Rolling Stones – The Second Wave {Full Movie}

Thanks! Share it with your friends!

Close

Charting the great bands progress through the late 60’s. A fascinating and entertaining documentary film.

Comments

OroborusFMA says:

They’re a half decent singles band. Most of their albums have a couple of
good cuts and a lot of junk. But come on, comparing them to the Beatles is
ludicrous. Or the Doors for that matter, or the Jimi Hendrix Experience,
or . . . you get the point.

Jacky J Jones says:

Look at what the Stones produced between say… 67 and 70, compared to what
the Beatles (or should I say… Sir George Martin and his musical
aristocratic connections). After you weigh it all up… the Rolling Stones
absolutely devoured the Beatles…. they’re one hundred times more valid in
so far as being a ‘real rock group’ than the Beatles ever were!

flak jac says:

their a corporate logo now you buy something advertising the rolling stones
..t-shirt,dildo,cockring your just adding more to mik and keeths humungous
financial empire

robert nickel says:

Truth be known Mick Jagger was always ahead of all the other members of
ether the Beatles or the Stones as far as class distiction in Europe at the
time.

SeandogTUBE says:

WTF????????? Why and AD in the middle?????
Thanks for the great video, kill the ADS or I will never watch again

dirkbonesteel says:

Great documentary well worth watching but the video goes out twice. Black
at the end and closer to middle it sticks on a odd old add for a Jagger
movie

Jeffrey Slott says:

Oy veys mir, how I hate documentaries with talking heads; they are so
patronizing. And when you’re dealing with rock critics, you’re truly
scraping the bottom of the barrel: smug, pompous, flamingo-brained
nothings.

Tommy Haynes says:

Jumping Jack Flash -greatest rock song …ever

bobby smith says:

when drunk there are the stones, when not drunk there are the stones

666Agamemnon says:

MMM, lots of acidic social commentary in a time of tumoil. Agree Jimi and
the Doors fab bands as well .Unfortunately Jimi has 71 songs and the
Beatles a few more.Listen to Between the Buttons- makes Eleanor Rigby look
well tame.

spawnofdawnacle says:

Much historical bullshit here. 

dearag peadar says:

what happened to the picture at the end did Sony boy come back and cut it
out

Robert Aldo says:

Rubbish, gossipy bulshit it is! 

robert nickel says:

Performance might have been a good film but the acting of Jagger was
horrible. Not as bad as he was in Ned Kelley but poor. He’s a great rock
front man but he ain’t no movie actor.

robert nickel says:

The Dead pussied out at Altamont even though California was their home
state and the Stones didn;t have a clue.

Herve Hachuel says:

you must be absolutely brain dead to make a documentary on the Stones and
barely play any of their music, write a book!!

mark fleming says:

Old stories re-worded. I’m feeling rather sleepy.
(But man, what a band).

Kurt Knutsen says:

Stones 2 wave movie.

Mabusha Masekela says:

I love you guys – The Beatles, The Stones – there’s no basis for comparison
and is just something that someone started, probably Andrew Loog Oldham, to
generate ink and album sales. The Stones are a blues-based rock and roll
band that grew out of the London blues scene led by guys like Cyril Davies
and Alexis Korner. The Stones are deeply steeped in the blues and in a
country-western blues tradition (read Nankering With The Stones by James
Phelge) – The Beatles are a Liverpool rock and roll covers-band with
country-western, blues, rock n’ roll, movie and show tunes, English music
hall, and English folk influences – which included the collaborative
talents of all four members, especially the internal songwriting axis of
Lennon and McCartney. The Beatles always wrote a fair share of their own
recorded material and, with the soundtrack of A Hard Day’s Night (UK
version), were one of the first, if not the first, British bands to release
an album consisting entirely of their own written material. Loog had to
lock Jagger and Richards in a kitchen to get them to start writing their
own material and it took them a while to come up with something suitable
for The Stones to record – – though some of their early efforts — That
Girl Belongs To Yesterday, It Should Be You – – were recorded by other
artists. The Beatles career really started in ’59 when George Harrison
joined McCartney and Lennon. While The Stones really gelled in the winter
of 1963, by which time the Beatles were well on their way to international
prominence. The one area where they do share commonalities is the three-way
tension of of their frontline – Jagger, Richards, Jones – McCartney,
Harrison, Lennon and their “drummer” issues – Ringo joined The Beatles just
before their first official recording date – which resulted in the single
“Love Me Do”. Charlie was in a few other bands besides the Stones before
committing to his rhythmic role in The Stones. If we are going to be making
these silly comparisons at least some basis in reality would help. The
Beatles are in the same musical boat as Gerry & The Pacemakers, The
Searchers, Billy J Kramer and the Dakotas – – other Liverpool bands. The
Stones, in contrast, are part of a London legacy of blues and rock and roll
that put the boot in the “trad-jazz” scene of the London nightlife at the
time and includes Korner, Davies, The Yardbirds, The Kinks, The Who for a
start. The Beatles from the beginning of their official recording career to
the end (with a few bumps toward the end of the road) kept the same core
musical personnel and producer. The Stones, not so much – with various
producers and band members coming and going. The only real point of
comparison between The Beatles and The Rolling Stones is their vast success
outside of England – – and there are those who question whether Liverpool
is really part of England. Love all the people. 

xXpwnXx9 says:

m

HumanRiff69 says:

Yep, and then the Dead bailed out of the show.

Raymond Arcangel says:

The last twenty minutes, there’s no picture. Still interesting though.

lewis cook says:

How many of the bb generation are now ready to pay their dues to uncle sam
for what they done over uncle sams tv radio govt airwaves..as the 1956 2056
us military engineers have all on recording ?

Richie R says:

I loved this, and agreed with almost all of the comments by these guys. And
I’m glad I listened to the bitter end when the screen was black, when the
guy talks about what a mistake the Stones made by using the Angels at
Altamont. Puh-leeze!!! The Stones didn’t know POOT about the Angels and
what they represented. They used them because that numb-nutted band of
eunuchs, the Dead, recommended them, pure and simple.

gim10003 says:

Congratulations. You must be awesome.

Argentus Gigantus says:

Hate to hear the commentator compare the stones to “punk”, Keith Reichards
already said that he despise punk rock, and to be true ,how many punk
rockers invent things to sound greater?

David Bowers says:

Shit I could have engineeringed this. Its all been documented before.
Besides I don’t need this guy ‘the host ‘ tell n me about it because I
lived it.

lewis cook says:

So you bb gen rock rollers think you going to live the good life now that
cold war ww3 threat is gone?

Chris Kavanagh says:

The Stones are great, but for my money, no one touches Led Zeppelin.

johnny richards says:

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS GEM OF A VIDEO!! SIMPLY BREATH-TAKING!!

PAULLONDEN says:

Brilliant greedy bastards. Richards…”the BAND this,the BAND that”.not in
monetary matters and royalty sharing though.

Write a comment

*