great vid. They sound like Enid Blyton characters!

[hou35male]

Well, your old enough to know, but I won't say the name of the group that is only second to Elvis Presley in Gold and Platinum sales, and it's not Micheal or U2!!! BTW, they are from New York. They have been together since 1973!!!! Alot longer than 30 years with U2!?!?!

Originally Posted by T_red7882

I am 27, and didn't have MTV until the age of 14 (mid 97), which was long after U2's peak, which was between 87-93 with joshua tree, rattle and hum, achtung baby, and zooropa. So, considering I was 5-11 when U2 was their biggest, i am definetely not representative of the typical u2 fan.

Biggest to me means... best selling, award winning, news making, biggest grossing tours, trend setting, influential, the band that dominates the music world. I mean, U2 is all those things. Big bands have come and gone (some still remain, but not at their peak) since 1980 like the police, metallica, nirvana, pearl jam, soundgarden, guns n roses, smashing pumpkins, green day (currently at their commercial peak)... but U2 have the best selling album (so far) of 2009. their 2004 hit, vertigo, legitimized digital downloads, and after that singles massive downloading success, billboard started including digital downloads in their charts.

I just really don't see what is so debateable about calling u2 the biggest act of the last 30 years. who else comes close? other acts have had huge short lived success (like garth brooks, but only in america) true, but in terms of international success and longevity... there's no one else. who would you nominate?

[El Tedesco]

Originally Posted by T_red7882

I am 27, and didn't have MTV until the age of 14 (mid 97), which was long after U2's peak, which was between 87-93 with joshua tree, rattle and hum, achtung baby, and zooropa. So, considering I was 5-11 when U2 was their biggest, i am definetely not representative of the typical u2 fan.

Biggest to me means... best selling, award winning, news making, biggest grossing tours, trend setting, influential, the band that dominates the music world. I mean, U2 is all those things. Big bands have come and gone (some still remain, but not at their peak) since 1980 like the police, metallica, nirvana, pearl jam, soundgarden, guns n roses, smashing pumpkins, green day (currently at their commercial peak)... but U2 have the best selling album (so far) of 2009. their 2004 hit, vertigo, legitimized digital downloads, and after that singles massive downloading success, billboard started including digital downloads in their charts.

I just really don't see what is so debateable about calling u2 the biggest act of the last 30 years. who else comes close? other acts have had huge short lived success (like garth brooks, but only in america) true, but in terms of international success and longevity... there's no one else. who would you nominate?

It's the fun part that makes it so debateable. There is no doubt about U2's enormous popularity, yet you are corresponding with somebody, for who they did not set any trend at all. All the others you named, I am barely familiar with them beyond their names, except The Police.

It shows, there are different parameters that can be applied.
Most prominently, it's defined in numeric data, if it's millions of individuals or millions of hard cash, we got a winner.

I personally don't define in numbers, not primarily.

You talk about international success and longevity.

Well, there is also the bands extra musical involvements and activities.

I am very wary of such engagements, for more than one reason. I don't consider them "Folk Heroes" either.

Bottomline, if someone like me, hasn't been touched by their works, their "larger than Life" success doesn't mean a thing.

I still remember one of the first TV live concerts with U2. I thought "What the heck!?" I imagine they sound more intersting live in a huge setting then off the record. Way too much drama for me.

Hey, you wanna know the first problem I had? It was the drummer (whatever his name is). To me, he never really started to play those drums. It's like waiting for a departure that never takes off ....

[redstringuitar]

The Edge needs multiple delays and other effects to get his sound.

Jack White needs a drummer of questionable talent to get his.

Jimmy Page needs awesome and I do mean awesome, talent around him to do his thing...just in case you forgot that JP was lucky enough to play guitar in the best rock band in the world.

The point is, none of that, nor any amount of commercial success, will make any of them sound any better to you if they simply don't "float your boat."

You may love the Edge and U2, El Tedesco doesn't and has every right to express puzzlement at the high esteem in which they are held by many, most, whatever.

[Warren Pederson]

"Keith Richards would have been an interesting choice but we wouldn't have been able to understand anything he'd say."
Ha! pretty darn funny

[Guitar_Ninja]

Originally Posted by redstringuitar

Jimmy Page needs awesome and I do mean awesome, talent around him to do his thing...just in case you forgot that JP was lucky enough to play guitar in the best rock band in the world.

Jimmy Page never played in The Who.

[El Tedesco]

Originally Posted by Guitar_Ninja

Jimmy Page never played in The Who.

HA! The Who were the first Live rock concert I ever encountered. The year was 1972 and I was 13. My dad (God bless his soul) had to buy the tickets. They didn't smash anything, but the show was thundering. They played all the good stuff.

[El Tedesco]

Originally Posted by Warren Pederson

"Keith Richards would have been an interesting choice but we wouldn't have been able to understand anything he'd say."
Ha! pretty darn funny

Huh, I still remember the near disaster in "Hail Hail Rock 'n' Roll", when Chuck Berry put him back in his place, after Keith suggested to adjust Chuck's amp settings, to make it sound better in the movie.
A must see!

[T_red7882]

Originally Posted by redstringuitar

The Edge needs multiple delays and other effects to get his sound.

Jack White needs a drummer of questionable talent to get his.

Jimmy Page needs awesome and I do mean awesome, talent around him to do his thing...just in case you forgot that JP was lucky enough to play guitar in the best rock band in the world.

The point is, none of that, nor any amount of commercial success, will make any of them sound any better to you if they simply don't "float your boat."

You may love the Edge and U2, El Tedesco doesn't and has every right to express puzzlement at the high esteem in which they are held by many, most, whatever.

But my point is that you can debate the unquantifiable of what constitutes a talented band till the end of the earth, but U2 has cold, hard data that back up their success. its not everyone's cup o tea, definetely (hell, its hard enoguh to get tickets as is... i don't need every person out there to be a fan), but from a success standpoint, its impossible to argue against them. I never said el tedesco had to like them, but i felt it was foolish of him to not regard them as the biggest act around.

in terms of influence, u2, along with REM and the cure, legitimized college radio. Without specificaly U2, the non traditional, or "alternative" rock genre would never haev gotten the push it did. Radiohead, coldplay, jeff buckley, nirvana and many other could very well have been viewed as fringe acts with little marketability, but because u2 proved that alternative could sell in massive numbers, record companies looked at them in another light. Part of the reason u2 haev never had the album sales or mass love of some other bands is because u2 are essentially the biggest alternative/indie act ever. led zeppelin, the beatles, the stones, the who... they were all traditional (in the loosest sense of the word) rock acts with immensely broad, blues based appeal. that's not the case for u2.

someone else mentioned the eagles... who really have only been around 5 years longer than u2 (the difference is that U2 were 14-17 when they first hit the world music scene... scary young for a band of that popularity). the eagles were broken up for a long period of time, their current records aren't exactly lighting the world on fire, and when they come to town, they aren't an impossible ticket to get. u2 pretty much are. yes, the eagles have some amazing songs, but mostly fizzled out in terms of big hits early on. u2 continues to write some really popular and memorable (not to mention award winning) music with every album they release. that cannot be said of the eagles. barack obama used "city of blinding lights" as his campaign theme song. that song was released in 2004. the eagles haven't had a hit since hell freezes over, and that was 15 years ago. I know that people don't really regard the grammys as that important, but my opinion of them is that if you're winning them, you're relevant at the very least. u2's last album won a shyt load of grammys. their newest album is the best selling record of the year. U2= relevant, competitive band, determined to be the biggest band in the world, touring in support of their new album and playing 8 of the songs on their new album live. the eagles = more than legends, but playing a greatest hits set list that people have come to expect, and love for obvious reasons. I defend the eagles on a constant basis to many friends of mine. yeah, they haev some cheese, but they also have some just stellar songwriting that, had it not been for the deregulation of the media markets, their influence would be heard in much greater amounts on radio today. without the eagles, there's no room for: my morning jacket, ryan adams, wilco, jenny lewis, and many many more.

[El Tedesco]

I feel similar about the Eagles overrated "legendary status", even though I was a fan over both ears, when they were in their prime. There isn't really any news for me on that front since "The long Run" in 1979 or so.
"Hell freezes over" only did it for me as a visual, to see them play.

There is a point in a few band's lifes, when the musicians turn into businessmen. I think that happens when they recognize, they have reached their peak and go about to market their image.

I think there is a good portion of savy businessmenship behind U2, from early on. Somehow I can't rid myself of the feeling.

Many other great bands also screwed up a lot, which led to counter productive effects in their developments.

Other bands broke apart through early deaths of popular band members.

What would the world of Rock and Pop music be like, if Brian Jones, Keith Moon, Duane Allman, John Bonham, Jim Morrison and many more would still be alive and kicking?

[darren7]

Just go see the movie.

Regardless of who's in it, or who made it, it's a great exploration of the creative process through the eyes of three very different guitarists.

[blingdogg]

Originally Posted by T_red7882

and the dude from alberta who can't recognize or name a u2 song... i guess you live in a cave?

Let's just say that I never listen to the crap they play on the radio, and that type of music U2 plays is stuff I stay far, far away from. Whenever I did happen to watch a music video channel on TV, or listen to the radio, and I heard U2 was on I'd just turn it off.

[wetland10]

Originally Posted by El Tedesco

Huh, I still remember the near disaster in "Hail Hail Rock 'n' Roll", when Chuck Berry put him back in his place, after Keith suggested to adjust Chuck's amp settings, to make it sound better in the movie.
A must see!

Not for nothing, but in that clip Chuck Berry sounds like crap, out of tune. He gets all "Chuck Berry" like on Keith saying "if that's the way it sounds then that's the way Chuck Berry PLAYED IT." Keith was trying to help on that one, saying something like "this is going to be around for a long time." There is another part where Keith tries to get Chuck to play rhythm guitar instead of his original parts and Chuck was right with that one. Funny stuff though.

Wayne

[Bigdawg]

petemac how did you get to see this Ive been waiting for what seems like ages for it to come out...??

[Bigdawg]

Originally Posted by Guitar_Ninja

Jimmy Page never played in The Who.

erm yes he did - he was session gutarist on Cant Explain...

and played on tom jones' Its Not Unusual....

[OutlawSteph1975]

Originally Posted by T_red7882

I am 27, and didn't have MTV until the age of 14 (mid 97), which was long after U2's peak, which was between 87-93 with joshua tree, rattle and hum, achtung baby, and zooropa. So, considering I was 5-11 when U2 was their biggest, i am definetely not representative of the typical u2 fan.

Check out the book called "Race of Angels". It's about U2 but not your typical rock bio. It's way deeper than than and puts the band's evolution and music into the wider social and music history of Ireland. You'd like it.

[Jackson Jackson]

Originally Posted by hou35male

Well, your old enough to know, but I won't say the name of the group that is only second to Elvis Presley in Gold and Platinum sales, and it's not Micheal or U2!!! BTW, they are from New York. They have been together since 1973!!!! Alot longer than 30 years with U2!?!?!

I'm curious as to who you believe is 2nd in record sales to Elvis (who, by the way, has been passed at times by the Beatles, who are currently #2).

It's pretty widely documented that Michael Jackson, Frank Sinatra, and ABBA all follow the top 2, so what New York band are you referring too?

Not picking a fight, I'm just curious.

[Dave_O]

Originally Posted by Bigdawg

petemac how did you get to see this Ive been waiting for what seems like ages for it to come out...??

I'll answer it for Pete-- who's probably sleeping the sleep of the righteous (it's 2.30am-ish here, I just got home from afternoon shift)

The Melbourne International Film Festival. Every year they get pre-release and "arthouse" stuff, about a weeks worth of film goodness. Melbourne's pretty cool like that.

Sydneysiders like film too, though. They help to pad out the league games on TV....

[Bigdawg]

i think michael jackson has leapfrogged into the no1 position recently...

after checking wiki top sales of all times are :
the beatles
elvis
bing crosby
MJ
abba
nana maskouri
queen
AC/DC

[Bigdawg]

Originally Posted by Dave_O

I'll answer it for Pete-- who's probably sleeping the sleep of the righteous (it's 2.30am-ish here, I just got home from afternoon shift)

The Melbourne International Film Festival. Every year they get pre-release and "arthouse" stuff, about a weeks worth of film goodness. Melbourne's pretty cool like that.

Sydneysiders like film too, though. They help to pad out the league games on TV....

cool, cant wait to see this myself

[Boubou]

What are we arguing about here anyways???
Who can P** the farthest??
Anyways, cant wait to see the movie.
Sure there are a bunch of other guitar players that could have been used for the movie, but these are the ones chosen by the filmmaker, for whatever reasons (one big reason is probably that you need "known" guitar players to sell the movie).
Anyways, wonder if its worth to wait and buy the DVD, is there enough music on it to be worth that, to watch several times like a nusic DVD or is it mostly a one shot deal? ( for those who have seen it)

[RiverDog]

All I can say is I'm psyched to see it!

[TG]

Originally Posted by Bigdawg

and played on tom jones' Its Not Unusual....

Apparently that was actually 'Big Jim' Sullivan on that one.
But Page did play on quite a lot of stuff.

[jjkrause84]

Looks really cool.

Like lots of people I'm pretty unimpressed with "the other two guys". I mean, I could have rambled off guitarists for several days running and never hit Jack White.

I understand why they chose the Edge. Makes sense. I think he's a pretty mediocre player, but it makes sense. If they wanted an effects-guy what about Tom Morello?

As fo replacing Jack White I dunno....anyone? Anyone would probably be better. Beck plays guitar doesn't he? That would be an interesting choice and fill a similar dynamic. Maybe get a heavy metal guy like Zakk Wylde to do it? That would make sense if you think of the "what came from Led Zep" concept.

I dunno...in any case it should be REALLY cool and I'm looking forward to paying out the nose, ears eyes and other orifices to see it when it hits the UK in 2012.

[T_red7882]

Originally Posted by OutlawSteph1975

Check out the book called "Race of Angels". It's about U2 but not your typical rock bio. It's way deeper than than and puts the band's evolution and music into the wider social and music history of Ireland. You'd like it.

word, i'll check that out. have you read u2 at the end of the world? the one that goes into the whole achtung/zooropa/zootv era and postmodernism?