sometimes there is more stuff i would like to find. it is a lot of work. tavis: when you hear accolades of how great a guitar player you are, how does that sit with you? >> it is better than the alternative. tavis: what have you thought of your gift? >> i am grateful for the wonderful opportunities.

a lot of it truly was a tremendous amount of work. we were wood shedding and working on it. there were a lot of young bands that were tremendously influenced by the band. how they zero in on that. tavis: what is undeniable about it? on a were very much mission of finding people that were so extraordinary. we could be a club. we could do something and go out in the world and make a difference.

it was really that serious. we played everywhere and picked up so much musicality. where did this come from? homework and try to gather as much as you can. try to incorporate as much as you can. it all circled around and ended up in this book. fans ofor the long-time the band, i expect they know the answers of these questions. questions i want to ask about naming. how did the band get to be

the band? and how did you get to be called robbie robertson? it was a common thing for kids at that age -- my first name is jamie. what do you have against jamie? >> i was just called something else. i finally had to answer. stuck. i didn't argue about it. in this particular time in 1967 and 1968, there were a lot of groups with very silly names. we had been doing this for a while.

and playing with bob dylan, everybody referred to us as the band. we got used to it. we are just here for the music. tavis: can you give me a sense of if there was the respect, the regard, the difference -- deference there ought to be or once was? >> i think there is always great music being made. a lot of music is made.

be taken that serious, but there is great stuff, always. tavis: the point you make now about the fact that everything is not meant -- what happens when that scale is imbalanced? is not meant to be and 10% is? what will the narrative be about this years down the road? it is a reflection of the times and we are in it. hope -- maybe that has some depth to it. it is hard to recognize because

only time will tell. i don't think that only time will tell. think we have ears right now that let us know that some of the stuff isn't going to hold up. you are being charitable. i willll make you dosh let you make that list. i will let you make that list. tavis: you know very well it will not hold up. >> it is very true, but it is not unique to this period. there is always stuff that's shallow, trendy, gimmicky. >> who do you blame for that? artist, the the industry, the bean counters?

>> i don't blame anybody. it is what it is. it's nobody's fault. tavis: you are in a good mood today, man. >> it is a reflection of what we live the -- what we live with. there are all these different balances of it. it is valid in its own kind of way. like i said, you are in a good mood today. >> you are trying to get me to bash somebody. tavis: i am just trying to make it clear just ancient of what was, what is, and what isn't going to be. i digress on that point.

>> do you feel stronger about what was than what is? i'm glad you asked that. i said to myself the other day, in 50 years, who is going to be in a book and will it be this deck -- thick? a book of legends, icons,a n and rebels. maybe rebels. legends and icons? in this bookpeople really fit this moniker. >> i think there will be a list but it will be a little shorter. tavis: when you put together a , how do youis start? the characteristics, the qualities that you're looking for to make this list?

beenat is what i had saying earlier, time has proven this to be undeniable. of all of the people in this that they did something made a contribution to move the whole thing around. they did change the world. idea that started thinking that for a kid who is nine years book is for ages 9-99. they can grow up and be able to say i know who billy holiday

was. i heard louis armstrong. parents are thinking that is my kid. had that kind of depth and that kind of foundation. tavis: how does a kid even access that? >> because you need to share these kind of things. and in my house, growing up with my son which is where this idea started, he grew up in a house where he heard this music all the time. said a lot of kids don't have this opportunity. good,on't know what is what's bad, what's real. time, this needs to be done.

this in needs to share such a lovely way that a kid can be invited into this thing. this is not for me. it is universal. tavis: i will turn this around a little bit. i love the way it is laid out. own. artist has his or her favorites, i love the layout. you said a moment ago that some titles were just the music that changed the world. take one or two artists if you , and tell me your view of

how they change the world. i think we live in it alter where the word "icon" has been bastardized. right that icons are people that change the game. they bring something to the table that change the way it's done. we use that word all the time, so i will get a sense from you, the music think changed the world. >> without a book like this, you might not be aware of something like this. some years ago, i was spending time with chuck berry. widely considered the father of rock 'n roll. he said that if he wasn't for louis jordan, he wouldn't it even got in the music.

louis jordan changed everything and made him want to become a musician. he was that good. chuck berry said he only wanted to do what louis jordan did. that, i few years after was talking with the great little richard. he says if it wasn't for louis know if i would have gotten into music. tavis: when you spend time with the artists that are still living like little richard, is there a thread that you have come away with?

>> it is an extraordinary talent, a unique talent that stood out like a diamond. growing up, these guys were my heroes. what chuck berry said about louis jordan, you are the guy that made me say i had to be a part of this thing. when you talk about billie holiday, nothing before and nothing after in her own unique special way. louis armstrong. what he did for music changed the world. elvis, the beatles, bob dylan. it holds up. not just in regard to music

but in other arenas, technology doesn't fit this paradigm because technologically, we are advancing every day. i think they are actually setbacks, but that is a conversation for another time. genres -- haveer we experienced the best that is ever going to come? the most you can do is elevate to the level of sarah von or the level of billie holiday or louis armstrong. this is where i am cutting this generation some slack. to expressght to be your artistry, but how do they become iconic? is that still possible? is the argument from some of

this is that it doesn't get better than x, y, or z. >> i am not sure it doesn't get better. when i was playing with bob dylan in 1966, i was 20 years old. i did not know that was it and that this was a musical revolution. that what we were doing was going to change music forever. lament plays a part. artists today that will grow and will do something magical. time will tell. you are very much a traditionalist.

i am trying to keep an open mind. try tothat is why when i find something -- >> you are kicking and screaming. tavis: i think the standard is think that rather than try to elevate to that standard, people do what is making money. i think the music business is just sold out. as a result, it is all about the numbers. everybody is trying to be a copy of somebody else. that is what my issue is. theset wait to get persons on the show. this person is at least doing something that is original. not that i am just a

stuffy traditionalist. >> one of the things that has happened over the years, when these artists were at their height, there were great songwriters writing the songs wit. i don't disagree with you with any of these things. i don't think the standard is in that same place. they were songwriters. beatles, bobhe dylan, buddy holly wrote their own songs. it was financially beneficial, two. other artists said, that is what i will do as well. nowadays, a lot of people write their own songs and they are not great songwriters. they repeat 11 times. there's no real verse or melody.

7-11 songs. not all of it. a minute to go. what this book does is expose this generation, these people to legends and icons and rebels that change the world. once they are aware of it, will if they want to be an artist, what is the next piece of advice? >> to go deeper. this is just opening the door. there are a lot of artists that we very much wanted to be a part of this. there will be a volume towo on this and volume three. the stones aren't in this book. the badnd isn't in this book. i would not allow that to

happen. it was written in there and i did not want the distraction so i pulled it. there is a connection between parents and kids. tavis: you can to do your own horn with this. the band, live at the academy of music 1970 one. over four very special night, these live performances come to life in these new projects. changed the world. it is still a very busy man. always a pleasure for me to have you. thanks for watching and until next time, keep the faith. >> for more information on today's show, visit tavis smiley at pbs.org. tavis: hi, i'm tavis smiley. join me next time for a conversation with

actress jacqueline bissett about her up coming series, we will see you then. >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.

>> be more. pbs.

barry kibrick: today on "between the lines," a look at the criminal justice system with two of the country's most famous defense attorneys, mark geragos and pat harris. welcome, i'm barry kibrick. mark and pat are two of the premiere trial lawyers in the nation, and have been involved in some of the most famous trials of recent history. their clients have ranged from michael jackson and winona ryder to susan mcdougal and gary condit. now with their book "mistrial," they give us an insider's view of our justice system, to see how it works and why sometimes it doesn't. linda ellerbee: i'm a writer today because i was a reader when i was 11 years old, and it was... deepak chopra: you do not need

to prove your state of happiness to anybody. warren christopher: most of these speeches were as much as a month in preparation. stephen j. cannell: the characters, the heroes of this book are seekers of truth in a story that involves a lot of corruption. man: i get a chance to really talk about what's real, and this is the purpose for me. barry: mark, pat, welcome to "between the lines." it's a pleasure to have you on the show. mark geragos: we're happy to be here at "between the lines." pat: thanks so much for having us. we really do appreciate it. barry: it's our pleasure. i'm going to start with you, mark, because you lead off the introduction. and the book, you claim, both of you, is written for two purposes in particular--one, mark, you say, "the idea behind 'mistrial' is to go behind the scenes as never before and let the reader get a glimpse of the good, the bad and the ugly." mark: yeah, one of my favorite movies. so i figured, why not incorporate it in the book. actually the genesis for doing the book came out of a cigar bar

in new york in the upper east side. and we were sitting there one day watching a basketball game, and some guy kind of stumbled in, under the influence and a blood alcohol level probably in excess of .20, recognized us and started kind of getting in our face about who we represent, what we do, we're criminal defense lawyers, and it was very uncomfortable for a while, especially because i wanted to watch the game. but at the end of it, i finally couldn't take it anymore and turned to him and said, "what is it you do for a living?" and the guy says, "oh, i'm a civil litigator, i'm a lawyer." and that's when i turned to pat and said, look, if a guy who's a civil lawyer does not get it, maybe we should write the book. barry: now pat, you have a purpose in your introduction, too, and it's not in opposite of it; it actually adds to it. yours was how the system has lost its balance, resulting in overcrowded jails, frightened judges, and prosecutors with a batman complex.

pat harris: well, what we've talked about for a number of years is, mark and i both grew up in a system where it was very collegial. things were very, ahh, i won't say they were perfect by any stretch, but they operated very smoothly. and it's now gone into a system where it's just out of whack. and the system doesn't work if prosecutors and defense attorneys can't have equal say, and they can't work with the judges if the media's attacking things that we do and making things out of whack with people who are coming in as potential jurors. the system gets out of whack. system's got to have balance. it's out of balance badly now, and that's the other reason we decided to write the book. mark: part of that--part of that, and we talk about this in the book, one of the reasons people say, why did you become a criminal defense lawyer? i grew up in an era where perry mason, for instance, was somebody you looked, you know, was an iconic figure. judge for the defense. i loved "to kill a mockingbird," the book, and the movie, i think, even exceeded it. i thought atticus finch was a hero for kind of defending the underdog in this world where everybody was against him.

that has changed the pendulum swing that's taken place over the last 30 years, has switched to the point where the defense lawyer's now thought of as kind of a scumbag. in fact, that was going to be the original title for the book, was, "die, scumbag lawyer, die." pat can tell the story as to where that came from. but that kind of demonization of the defense, i think has had a horrible effect on the system itself. barry: well, you know, you mentioned the media. i want to take this on two approaches, because you guys do it in the book as well. it's the politization of it, and the media's role that has helped cause a large part of the politization of it. part of it, as you just said, was we used to think, you know, that the defense deserves-- what was the line, we'd rather let ten innocent men-- mark: no, ten guilty men go free than let one innocent man get convicted. barry: now it's the other way around. mark: it's completely the opposite. we'd rather convict