Añade un argumento en tu idiomaMusicians in the late 20th century blended guitar noise with pop structures while letting the music speak for itself. Press-shy artists now share their rule-breaking journey of sonic innovat... Leer todoMusicians in the late 20th century blended guitar noise with pop structures while letting the music speak for itself. Press-shy artists now share their rule-breaking journey of sonic innovation.Musicians in the late 20th century blended guitar noise with pop structures while letting the music speak for itself. Press-shy artists now share their rule-breaking journey of sonic innovation.
Imágenes
Reseñas destacadas
The documentary mainly consists of presentations of the most prominent bands in this scene: Cocteau Twins, Jesus and Mary Chain, My Bloody Valentine, Ride, Slowdive, Chapterhouse, Pale Saints, Lush, and Medicine. The first three get the most time dedicated to them, while the rest are covered more briefly. Their stories are told through a mix of archive footage and recent interviews of the band members. To show the wider impact of these musicians, there are also interviews with Billy Corgan of Smashing Pumpkins, Robert Smith of The Cure, Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, Adam Franklin of Swervedriver, Wayne Coyne of The Flaming Lips, 4AD label head Ivo Watts-Russell, Ulrich Schrauss, Rob Dickinson of Catherine Wheel, and Creation label head Alan McGee.
The documentary then moves on to short bits on various aspects of the scene in general: experimentation, the predominance of female vocals, the image of shoegazers are shy, uncertain performers, their rocky reception in the press, "the scene that celebrates itself", and finally the collapse of the shoegazing scene due to changing economics or bands' internal squabbles. The document ends with a mention of the "resurgence" of the shoegazing aesthetic in new post-millennium bands like M83 or A Place to Bury Strangers and the reunion of some of the classic bands.
The downside of this format is that while it provides a great deal of exclusive live footage and interviews to thrill fans of this music, it offers no straightforward narration that would inform viewers unfamiliar with this movement in musical history. Also, to fit into a 85-minute format, material naturally had to be cut, but it is disappointing how the perennially overlooked band AR Kane is so prominently mentioned at the start of the documentary, but we get only two brief shots of band member Alex Ayuli.
I question how useful or entertaining this doc will be for the uninitiated to this style of music. For the rest of us, it's a great walk down memory lane, and with interviews from rock luminaries like Billy Corgan and Trent Reznor, a validation of what we've known all along.
But my favorite part was the interviews of Kevin Shields and Alan McGee inter-cutting between each other as they talked about the recording process of MBV's "loveless" (they are basically ripping each other a new hole about the whole experience by recounting how, basically, they thought the other person was disrupting their lives, and in McGee's POV business). This just goes to show that history is determined by those who write it (or talk about it in this case).
Personally, the most important outcome of watching this documentary was that it made me pull out all of my shoegaze/dreampop CDs to rip them into FLAC format so I could revisit it all during a long trip I have coming up.
If you get a chance to see "Beautiful Noise", by all means do: the artists are interviewed in intimate settings where one gets the sense they were able to relax and really reflect upon the music they've made and their larger cultural impact. It was definitely worth the wait for this doc.
So its a vague scene for starters. I mean, where do we say "noise" started? Well, I think its OK to draw the line somewhere and just say it was Britain in 1980. Of course we know about the Velvet Underground and earlier - but this really is about "shoegaze" music (in the late 80s - early 90s), which openly revived the kinds of texture The Velvets and others explored in industrial music, but sometimes with new technology.
So the lead players are really The Cocteau Twins, Jesus And Mary Chain and My Bloody Valentine. Three hugely influential pillars of popular rock music that didn't really sell a lot of music. What this film does best is just let the musicians, engineers and studio heads speak for themselves. And what you get is not every piece of the sprawling puzzle (snobs wake-up, its impossible to explain everything about a decade of fuzzy music in one film) but a great overview of how the musicians felt about what they were doing and who influenced them. This is supported by bigger known American artists who sight these groups as influential to them.
The film doesn't have the structure and production value of something like a slick authorised Rolling Stones documentary - but thank goodness it doesn't. This was obviously a labor of love and the filmmakers obviously cared about the subject or all the significant artists wouldn't have contributed to it. A Rolling Stones (or any other big group) documentary is an authorised product these days, which means they get to cut out anything embarrassing and basically create a piece of advertising/propaganda to keep the legacy (business) going. Watch a John Lennon documentary and Yoko as the head of the Lennon estate will make sure you never know about John's previous wife.
This is definitely worth seeking out and surprisingly good.
Considering this thing was 10 years in the making, the filmmaker seems to have done very little research, or made any attempt to build a connection with the artists. I appreciate the ambitions here to cover a big spectrum of the music, but spending 2-5 minutes on each band definitely left me wanting more. He would have been better off focusing on one or two artists, like last year's "Made of Stone", which I enjoyed very much. The other issue I have with this film is the shallow interviewing. It seems that everyone who appears in the film was asked the same questions: When did you first hear about the band, and why do you like them? I would have learnt more if the artists were asked about their favourite food and colour :)
This film is worth a viewing for anyone new to the genre, but any hard-core fan like myself will already be well familiar with the band chronology, and the music's dreamy, ethereal quality :/
¿Sabías que...?
- Citas
Robert Smith: I mean I really fell in love with the whole, with the sound, which kind of like went on, I mean it was as much Liz's voice as Robin's production, the two were kind of like seamless, and I was always really intrigued, they made it sound so effortless, that's what attracted me the most. It was kind of, the first time I'd heard this sort of you know, it was described in various ways. It was ethereal and all the other adjectives but it was really centrist, it kind of drew you in, and effortless, and you just found yourself immersed in this sound. And I played the Cocteaus like relentlessly, you know when you get to a period and you play the same albums over and over again. I could probably play most of Treasure and I've never sat down and learned it, but I just, I know it so well. In fact that was the album I played as I was getting ready for my wedding, I played it to myself as I was getting dressed on my wedding day, because it is the most romantic sound I'd ever heard.
Selecciones populares
Detalles
- Duración
- 1h 27min(87 min)
- Color
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1