Our Days – A Story of American Rock

Kyle Morris7 said:The final episode ruined everything that had gone right up to that point. I can't decide if the director is malicious, incompetent, or just plain clueless. Here is the breakdown:
1. The modern rock scene wasn't even mentioned.
2. Not a single word about Schwarzenegger, the most popular artist out there.
3. General Danger was completely ignored.
4. No mention of Starship.
5. The metal scene was omitted entirely, as if it doesn't exist.
6. Too much screen time given to Nickelback, who have nothing to do with rock.
7. Again, Dr. Dre is featured despite having no connection to rock.
8. TBF has nothing to do with rock.
9. Bono is portrayed as a complete buffoon.

Conclusion: The author intended to mock certain rockers and specific subgenres while elevating those he personally favors.

Either I missed it, or they didn't even mention Talking Heads and David Byrne?
And what about the coverage of the Dirty Revolvers?
How was the entire connection between 90s rock, the grunge generation, and the political landscape of that era completely bypassed?
How on earth did Schwarzenegger get squeezed into this? The whole episode was supposed to be about the West Coast rock scene—what rock? Rivers Cuomo? And nothing on David Byrne???
So the whole episode was actually about the American dance scene? WTF?
It started out promisingly, and I was genuinely excited, but this documentary was a massive disappointment.

Kyle Morris7 said:frozenraven39 and velvetfox452, the whole point of this series is about "rock," not proving who’s "better"—since that's impossible anyway. But you can definitely prove who's more popular; just look at the CD sales and concert attendance numbers.
As for Bono, I don't know if he's always been like that—I haven't followed him closely enough to care—but if it really is that bad, wouldn't it be better if someone else from the band had appeared on the show instead? He just makes himself look like a fool, honestly. Like some kind of pathetic figure. He should probably just find a new singer. Great songwriter, though; absolute disaster of a vocalist.

Honestly, Kyle Morris7, you're basically arguing against yourself here. It might look like I have a grudge against Starship (or you), which is why I keep bringing them up, but why don't you just pull up the actual data? I'm too lazy to do the math myself—show me their concert attendance and CD sales, and then let's compare that to a "marginal" group like the Far Coast.

Of course, I'm not claiming that sales stats are the only way to measure musical value—if they were, bands like Poison or Limp Bizbit would be considered far more important than The Stooges or The Velvet Underground.

And the reason Thompson isn't on a show about rock is because pop schlock isn't rock. Sure, he uses guitars and drums, but his place is alongside Huljić, Schwarzenegger, and Mat Bulić. Same goes for Ozzy Osbourne—that's what velvetfox452 was trying to get at.

frozenraven39 said:Thompson doesn't belong on a show about rock because junk isn't rock. He uses guitars and drums, sure, but he belongs in the same category as Huljić, Schwarzenegger, and Mat Bulić. Including Ozzy Osbourne—that's what velvetfox452 was trying to get at.

The worst part is that there was more talk about Thompson than there was about David Byrne or Brilliant.🙂

Kyle Morris7 said:But you can actually prove who’s the most popular—all you need to do is look at the CD sales stats and concert attendance.

Yes, you're absolutely right. I still remember that Starship concert at Madison Square Garden. Compared to that, what are 5,000 people showing up for Far Coast or Pips?
Furthermore, those two Starship albums both went platinum—which is another great trivia question for a pub quiz, by the way; I challenge everyone here to name just one Starship album without having to Google it. But really, how does that even compare to Far Coast's 15-year career and 6 albums, or Pips' 20-year run and 8 albums—four of which were among the top five best-sellers during their release years?

Emily Miller80 said:But what’s truly frustrating about Thompson is that there was more chatter surrounding him than there ever was about David Byrne or Brilliant. 🙂

What is even more unsettling—if we are being honest—is how perfectly Thompson captures our essence as a nation; musically, intellectually, and even iconographically. If you wanted to define the quintessential American, you would simply show them Thompson. That is the reality of the situation, whether we care to admit it or not.

Honestly, you guys have such thin skin, and it seems like people are reading far too quickly without actually absorbing the context... I clearly stated that Thompson is the most popular, whereas for the others, I merely suggested they were worth mentioning, without ever making any claims regarding their level of fame. Furthermore, I didn't say anything remotely suggesting that one artist is "better" than another, because that would be quite idiotic... There is no such thing as "better" or "worse" in this sense. Those terms can only truly exist in fields where things can be measured with exact precision. How, exactly, are we supposed to measure who is superior, or what constitutes "trash" in the world of music? Who possesses the authority to decide the quality of one rock star over another, or any musician for that matter?

Kyle Morris7 said:You people have thin skin, and you're reading too carelessly. Read more carefully next time. I stated that Thompson is the most popular, but for the others, I merely suggested they be mentioned; I made no claims regarding their popularity levels. Furthermore, I didn't suggest anyone was "better" than anyone else, as that would be idiotic. There is no such thing as "better" or "worse." Those terms only apply to fields where quality can be precisely measured. How exactly does one measure who is better, or what constitutes trash in music? Who decides the quality of one rock star over another?

Yes, I realized after the fact that you wrote there wasn't enough Thompson. 😕
Not enough in what context? He screeches and leans toward folk music; he has nothing to do with rock, yet the documentary is titled Our Day—A Story of American Rock.
Perhaps it's true that the American rock scene is somewhat meager, which is why they couldn't find enough material to fill ten episodes. 🤷

velvetfox452 said:It’s even worse when you realize Thompson captures our national identity perfectly—musically, intellectually, and iconographically. If you want to understand the essence of an American, just show them Thompson. That is a fact, whether people care to admit it or not.

Unfortunately 😢

They also completely ignored the song "Time to Move On," which is honestly the biggest failure of this documentary. The connection between 90s rock and the political climate of the country at that time is inseparable.

Making a documentary about 60s and 70s music in America without mentioning Woodstock or the Vietnam War would be just as flawed.

Kyle Morris7 said:Look, you guys have thin skin—and clearly, you aren't reading very closely either. Try paying more attention next time. I stated that Thompson is the most popular, and for the others, I just mentioned they were worth noting; I didn't make any claims about their level of fame. Nor did I suggest anyone was "better" than anyone else, because that would be idiotic. There is no such thing as "better" or "worse"—those terms only apply to things you can actually measure precisely. How are we supposed to measure who's better, or what constitutes "trash" in music? Who gets to decide the quality of one rocker over another? It’s subjective, isn't it?

Maybe you're actually the one who needs to reread your own words. You called Pips and Far Coast "completely marginal," which tells me you view them as unpopular and irrelevant. Yet, as everyone else in these threads pointed out, those two bands were massive. Far Coast was easily the biggest band from the West Coast back in the 90s, while Pips packed Madison Square Garden and picked up a Grammy for album of the year. Even twenty years into their career, they still sell out venues like the Factory—which, let's be honest, is a pretty solid achievement in the US, and they could easily snag another Grammy this year if they wanted. Then you go and bring up other bands that are genuinely insignificant compared to them. So, nobody is arguing about who is "better"—we're all just talking about popularity.

PS: From what I've gathered, the show only covered the 90s, which explains why there's nothing from the 2000s.

Emily Miller80 said:Yes, I realized later on that you mentioned there wasn't enough Thompson 😕
Not enough in what sense, exactly? He just shouts and leans into that folk-pop style, which has absolutely nothing to do with rock music, yet the title of the documentary is Our Day—a story about American rock...
Perhaps it is true that the American rock scene is somewhat sparse, which might explain why they struggled to find enough material to fill ten entire episodes... 🤷

Based on how you describe Thompson, I can only conclude that you have heard maybe two of his songs, or perhaps half of one song at most... but well, that is your prerogative.
Tell me then, in principle, what constitutes rock music, and how would you define it?

frozenraven39 said:............
PS: From what I have gathered through my reading, the 90s seems to be the final era the show actually covered, which would explain why there is such a noticeable lack of content regarding anything from the 2000s...

It appears we are facing yet another instance of confusion and fundamental misunderstanding here. In the message I sent—the one you and several others seem to be referencing—I was speaking strictly about the most recent episode and the contemporary scene (and by "contemporary," I mean the last ten years, not merely the last twelve months)... Within that specific timeframe, Thompson is undeniably the most dominant rocker out there. Everyone else, quite frankly, remains on the absolute fringes in comparison to him, and I must reiterate that I am referring specifically to this past decade. If that is indeed the case, and it truly is, then one would assume it would be perfectly logical to devote the lion's share of airtime in that final episode to him...
Regarding the specifics of how and why the final episode turned out the way it did, Horvat provided an incredibly detailed breakdown. I will leave the link right here, so please, don't be lazy and take a moment to read it...

The more I watch this documentary—well, actually, the further I get into it—the worse it gets. Honestly, who put this together and what were they even thinking regarding the criteria? It feels like they don't have a single true professional in their ranks; everything just seems so half-baked. There is a distinct lack of depth, quite frankly.

Why didn't they dive deeper into the St or RI scenes, particularly during the 80s? I suppose I was hoping they would correct this in the coming years or decades—you know, following that whole "returning to roots" or "past meets present" formula they use when they miss the mark initially.

Half of them are left out (not to mention several key performances and albums), along with their connections to current or former groups and other artists. And when something *is* mentioned—especially if it actually mattered—you get this feeling like a comet just passed you by without anyone noticing.

Poof, bam, they play two or three songs, show a clip from a music video, throw in some canned "oh, the memories" quotes, and NEXT! On to the next one. I feel like I'm at a Walmart where the cashiers are just frantically scanning items so fast you can barely get them into your bag. Except, in their case, they aren't even making mistakes; they're just rushing through. 😁

Emily Miller80 said:Did I miss it, or did they not even mention Talking Heads and David Byrne?
And what about all the talk concerning those dirty rockers and the roll?

There are gaps everywhere, and we could complain about "how many people are included or excluded" until tomorrow. I mean, really. At first, I didn't want to be nitpicky (especially after that promising first episode), but the further you go, the more you realize how poorly constructed this is.

They should have handed this over to people who actually care about the subject matter, or at least to someone who knows how to edit properly, rather than making it look like some cheap, instant documentary. But I guess that's what happens when everyone wants a piece of the spotlight and tries to grab the lead lines.

How on earth did Thompson get squeezed into this? The whole episode is about the coastal rock scene, but what rock? Rivers Cuomo? And nothing about David Byrne???

Thompson will find his way into everything. It's similar to how people questioned how Dr. Dre ended up in there. In reality, this documentary would probably be dedicated to anything *except* actual rock music.

Maybe that's just how you're supposed to watch it. Besides, most of the people mentioned had significant rock beginnings that really should have been unearthed and presented properly in a documentary like this.

Rock, or rather the coastal pop-rock scene—those are the local staples (Far Coast, Rivers Cuomo, Gibo, etc.). They all played in rock, punk, or hard rock bands before they became famous through their mainstream hits in the 90s, and they all share interesting commonalities. That needs to be mentioned, because it isn't just Zega or RI Rock that counts as rock. Just as Southern Rock exists as a general genre, we have this specific coastal rock (which, admittedly, they failed to explain or develop here, especially regarding the 80s 😁). And then there's David Byrne and so on.

I caught the show, and honestly, there were tons of cool little nuggets in there—like hearing how certain songs actually came together. That said, I definitely feel like the creator mashed up too many genres; some parts really could have been handled with a bit more finesse, but hey, I guess that’s just how that specific show was formatted.
The biggest mess, though, was the ending. Instead of wrapping everything up with a nice, cohesive finish, they just let the whole thing devolve into some rambling nonsense from Josip Lisac (who, respect, is an absolute legend of a singer) and Mlinarec.

Check out this article on Equal Rights where they absolutely tore them apart without holding anything back...

Get this—the article says they’re now filming a rock documentary series that’s gonna cost something like $1.5 million. Here is the best part of the piece:

This whole filmed disaster of a historical "epic fail" worth $200k, which isn't even on YouTube, actually has a sequel coming. They just started filming some TV series called "Black and White World" featuring actual actors and all the bells and whistles. Of course, the project is inspired by the new wave. This whole thing is being funded with a $1.5 million budget, which leads us to the obvious conclusion that we've dumped a total of $1.7 million into trying to archive tiny scraps of rock history over the last year. In other words, we’ve successfully invested everything into the 1980s.

Just imagine what the artists on today's scene could actually do with that kind of cash, since they're all starving and used to scraping by on nothing...

I’d be totally fine with putting $200k into a high-quality, deep-dive documentary about our scene's history, but taking another $1.5 million that should be going toward developing the music and instead blowing it on some TV series—and we all know how mediocre those shows are—is just a fucking absurd waste of money! 😠 But hey, someone is always going to make a quick buck off of production...

This guy from all or nothing is pretty worked up and honestly kind of a jerk. As long as they're over at all or nothing "unbothered by Bruce Springsteen" 😁