Sheryl (Sheryl Crow documentary)

[burningyen]

Just caught this on Showtime and found it surprisingly moving. I’ve been a big fan since the Globe Sessions but wasn’t too familiar with her life, so maybe a lot of the stuff I learned is common knowledge. But at the core of the story is her incredible talent and drive. Chris Stapleton’s summary of her in a recent NYTimes article is spot on: she’s made out of music.

 

[andrekp]

There used to be a lot of very interesting stories about SC on the internet back 10 or 15 years ago. They were not flattering about her or her “talent” or her propensity to show up on every stage everywhere.

These were the old days on the internet though, and I’m sure it’s all been scrubbed and shoved down a memory hole by the corporations by now.

I have no opinion one way or the other, and I have not seen this doc, but I just think that being aware of how things are now, one should be suspicious of any “documentary” that employs lots of contemporary “stars” to make vacuous and predictably positive comments about an artist that became big long ago and often before they did. There’s a reason for everything, and it’s often not what it appears.

 

[A-Bone]

I just think that being aware of how things are now, one should be suspicious of any “documentary” that employs lots of contemporary “stars” to make vacuous and predictably positive comments about an artist that became big long ago and often before they did.

Does that accurately describe this documentary?

 

[andrekp]

Does that accurately describe this documentary?

I have no idea and don’t care.

But it DOES describe the typical music documentary made today. Lots of other industry talking heads saying nothing but great things about the fading star they never really worked with and plays in a different genre. No critiques. No negatives. Just Dave Grohl yet again talking about how much he’s always loved Boys2Men. Its not a documentary when you see this, it’s marketing from the company that owns these stars. It’s virtually every music documentary.

 

[WordMan]

There used to be a lot of very interesting stories about SC on the internet back 10 or 15 years ago. They were not flattering about her or her “talent” or her propensity to show up on every stage everywhere.

These were the old days on the internet though, and I’m sure it’s all been scrubbed and shoved down a memory hole by the corporations by now.

I have no opinion one way or the other, and I have not seen this doc, but I just think that being aware of how things are now, one should be suspicious of any “documentary” that employs lots of contemporary “stars” to make vacuous and predictably positive comments about an artist that became big long ago and often before they did. There’s a reason for everything, and it’s often not what it appears.

Sheryl Crow has the songs / catalogue to be worth the look back. And she was put through hell for being career minded as she caught fire - some genuine issues, but vastly more misogyny - so getting more perspective is a worthy objective. I can’t wait to see it when I get my work on my house done and my TV situation is back to normal.

 

[A-Bone]

I have no idea and don’t care.

But it DOES describe the typical music documentary made today. Lots of other industry talking heads saying nothing but great things about the fading star they never really worked with and plays in a different genre. No critiques. No negatives. Just Dave Grohl yet again talking about how much he’s always loved Boys2Men. Its not a documentary when you see this, it’s marketing from the company that owns these stars. It’s virtually every music documentary.

I wonder. Given the volume of music documentaries being produced and released these days, I'm skeptical anyone could credibly claim what you ascribe to "virtually every music documentary." While we could no doubt locate examples that more or less fit what you describe (often enough including Mr. Grohl among the talking heads), there are plenty of music documentaries that do not. Even so, your description wouldn't make them not documentaries. To describe something as a documentary isn't to claim balance or objectivity in its execution, nor is it to insist it wasn't created for marketing purposes.

 

[jekylmeister]

Egads! The cynicism in here is killing me........... the world is a tough old place.........

 

[teleman1]

I never wanted her, till now. This is just about my fav Stones tune.>>>>>

 

[Cedar]

There used to be a lot of very interesting stories about SC on the internet back 10 or 15 years ago. They were not flattering about her or her “talent” or her propensity to show up on every stage everywhere.

These were the old days on the internet though, and I’m sure it’s all been scrubbed and shoved down a memory hole by the corporations by now.

I have no opinion one way or the other, and I have not seen this doc, but I just think that being aware of how things are now, one should be suspicious of any “documentary” that employs lots of contemporary “stars” to make vacuous and predictably positive comments about an artist that became big long ago and often before they did. There’s a reason for everything, and it’s often not what it appears.

It's called hagiography and it ruins most films like this.

The narrative arc is so cliched I bet I can predict it without knowing anything about the movie and I'm a big SC fan...

Sheryl grows up immensely talented in the Midwest, but there's nothing in Missouri for her, so she moves to LA and has success as Michael Jackson backup singer, but she wants more--to be an artist in her own right, she deals with misogyny and rejection but finally lands a record deal due to her spunk and determination, but wait, fame isn't all its cracked up to be, she has dark days and wonders why she did this in the first place, her moment in the sun fades, but then, like the powerful woman she is, she rises up again On Her Terms and is now the happiest, smartest, most well-adjusted musician on the planet.

 

[Cedar]

Egads! The cynicism in here is killing me........... the world is a tough old place.........

I'd rather be a cynic than a mark.

 

[A-Bone]

I'd rather be a cynic than a mark.

I wonder if cynicism actually prevents someone from being gullible.

 

[Cedar]

I wonder if cynicism actually prevents someone from being gullible.

Depends on their IQ and personality traits I reckon. Those with high agreeableness tend to be easier to hoodwink.

 

[jasons7]

Off the topic of her music... I've always wondered what she knew about Lance Armstrong and when she knew whatever she knew.

 

[bayAreaDude]

It's called hagiography and it ruins most films like this.

The narrative arc is so cliched I bet I can predict it without knowing anything about the movie and I'm a big SC fan...

Sheryl grows up immensely talented in the Midwest, but there's nothing in Missouri for her, so she moves to LA and has success as Michael Jackson backup singer, but she wants more--to be an artist in her own right, she deals with misogyny and rejection but finally lands a record deal due to her spunk and determination, but wait, fame isn't all its cracked up to be, she has dark days and wonders why she did this in the first place, her moment in the sun fades, but then, like the powerful woman she is, she rises up again On Her Terms and is now the happiest, smartest, most well-adjusted musician on the planet.

Ha, yeah. This was how the recent Alanis Morisette documentary was done.

 

[Jarick]

Funny, I was listening to Tuesday Night Music Club when I opened TGP and saw this thread.

Sounds like it would be an interesting watch. She had a pretty interesting start to her career and when she finally got out on her own, she blew up pretty big.

I was about 10 when her first singles were all over the radio, but I got TNMC in one of those Columbia House deals, and that was a sneaky good and pretty varied album.

 

[burningyen]

There used to be a lot of very interesting stories about SC on the internet back 10 or 15 years ago. They were not flattering about her or her “talent” or her propensity to show up on every stage everywhere.

Off the topic of her music... I've always wondered what she knew about Lance Armstrong and when she knew whatever she knew.

Like I said, I wasn't familiar with all the dirt, but the doc does go into stuff like the controversies over authorship (where she doesn't come off exactly as a saint) and what she knew about Michael Jackson and Lance Armstrong.

 

[andrekp]

Specifically on the Tuesday Night Music club, there used to be a fascinating account of how it was made by one of the people involved that asserted that SC was a Johnny Bravo. Again, I don’t know if it is still allowed to exist on the corporate-owned Internet, but I’m betting few people have seen it for many years. I actually learned about it from a post HERE back in the good old days.

Again, I like SC. Not ragging on her. But there is a lot of marketing disguised as information. You need to look at your own life, with all its negatives and positives, and start asking yourself if some of these documentaries even appear to be telling the whole story. Especially when they are always so predictably full of tropes.

Look at the big Kiss documentary. It was pretty good. But can the Kiss story REALLY be told without Ace and Peter? Of course not. It’s absurd. Yet, here we are. Why assume that’s an anomaly?

 

[flare4roach]

I saw it and enjoyed it. Bottom line: SC has written quite a number of memorable catchy songs which proves she’s no one hit wonder. On that merit alone she deserves respect as a songwriter and performer.

 

[A-Bone]

start asking yourself if some of these documentaries even appear to be telling the whole story.

I wonder if it's even reasonable to ask a documentary (or biography or autobiography) to tell the "whole story." Seems like a pretty tall order. I'd offer instead that a documentary might offer a plausible version (or versions) of a story (with all the limitations inherent in the term "plausible").

 

[jens5]

There used to be a lot of very interesting stories about SC on the internet back 10 or 15 years ago. They were not flattering about her or her “talent” or her propensity to show up on every stage everywhere.

These were the old days on the internet though, and I’m sure it’s all been scrubbed and shoved down a memory hole by the corporations by now.

I have no opinion one way or the other, and I have not seen this doc, but I just think that being aware of how things are now, one should be suspicious of any “documentary” that employs lots of contemporary “stars” to make vacuous and predictably positive comments about an artist that became big long ago and often before they did. There’s a reason for everything, and it’s often not what it appears.

Yet you're expressing an opinion on something you haven't seen.