Preview: https://tinyurl.com/4enp5ktc

This is the show I was talking about, you know, the one from the BBC, on Amazon Prime.

My number one criterion for a streaming series is that it holds my attention, that my mind doesn’t wander, that I’m immersed in it. And “Silk” delivered on this premise. And I heartily recommend it.

Once again, “Silk” is a legal drama. And that is a time-worn paradigm, something you’re familiar with. But unlike American legal dramas “Silk” is focused primarily on the law, what happens in the office and in the courtroom, as opposed to the penumbra, i.e. the sex lives of the characters. The characters in “Silk” are three-dimensional as a result of what they say, that’s what sharp writing delivers. As for exactly who they are outside of the office, there’s an air of mystery. We know very little about Billy Lamb, the Shoe Lane clerk.

You might know Neil Stuke, who plays Billy Lamb, from “Hijack,” the Apple series headlined by Idris Elba. I recommend “Hijack,” primarily because Elba is so damn good. I usually roll my eyes when I see a plane in jeopardy film, but this is different. Elba emanates strength, and a degree of omniscience, yet he is not infallible. “Hijack” is not laden with meaning, but it’s a good ride, not only a roller coaster, there’s an intellectual component. I waited for all the episodes of “Hijack” to be aired before I partook. You want to stay in the mood. A cliffhanger that makes you wait interminably…that’s “Dallas,” the seventies, and we now live in the third decade of the twenty first century.

Now while I’ve got you can I crap all over the other Apple series everybody’s talking about, “Drops of God”? Phenomenal production values, but the story is shallow. I’m looking for something deeper. I don’t want entertainment, something I can instantly forget, but something that sticks with me.

So you probably won’t know the lead in “Silk,” Maxine Peake, who plays Martha Costello. She was in the U.K. version of “Shameless,” and she was actually in an episode of “Black Mirror,” which I did not see, but she is not like David Tennant and so many of the English actors that seem to pop up regularly in English series. As a matter of fact, Peake has spent a lot of time on the stage, which translates across the pond to the hoi polloi almost not at all.

Yes, Costello is steely. But she is not one-dimensional, she has a sex life. But she’s dedicated to her job. Costello rings true, as opposed to the female lawyers in most American series. You’ve got to be dedicated to your job to make Silk.

Yes, “Silk.” It’s the highest rank of English barrister.

You do know that barristers go to court, whereas solicitors do not. However I hear that is changing, that some solicitors can now go to court. But Shoe Lane is just solicitors, and Billy, the clerk, who wheels and deals for cases, sees the firm as representing defendants, as opposed to one that prosecutes. This ultimately becomes a plot point.

Be sure to watch “Silk” with subtitles on. Because you’ll get confused. Not only by the language, but by the unfamiliar British legal system.

And there are plot twists, that’s the nature of shows like this, but you don’t wince when the screw turns.

As far as the other cast members… Rupert Penry-Jones plays Martha’s suitemate, Clive Reader. Reader is akin to Bill Clinton, a brilliant lawyer who too often is ruled by the little head and makes bad judgments. He’s not constantly crossing the line ethically, but he does stuff we know better not to.

And then there’s the younger generation, the pupils. You’ve seen Tom Hughes in “Victoria.” Natalie Dormer was in “Game of Thrones. You might recognize Shaun Evans, I did.

And then there are the other clerks. And ultimately Miranda Raison, who you will recognize from “Match Point,” if nothing else, but she does not appear until season three.

Yes, there are three seasons, comprised of six episodes each, all an hour. It’s not a huge commitment, then again when it’s over you’ll be disappointed, you’ll hunger for more.

The barristers of Shoe Lane are overworked, and not always prepared. They might have to go to court on a case they’ve just gotten that morning. But this is the way it is. If you want a better defense, you’ve got to be able to afford it. Then again, oftentimes the game is more important than the facts. The details might ultimately be irrelevant, it’s about telling a story to the jury so you’ll win.

“Silk” is not the best TV series I’ve viewed. Far from it. But it’s definitely in that upper echelon of shows worth watching, when it’s over you won’t feel like you wasted your time.

“Silk” comes with Amazon Prime, so you don’t need to subscribe to another streaming service to watch it. And if you don’t have Amazon Prime…then you’re probably not watching much streaming television to begin with.

We’re watching this new Polish series now, which doesn’t even have a rating on RottenTomatoes yet. And I don’t want to give you any more, because it won’t be that hard to guess, and we’re only two episodes in, out of eight. I really wanted to write about it last night, because of its visceral quality, but once again, I know in their enthusiasm people would tell me the ending, and I don’t want that.

As for RottenTomatoes, there’s a great exposé in “New York” magazine’s “Vulture”:

https://tinyurl.com/y667ka3v

It’s a game, and it can be manipulated. However, I’m less worried about shows that reach my personal threshold of 80% than those that do not. In other words, I’d rather risk a show with a rating higher than 80% to be lousy than one with a lesser percentage being great. And the more reviews there are, the more accurate the number. Yet with many foreign shows, there is no rating at all. But if you’ve heard about them to begin with, that means someone is championing them. Also, you can always do further research, I do.

So watch “Silk,” you’ll like it.

Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/4v92pkwh

It’s catchy, but it makes me miss Charlie. The man with the simple kit who seemed to fade into the background but ultimately was the underpinning, the driving force of the Stones. The driving beat here is the antithesis of what Charlie would play. It’s mechanical, soulless, like too much of today’s made for the Spotify Top 50 music.

And there’s a sheen, the surface is smooth, akin to metal, whereas the feel of the best Stones material has a porous quality, and it’s these holes that capture you, that make the song interesting, it’s the difference between wood and steel, between mystery and obvious, between dark and light, between the ability to add your own thoughts and feelings and them being excluded.

But “Angry” is much better than what we anticipated. I played it once and it stuck in my head, ergo the “catchy” comment above. But I cannot write about the track without speaking of the execrable press conference hosted by Jimmy Fallon. Fallon is the antithesis of credible, sunny when the Stones specialize in dark. To see these eighty year olds riff with Fallon was like seeing your grandpa trying to be cool with a guy who has no idea what cool is. Who thinks smiling and cracking jokes makes you so. Jimmy is the class clown. The Stones were the silent art kids in the back of the room, if they attended school at all.

But at least there’s new music.

Yet by employing Fallon it demonstrates how out of touch the marketing mastermind Mick Jagger now is. If he wanted to be au courant, he would have been interviewed by an influencer, posted to TikTok, and then cross-posted to Instagram and YouTube. You know Mick is dying to look young and hip and with it, but employing Fallon shows a lack of understanding of the marketplace. I doubt Mick watches Fallon, nor does he know that almost no one does watch these late night shows. And when it comes to music you use the other Jimmy, Kimmel, not Fallon.

And at this late date, the simplistic lyrics of “Angry” make me wince. The audience, the Stones fanatics, got older, yet the Stones are stuck in time. I mean you’ve lived for eight decades on the planet, and the only wisdom you can impart is “Don’t get angry with me”?

But that’s the chorus, the hook. The verses made me wince. Barely superior to what a seventh grader would come up with. Sure, the blues format is historically simple, yet when you’ve got a rich man sticking with tradition it’s akin to slumming. The modern day bluesmen, the rappers, they do just the opposite, they boast about what they have, at length and oftentimes eloquently. Which makes the Stones appear out of time. Then again, that album track from 1967’s “Flowers” was better than “Angry.”

We’re all old now, we’ve all grown up, we’re experienced, we’ve matured, but too many of our acts have not. Give Peter Frampton credit, he lost his hair and owns it. And his great triumphs of recent years are instrumental albums, demonstrating his guitar prowess. Frampton is exploring, growing, stretching, whereas the Stones seem incapable of this.

Yes, we’ve seen the classic rock acts over and over over the past decades. First to remember, and then not to forget. Yes, we’ve got to see them one last time before they die. But they’ve too often become calcified. They get plastic surgery, wear hairpieces, do their best to look like they did in the seventies when we, the audience, are in our seventies. It’s like watching a movie as opposed to something that lives and breathes.

The Stones had an opportunity. And they punted. They used Andrew Watt, hitmaker du jour, and “Angry” sounds like it, something was lost in translation, from yesterday to today.

Oh, don’t get your knickers in a twist. Don’t say I can’t criticize Mick and Keith. If we don’t point out their flaws, then they can’t get angry and deliver something that will be remembered, as opposed to that which is momentary. “Exile On Main Street” was released in 1972 and almost promptly forgotten. Then Linda Ronstadt resuscitated “Tumbling Dice” and the double album was in the marketplace long enough for people to penetrate it. Sure, there are tracks like “Satisfaction,” that you only need to hear once to get, then there are others that need to marinate to reveal their excellence. Meanwhile, “Satisfaction” was a detailed statement, whereas “Angry” is almost an abdication.

So rock is still dead. We’re waiting for someone to bring it back. But in order to do this you’ve got to forget about commerciality. “Angry” isn’t going to be on Top Forty radio, it’s not going to be a hit, it’s going to be forgotten almost instantly. But the Stones can still sell tickets. Now is the time to stretch out, take chances, when no one is paying attention.

As for producers…

The Stones would have been better off with Rick Rubin, who is not a knob-twirler, but someone who haunts you psychologically until you deliver your best work. Rubin is an arbiter. He tries to get you into the head of when you were best. He wants you to resent him. But Rubin is the audience, he can separate the wheat from the chaff. That’s what a producer does, inspire. There are a zillion people who can spin the dials, but there are a limited few who can inspire.

Music is personal. We want that which inspires, which we want to embrace, hold near and dear, to carry us though this life fraught with challenges. The Stones made a record for those who don’t exist…young people who want oldsters making rock music with today’s sheen. There’s almost no market for that. But there is a market made up of those who don’t care about the hit parade, who lived and died for music and are just looking for new stuff to satiate, to debate.

“Angry” isn’t it.

Stones with Fallon: https://tinyurl.com/2xv9jzbr

Tune in Saturday September 9th to Faction Talk, channel 103, at 4 PM East, 1 PM West.

Phone #: 844-686-5863

Twitter: @lefsetz

If you miss the episode, you can hear it on demand on the SiriusXM app. Search: Lefsetz

Mr. Showbiz.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/paul-shaffer/id1316200737?i=1000627064374

https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9ff4fb19-54d4-41ae-ae7a-8a6f8d3dafa8/episodes/b4d0de9a-b5ad-4389-84ac-36109e81092d/the-bob-lefsetz-podcast-paul-shaffer