This sounds like true pop-culture gem, though like most of those jewels, it's sadly obscure. Has anyone here actually seen this, and if you're familiar with it, can you describe it and explain what type of venues would have shown it? Midnight movies, perhaps?
shareI'm 18, so I never saw it in 1968, but it's on YouTube, if you're looking for it...here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnBi6LzXodA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nowQ23owOo&feature=related
It's basically a rapid collage of shots (most sped up considerably, some to the point of being hard on the eyes) in San Francisco showcasing various areas of the city and underground scenes set to some awesome music from October 1966. Barrett's guitar playing is insane! The version of Interstellar Overdrive in particular goes by quite fast. And the video quality's not the greatest, I don't know if it was this bad in its original form or not. I assume not.
I don't poly-cotton to coping tropes, even my own.
Thanks for that link! I was glad to finally see this film. I didn't mind the rapid cuts at first, but once I got motion sickness, it lost its appeal. Sometimes the experimental approach works, while other times it seems like a crutch. I guess my biggest problem with the imagery is sometimes is just doesn't fit the music and feels very random.
But the music is what matters most, and "Interstellar Overdrive" is phenomenal. Syd Barrett's guitar playing is positively out of this world. It's hard to tell at times what you're hearing, but that's what makes it so fascinating.
Thanks again for the link. Glad to finally see this film.
No problem! I'm assuming this was shown in clubs, and I think I remember reading about that (that it was shown in underground art clubs, sort of the same places early Pink Floyd would play). But, as you said, there is the flaw of the film; everything is too random and doesn't fit well with the music. It's similar to "Tonite Let's All Make Love in London," except that film (I've only seen bits of it) actually pulls off the "collage of shots" quite well. However, this is still a gem, if only for the music.
I don't poly-cotton to coping tropes, even my own.
I think Pink Floyd was experimenting a lot with multimedia – which had a different meaning in 1968, of course. So this film was probably shown before their shows or maybe in conjunction with their concerts. A lot of bands had light shows where they did that bubbly kaleidoscopic thing, but Pink Floyd was way ahead of the curve on that and used lasers before other bands started using them (and then had to scale back because of concerns of blinding fans). I also suspect that colleges and theaters that had midnight shows would screen movies like this and other "head films."
I have not seen "Tonite Let's Al Make Love in London," though I have the soundtrack. These films are important historically and really deserve decent packaging and distribution. I'm sure copyright is a big issue holding back official releases, so instead they wind up as inferior copies on YouTube or as bootlegs and.
Hey, I'm really impressed that an 18-year-old is on to this stuff! I thought people your age were listening to Lil Wayne and Lady Gaga these days. Glad to hear someone still cares about rock.
I've read about movies like this and others that were used to headline a Pink Floyd performance. There's actually an interesting interview on CBC Radio from early '67 in which Nick Mason mentions the different kind of light shows that were involved in the Floyd's set at the time. Cool stuff, really.
I haven't seen "Tonite..." either, though, as with the San Francisco footage, there are videos on YouTube with Pink Floyd playing "Interstellar Overdrive," and "Nick's Boogie," so I've seen bits. It's like "San Francisco," but better. There's also some shots of John Lennon and Yoko Ono in "Nick's Boogie." I think Paul's there, too. Regardless, here's the link:
"Interstellar Overdrive" (not all of the footage of the band matches up)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iA7wdO00VI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LvkjqkAgsE&feature=related
"Nick's Boogie"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR3kRGtzm7Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW2NOiAVBrc&feature=related
Thanks for the compliment, I have a lot of friends that listen to "old" music, too, but most people my age listen to Pop/R&B, Metal, Electronic Dance Music, or Indie. You won't believe the stuff they call "psychedelic" these days...
I don't poly-cotton to coping tropes, even my own.
Thanks for those links! There's some truly transcendent music in there, and the images are a much better snapshot of the era because you can actually make out what's happening.
So, what does pass for psychedelic these days? Flaming Lips? I used to love them, but it seems like they lost a lot of their ideas and have sacrificed the music for the visuals. I try to keep up with new bands, but it seems like after a couple songs, it all sounds the same.
Even bands I like (the Killers, White Stripes, Kings of Leon) get tedious by the time the album is over. I get a lot of samplers and soundtracks to hear new music, but when I buy complete albums based on the songs I like, they don't hold up. I guess it's not so bad to be stuck in the '60s and '70s, because I never get tired of that music.
No problem, the videos are great in Tonite.
I've only experienced a few Neo-Psychedelic bands here and there. I should probably ask a few friends into modern Psychedelic Rock. Here's an example of something that would be considered Psychedelic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVebJMmcTI4
I actually like the song, but it's not that Psychedelic. There are some bands that are a little out there, though...
MGMT-Time to Pretend
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9dSYgd5Elk
I forgot that Neo-Psychedelia has been around since the 70s, so The Flaming Lips would count, as would bands like Echo and the Bunnymen, and the Soft Boys, the band Robyn Hitchcock was in so long ago. Hell, even some of the Alt. Rock genres in the 80s and early 90s like Noise Rock, Dream Pop, and Shoegaze were pretty psychedelic.
A lot of kids my age find EDM (Electronic Dance Music) to be "trippy," and drop acid to it. I fail to see how a repetitive dance beat can be psychedelic, and I've listened to Psy Trance.
So, sorry about that. I guess Psychedelic Rock is actually doing all right, it's just not huge like it was in the 60s. I suppose it would be better to say that what people consider to be psychedelic is embarassing compared to what was considered psychedelic in the 60s.
I don't poly-cotton to coping tropes, even my own.
Thanks for those links. I have Kasabian's first album, and it's pretty good, but not good enough for me to buy more. MGMT is OK also, but I don't think I'd like the music that much without the visual, which is not a good sign.
I love Echo and the Bunnymen and Robyn Hitchcock, plus other '80s psychedelic bands like World Party, Dramarama, Tears for Fears, the Three O'Clock and the Dream Syndicate – plus harder-edged prog-metal like Queensryche and Dream Theater, and soulful stuff like Living Colour or Prince's "Around the World in a Day."
A lot of the electronica/trace/acid house stuff is interesting at first, but it gets old fast to my ear. A lot of it seems more like "mood music" or background filler than genuine rock or pop. And people are free to take whatever they want to find their bliss, but in my opinion, if you have to be on drugs to enjoy a certain type of music, the music's probably not that great. I think Pink Floyd, for example, sounds perfectly fine even if you're not stoned.
I guess I'm not missing much these days. I vaguely know what's out there, try to give it a chance, then fall back on the older stuff.
I guess not. There's some good songs, but not too many good bands. I really have yet to find one solid band, besides The Organ, but they play more of a Post-Punk/Indie Pop kind of music.
I don't poly-cotton to coping tropes, even my own.
I'll check out the Organ. I've just discovered Band of Horses -- more pop than psychedelic, but pretty good (and amazing bicycle footage here):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z19zFlPah-o
Ah, I've seen the video before. Great song, too!
Here's The Organ. Like I said, not Psychedelic at all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVVaPXxBqFc&feature=related
I don't poly-cotton to coping tropes, even my own.
That's pretty good, and the video is amazing.
It's probably pretty obvious, and I'm sure you know it already, but Mercury Rev is very Pink Floydish (Floydian? Floydesque?):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYe5Q-oMEME
Say, did you know the Flaming Lips have released a complete version of "Dark Side of the Moon"? I'm not sure how I feel about that. It seems like instead of tribute albums with various artists these days, we have bands doing complete classic albums: Smithereens doing "Tommy," Cheap Trick doing "Sgt. Pepper." I like most of the originals and the "cover" bands, but I'm not sure about this trend. I did like the Smithereens doing "Meet the Beatles," but I'd rather hear new, original material.
Wow, you weren't kidding. I've never heard of these guys before. They sound like if Neil Young was the lead singer for Pink Floyd during the "Meddle" days.
I didn't know that the Flaming Lips covered "Dark Side." I guess it'd be cool if you liked the artist they were doing a tribute album for, and it might make some people listen to the original, but I'm much more partial to doing several different covers as opposed to an album. It actually loses all of its charm if you cover an entire album.
I don't poly-cotton to coping tropes, even my own.
[deleted]
I have seen it twice, a few years ago on French/German television. The quality was much better than the youtube clip which is appalling and can't give you an idea about the real look of it. I was very impressed by it and would love to see it again. The fast cuts aren't unfamiliar to anyone who has grown up watching music videos and work very well with the epic Interstellar Overdrive. As far as I can recall, I read that version was recorded especially for the film. Footage of the band is mixed with images from the city's streets and hippie family life. While it is supposed to have been decades ahead of its time with its editing, nowadays it is mostly interesting to watch as a document of its time - I think it captured that exciting short era very well.
share