logo
Rock's Legends Were Messy. You'd Never Know That From Today's Movies.

Rock's Legends Were Messy. You'd Never Know That From Today's Movies.

New York Times4 days ago
Like any qualified rock 'n' roll dork, I began consuming the lore around the music early. I was a tenderhearted tween Beatlemaniac when I picked up Albert Goldman's 1988 biography, 'The Lives of John Lennon,' still a landmark of salaciousness. There followed, in some rough order, 'The True Adventures of the Rolling Stones,' by Stanley Booth; 'Hellfire,' Nick Tosches' incendiary character study of Jerry Lee Lewis; and 'Hammer of the Gods,' Stephen Davis's blow-by-blow exegesis of Led Zeppelin. I am strait-laced by disposition, so I was rendered slack jawed by the toxic excesses of rock stardom described in these books, or at least the parts I could grasp well enough to conjure a mental picture. Some things — things you should never Google about Led Zeppelin and mud sharks — remain blissfully outside my ken.
I'm strait-laced but not a prude. Over time, I came to understand that sex and drugs and sharks are among the ancillary consequences of taking the world's most gifted, vain and emotionally marginal people, placing them in stressful situations and giving them bottomless expense accounts. Nature simply takes its course. People used to seem endlessly entertained by hearing appalling stories about the results. The feral behavior of even middling musicians was the draw for VH1 programs like 'Behind the Music,' which was light on music but quite detailed about behinds, or '100 Most Shocking Music Moments.' (No. 97 featured Chuck Negron, of Three Dog Night, explaining how a certain part of his body 'exploded' following an exceedingly ambitious surfeit of human contact.) I will admit that I, too, came to relish these tales. I like Mötley Crüe just fine, but I loved Neil Strauss's medium-ironic group history, 'The Dirt,' from 2001 — again, light on music and heavy on dirt, including things you should never Google about Mötley Crüe and burritos.
Music documentaries and biopics now feel like a larger part of the entertainment ecosystem than ever, but they've traveled a long distance from that tabloid bonanza. Today's rock historians echo groundbreaking filmmakers like D.A. Pennebaker and the Maysles Brothers, treating rock 'n' roll as serious intellectual business. Early this year, 'A Complete Unknown,' James Mangold's biopic of Bob Dylan, did respectably at the box office, bringing figures like Pete Seeger and Woody Guthrie into a modern frame. Soon after, in Bernard MacMahon's documentary 'Becoming Led Zeppelin,' you could watch that band coalesce, transforming from an also-ran version of the Yardbirds into a juggernaut whose unique combination of brute force and strange, feminine vulnerability has rendered them an insoluble legend.
Yet in both, something seems to be missing. If you, like me, have mentally cataloged the countless forms of bad behavior that marked the Dylan and Zeppelin years these films cover, you find yourself practically jonesing for a scene of rampant chemical intake or at least a television being hurled through a hotel window. Aside from Robert Plant's glancing mention of the ambient feeling of drugs and girls arriving on the scene as Zeppelin's fame grew, a blissful innocent could watch MacMahon's film and believe the individuals on the screen endured the Caligula-like high-water mark of their fame with the quiet dignity of devoted family men.
These masses of songs are now blue-chip properties with reputations of their own.
It's not that I want to see the nasty stuff for fun; a lot of it is depressing, idiotic, cruel or seriously criminal. The question is what is actually true and how much we care about it. There was a time when we were prepared to hear all sorts of shocking tales, but today's filmmakers seem to be moving expediently in the opposite direction — toward cleaned-up, on-message image-making, the sorts of revised mythologies fans are eager to engage.
Consider, for instance, the Disney+ documentary 'The Beach Boys.' The band started off writing songs about surfing and cars, to match contemporary trends, and were photographed in matching striped shirts that, in some crucial way, they were never allowed to take off; they would become emblems of a carefree baby-boomer adolescence, the innocent 'before' in the before-and-after picture of the 1960s. But perhaps more than any other band of the era — an enormously high bar — the Beach Boys' story only got stranger, with problems ranging from the typical (drugs, alcohol, fights, lawsuits) to the infamous (Brian Wilson's yearslong breakdown) to the bizarre (Dennis Wilson's brief acquaintance with Charles Manson, whose song 'Cease to Exist' the band recorded a version of). In 1983, the secretary of the interior, James Watt, banned the group from performing a Fourth of July concert on the Washington Mall, on the basis of their degeneracy. Very little of this is covered in the documentary. By its very nature, it needs to see the Beach Boys the way their fellow Californian Ronald Reagan must have when he moved to restore their annual Washington gig — as a sunny redoubt of wholesome Americana, a totem of nostalgia too sturdy for those details to topple.
One simple explanation for today's hagiographies is that everyone involved is eager to cement a musical legacy, not sort through unflattering gossip. The three surviving members of Led Zeppelin are in their 70s and 80s now, fathers and grandfathers; they have, in various ways, assumed an austere dignity. As for filmmakers, looking at some of the band's past behavior through today's eyes must be just as unappetizing. Their films would be expected to devote half their run time to weighty moral investigations; almost inevitably, the music would be subsumed by the outrage.
But there is also, increasingly, the question of brand value, the preservation of intellectual property for maximum future profit. 'A Complete Unknown,' for instance, skirts the speedy, druggy side of Dylan's early work; it even massages the particulars of Dylan's personal life such that within the film's love triangle, there is no mention at all of his pregnant soon-to-be-wife, Sara Lownds. My 79-year-old mother, who has excellent taste, loved the film and walked out eager to engage with Dylan's music, despite being more of a show-tunes lady. She might not have been so smitten with a less tidy version of his life.
It's not just the artist's reputation that is at stake. In 2020, Dylan sold his catalog of more than 600 songs to Universal Music Group for a reported $300 million. Many other big-ticket acts have cashed in their catalogs in recent years, including Bruce Springsteen (sold to Sony for an estimated $550 million) and Queen (also to Sony, for what is said to be more than $1 billion). These masses of songs are now blue-chip properties with reputations of their own; why tarnish their value with off-brand looks at their creators? There's a quote often attributed to the Illinois senator Everett Dirksen: 'A billion here, and a billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money.'
Profit motive, fan service, squeamishness — all are present. On the other hand, I recently worked on a liner-notes project for a beloved band that was notorious for its excesses, to the point where the musicians' sheer will to debasement will always feature in the first two paragraphs of their Wikipedia overview. The more time I spent with their story, though, the less I found their self-destructiveness as interesting as their constructiveness — the factors that made four reprobates hold things together long enough to make a handful of generationally defining albums. Once you've heard about enough toxic behavior, a certain tedium sets in. The familiar pileups of sex and drugs and narcissism start to feel less like a thrill ride and more like a dull narrative cul-de-sac. People don't remember the saxophonist Dexter Gordon for his heroin addiction; they remember him for 'I Can't Get Started.' For even the most debauched of our great musicians, time is on their side.
Elizabeth Nelson has written for The New Yorker, The Ringer, Pitchfork and others and is a singer-songwriter for the Paranoid Style, a band based in Washington. She last wrote for the magazine about Tiger Woods and Vanessa Trump.
Source photographs for illustration above: Macall Polay/Searchlight Pictures; Michael; Larry Hulst/Michael.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Meta Exec Joins BBC News For Key Artificial Intelligence Role
Meta Exec Joins BBC News For Key Artificial Intelligence Role

Yahoo

time16 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Meta Exec Joins BBC News For Key Artificial Intelligence Role

A Meta executive is heading to BBC News to oversee its adoption of AI. Anjali Kapoor was previously Meta's Director for Media Partnerships in the Asia-Pacific region but takes on the newly-created director role for BBC News AI, Innovation and Growth. More from Deadline Stephen Colbert Praises 'South Park's Naked AI Trump PSA: "An Important Message Of Hope" Ex-DAZN Japan President Takashi Nakamura Joins Dubbing Platform To Launch APAC Office James Norton & Nikolaj Coster-Waldau Do Battle In Trailer For Historical Epic 'King & Conqueror' The move comes with traditional news orgs like the BBC thinking harder about their use of artificial intelligence. Kapoor will 'ruthlessly focus [her] time to drive audience growth both on and off-platform, accelerate AI adoption and make [the BBC] a more data-led organisation.' She joins a few months after the BBC established new editorial policy guidance for generative AI content and a few days after BBC Studios opened an AI experimentation lab. Kapoor worked for The Globe and Mail, Yahoo! and Bloomberg Media before joining Meta, where she partnered with media organizations to help with audience and revenue growth. BBC News CEO Deborah Turness said her role is 'critical as we transform BBC News to be fit for the future, using AI to enhance our journalism, growing audiences – particularly under-25s.' 'Anjali's deep knowledge of how news works, her future-focused approach to AI and her deep understanding of product and platforms make her uniquely positioned to lead this work,' she added. Best of Deadline 2025 TV Cancellations: Photo Gallery 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery Everything We Know About Season 3 Of 'Euphoria' So Far

My girlfriend loves me more than I love her. Should I settle at 27, or move on?
My girlfriend loves me more than I love her. Should I settle at 27, or move on?

Yahoo

time16 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

My girlfriend loves me more than I love her. Should I settle at 27, or move on?

Welcome back to 'Ask Amy & T.J.' In this week's column, Amy Robach and T.J. Holmes learn what a Zoomer is — and share some lessons learned in their 20s. We want to hear your questions about being newly single. When is it OK to bring a date around friends who knew your ex? Or post about your new partner on social media? If you have a question for Amy and T.J. about dipping your toes back into the dating pool, email it to askamyandtj@ If you want to hear more from our advice columnists, check out their podcast. Amy and T.J., I realize I might sound like a jerk, but here's my question: Should I be with someone who's really into me if I don't want them as much back? Or should I wait to find someone I'd really like to be with, but will have to work to win over? I'm a 27-year-old Zoomer deciding whether to settle for my current partner or start over and keep looking. What should I do?Gut reaction T.J. Holmes: What's that sound like? Amy Robach: It sounds like he's just not that into his partner! On further thought … AR: By the time I was 27, I'd been married for four years. TJH: Me too. We both got married at 23. AR: And we shouldn't have! TJH: And we shouldn't have! It's not that you can't have your ish together at age 27. But for many people at that age, you haven't necessarily figured out who you want to be yet. So how are you going to be ready to know what you want in a partner long-term? It isn't always a matter of age, though; it's a matter of where you are now and whether you can grow from there. Because by the time you're 34, you might not be the same person you are now. Your partner may not be either — by then they may not like you! AR: I also think that 27 is too young to settle. I know when you're 27, you feel like you've lived so much life — I did when I was 27; I thought I had figured most of it out. But you haven't. And you can't have. So if you aren't already in a relationship where you are so excited about taking the next step with that person, you should wait until you find that person. You've got plenty of time at 27. On the other hand, I do think that your generation — I didn't know you were called Zoomers — is far more picky, and that's not a bad thing. But there is no such thing as a perfect mate. You're never going to find the perfect person. What you want is to find the person who you love and respect enough that you will want to grow with them and be willing to change and evolve with them. You want to find the right person to be on that journey with you, but it's not going to be the perfect person. TJH: It's all about realistic vs. idealistic. A lot of people have this idea — we see it in Love Island USA — this fantasy of someone who makes their heart flutter, who's going to be their Prince or Princess Charming. It's OK to have standards, but if you get too attached to this idealistic expectation, now, any time you date someone, if they're not perfect, you think, 'I shouldn't settle for less.' Settling for less is not the same as being realistic about what you really want in a relationship. Don't let perfect get in the way of good. And sometimes what you have is perfectly good. So, before you make a decision, maybe ask yourself whether you want to throw away the relationship you have to try to get the perfect one. Maybe you can grow to be head over heels? If this woman cares about you that much, maybe eventually you'll realize that you have something special? AR: I think that might be possible. And it's why you need to be honest with your partner. Explain that you're not where they are emotionally yet, but you're not ready to end things. Ask for patience, but make it clear that you can't promise a ring at the end of this. And honestly, your partner might say 'bye' when you come clean. But I think anyone you're dating should get that opportunity to know where your head is and make a decision for themselves. It's not just you making this decision; your partner is in this relationship too. The final word TJH: The key word, though, is settle. Any time you insert that into a sentence regarding the person you're with, I think that's a wrap. That's done, it's over. You can think about being realistic vs. idealistic. But the word 'settle' is a big problem. AR: You should never settle. You can talk to your partner honestly about seeing if your feelings might grow. But don't settle. Because it might just feel like 'settling' right now, early on in the relationship. But if you stay together and you really feel like you're settling, it will turn into resentment and full-blown anger and depression. It can lead to a lot of really negative things. If your relationship is starting at settling, it's not going to end well. Solve the daily Crossword

Jason Momoa Wants You To Know His Son Got Cast In Dune Totally 'On His Own'
Jason Momoa Wants You To Know His Son Got Cast In Dune Totally 'On His Own'

Yahoo

time16 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Jason Momoa Wants You To Know His Son Got Cast In Dune Totally 'On His Own'

As the debate around the preferential treatment shown to so-called 'nepo babies' in Hollywood rages on, Jason Momoa is adamant that he's not part of the problem. The former Aquaman star played Duncan Idaho in Denis Villeneuve's Oscar-winning adaptation of Dune, and is set to reprise the role in the upcoming third instalment in the sci-fi series. For this next offering, though, he'll be joined on screen by a familiar face, with his 16-year-old son Nakoa-Wolf reported to have landed the role of Timothée Chalamet and Zendaya's on-screen son, Leto II. 'He's in for a rude awakening is what he's in for,' Jason told Extra of his son's big-screen debut. He's into the workforce for the first time. It's going to be good.' Seemingly shrugging off any nepotism suggestions, the actor then insisted: 'He did it on his own. I don't want to help him, and he's done it all on his own, and good for him.' Heaping praise on the teen, Jason added: 'You want your children to be better than you, and I really, actually believe he is. I couldn't do what he's doing at his age. There's no way I could sit in a room with Denis Villeneuve and hold my own.' 'I was on Baywatch at 19. He's 16 and holding shit down with Denis Villeneuve,' he remarked. Jason has two children with his ex-wife Lisa Bonet. They welcomed their first child, Lola Iolani, in July 2007, followed by Nakoa-Wolf Manakauapo in December 2008. The two were together for almost 20 years before announcing their split in 2022, four years after tying the knot. Since then, Jason has entered a new relationship with fellow actor Adria Arjona, who joined him and the rest of his family at the premiere of his new drama Chief Of War earlier this month. READ MORE: Jason Momoa Confirms New Relationship Following Split From Lisa Bonet Jason Momoa's Cheeky Approach To Flogging His Line Of Merch Gets A Big Reaction From Fans Jason Momoa Shows Off Dramatic New Look After Shaving His Iconic Locks For A Good Reason

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store