BACKSTAGE PASS Behind the scenes of the music documentary

(1)

BACKSTAGE PASS

Behind the scenes of the music documentary

Analysing the driving forces that construct music documentaries

Teja Rebernik

S2957191

MA Journalism

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Supervisor: Dr. Susan Aasman

Second Reader: Dr. Ansgard Heinrich

(2)

II

Abstract

Music documentaries are one of the most popular documentary genres but they are also a complex hybrid media form that has to navigate the complicated landscape of documentaries and the music industry. Music documentaries aren’t just documentaries, they also follow other goals such as profit, marketing and building the artist’s brand. The thesis investigates the driving forces behind music documentaries to establish them as a complex product of today’s society. In order to achieve this, the thesis adopted a practical perspective of music industry and business, strengthened by theory on documentary. First, a music documentary corpus was created to identify patterns in music documentaries as a form as well as to create a potential typology of music documentaries. Second, based on the theoretical framework and corpus, a music documentary research model was designed, illustrating five driving forces: documentary tradition, artist, audience, societal context, and film production. Finally, five sample music documentaries were thoroughly analysed with visual textual and contextual analysis. The results showed that documentaries focused on famous artists are by far the most popular and that the most prevalent genres remain pop and rock, closely followed by metal and punk. Music documentaries are lucrative and thus popular with filmmakers, even though they are often partially driven by producers who are connected to the subject in some way. Fans are often the most enthusiastic viewers of music documentaries but they remain critical and speak out if they feel information about the subject has been ignored or obscured. Additionally, the music industry and in particular record companies have interest in music documentaries because they can help drive sales and market artists. These results, among others, show that music documentaries are a multifaceted product that perform more roles than just entertain the masses.

(3)

III

Acknowledgments

I would like to give a big thank you to my supervisor, dr. Susan Aasman, for helping me find my feet and for providing invaluable feedback during my writing process. Your comments always clarified things for me, bolstered my confidence, and made me laugh.

A giant thanks goes to my family and this will be in Slovenian, because I cannot say it any other way:

En velik hvala vsem trem za podporo in navijanje. Mik, hvala za jasen pogled na svet in opomin, da obstajajo stvari, ki so bolj pomembne kot šola. Upam, da bom sedaj na vprašanje »kaj počenjaš« lahko končno odgovorila s čim drugim kot »magistrsko pišem«. Ata, hvala za akademski duh, mnoga svetovalna zasedanja po Skypu in natančen pregled te gromozanskosti. Obljubim, da naslednjih nekaj mesecev od mene dobivaš za brati le stripe. Mama, hvala za vzpodbudo in takšno razumevanje, ki mi ga ne bi mogel nuditi nihče drug. Saj veš, mama je ena sama.

(4)

IV

List of figures

Figure 1: Music documentary overview (in numbers) p. 25

Figure 2: Global revenues by segment, $US billions (source: IFPI, 2016a) p. 39

Figure 3: Traditional music value chain (Leurdijk and Niewenhuis, 2012) p. 40

Figure 4: Music networks (Leyshon, 2001) p. 40

Figure 5: New music industry value framework (Berry, 2011) p. 41

Figure 6: Music documentary star model p. 65

Figure 7: Artifact regularly features skyline features and informs the viewers of its timeline. p. 74

Figure 8: Artifact employs the split screen to show the band torn in different directions. p. 75

Figure 9: Interviewees are featured against a black background that hides part of their face. p. 77

Figure 10: The interview setting is characterized by Beyoncé completely at ease in her home. p. 80

Figure 11: Concert footage is nearly the only instance where the focus isn’t on Beyoncé’s face. p. 81

Figure 12: Typical example of homemade footage prevalent in the film. p. 82

Figure 13: The beginning places the viewers on an African road. p. 85

Figure 14: The footage of Detroit is grainy and seems old. p. 87

Figure 15: The camera follows Rodriguez from a distance, preserving the myth of the man. p. 88

Figure 16: Clear interview shots are in juxtaposition with the grainy homemade footage. p. 91

Figure 17: Typical example of footage filming Kurt Cobain’s notes. p. 93

Figure 18: The animated sequence narrated by Cobain is one of the most striking features. p. 94

Figure 19: Frequent topless appearances of band members indicate a film that pleases the fans. p. 98

Figure 20: In one sequence, One Direction concert footage includes comic-book editing. p. 99

Figure 21: A neuroscientist appears as an expert to explain why the band is popular. p. 100

List of tables

Table 1: Modes (Nichols, 2001) p. 10

Table 2: Rockumentary visual representation (Baker, 2011) p. 22

Table 3: Music documentaries per genre p. 28

Table 4: General characteristics of the documentary p. 54

Table 5: Questions about the music documentary p. 54

Table 6: Questions for analysis p. 57

Table 7: Typical crew members in film production (Baker, 2006, IMDb glossary, 2017) p. 62

(7)

VII

Introduction

“Music and film are parallel experiences: they are linear, they are narrative.”

- Todd Haynes

Music and documentary: A powerful combination

Music and film do indeed go hand in hand, as Todd Haynes’ quote illustrates, and nowhere is that more apparent than in the music documentary. It is difficult to miss the popularity and sheer amount of music documentaries that have come into existence over the past five decades. Today, popular artists are expected to star in a music documentary: if not in a biographical one, focusing on their life and experiences, then at least in a concert one, dedicated to their performance. But artists as subjects are just one of the facets of music documentaries, which are constructed through various driving forces. It is these driving forces that my thesis is focusing on.

However, it is important to first and foremost consider music documentaries as part of a larger picture, namely in terms of the documentary genre. Documentaries are non-fiction films and are often connected to terms such as “reality” and “truth”. But while documentaries are a representation of reality, it is important to keep in mind that reality lies in the eyes of the beholder. It’s subjective. Not only that, the reality of documentaries depends on various factors, such as the filmmaker’s view of the world (their Weltanschauung), contextual and sociocultural factors, and the choosing and editing of footage later in the process. These forces are part of the documentary, they don’t control it: without them, a documentary would not (and could not) exist at all.

(8)

VIII expected to do their best in terms of representing reality, but that they can’t ever achieve pure objectivity.

This turns out to be especially relevant when talking about music documentaries, which exist for entertainment reasons more than they do for educational purposes. While this thesis will focus on entertainment and artist-focused documentaries, there are also other, more educational music documentaries that focus on ethnographic discoveries of genres or music, for examples. Consequently, different music documentaries attract different kinds of viewers, fans and casual viewers (whom I will focus on) but also those who are interested in other knowledge that a music documentary has to offer.

Music documentaries bring with them a set of issues that other documentaries do not often encounter. Artists hold a certain social status and music documentaries about them can be created for different reasons: building an artist’s image, ensuring and growing the artist’s popularity, protecting the legacy of a deceased solo artist or inactive band, preserving the myth surrounding the artist’s existence, and so on. All this influences the filmmaker, and so does the fact that artists or their families are often in the production team or provide at least some of the financing.

This is further complicated by copyright issues. Few musicians are willing to lend the rights to their music to someone who would then slander them in film form. Even fewer record labels, which are frequently the ones controlling the process, would be willing to risk their own reputation and the loss of potential buyers if a film were to ruin the carefully constructed image of a music star. Scandal sells, but not for long. Yet having a biographical or concert music documentary is nearly a must for famous artists these days, and so the filmmaking and music industry are more entwined than ever, constantly renegotiating boundaries.

(9)

IX

Going behind the scenes: Forces that construct music documentaries

The research question below is the central focus of my thesis, helping me discuss different aspects of music documentaries and explore their complexity.

Which are the driving forces that construct music documentaries and how do they work? The research question helped me analyse the music documentary from a more practical business and industry perspective but still within the constraints of documentary studies. If we wish to understand the music documentary today, it is necessary to not only understand the final result but also what makes it into what it is. The umbrella term “driving forces” unites the factors that are at work in music documentaries, all of them indispensable part of the process.1 Due to the depth of this question, I also use four different subquestions to work out the topic in more detail. The subquestions, marked as RSQ1 – RSQ4, are the ones below:

 RSQ1: How does the music documentary function as a complex media form?  RSQ2: Which driving forces can be identified to construct music documentaries?  RSQ3: How does each of the driving forces contribute to the construction of a music

documentary?

 RSQ4: How does the music documentary work in today’s society?

The first subquestion presents the process of making music documentaries and the technological allowances of today’s society. The answer is largely based on my theoretical framework. The second subquestion identifies five driving forces of the documentary through an informed empirical decision I made based on previous literature, my corpus of music documentaries (appendix A) and the music documentaries I watched. The corpus I created contains 500 music documentaries and includes information about the classification, music genre, release year, and director. Since the music documentary has been popular for more than half a century, it was not possible to make a register that would include all music documentaries. However, I am confident that, at the very least, the corpus captures the majority of well-known English-speaking documentaries.

(10)

X The corpus analysis showed me some general trends in the making of music documentaries, also discussed in my theoretical framework, and helped me identify driving forces early in the process of writing my thesis, which in turn aided me in further research. The forces that construct music documentaries include: documentary tradition, artist, audience, film production, and the society and music industry. To answer my second research subquestion, I created a model of driving forces, defined individual forces as well as explored how they are interconnected.

The third subquestion is answered through the analysis of five music documentaries, the number of which corresponds to the number of driving forces identified in the first part. Each documentary is dominated by one driving force, but all driving forces are always present. I chose a sample from the period of 2010 – 2015, making sure that the chosen films represented different types of artist-focused music documentaries. The music documentaries I selected are the following: Artifact (Leto, 2012), Searching for Sugar Man (Bendjelloul, 2012), Life is but

a dream (Burke & Knowles, 2013), One Direction: This is Us (Spurlock, 2013), and Montage of Heck (Morgen, 2015). I used textual and contextual analysis to analyse these films.

Finally, the fourth subquestion draws on the results from the first three subquestions, which offered a reflection on the role that the music documentary plays in today’s society. In the new millennium, the role of celebrities in the society, the state of the music industry, and the way we consume music and process audiovisual content has changed. Consequently, it follows that the music documentary today functions in a new way, and I wished to discuss how.

The plot: Thesis outline

Following this introduction is the theoretical framework, comprising chapter 2. I studied music documentary within the academic discourse of documentary studies as well as studies of the music industry, and popular culture. There were other alternatives, such as situating the framework purely within business studies, but I wanted my research to reveal the varied and hybrid nature of music documentaries, which required the study of documentary.

(11)

XI which are both crucial for music documentaries, and discuss documentary’s relationship with reality, introducing the way it views truth, issues faced by filmmakers, and its use of music. The second part of the theoretical framework is dedicated to music documentaries, starting with a literature review. In this, it was surprising how many articles could be found in unrelated fields, such as anthropology or ethnology, and I endeavoured to demonstrate the breadth of the field with the overview. Following the overview, the music documentary is defined and different typologies are introduced, including my own, which classifies music documentaries into categories of “artist” (further divided into concert, biography and album), “ethnographic” (genre or place), “festival/concert” (either entertainment or activist) and “other” (including sub-categories of social, mystery and background). The music documentary’s historical developments are considered, as are the genre boundaries, the impact of different musical genres on the music documentary and the role of music. I introduce the musician as a performer, offering a discussion on whether performance makes filming music documentaries easier or harder if the filmmaker wishes to catch the true authentic self. Finally, I conclude with case studies of canonical films, such as Look Back, The Last Waltz, Woodstock, Gimme Shelter, and

Monterey Pop, because they offer significant insight into what other academics considered

important when studying music documentaries.

In the third part, I discuss the societal context of music documentaries. I dedicate a large part of it to the music industry, looking at it from three perspectives: the business perspective, focusing on its state today, most popular business models, and innovation; the artist perspective, focusing on the artists’ options today and their battle with copyright and privacy; and the audience perspective, showing that the way we consume music has changed and listeners now have different expectations. Finally, I conclude with a discussion of popular culture, focusing on celebrity and fandom.

(12)

XII The main part of the thesis is structured following the above-mentioned four research subquestions. Thus chapter 3 looks at the documentary as a complex media form and chapter 4 is dedicated to what I called the “music documentary star model”, including detailed descriptions of each driving force and connections between individual driving forces. These two chapters answer research subquestions 1 and 2, respectively. Chapter 4, next, includes the results from the analysis of my sample documentaries. The sample represents popular musicians and documentaries that achieved at least a measure of mainstream success. While that means that the sample neglected less popular documentaries, it has the added benefit that the films were extensively commented on by fans on various message boards. Every analysis is divided into information about some general characteristics and description, content characteristics, technical characteristics, musical impressions, and reception.

Results of the analysis are discussed in chapter 5. I introduce the music documentary star model in practice, exploring what the results have told me about the five driving factors and verifying my hypotheses, which in turn answers my third research subquestion. Evaluating what I learned about music documentaries through my theoretical overview and answers to previous three questions, I then offer an opinion on what the role and position of the music documentary in today’s society could be, offering an (but not the) answer to my fourth research subquestion. Finally, chapter 6 looks at the findings in the thesis, reflecting on what I learned and demonstrating that music documentaries are indeed a complex hybrid product constructed by five interrelated but connected driving forces.

(13)

1

1 Theoretical framework

“Every cut is a lie. It’s never that way. Those two shots were never next to each other in time that way. But you’re telling a lie in order to tell the truth.”

- Wolf Koenig [on documentary]

1.1 Documentaries

Documentaries have long been in existence, so it is not surprising that their academic study is also expansive. The main debate revolves around different filming techniques (such as direct cinema or observational), types of documentaries and what constitutes a documentary, but also around different functions of the documentary film and the dilemma of documentary film as art versus pure record of reality.

For the purposes of my thesis, the theoretical framework considers documentaries in terms of what they are, what their development meant for music documentaries, how they function in the real world with constraints of objectivity put on them, how it is possible to distinguish between documentaries in terms of their internal structure and, finally, what relationship they have with music and sound. The theoretical framework is grounded in works of five authors, namely Bill Nichols, Carl Plantinga, Stella Bruzzi, John Corner, and Keith Beattie, and each of them has something to offer to my study of music documentary. Additional authors supplement the topics I discuss.

Bill Nichols is a leading theoretician in the modern study of documentary and has put forward the well-accepted theory of modes. I draw on his Introduction to Documentary (2010) to consider the internal structure of documentaries and how they coincide with music documentaries. For this purpose, I also use Carl Plantinga, a philosopher by trade. Leaning on Plantinga’s book Rhetoric and Representation in Nonfiction Film (1997), I discuss the theory of documentary voices or degree of narrational authority as well as the idea of three different narrative structures. Thirdly, I lean on John Corner, a media theorist, for his views on the documentary’s use of music, which he wrote about in his 2002 article Sounds Real: Music and

Documentary, as well as his opinion on journalistic values in documentary, as seen in his article Documentary in a Post-Documentary Culture (2000).

(14)

2

Introduction (2000/2006). Bruzzi is, like Nichols, interested in theory of documentaries, but

thinks about them from the perspective of performativity. She encourages a more open view of the documentary, which is necessary when discussing music documentaries.

Similarly, Keith Beattie is a nonfiction theorist whose idea of documentary display provides a useful context into which music documentaries can be placed. I draw from a number of his works. On the one hand, his works offer an analysis of rockumentaries, connecting performative display with music. On the other hand, his book Documentary Screens:

Non-Fiction Film and Television (2004) provides a useful overview of non-fiction film, while Documentary Display: Re-Viewing Non-Fiction Film and Video (2008) introduces a unique

view on the documentary from the perspective of the documentary’s visual capacities. Both Bruzzi (2006) and Beattie (2004) also provide an enlightening criticism of Nichols’ modes.

1.1.1 Defining the documentary: an impossible task

Documentaries are notoriously difficult to define and there are as many definitions as there are authors.2 Aufderheide (2008) says that a documentary is a movie that tells a story about real life, makes a claim to truthfulness and doesn’t manipulate reality.3_{Beattie (2004) proclaims}

documentary to be an “accurate and verifiable depiction of the world” (p. 13), although that might be overly optimistic, as accuracy is another contested term. There are other, more skeptical definitions, such as Nichols’ claim that “documentaries are what the organizations and institutions that produce them make” (2001, p. 22), emphasizing the role of the production rather than the topic or audience. Possibly the most famous definition of all, however, originated from Grierson, the often-called “father of the documentary”, who said that documentary is the “creative treatment of actuality” (Grierson, 1933, p. 8, cited in Kerrigan and McIntyre, 2010).4

The documentary tradition relies heavily on conveying an impression of authenticity to its viewers (Nichols, 2010). Beattie (2004) states that the documentary does everything in its

2_{It is also difficult to define the documentary because, as Corner (2002b) states, its definition depends on other} kinds of audiovisual documentation that are currently popular in the societal context. In 2017, documentaries have to be considered in contrast with blogging and reality TV, for example.

3_{However, there is a debate of whether or not reality is manipulated, as there are some who claim that the process} of documentary filmmaking changes the reality – if it weren’t for the presence of cameras, things would have happened differently, therefore there are manipulations present despite the filmmaker’s best intentions.

(15)

3 power to convince the audience that the presented information is legitimate, important, and truthful, which is also connected to the documentary’s association with journalism and other objective forms that are based on exploring, explaining and documenting others. Because of this turn to objectivity, it is now sometimes difficult consider the documentary not only in terms of what it can bring to the viewer’s mind (documentary as an educational tool) but also what it can do for their viewing pleasure (documentary as an art form or entertainment).

The documentary has many functions. It plays an evidentiary and informational role (Beattie, 2004), definitely, but it is also art. Nisbet and Aufderheide (2009) point out that documentaries are tools that can help the society because they “spark debate, mold public opinion, shape policy, and build activist networks” (p. 450). Meanwhile Corner (2000) claims that documentary has four functions: democratic (meant for citizenship), journalistic and expository (reporting), as alternative perspective, and as diversion (popular factual entertainment). Like its definition, the function of the documentary is also not static but changes throughout the years as the society changes.

Renov (1993) theorized that documentaries actually have four “tendencies” in their functioning, namely to record, reveal, or preserve; to persuade or promote; to analyze or interrogate; and to express. Taking the view that documentary is largely educational thus means making the assumption that all documentaries are created along the same lines for approximately the same purpose, which they are not. Nichols (2001) takes a similar view when stating documentary to be a “discourse of sobriety”, in which content takes precedence over style. In cultural and media studies in general, there is a tendency to succumb to the “fallacy of meaningfulness”, which is the false belief that every encounter between text and reader has to be understood in terms of meaning (Storey, 2008).

(16)

4 Additionally, Bruzzi (2006) emphasizes the role of performativity in documentaries, because performance in a non-fiction context draws “attention to the impossibilities of authentic documentary representation” (p. 185). Performative documentaries reject the old assumption that the production process must be disguised if the documentary wishes to represent reality accurately, and replaces it by saying that truth is best seen if the documentary acknowledges how it is constructed and accepts its own artificiality (ibid.).

Despite this, the documentary form is still often studied within the context of reality and objectivity. As Corner (2001a) says, there are usually three different frameworks for academic interest in documentary. First there is the emphasis on learning the practical techniques and skills that filmmakers need (in practical and vocational schools). Then there are academics within film studies that concern themselves with the aesthetics and textual form of documentaries. Finally, documentaries can also be studied in the context of interdisciplinary media studies that see documentaries as media products.5

These frameworks are especially useful when we consider the (lack of) academic study of music documentaries. The rockumentary is one of the most commercially successful documentary forms (Cohen, 2012) and popular amongst filmmakers, but not amongst academics. There are several possible reasons for this. Firstly, academics might consider music documentaries too light-hearted and entertainment-focused, especially compared to other documentaries that often treat important social or political issues and follow more journalistic standards. Secondly, music documentaries walk a line between fiction and nonfiction, which might not be attractive to those who study documentaries. Finally, the popularity of music documentaries means they are written about in non-academic contexts (such as magazine film reviews), which might dissuade academic interest.

1.1.2 Development of the documentary

In order to properly understand the background of music documentaries, it is necessary to look at the historical development of the documentary, focusing on direct cinema, cinéma vérité, and observational cinema – forms that were especially important for the development of music documentaries.

(17)

5 Although a very active genre before, the documentary was transformed in the 1920s by Grierson and his work. Grierson was excited about the possibilities that the documentary had to offer, believing that it could help citizens face issues of the time (Barnouw, 1993). His films were characterized by authoritative voice-over and promoted the state-sponsored cause (Inouye, 2013). Under his tradition, the documentary gained reputation as an educational and governmental tool, and it took years before new forms emerged to counter this style.

The 1950s thus saw the emergence of two new filming techniques: direct cinema and cinéma vérité. They were both realist styles, trying to capture life in progress rather than relying on narrators and scripts that had problem-solution structure characteristic of prior documentaries (Vogels, 2010). However, cinéma vérité was characterized by occasional spontaneous camera involvement while direct cinema minimized the camera’s presence (Beaver, 2006). Direct cinema artist wished to be an involved bystander, while the cinéma vérité artist played the role of provocateur (Barnouw, 1993).6

In the 1960s, another non-intervention filming style appeared, namely observational cinema, where filmmakers pretend that subjects aren’t aware that the camera recording them is present (Beattie, 2011). The fly-on-the-wall approach typical of this style has resulted in many documentaries.

However, all three filming techniques mentioned above also have many shortcomings. One of them is the belief that the truth can appear by itself if the events are recorded patiently and unobtrusively (Cohen, 2012). Another is that even though the subject was supposed to speak for themselves, there is still selection and editing involved in making the final version of the documentary (Plasketes, 1989). The subjective hand of the filmmaker is present all across the process of filmmaking.

But the disadvantages don’t end there. There is also the question of whether or not these realistic filming techniques can even film real reactions or does a subject’s behavior always change as soon as a camera is introduced.7_{On the one hand, it is possible that people’s reactions}

are even more sincere when they’re being recorded, because the camera transforms into a tool

6_{Their differences arise from the reasons behind their emergence: cinéma vérité came from France, where social} scientists wanted synchronized sound cameras to record their subjects, while direct cinema originated in the US, where journalists wanted something that would allow them to get closer to the action (Beattie, 2004).

(18)

6 that inspires honest emotions and thoughts (Beattie, 2004). On the other hand, people might wish to appear as the best version of themselves or conform to viewers’ and filmmakers’ expectations.8

Consequently, performers such as musicians became an attractive choice of subject and often fell under the lens of direct cinema. Not only are they famous and attractive (in both senses of the word), they are also used to performing in front of people and cameras, introducing the possibility of more authentic reactions.

From the 1960s onward, the style allowed filmmakers to tell compelling stories of famous individuals by following them around in their day-to-day lives (Vogels, 2010). The emergence of the flexible style characteristic of these two cinemas and the style’s intimacy ensured that the viewer felt like they were there with access to an authentic performer (Close, n. a.). The connection is also seen in the so-called crisis moment, which many rockumentaries use and which was an important part of direct cinema, following the logic that a person in crisis is “unlikely to be aware of the presence of the camera” (Beattie, 2005, p. 34). It is a technique that can provide insights into the inner world of the subjects.

Direct cinema and cinéma vérité have fallen to disuse in their original form, but they do continue to exist in the rockumentary form today, more popular than ever (see Cohen, 2012, or Beattie, 2005).9 Similarly, observational techniques continue to exist in forms such as reality shows, which emphasize entertainment (Bruzzi, 2006). What was once characteristic for the most objective forms is now behind the most popular forms of entertainment on television. Today nonfictional audiovisual forms abound, and the documentary commonly appears in forms such as investigative journalism, compilation films, and reality TV (Larsen and Naerland, 2010). However, most importantly, documentary has once again become more relaxed as a genre, willing to use performance and dramatization without fearing that it would lose itself or its standing with the viewers (Bruzzi, 2006).

8_{In a 1974 interview, Kaufman, a Russian cinematographer, claimed that the only way you could film real reaction} is if people were trained until they didn’t notice the camera anymore (quoted in Beattie, 2008). It could be argued that today, the overabundance of screens in our lives has already caused this to be the case and we would now be Kaufman’s perfect subjects.

(19)

7 Alongside reality TV, whose influence is further discussed in third part of the theoretical framework, and popular factual programming, new technology has encouraged the development of other nonfiction formats. Not only that, entertainment and documentary modes have conflated, which offers fresh opportunities (Taylor and Harris, 2008). YouTube has seen, or caused, a rise in “vlogging” (i.e. video blogging), for example, and now everyone can make videos as long as they have a smartphone. Additionally, it is easier than ever to watch documentaries, not only on TV where there are channels dedicated to them (for example National Geographic, Discovery, History TV etc.), but also in cinemas and online platforms, such as Netflix. However, despite fully embracing the internet for promotion purposes, it seems that filmmakers have not really put a lot of effort towards interactivity of documentaries.

1.1.3 Documentary in the real world

Documentary has a complicated and sometimes uneasy relationship with the real world for two reasons. Firstly, there are problems related to representing reality, which are connected to questions of truth, objectivity, and ethics, all of which contribute to the degree of trust that the audience places into the documentary. Secondly, the documentary also has to function in the real world, which means navigating the complicated world of copyright, fair use, and promotion.

Starting with the documentary’s internal conflict of presenting reality, the relationship with the audience is of utmost importance. Without the audience, there are no documentaries, and viewers rely on and trust that television cameras have the ability to capture real events as they happen. Research done in 2003 claimed that 60 percent of British documentary viewers believed that the documentaries held accurate information (Hill, 2005). This number has likely gotten lower in the previous decade, since trust in media is now at an all-time low (Karaian, 2017), but it still shows that audiences place a certain degree of trust in accuracy of documentary information. Viewers need to believe that the documentary’s representation of reality is, in fact, non-fictional and based on the actual world (Beattie, 2004).

(20)

8 bias on the other” (p. 6). However, many viewers still do not consider that reality is interpreted and manipulated at all stages of the documentary filmmaking process.10

So it might be better to consider truth in terms of what emerges when the filmmaker, subjects and viewers meet (Bruzzi, 2006), rather than something that is wholly dependent on the filmmakers. According to Corner (2001b), documentary filmmakers use two main stylistic approaches when they want to produce a reality effect: observational realism and expositional realism.11_{The first one is when we see a record of reality as it is happening, giving us the}

impression that we are witnesses to the event. The second one also includes observation but the sound and image are organized to support a certain argument or rhetorical position. Concert films would be an example of the first, and biographical films of the second.

Another issue that filmmakers face is that of ethics. According to Butchart (2006), there are three main ethical problems that appear in the process of documentary filmmaking. First of all, despite the right to artistic expression, documentarians have to get the participants’ consent and sufficiently inform them of their intentions. Second of all, documentarians have to present a “fair and reasonably accurate account of events” (ibid., p. 430). And finally, even though academics generally agree that documentaries aren’t journalism, the problem of objectivity should still be considered.

However, as Corner (1995, cited in Beattie, 2004) points out, it is necessary to distinguish between impartiality and journalistic notions of accuracy, objectivity and balance. When considering documentaries, impartiality seems to be desired, accuracy is demanded, objectivity and balance are striven towards. The question here is, of course, whether a subjective and biased filmmaker can still make a documentary that has a claim on the truth, which is a much discussed notion in documentary. Butchart (2006) defines truth as something: that is in the realm of opinion and cannot be fully accessed; about which audiences have the right to know; on account of which participants may be taken advantage of.

10_{As Beattie (2004) describes, on the average documentary set, camera, sound and light equipment are present,} furniture in a room is rearranged to accommodate the equipment and the production team, subjects are instructed to act naturally, raw footage is filmed according to codes and conventions of documentary filmmaking, the footage is then chosen by the filmmaker and edited, and so on

(21)

9 Despite this strong attachment to truth and objectivity, it took a relatively long time for the documentary to escape its role as a sponsored educational tool of the government. Grierson used the sponsored documentary as a way for government and corporate sponsors to inform citizens and consumers (Beattie, 2008). While this is not the case today, financers are still a strong feature of documentary production – documentaries are, after all, expensive to make, not least because of the expenses they have to cover after they have paid for the equipment and the crew.

There are other costs that one might not think of at first. Filmmakers are legally obliged to pay clearance costs if they wish to include in their documentary anything that is owned by copyright holders, such as music, photos or footage (Ramsey, 2005). With rise of the digital, there is more laws regarding copyright than before, which is great for artists and copyright owners, but might be a threat to creativity and complicates the filmmaker’s process (Larsen and Naerland, 2010). A solution includes exceptions to copyright, which differ depending on whether the discussion revolves around the US or the EU.

In the US, copyright exceptions come in the form of so-called “fair use”, which refers to exception in copyright law if the content is used for a different purpose than it was originally and if the amount and nature of material were used appropriately (Center for Social Media, 2005).12 The recent US law, however, has fairly restricted the legitimacy of fair use, and now a documentary filmmaker can expect to spend as much as 30 % on copyright costs (Larsen and Naerland, 2010). On the other hand, EU countries have instead traditionally listed and defined exceptions and limitations in their copyright law, and only recently started striving towards a fair use approach (Cook, 2012).

Music documentaries are even more complicated. Filmmakers have to not only pay for the footage of the artist (e.g. previous concerts, interviews, pictures) but also have to pay the copyright fee if they wish to use the music. In a documentary, music makes up a small part of the film – in a music documentary, it is the most important part. While it depends on the artist and studio, copyright can be very expensive (especially if the musician is acclaimed). Suddenly it is easy to see how music documentaries can easily be under the mercy of their financers, most often the musicians that are its subjects or the record companies that own them.

12_{In 2005, the Center for Social Media published the Documentary Filmmakers’ Statement of Best Practices in}

Fair Use in collaboration with several documentary associations, detailing general directions for documentary

(22)

10

1.1.4 Documentary analysis and filmmaking practices

It is not possible to define documentary in a vacuum. If we wish to get an accurate picture of the form, it is necessary to consider the documentary in terms of form, function, and production practices (Beattie, 2008). One of the most useful ways of distinguishing between documentaries’ forms are modes, introduced by Nichols in his Introduction to Documentary (2001) and widely accepted as a documentary analytical model. Every mode has its own characteristics and modes can be connected to different movements, such as cinéma vérité or observational filmmaking, but they tend to be too broad to be limited to a specific time or place (ibid.). Nichols defines six modes of documentary filmmaking, namely poetic, observational, participatory, reflexive, performative (descriptions in Table 1 below).

Mode Description

Expository Rhetorical and argumentative frame, addresses the viewer directly, narration (voice-of-God), relies on informing logic

Poetic Visual associations, tonal or rhythmic qualities, descriptive passages, formal organization

Observational Direct engagement with the everyday life of subjects as observed by an unobtrusive camera

Participatory Interaction between filmmaker and subject; interviews and other forms of direct involvement of the filmmaker

Reflexive Attention put on the assumptions and conventions of documentary filmmaking, increased awareness of how the film’s representation of reality is constructed

Performative Emphasizes the subjective or expressive aspect of the filmmaker’s own engagement with the subject; rejects notions of objectivity

Table 1: Modes (Nichols, 2001)

While undoubtedly useful for analysing documentary, the theory of modes is not without faults. As Bruzzi (2006) states, the complexity of today’s documentaries means that it is not possible anymore to compartmentalize documentaries in such a simple and straightforward way, even though there are of course different types of documentaries that prioritize different formal characteristics. Additionally, new developments also caused new modes to emerge. In his book

Documentary Screens: Non-Fiction Film and Television, Beattie (2004) thus also lists the reconstructive mode, encompassing documentaries that do a dramatic reconstruction of

(23)

11 Going beyond different modes to differentiate between documentaries, it is also possible to look at them in terms of their internal structure. Plantinga (1997) distinguishes between a

narrative structure (historical, represents historical events as they occurred in time but can also

deal with recent past), rhetorical (explicit use of argument and persuasion, presentation of evidence, generation of a conclusion), and categorical (deals with subjects of a topical nature, topical organization, synchronic representation).13

Another organizational principle for analysing documentaries can be their degree of so-called narrational authority, referring to the concept of 3 different voices introduced by Plantinga in 1997. The formal voice means that the film assumes a degree of narrational authority, focusing on explaining an important question and imparting knowledge. The open voice assumes some narrational authority, but instead of explaining outright, the film observes and shows. Finally, the poetic voice is characterized by an absence of authority, favouring aesthetics and nonfiction as art and exploration.

Nonfiction discourse is also important in defining documentaries. According to Plantinga (1997), discourse refers to how filmic materials (sounds and images) are organized in order for the film to project its model of the world. He defines four broad functions of discourse. First of all, discourse selects by controlling the amount and nature of the information about the world. Secondly, discourse orders through the order and frequency of the information. Thirdly, discourse emphasizes by assigning weight and importance to the information. Finally, discourse takes a point of view (the so-called voice) that shows the visual vantage point of the spectator.

An additional way to consider the internal structure of the documentary is in terms of three different types of proof (Nichols, 2010).14_{There is ethical proof, convincing on the basis of the}

presumed character and credibility of the persuader. Then there is emotional proof, which is the ability to stir emotions. And finally, we have demonstrative proof, which appeals to the evidence. To provide an example: let us use the topic of rap and take an imagined documentary that would try to convince the viewer that rap isn’t connected to violence. Emotional proof would play on the emotions of the viewer by providing heart-warming stories of rappers doing

13_{Of the three, the music documentary most often seems to fall under the categorical or narrative structure, it} rarely employs the rhetorical one unless the topic in question is a mystery or something that needs to be resolved, such as for example Murder Rap: Inside the Biggie and Tupac Murders (Dorsey, 2015).

(24)

12 good deeds. Demonstrative proof would take the data on shootings, domestic violence reports or criminal records in rap listeners and compare it to listeners of other music genres. Finally, ethical proof would mean making sure that someone with credibility (David Attenborough would make a perfect example) is the narrator, giving validity to statements that do not necessarily have a basis in fact.

Some practices of documentary filmmaking might seem counter-intuitive but still appear across the genre. For example, shaky hand-held camera or slightly damaged film seem to evoke authenticity (Beattie, 2004), whereas they would be scraped immediately in a fiction film. It seems that style and authenticity have a strange relationship, whereby “the less polished the film the more credible it will be found” (Bruzzi, 2006, p. 9). Sound is also not an exception here: realism through sound in documentaries is shown through a rough unpolished texture, a lack of clarity on the soundtrack (using direct rather than recorded sound), elimination of narrative devices such as voice-over, and avoidance of the creative use of sound (McMahon, 2014).

Finally, a lot of documentaries employ a narrator, although this practice eludes most music documentaries. This might be due to the fact that music documentaries prefer to show, not tell, and a narrator definitely tells.

The different ways of defining the documentary have been introduced because they are used in my analysis of the five chosen music documentaries. Looking at the mode, internal structure, narrational authority, and types of proof helps situate music documentaries not just as filmic products but also within the field of documentary study.

1.1.5 Importance of music and sound in the documentary film

(25)

13 That is why music rarely, if ever, appears in journalistic film formats (for example, in news) and why documentaries are so wary of using it. It also brings a variety of unspoken rules that guide the non-fiction filmmaker. Rabiger (2007), in his instructions to new filmmakers, states that music should be used to suggest the character’s inner world but it should never give the story away or overburden the film. Although many documentary features critique the use of music and edited sound because of problems of authenticity (Rogers, 2014), it is still obvious that we cannot escape the music and continuous synchronous diegetic sound is rarely enough for the modern viewer.

Music thus plays an important role in certain types of documentaries, especially those featuring music and nature. In fact, the use of music in documentaries depends on two different factors: how serious or light their topic of treatment is, and whether the documentary is meant as art or as a record of events. According to Corner (2002a) documentaries with lighter content and those that function as art are more likely to use music, while documentaries that treat serious issues tend to use music only as a mood cue.

What might not be immediately clear is that musical choices don’t only refer to which songs are chosen, but also things such as the musical style, instrumentation, structure, texture, mode, history, genre, familiarity, text or lyrics, audio-visual synchronicity or dissonance, and so on (Rogers, 2014). In music documentaries, song choice is easy and straightforward. In other documentary types, it is far from it.

There are rules to connecting sound and image in a documentary, and the viewing is significantly different depending on whether the viewer hears diegetic words (from interviewees or narrator) or music and sound. The latter intensifies the viewer’s engagement in their viewing of a documentary, because the pictures are imbued with music and music is the one that shifts the image’s meaning as well as helps to keep continuity through its aesthetics (Corner, 2002a).15

But why is then music used in documentaries at all, if not to provoke emotion, which is usually one its primary functions? Again, this depends on the type of documentary. Biographical documentaries, for instance, tend to draw on music to establish tone and circumstance (ibid.).

(26)

14 Wildlife, popular science and history series use music more often because music bridges the silent gaps in long sequences of images (ibid.).

Music can also be used to highlight certain topics as they repeat (i.e. the same music theme is used to mark a topic), it’s useful for bridging sequences or journeys, and can bring cognitive enhancement for the viewer. Generally, film music makes the viewing experience more vivid, helping to expand the viewers’ understanding even if it doesn’t necessarily represent anything (Lack, 1997).

Music can be used to draw out a narrative, highlight aesthetic strands, help promote intense aesthetic bonding with certain characters or themes, focuses the viewer’s attention on one thing, etc. (Rogers, 2014). Incidental music in documentaries can create the atmosphere, highlight the psychological states of characters, provide a neutral background filter, build a sense of continuity, sustain tension, and round off the tension with a sense of closure (Donnelly, 2013). Music can help direct the audience to interpret events or information in a subjective way (Lack, 1997). In short, music can:

“hold things together and tell the story; it can lead viewers into narrative and emotional positions in a way akin to mainstream fiction film soundtracks; and it can help to turn each

visual representation into a highly personal vision”.

(Rogers, 2014, p. 9). While music can play many roles, as seen above, there is also a useful distinction between two main kinds of film music, the idea pioneered by Gorbman in 1987 in her book Unheard

Melodies. First, there is the so-called diegetic music, which comes from a source we see on

screen or understand to be part of the diegetic, i.e. screen, world. In music documentaries, this includes music played on the radio (where the radio is visible), during shown concerts or practice and similar. On the other hand, we have non-diegetic film music, whose presence is not explained in the film’s world, for example music used as the background noise somewhere or instead of the voice over. Used like this, it often functions emotionally to add emotional weight to particular moments, particularly in those documentaries that are more artistic than journalistic (Sexton, 2014).

(27)

15 sound elements, and functions as a Greek chorus with lyrical relevance (ibid.). In music documentaries specifically, a live performance with synchronized sound tends to combine the music with the image, giving it a function of archival testimony (Sexton, 2014).

This combination of music and image has long functioned this way. Popular music, especially jazz and rock band performances featured heavily in early nonfiction products (to sensationalize the news and shape public opinion). Afterwards, pop music has become necessary in certain types of fiction film, such as youth-marketed movies, and it’s now omnipresent, universal and usually nothing special. Especially pop or rock music often found itself in a dilemma: on the one hand, it often represented counter-cultural elements and as such didn’t belong in the mainstream, but on the other hand inclusion in the mainstream films was very well rewarded (Lack, 1997). Especially rock and metal musicians were likely to be accused of “selling out” if they allowed their music to be used in such ways (consider, for example, the backlash against The Clash when they agreed to let Jaguar use one of their song for advertising purposes).

An interesting paradox also appears when it comes to music combined with performance. As Cohen (2012) states, audio-visual performance might offer a richer experience and yet the audio performance is considered to hold more aesthetic value, possibly because visual images might disrupt the complete listening experience. Consequently, this would explain why music documentaries so often decide to show pictures overlaid with music instead of the actual music performance itself.

1.2 Music documentaries

1.2.1 Literature review

Despite their popularity, music documentaries are rarely the subject of academic debate. Academics most often consider them in the context of rockumentaries or biopics (i.e. biographical films), and tend to focus on specific case studies. Additionally, the case studies are of films on pop and rock artists.

There is only one book-length discussion of the subject, namely The Music Documentary: Acid

Rock to Electropop (Edgar-Hunt et al., 2013). It contains fifteen essays, each of them

(28)

16 it include documentaries outside of popular music, rarely even mentioning the subject of classical music, for example. There are, however, chapters that expand the limited frame of the book (for example the chapter entitled Moogie Wonderland (Burke, 2013) that analyses a music technology documentary).

There are two interesting points raised in the book but unfortunately not elaborated. Firstly, there is the claim that the music documentary became more popular as the celebrity culture was on the rise. Secondly, Edgar-Hunt et al. (2013) state that music documentaries have strayed far away from documentary objectives of objectivity and reportage, but don’t provide any further information. Both of these points raised my interest in documentary and prompted the discussion of music documentaries’ complexity in this thesis.

Despite its shortcomings, The Music Documentary offers an overview of the genre that is suitable for the purposes of my thesis. Wennekes (2013) identifies different types of footage in the film, for example, and in another chapter, Donnelly (2013) produces a sliding scale of differences between a concert film and rock documentary that will help distinguish between these two particular genres. Wright (2013) discusses Gimme Shelter and Woodstock, offering a useful view of the two films. Goddard (2013), Hertz (2013) and Ferguson (2013) discuss the properties of punk documentaries and their impact, although unfortunately do not compare punk to other genres. Finally, Saffle (2013) tries to redefine the music documentary, but places too much emphasis on retrospective compilations rather than any other possibilities afforded by modern technologies.16

Besides this edited book, there are several others discussing the subject of popular music in film, but are unfortunately more difficult to access, for example Celluloid jukebox (Romney & Wooton, 1995) which includes two chapters on pop films (Thompson, 1995, Medhurst, 1995), the space of rock documentaries (Romney, 1995), and the “do’s and don’ts of rock documentaries” (Wootton, 1995). Other books include Popular music and television in Britain (Inglis, 2010), Interpreting rock movies: pop film and its critics in Britain (Caine, 2015), The

British Pop Music Film (Glynn, 2013) and Music and sound in documentary film (Rogers,

16_{Other chapters include thoughts on TV documentary series All You Need is Love by Tony Palmer, aired between} 1976 and 1980 (Long & Wall, 2013); radio music documentary (Carter & Coley, 2013); case study of the traveling

Medicine Ball Caravan (Sanjek & Halligan, 2013); rock mockumentaries (Roessner, 2013); description of a

(29)

17 2014). The latter dedicates one chapter to the music documentary, namely Sexton (2013) who speaks about the indie-rock documentary.

A large amount of texts written on the topic concern themselves with performance and/or authenticity (see Baker, 2011; Cohen, 2012; Waugh, 2016; Beattie, 2005; Brost, 2008; Hollander, 2015). But by far the most numerous are case studies, mostly on the same few music documentaries, including Don’t Look Back (Petersen, 2007; Beattie, 2005; Beattie, 2011; Rothman, 1997); Gimme Shelter, Monterey Pop and Woodstock (Haycock, 1971; Kitts, 2009; Bell, 1999); The Last Waltz (Sarchett, 1994; Severn, 2003). Other case studies include discussion of Muscle Shoals (Wilson, 2013); Sympathy for the Devil (Inouye, 2013; Buurke, 2010); 20 Feet from Stardom (Swimmer, 2015); and Classic Albums documentary series (Williams, 2010).

Some texts are also written about music documentaries in general (Rose, 1993; Plasse, 1987; Winston, 2013; Giuffre, 2014), music documentary directors (see Gregory, 2008; Cohen, 2011), the politics and society behind music documentaries (Stapleton, 2011; Plasketes, 1989), relationship between music and documentary (see King, 2008), and music documentaries as a teaching tool (Comer & Holbrook, 2012).

Few texts can be found describing non-English music documentaries, although that might also be the case because the authors are writing in their native languages. Some that are in English include a discussion of the Russian rockumentary (McFadyen, 2010), African music documentary and filming African music (Hamamsy & Souliman, 2013; D’Amico et al., 2007; Rooney, 2013), Flamenco music (Washabaugh, 1997), Brazilian music documentary (Heise, 2012) and Icelandic music documentary (Dibben, 2010).

1.2.2 Definition and typologies

Unlike the definition of a documentary, definition of a music documentary seems easier to grasp at first. In short, it can be said music documentaries are documentaries whose subject is

music. Leaving aside musicological considerations on how to define music in the first place,

this definition fits albeit it could be made longer and more specific. Consider something like: music documentaries are documentaries on the subject of music, musical instruments, genres,

artists, subcultures, concepts, concerts, musically relevant places and people. Such a definition

(30)

18 The main riddle we encounter when speaking about music documentaries is the distinction between music documentaries and the so-called “rockumentaries”. A rockumentary is a rock documentary: the word is a portmanteau that simply caught on (Baker, 2011). Beattie (2008) defines rockumentaries as “nonfictional works based on a concert performance by a rock performer or rock band(s), or those which mix concert performances by a rock musician or bands with scenes of the musician(s) off-stage” (p. 160) but also points out that rock isn’t the only genre that the term refers to.

As far as literature is concerned, the distinction is simple, in that most, if not all, researchers speak of rockumentaries or equate rockumentaries to music documentaries.17 As such, it is sometimes unclear whether certain of their assumptions could be transposed to the genre of music documentaries as a whole. However, since there is a lack of literature on music documentaries in general, it is difficult to include an equal number of sources on both.

Additionally, certain authors use different terminology – for example, Cohen (2012) refers to the concert film even though what he seems to be describing is in fact a music documentary. He argues that certain rockumentaries do not contain a lot of musical performance and that’s why the term “concert film” is better for such films (ibid.). However, he doesn’t seem to consider the fact that concert film is already a category in itself, a sub-category of those music documentaries that show performances as a whole.

This leads us to consider what categories of music documentaries exist. There is no one typology that would cover everything. Baker (2011) lists sub-genres (or main currents) of rockumentaries to be: biography, concert performance, the making-of documentary, tour film, ethnographic studies of rock culture, and the compilation (archival) project. There are other possibilities of categorizing music documentaries. Besides the rockumentary (importantly, the rockumentary includes both pop and rock stars, but doesn’t seem to include punk), the concert film also plays an important role. As Donnelly (2013) describes, a concert film is a recording made by technicians, where only the concert is filmed, it’s meant for fans and basically visualizes live music. On the other hand, a rockumentary follows the documentary film tradition, is made by filmmakers, there is peripheral interest shown (e.g. interviews, other activities), a wider audience is interested, and it is similar to the backstage musical.

(31)

19 In general, based on my empirical research I concluded that music documentaries can be divided into the following categories (see Appendix A for an overview of 500 documentaries and their classification):

1) Artists – bands or solo musicians – biography, concert, album

a. Unknown or lesser known artists (the film “discovers” or “introduces” them) b. Still living famous artists or bands (need to maintain or repair their image,

please their fans)

c. Deceased artists or broken-up bands making a return (need to preserve their legacy)

2) Ethnographic studies a. Genre

b. Place

3) Festival and concert documentaries a. Entertainment purposes b. Activist purposes 4) Other18

a. Background (musicians, fans, crew, music industry) b. Mystery (detective stories)

c. Social (focus on a political or social aspect) d. Opinion (about a band, genre, event) e. Other

Of course, rather than by artist, it is also possible to do another categorization of music documentaries by genres, because they might be as influential in the making of the documentary as any other factor. However, categories such as: pop, rock, metal, punk, jazz, classical, rap etc., are bound to be problematic with any artist and their classification into strict genres. This is why I found the categorization above the most suitable. It does eschew some of Baker’s (2011) categories, for example the tour film and concert film are largely in the same category, and it considers archival or compilation documentaries to be more of a way of making documentaries rather than a type. The festival film, on the other hand, is put in a separate category because of its popularity and focus on various artists rather than just one.

(32)

20 Despite the various genres, there are still certain characteristics of music documentaries that are common, if not universal in some cases. First of all, music documentaries tend to follow the cause/effective narrative structure that is typical of a fiction film, rather than the problem/solution structure frequent in documentaries. The music documentary “privileges the visual capacities of documentary over patterns of exposition” (Beattie, 2005, p. 21), meaning that rockumentaries tend to show rather than describe or explain. This is in contrast with the traditional documentary, which have an educational feel to them and are often there to explain things (e.g. a complicated social issue). Despite this, music documentaries can function as educational tools.19

The “show, don’t tell” attitude is emphasized through the importance of what the viewer sees. Although the soundtrack is definitely important, and fans undoubtedly want to see a specific rockumentary because they either enjoy the artist or the genre of music, it is still not as important as the visuals. On the other hand, the rockumentary also faces a problem, namely that it’s a genre that does wish to capture a real-life event, but the event is theatrical, performative, constructed in the first place (Sarchett, 1994).

Rockumentaries focus on youth subcultures, sub-formation of music, different views on personal identity etc. (Beattie 2005). They are often also released “as virtual eulogies for musicians, genres or musical traditions after they’ve passed on” (Giuffre, 2014, p. 44).

Information provided in the rockumentary is visual and the knowledge that viewers get this way is “subjective, affective, visceral and sensuous” (Beattie, 2008, p. 60), which additionally explains the pleasure that viewers get from the music documentary and the popularity of the form.

What’s important and differentiates the music documentary from other genres of documentaries is that it came about because musicians and film-makers combined their abilities and attributes (Giuffre, 2014). This is still the case today, as music documentaries remain a dialogue between the film-maker and the musical subject and music documentaries “contain at

(33)

21 least two layers of creativity, that of the musicians and the film-makers” (Giuffre 2014, p. 46). They are also divided internally, as Baker (2011) says:

“Over its history, the rockumentary genre constantly invokes the authenticity of rock music and the perceived objectivity of film technology despite the innovation of increasingly formalist sound and image recording techniques and an expansion of the performance

repertoire of rock musicians”.

Baker (2011, p. 108) Although this genre tackles many topics and correspondingly has many characteristics, there are certain patterns that appear. One of them is the separation of onstage and backstage (Beattie, 2005), the reveal of the differences between the performing self and “real” self of the musician. Fans wish to see what the person they are admiring is really like. Of course they can watch videos on YouTube (interviews, performances, exposés) but they rarely get to see the backstage and even if they do, it is from the point of view of the interviewer. Music documentaries, on the other hand, are filmed exclusively for the fan and give them a feeling of being closer to their celebrity musician of choice. Importantly, backstage is often filmed with a hand-held camera. Beattie (2005) says it’s because it can film nearly anywhere (corridors, inside rooms, cars etc.), but it might also be because it looks less professional, in a way. Hand-held cameras provide a feeling of intimacy, allowing fans to forget that they are in fact seeing only a persona surrounded by an entire camera crew.