"I farted and it relieved my lower stomach pain momentarily."
That assumes the record company execs in South Africa were telling the truth when they said they were sending the royalties to Sussex Records - a company that had not existed since the mid 70s. Why didn't they mention Avant by name? The doc guy had to track him down.
Second, it assumes that Avant getting angry is because he is pocketing the money when he seems kind of surprised to be told about a half a million sales in South Africa. Maybe he's angry about being screwed out of that money himself.
Third, it assumes the doc guys didn't just conveniently leave out the fact that Avant has been sending money to Rodriguez so that they could make their country more the heroes in giving Rodriguez his due (like they left out Australia's part in all of it.)
No one but the people involved will probably ever know the truth.
"My name is Paikea Apirana, and I come from a long line of chiefs stretching all the way back to the Whale Rider."
Actually, I thought the one guy did say they were sending the money to "Clarence." Also...aren't the doc makers from Sweden, not RSA?
shareSecond, it assumes that Avant getting angry is because he is pocketing the money when he seems kind of surprised to be told about a half a million sales in South Africa. Maybe he's angry about being screwed out of that money himself.
Yeah, that response sounded like something Don King would've said about one of his many lawsuits.
shareI thoroughly enjoyed the documentary.
Having said that, I think your critique of Rodriguez' music is exactly right. I think he was good too, but can understand why he didn't catch on for precisely the reasons you cite.
Avant implies that race played a role. I totally disagree. The early 70s were a period of massive integration in the pop arts...just take a peek at the Billboard charts and Neilsen ratings from the era. To say it was because he was Latino is disingenuous. How did Santana, Cheech & Chong, Malo, Tony Orlando and Jose Feliciano all hit it big then? I would argue it had nothing to do with race, and everything to do with their talent and/or product. Besides this, his music did not even have a Latino vibe to it. If it had clicked and picked up steam with the American public, ethnicity certainly would not have slowed it down.
It is entirely possible that there are certain artists who deserve recognition but never receive it because of a variety of factors, including luck. Was Rodriquez one of those people? Possibly. Did he deserve Elvis-like or even Dylan-like fame? Probably not. Perhaps on some other level, however, he was deserving.
To me, the really amazing thing about this story is not that Rodriguez' albums failed in the United States, but instead that a small country on the other side of the globe could latch onto it and make it their own. His lack of success here is only relevant in regards to that story, i.e., if not in America, why in South Africa? That's what makes it so fascinating.
Many acts don't find recognition and acceptance in the US and it's after they go touring in other countries and get discovered there that then the US realizes how good they are, i.e Kings of Leon, The Ramones, etc. What's heartbreaking about this man's life is that just from the record sales in SA and Australia he could have lived solely from his artistry, and gone on produce even greater music, as he would have built upon his initial recordings which showed great promise, so the critique given previously is quite unfair when you realize that artist even like Bob Dylan only got better by what their success afforded them, i.e better producers, collaborating musicians not to mention the time to write and compose that instead for Rodiguez had to be used to wield a shovel instead of a guitar. So somebody obviously got rich off Rodriguez and stole what Rodriguez might have done in his prime, that would have been the capstone of this doc. to find out who that was, and expose this thief for all to see. All of this could have made Rodriguez a bitter man, but instead we see a gracious humble man who found other riches that avarice and greed can't begin to understand and Rodriguez never became that which he sang against; the corrupt corrupted by power and wealth. God bless you Rodriguez and may others learn from your example
sharewell-said RMario9 :-)
PS. I thought it ironic that the South African concert audiences for Rodriguez, who supposedly provided the soundtrack for the anti-apartheid movement, were completely white.
I noticed that too. The person I saw it with came up with this explanation: the SA popularity started with a white American bringing a copy of the album to other whites. Since the society was so segregated, it became popular among whites. But it does beg the question: does Rodriguez have any black fans in South Africa?
You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi
[deleted]
PS. I thought it ironic that the South African concert audiences for Rodriguez, who supposedly provided the soundtrack for the anti-apartheid movement, were completely white.
I noticed that too. The person I saw it with came up with this explanation: the SA popularity started with a white American bringing a copy of the album to other whites. Since the society was so segregated, it became popular among whites.
...But it does beg the question: does Rodriguez have any black fans in South Africa?
Thanks for your answers, Lisa.
I find it strange how bitter some people seem to be about this film, for reasons I just can't fathom.
I can't fathom it either. I just chalk it up to IMDB. On the board of any well-liked film, there's someone putting it down.
You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi
You're welcome! That's so true. I sometimes think IMDb is some kind of alien, parallel world. .
http://tinyurl.com/anxbvfh
I don't think it's that easy. Rodriguez' story sure is touching, his music's great and the little "detective story" that led up to his so-called discovery or rather re-discovery is okay as well. Beside all that, I still think it's just not a very well made documentary. It's too sloppy, too many loose ends, plus the director's clearly shifting some facts around in order to get the desired narrative effect. I simply fail to see the tragic or heroic aspect of this very average dude's life. There's thousands if not ten thousands of artists around just like him. Someone who's talented, tries a little, fails and then moves on... Nothing too spectacular when you think about it. And the guy himself really isn't that interesting. He doesn't talk much, but that doesn't make him wise or a supreme artist. In fact, his co-worker had a lot more interesting stuff to say about the whole affair than the maestro himself. Also the story by now is 15 years old and very well known (if you care about such stories). So, for a documentary filmmaker to come along and package the whole thing into a once in a liftime discovery is just a bit lazy, it's just a bit too much fabrication. It shows how desperately we are looking for new myths. We are fast running out of the stuff that dreams are made of.
shareI simply fail to see the tragic or heroic aspect of this very average dude's life.
And the guy himself really isn't that interesting.
It shows how desperately we are looking for new myths.
hi, I replied to your answer in a separate thread, makes more sense to take it from a new beginning.
shareThe person I was replying to had commented about how bitter some people are about the film, which is what I was responding to. You have issues with the film, which is not the same thing, especially since you articulate them well. This is a discussion board, after all.
There's thousands if not ten thousands of artists around just like him. Someone who's talented, tries a little, fails and then moves on... Nothing too spectacular when you think about it.
Except that it turned out, that's NOT his story. This is the unique story of a musician who THOUGHT he'd failed, only to find out 25 years later that he was in the stratosphere of popularity halfway around the world. The flip side of the story is the millions of fans who knew nothing about this man who had a huge influence on their lives, and even thought he was dead, only to learn years later that he was alive, and got to have him tour their country. It's amazing and inspiring. And the confluence of circumstances that allowed all this to happen will probably never happen again.
And the guy himself really isn't that interesting. He doesn't talk much, but that doesn't make him wise or a supreme artist.
I find Rodriguez very interesting, not so much for what he says I agree, but for his general vibe. This is a man who has lived a life many of us would hate (poverty, hard physical labor, cheated out of large sums of money) but yet he comes across as not a bit bitter or arrogant. He seems very gracious, humble, and at peace. That's worth showing on film. I'm glad I've "met" him this way.
Also the story by now is 15 years old and very well known (if you care about such stories).
Really? I don't think it was well known in this country, until this documentary came out.
You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi
hi, I replied to your answer in a separate thread, makes more sense to take it from a new beginning.
sharehardly an example of great investigative journalism
[deleted]
It tells a very specific story about a group of people in South Africa who were fans of a particular artist and how they found him.
There are likely dozens upon dozens of details the storytellers decided not to dig into--and that's fine--it's a decision they made.
The movie isn't about "how much money did this dude get screwed out of?". If it were, I'd agree with you...they should have spent another hour on the subject.
[deleted]
In that they mentioned it, sure. But it's not a core part of the overall story. It's a detail. A detail that they decided (for whatever reason) didn't need more screen time. I agree with their decision. To me, it wasn't about the money, but the fact that the knowledge of his fandom in SA was kept from him.
shareIt purports to find him and re-unite him with his S African audience.
No, South Africans found him and reunited with him back in 1998. This film documents that; it didn't make it happen, nor does it purport to.
You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi
Despite the Feliciano comparison making some sense stylistically , I found your Count Basie example completely out of context.
First off, Count Basie was completely aware of his fame, filled dance halls, and sold records for years & years - while "Rodriguez" didn't have a clue he was huge in Africa while he toiled in grunt carpentry.
This documentary is not about being ripped off, it's about being TOTALLY unaware of your own popularity. It's also about the search for information in an era when one couldn't find EVERYTHING on the internet.
Furthermore- I personally wasn't manipulated by the "feel good" of this film, I find the music and lyrics of Rodriguez excellent, beautiful and refreshing. His lyrics have a rhythmic quality that groove and snap while they try to connect and say something. I find his music in the same caliber of Nick Drake, Donovan (at his best), Fred Neil, Dylan and many other SIMILAR artists of his era.
Do I find the music Rodriguez as important as Thelonious Monk? No. But comparing Rodriguez and his musical significance to Basie (or Robert Johnson? or Charlie Parker?) seems like a strange way to make a point.
[deleted]
[deleted]
"Learn to read"?
Maybe you are listening to blues too much, Blues Doctor?
Against my better judgement- I still emphasize you focus on the wrong point "the vagaries of the music industry" which is not as interesting (or the point of the film) as Rodriguez being completely ignorant to his success in Africa.
And instead of being lazy and stating...
"As for the rest, there's no accounting for taste. Just look at the recent Grammys"
That takes us far away from the era, the artist and my point...
It would have been more interesting if you compared Rodriguez to the artists I listed - Nick Drake, Fred Neil, Donovan, who were actual peers of Rodriguez - unlike the current Grammy nominees which have nothing to do with anything... Right?
Maybe you can try harder - So I can learn something from you?
""Learn to read"? "
Just read their other posts on this board and you'll see what type of person you're dealing with.
[deleted]
[deleted]
"Movie fails completely to track down the fate of the unpaid South African royalties."
this was one of the major flaws of the movie IMHO. maybe it was too complex a topic, but then why hint at it?
[deleted]
This documentary is not "Searching for Sugar Man's Royalties". It's about his South African fans searching for their idol. The fact that he didn't even know he was huge in that country makes it obvious that he didn't get royalties, so it had to get mentioned. But finding out why he didn't get the money was not the focus of the film. Nor, imo, should it have been.
The original "Paradise Lost" documentary about the West Memphis 3, which argued that they were wrongfully convicted of murdering three little boys in the early 1990s, comes to mind. The obvious question is: if they didn't do it, who did? But criticizing the film for not solving that question would be to miss the point. The focus was on showing that these men were wrongfully convicted, and how and why that happened. Now they have been released from prison, and other documentaries are addressing who is the true guilty party.
The point is, to be effective, documentaries need to have a focus. Trying to do too much would have lessened the impact.
You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi
[deleted]
As if agreeing with you was a sign of my having intelligence.
Getting to the truth about what happened to the royalties will take a legal team and probably years. Yet you expect a documentarian working on a shoestring to be able to take on large corporations and get this figured out, when anybody who stole this money has a vested interest in the truth NOT coming out? RIGHT. The director raised the question, and let Avant's response speak for itself. And again, not to belabor the obvious: what happened to the royalties was not the point of the movie.
You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi
[deleted]
Movie, in fact, was made by a Swede who, while rooting around for an interesting subject for an indie doc., stumbled, quite by accident, on a musician living in obscurity and poverty in Detroit, totally unaware he was once a pop superstar in S Africa back in the 1970's.
Your statement makes it sound like Rodriguez was unaware of his SA stardom before the Swedish director decided to make this movie. Rodriguez was found by South African fans in the 1990s and toured SA in 1998. The Swedish director learned of this story many years later, 2006 or so, and made a documentary about it.
We had this exchange above. You said this movie purports to find Rodriguez and reunite him with his South African audience. No, the movie does not purport to do that. It documents the reunion that happened back in the 1990s. The movie is quite clear about that.
You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi
You're MISSING the point of "follow the money"!! Segerman said that in his HOPE to FIND Rodriguez, the BEST way would possibly be to FOLLOW THE MONEY! His INTENT was not to find the money for the sake of finding money, but the HOPE that by following the money, he would eventually FIND Rodriguez.
Make sense to you now, over-thinker???
[deleted]
Intolerant because of caps? Yea, when someone harps on a point(you) that is not that relevant and not central to the movie's theme. The money was a vehicle to finding Rodriguez, not recovering royalties. This story developed over a long period of time. I dont know about you, but I was a teenage in the 70's and that seems like ages ago, so from a music and memory standpoint, I can imagine how important finding Rodriguez meant to Segerman and how seeing him LIVE after it was believed he was long dead, must of been mind-blowing for the people of SA, for whom he had become a icon and legend. The money issue is not what the movie is about. Get off it.
The CAPS were for emphasis, not shouting unless ALL are caps.
What makes you a blues doctor anyway? Your diagnosis was terrible on this point. Patient dead.
lol
Clarence Avant, who worked with masters like Bill Withers, considers Rodriguez to be in the top 5 musicians he worked with. Who are you again?
And most of your "critique" can applied to such artists as Bob Dylan. You might've heard of him.
Now go home and get your f#cking Count Basie CD box.
'88
Rodriguez's music isn't bad, but it ain't great, either. It's completely understandable why his records didn't sell in the US: The string arrangements border on schlock; Rodriguez's voice isn't original -- he sounds like Jose Feliciano; his vocal range is limited to less than one octave; melodically and rhythmically the songs are nothing special and; the songs are all downers, rather bitter.
Clarence sure did seem like a crook. Some idiot said the movie presents no proof that Clarence was paid the money. Um, someone needs to tell said idiot that testimony is a form of evidence, probably the most important form, and there are numerous South African record company execs saying they paid the money to Clarence. And they didn't get defensive and weird like Clarence did.
shareI imagine (and hope) this film will drum up some new sales via iTunes or on Amazon for Rodriguez.
If he truly garners popularity similar to Simon and Garfunkel and The Beatles then I'm sure his records will continue to sell in South Africa. I wonder what his cut will be. Does the defunct Sussex company get a cut too? Hopefully he earns enough to at least afford quality musical instruments! That ax he was strumming at the end of the show sounded like a 3rd grader's science fair project. Get that guy a Taylor or at the very least a Martin.
I thought that about his guitar too. His music deserves a better one.
share