The audio on the DVD is culled from live performances, but it is not necessarily from what is being shown on the screen, so MC5—Kick Out the Jams is not, strictly speaking, a concert DVD. It is, however, a fascinating look into the more avant-garde fringes of the hippie movement.
Concert footage is interspersed with shots of the audience as well as scenes from protest marches in Detroit. Most affecting are scenes of the band kicking out the jams onstage, with flag draped Marshall stacks eerily reminiscent of the coffins that were returning home from Vietnam in increasing numbers those days.
Even without a true audio representation of what's on the screen, the live power of the MC5 is fully evident. The best clip on the DVD is a promotional video for the single "Kick Out the Jams" that was recorded live at the Grande Ballroom in Detroit.
If you're new to the MC5, this DVD is not the place to start. A better entrée would be their seminal debut album, Kick Out the Jams, which was released in 1969. The title track, which opens with the war cry, "Kick out the jams, mother f*ckers!," helped ensure their legacy, as well as their relative obscurity. Retail stores that refused to carry the "obscene" record eventually forced Elektra to drop the MC5 from the label. They later signed to Atlantic and recorded two more albums, but the moment had passed them by.
MC5—Kick Out the Jams DVD is a must-have for aficionados and collectors, as it brings together plenty of rare and unreleased footage of the band at their prime. The DVD tacks on a bizarre, rambling interview with acid casualty John Sinclair from 2003 as an added bonus.
Article comments
1 - Barry Stoller
Chicago. Remember the Graham Nash song of the same title exhorting all longhairs to go? Then CSN&Y bagged, along with everyone else, and only the MC5 (and Phil Ochs) went (to perform). Jann Wenner, strenuously opposed Chicago (and passionately hated The Yippies).
The MC5 paid the price of disregarding Wenner’s decree; Rolling Stone had none other than Lester Bangs trash the debut MC5 album. That had more to do with killing sales than any occasional “motherfuckers.” He later publicly apologized to the band.
Let us remember our rock & roll history correctly. There’s a reason Abbie Hoffman called Wenner the “Benedict Arnold of the Sixties.”
Also: Are you sure politics are one of the “essential elements of what would later become punk rock”? I’m thinking of the Ramones and the Pistols, with their super reactionary agenda. (God bless the Clash for busting that model.)
2 - Temple Stark
A Music Editor pick of the week.
Thank you.
Go HERE to read why, for a nifty button you can put on your blog and to look at the other picks.
3 - DDBanter
FUTURE/NOW FILMS DEFEATS KRAMER LAWSUIT IN FEDERAL COURT
U. S. District Judge Andrew J. Guilford (Central District of California) has issued a ruling exonerating David Thomas, Laurel Legler, Future/Now Films, Zenta LLC., From The Heart Productions, and Carole Lee Dean of all claims brought against them by Wayne Kramer, Margaret Saadi Kramer and Muscle Tone, Inc.
"It's good to remember the 60's, but some say if you remember the 60's you weren't there. Perhaps to assist all of us in remembering the 60's, Defendants David Thomas and Laurel Legler made a film on the MC5, a 60's Detroit Rock and Roll band that made its mark on American history with loud rock and roll and radical perceptions positing an imperialistic and materialistic America. This lawsuit teaches that materialism remains with us, as Plaintiffs vigorously seek money from Defendants. Although the MC5 faded away largely due to drugs, the band lingers on in the memory of many, and would be known to many other but for pending legal feuds."
The Honorable Andrew J Guilford, United States District Judge
Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law, issued March 31, 2007
Many will recall numerous serious allegations being made in the wake of the cancellation of the "MC5 - A True Testimonial" documentary's official release back in 2004; the Court has weighed the actual evidence and made a comprehensive ruling, stating:
"Much of this case rests upon the credibility of witnesses, and the Court finds that Thomas and Legler were far more credible than Kramer on key issues concerning alleged promises, representations and commitments."
"The MC5 is historically significant and its music and story merit being heard today. The film had and still has the potential to spread the music and story of the MC5..."
"There is insufficient factual basis to establish that a contract was formed that any of the Plaintiffs could enforce. Contract terms were never certain, and there was no meeting of the minds. The burden of proof on any contract claim was not met by any of the Plaintiffs."
Could this blockbuster ruling finally clear the remaining obstacles and enable the long-overdue release of the brilliant "MC5 - A True Testimonial" documentary? Judge Guilford expressed his opinion:
"Defendants were first-time filmmakers who spent eight years of their lives trying to create a documentary film that would be historically truthful, a documentary that would celebrate the talent and creativity of the MC5 band, a documentary that would say something about the 60's, and would say something about the present. They succeeded, and the film merits wide distribution for the enjoyment and edification of the masses."
Tell me that I'm dreaming...
More? Detroit Tango Chicago Reader
4 - Anonymous
How will filmmaker's Legler and Thomas pay their bills?
The judge gave the filmmakers NO MONEY for their attorneys. He determined that the Kramers were 100% JUSTIFIED in bringing the suit. This decision was an enforcement of the fact that the Kramers went to the trouble of maintaining the integrity of the MC5's catalog of songs.
According to exhibits filed, director Thomas ADMITS to one (or more) of the investors that HE LIED TO WAYNE when he promised him the music job on his movie. Now he's paying a huge price for using a hard-working songwriter's music without a written license.
This lawsuit should serve as a lesson to filmmakers that there will always be blowback when you take advantage of the people who help you. If you don't want to share the credit or the profit, then find assistance elsewhere.
5 - DD Banter
Factual note: Rob Tyner and Fred "Sonic" Smith have each been widely acknowledged as the primary songwriters of the MC5. Each of their estates approved of the use of the MC5 music in the documentary, have long supported the film's release and continue to do so.
On the subject of integrity:
Jim DeRogatis: "There's been quite a bit of controversy in Chicago between filmmakers David Thomas and Laurel Legler and the surviving members of the MC5, particularly Wayne Kramer, who are blocking the release of their film, "MC5: A True Testimonial". You were married to the late MC5 guitarist Fred "Sonic" Smith. Where do you stand on the issue?"
Patti Smith: "I feel very sad about it. I haven't seen the film, but my son has seen it. He thinks it's great. He really wanted to see it come out. I mean, I've done everything that I can legally do to help them. The MC5 era was before my time, so I know very little about it, except that I hope that the filmmakers get a chance to distribute their film. I don't have very much respect for Wayne Kramer as a human being... I haven't found him to be an honorable person."
Beyond that incisive clarification, the Judge's ruling would seem to speak for itself.
"Kramer's copyright claims alleged infringement of fifteen compositions all of which were either registered or published before 1972, and therefore subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act of 1909. All of the compositions that are the subject of the copyright claims are now in their renewal term. (Order on Summary Judgment Motions.) Following summary judgement, the only remaining copyright issue involves only the song "Poison", as discussed in Plaintiffs' Opening Statement. "Poison" is an insignificant part of the Film.
The renewal copyright interests of co-authors Robert Derminer and Fred "Sonic" Smith in fourteen of the fifteen compositions are co-owned by their widows and heirs pursuant to section 24 of the Copyright Act of 1909, former 17 U.S.C. section 24, in that Deminer and Smith died before the commencement of the renewal term. (Order on Summary Judgment Motions.)
Disputes between the Plaintiffs and Defendants arose only after Defendants demonstrated that the film they were crafting could be successful...
Plaintiffs persisted in continuing to encourage Thomas and Legler to complete the film. Thomas and Legler took action in reliance on that encouragement.
Warner Chappell and plaintiffs knew the facts of defendants' plans to distribute the documentary film, promised to negotiate a license in good faith, intended that their conduct in making promises to Defendants and delaying to act would be acted upon by the Defendants, and led the Defendants to believe that Defendants could act as they did. The Defendants were ignorant of true intent of Warner/Chappell and Plaintiffs, and Defendants relied upon Plaintiffs' and Warner/Chappell's representations to their detriment.
Much of this case rests upon the credibility of witnesses, and the Court finds that Thomas and Legler were far more credible than Kramer on key issues concerning alleged promises, representations and commitments.
The Court concludes that judgment must be entered for the Defendants on all claims."