|
Post by kds on Mar 1, 2023 14:07:08 GMT
I've seen a lot of blurbs about DSOTM this morning.
It's definitely refreshing to read positive things about Pink Floyd, and the masterpiece created by David Gilmour, Richard Wright, Nick Mason, and Roger Waters, for a change.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 27, 2023 13:10:35 GMT
|
|
Barco
Denny's Drums
Posts: 41
Likes: 72
|
Post by Barco on Apr 27, 2023 16:40:16 GMT
I've been on a Syd phase again for the last couple of weeks, listening to his Floyd and solo output, reading biographies, trying to find a decent documentary about him (which I couldn't) and now this trailer comes out. That's nice. A good music doc is hard to come by, and that is so frustrating. I don't even think there are many decent ones out there. Most of the time I learn almost nothing new about the artists being talked about, and the producers feel like they absolutely have the NECESSITY to have guest stars, and include their parts wherever they can. I mean, what's the point in calling Tom Petty and Bruce Springsteen to talk about the childhood of Elvis Presley?! Something that was happening before they were even born? Stuff like this pisses me off like mad. So I don't expect anything particularly good to come out of this Syd doc. Same old interviewees telling the same old stories and opinions, no new information and photographs, no time invested to talk about his visual arts... I'll be very happy if I'm wrong, though.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 27, 2023 17:07:11 GMT
I've been on a Syd phase again for the last couple of weeks, listening to his Floyd and solo output, reading biographies, trying to find a decent documentary about him (which I couldn't) and now this trailer comes out. That's nice. A good music doc is hard to come by, and that is so frustrating. I don't even think there are many decent ones out there. Most of the time I learn almost nothing new about the artists being talked about, and the producers feel like they absolutely have the NECESSITY to have guest stars, and include their parts wherever they can. I mean, what's the point in calling Tom Petty and Bruce Springsteen to talk about the childhood of Elvis Presley?! Something that was happening before they were even born? Stuff like this pisses me off like mad. So I don't expect anything particularly good to come out of this Syd doc. Same old interviewees telling the same old stories and opinions, no new information and photographs, no time invested to talk about his visual arts... I'll be very happy if I'm wrong, though. To be fair in this case, there really can't be much new to say about Syd. He was more or less a recluse for the last 30+ years of his life, and his story's been told several times over in books and docs. There's actually a pretty good documentary called The Syd Barrett and Pink Floyd Story, which I believe was done by the BBC in the 2000s. The run time is fairly short (just under an hour IIRC), but I thought it was pretty well done.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 27, 2023 17:19:33 GMT
A good music doc is hard to come by, and that is so frustrating. I don't even think there are many decent ones out there. Most of the time I learn almost nothing new about the artists being talked about, and the producers feel like they absolutely have the NECESSITY to have guest stars, and include their parts wherever they can. I mean, what's the point in calling Tom Petty and Bruce Springsteen to talk about the childhood of Elvis Presley?! Something that was happening before they were even born? Stuff like this pisses me off like mad. Apologies for straying away from Pink Floyd here, but I think this is very true. And I have a guess as to why: music docs (like virtually everything else on earth) are marketed toward the broadest audience possible, so they can get the most eyeballs on them as possible. That means: - If you go in too deep, you're going over the heads or beyond the cares of casual fans. In the case of Floyd, that might be somebody who loves Dark Side and The Wall and knows there was some crazy genius named Syd Barrett...but that's about it. (The Beach Boys version of that would be someone who knows the mid 60s hits, or who loves Pet Sounds, and is aware there was a musical genius who had a dramatic breakdown.) And then every doc more or less covers the same ground over again, because they aren't looking at it as building upon what has come before, but replacing what has come before. To make an analogy to albums, they aren't the deluxe reissue with outtakes and unreleased material intended for the superfan collector, they're the simple reissue for a new generation who hadn't had easy access to the album preiously. - The celeb talking heads, I think, play into the marketing as well. And they often seem to be chosen with the intention of appealing to as wide a group of potential viewers as possible more than for any other criteria. Sure, they tend to have some relevance...but they push it as far as possible. (Same with tribute albums and specials.) They want broad demographic appeal. So a Brian Wilson documentary might talk to David Crosby or Danny Hutton, sure, but also unlikelier people ranging from Fleet Foxes to Thurston Moore to Billy Bob Thornton. It's more important to them to get those people's fans' eyeballs on the doc than it is to bring any real insight to the subject.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Apr 27, 2023 17:30:53 GMT
I love a good documentary (over a movie or TV series) and I would love to see the definitive one done on Syd. I'm not so much interested in his childhood and school years, and his career with Pink Floyd was so short. But, I do find his post-music career of interest. I think it is possible to fill significant minutes with Syd's last 35 years or so. With the use of unpublished family photos, maybe home movies, interviews with family members, maybe neighbors, and maybe acquaintances that Syd "ran into" during his life, it would be fascinating. I realize you would be walking that line of exploitation, insensitivity, and just plain old poor taste, but I also think there is a way to handle it decently and tastefully. I'm not expecting much of that to be included by the way, just a passing mention of Syd's rides into town on his bike and the occasional fans knocking at his door.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 27, 2023 17:34:14 GMT
A good music doc is hard to come by, and that is so frustrating. I don't even think there are many decent ones out there. Most of the time I learn almost nothing new about the artists being talked about, and the producers feel like they absolutely have the NECESSITY to have guest stars, and include their parts wherever they can. I mean, what's the point in calling Tom Petty and Bruce Springsteen to talk about the childhood of Elvis Presley?! Something that was happening before they were even born? Stuff like this pisses me off like mad. Apologies for straying away from Pink Floyd here, but I think this is very true. And I have a guess as to why: music docs (like virtually everything else on earth) are marketed toward the broadest audience possible, so they can get the most eyeballs on them as possible. That means: - If you go in too deep, you're going over the heads or beyond the cares of casual fans. In the case of Floyd, that might be somebody who loves Dark Side and The Wall and knows there was some crazy genius named Syd Barrett...but that's about it. (The Beach Boys version of that would be someone who knows the mid 60s hits, or who loves Pet Sounds, and is aware there was a musical genius who had a dramatic breakdown.) And then every doc more or less covers the same ground over again, because they aren't looking at it as building upon what has come before, but replacing what has come before. To make an analogy to albums, they aren't the deluxe reissue with outtakes and unreleased material intended for the superfan collector, they're the simple reissue for a new generation who hadn't had easy access to the album preiously. - The celeb talking heads, I think, play into the marketing as well. And they often seem to be chosen with the intention of appealing to as wide a group of potential viewers as possible more than for any other criteria. Sure, they tend to have some relevance...but they push it as far as possible. (Same with tribute albums and specials.) They want broad demographic appeal. So a Brian Wilson documentary might talk to David Crosby or Danny Hutton, sure, but also unlikelier people ranging from Fleet Foxes to Thurston Moore to Billy Bob Thornton. It's more important to them to get those people's fans' eyeballs on the doc than it is to bring any real insight to the subject. The funny thing here is this will be the second official doc about Syd. To date, there's only been one doc, an hour long BBC doc, about the complete history of Floyd. Which, for a band of their stature, is pretty surprising.
|
|
Barco
Denny's Drums
Posts: 41
Likes: 72
|
Post by Barco on Apr 27, 2023 18:20:23 GMT
I've been on a Syd phase again for the last couple of weeks, listening to his Floyd and solo output, reading biographies, trying to find a decent documentary about him (which I couldn't) and now this trailer comes out. That's nice. A good music doc is hard to come by, and that is so frustrating. I don't even think there are many decent ones out there. Most of the time I learn almost nothing new about the artists being talked about, and the producers feel like they absolutely have the NECESSITY to have guest stars, and include their parts wherever they can. I mean, what's the point in calling Tom Petty and Bruce Springsteen to talk about the childhood of Elvis Presley?! Something that was happening before they were even born? Stuff like this pisses me off like mad. So I don't expect anything particularly good to come out of this Syd doc. Same old interviewees telling the same old stories and opinions, no new information and photographs, no time invested to talk about his visual arts... I'll be very happy if I'm wrong, though. To be fair in this case, there really can't be much new to say about Syd. He was more or less a recluse for the last 30+ years of his life, and his story's been told several times over in books and docs. There's actually a pretty good documentary called The Syd Barrett and Pink Floyd Story, which I believe was done by the BBC in the 2000s. The run time is fairly short (just under an hour IIRC), but I thought it was pretty well done. I have to disagree with the highlighted part. There's so little widespread information about Syd's pre-Floyd and post-Floyd life that, in a documentary, there is a whole lot MORE new to be said about Syd than not new. Of course, it's not as if there isn't a way for us to get to know about some of that - as you said, the story's been told in books, and there is one called Dark Globe by Julian Palacios that has a lot we don't find on the web and docs. That is exactly how I feel about all this. There is a lot to be discovered, but no one seems to be bothered to interview these people anymore. They just want to have Pink Floyd-related faces. No documentary so far included substantial participation of and interviews with Syd's childhood friends, school and art-school classmates, girlfriends from his pre-Floyd years, family members, family friends from later years, etc. Why are their input restricted to books only? Why not bring them forward for this new one? As for the exploitation and insensitivity side of things, that has been done to it's limit. Syd's personal, teenage love-letters have been shown in expositions. People claimed to have participated largely on his life and told stories of questionable veracity. Old band mates have talked extensively (and exaggeratedly) about Syd's drug intake. He's been transformed into a mythical figure. It can't get worse than that, honestly. He's just a guy. A very gifted guy, at that, but just a guy. And that's what's lacking, a documentary about Syd the person, the human, not Syd the crazy genius figure. That would be the most respectable thing to do.
|
|
Barco
Denny's Drums
Posts: 41
Likes: 72
|
Post by Barco on Apr 27, 2023 18:37:05 GMT
A good music doc is hard to come by, and that is so frustrating. I don't even think there are many decent ones out there. Most of the time I learn almost nothing new about the artists being talked about, and the producers feel like they absolutely have the NECESSITY to have guest stars, and include their parts wherever they can. I mean, what's the point in calling Tom Petty and Bruce Springsteen to talk about the childhood of Elvis Presley?! Something that was happening before they were even born? Stuff like this pisses me off like mad. Apologies for straying away from Pink Floyd here, but I think this is very true. And I have a guess as to why: music docs (like virtually everything else on earth) are marketed toward the broadest audience possible, so they can get the most eyeballs on them as possible. That means: - If you go in too deep, you're going over the heads or beyond the cares of casual fans. In the case of Floyd, that might be somebody who loves Dark Side and The Wall and knows there was some crazy genius named Syd Barrett...but that's about it. (The Beach Boys version of that would be someone who knows the mid 60s hits, or who loves Pet Sounds, and is aware there was a musical genius who had a dramatic breakdown.) And then every doc more or less covers the same ground over again, because they aren't looking at it as building upon what has come before, but replacing what has come before. To make an analogy to albums, they aren't the deluxe reissue with outtakes and unreleased material intended for the superfan collector, they're the simple reissue for a new generation who hadn't had easy access to the album preiously. - The celeb talking heads, I think, play into the marketing as well. And they often seem to be chosen with the intention of appealing to as wide a group of potential viewers as possible more than for any other criteria. Sure, they tend to have some relevance...but they push it as far as possible. (Same with tribute albums and specials.) They want broad demographic appeal. So a Brian Wilson documentary might talk to David Crosby or Danny Hutton, sure, but also unlikelier people ranging from Fleet Foxes to Thurston Moore to Billy Bob Thornton. It's more important to them to get those people's fans' eyeballs on the doc than it is to bring any real insight to the subject. Absolutely. It's such a shame, though, since there are many 'die-hard' fans that would eagerly consume a well done, information-heavy doc about musicians we like. Didn't Beatles fans watch 8 hours worth of footage when Get Back came out? I know it's a different kind of documentary, but the fact people were willing to invest that much time into watching it means something.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 27, 2023 18:38:05 GMT
Yeah, Dark Globe was a good book. But, I guess what I mean is that there aren't many sources for that kind of info of Syd because he was such a recluse. But, maybe this new doc will include some surprises.
|
|
|
Post by kds on May 26, 2023 13:05:26 GMT
Um, do the police in Germany not have anything better to do? ultimateclassicrock.com/roger-waters-nazi-costume/Roger Waters is a pretty polarizing figure, and has been accused of being an anti-Semite in the past. But, the German police investigating Waters due to his stage costume, featuring the Crosses Hammers logo from The Wall, seems over the top. Now, I think you can argue that maybe those logos and costumes in a 2020s climate can be viewed as questionable. I would understand that. But, that it seems like a waste of police resources to me as this is a 40+ year old character Roger created for The Wall album and movie, and it's been a part of Roger's shows since the 1980-81 Wall Tour when he was still in Pink Floyd, and was featured in the 1990 staging of The Wall at the former site of the Berlin Wall. My main point, do a little research first.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on May 26, 2023 13:25:06 GMT
Yeah, but he was in Germany (where like the article says it’s illegal to evoke Nazi imagery). Hard for me to give him the benefit of the doubt. Seems to me like he seeks out controversy.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 26, 2023 13:28:00 GMT
I don't know a lot about it (obviously), but I know Germany has long had far more restrictive laws about speech and expression especially as relate to hate groups in general, and Nazis specifically. Remember, Kiss had to use a different logo in Germany all these years because of the double-S of their primary logo being deemed too close to the Nazi secret service logo. Does anyone think that a band led by two Jewish men was Nazi? No, but that's still the law there. I suspect it's just something similar: they don't mess around with anything even touching on those images, slogans, etc., in Germany.
Too restrictive, too touchy? I don't know. I'm a big free speech and expression guy, but I'm also not in Germany
|
|
|
Post by kds on May 26, 2023 13:31:16 GMT
Yeah, but he was in Germany (where like the article says it’s illegal to evoke Nazi imagery). Hard for me to give him the benefit of the doubt. Seems to me like he seeks out controversy. That's true, but again it's not like the first time this has been done. I feel like maybe a note from the promoter might've sufficed. Roger, maybe drop "In the Flesh" from the set tonight. Although, you're right, Roger does seem to thrive on controversy these days.
|
|
|
Post by kds on May 26, 2023 13:40:03 GMT
Just to clarify, I'm coming at this more from a police perspective. I'd think that the police have bigger fish to fry than worry about some aging rock star.
I will say that, even in the context of The Wall album, the imagery is a little questionable. Outside of The Wall album, movie, and stage show, I think it's a bit of a head scratcher. I know way back when, Roger was trying to make a connection between stadium rock and fascist rallies, but that feels very convoluted to me.
|
|