Which crash? Assuming Duane's but no disrespect to Berry, of course

Already have the ABB segment programmed to record, looking forward to it as well. I assume you're referring to the 3 hour AXS Skynyrd documentary. I agree, it was very well done.

[Edited on 9/6/2016 by robslob]

I liked both of them. Well done. There is far more footage of LS obviously. Never understood the lack of ABB footage compared to others of that era. I would have filmed Duane every night.

Sorry, but I'm gonna be the wet blanket.

This was a typical "talking heads" piece - with a lot of "stock footage" used for cut-away. I think most everybody interviewed has written a book about the Allman Brothers. Very little "from their own mouths" stuff.

Unless I blinked my eyes for a second, the video completely omitted Jack Pearson, Jimmy Herring, Marc Quinones, Oteil Burbridge - and the passing of Alan Woody. (if these were addressed it must've been in a single sentence somewhere.)

More variations on many of Gregg's stories. He should be known as "the Ramblin' Man" - took him 7 minutes to tell the foot-shooting party story. Funny hearing a couple of different takes on the same stories in the "After the Crash" video than I'd just heard in the Gregg interview! 😉

Sorry, but I'm gonna be the wet blanket.

This was a typical "talking heads" piece - with a lot of "stock footage" used for cut-away. I think most everybody interviewed has written a book about the Allman Brothers. Very little "from their own mouths" stuff.

Unless I blinked my eyes for a second, the video completely omitted Jack Pearson, Jimmy Herring, Marc Quinones, Oteil Burbridge - and the passing of Alan Woody. (if these were addressed it must've been in a single sentence somewhere.)

More variations on many of Gregg's stories. He should be known as "the Ramblin' Man" - took him 7 minutes to tell the foot-shooting party story. Funny hearing a couple of different takes on the same stories in the "After the Crash" video than I'd just heard in the Gregg interview! 😉

Pretty much agree...perhaps our being fanatic fans who have heard all these stories in many formats influenced our judgement? I'm not sure.I love Laid Back,but way too much time on that...

nice seeing Johnny Sandlin...I felt he was a legit insider.Where was Kirk for the later years? I realize it's a limited format and they can't cover it all but I enjoyed the Big House documentary,as an example of cool story telling,more.Again,all a matter of taste 😉 ::cool:

It was great to see and hear Johnny! His comments were certainly a highlight! Great to hear from Tommy Talton, too! AS much as I love, adore and miss Stevie Ray Vaughn - het got more time and mention than Jack or Jimmy.

I thought it was mostly slow and boring and the focus was terrible. They had tons more on the Toler brothers years than they did on the Warren-Derek years, which makes no sense.

And was there a reason nobody in the band was interviewed? I did enjoy hearing from Johnny Sandlin, etc., and the two biographers were good, but I don't understand why we didn't hear from Gregg or Butch or Chuck or Warren, etc. Is it simply the format of the show to just interview outsiders? If so, then it's stupid. Also, not nearly enough footage of them playing. And, I have to admit, I found it aggravating that a documentary on a great American band was narrated by an Englishman.

Other than that, I liked it...

I stayed up a bit past my bed time to watch it all and glad I did. Very well done overall.

Some general comments both good and bad from a loyal fan:

1) Should be longer. 2 hours is a lot to produce I know, but the Warren/Woody era didn't even start getting covered until about 20 min left. Dickey's departure got a couple minutes then Derek/Oteil maybe a few more. That whole upswing of the band's history felt rushed and anti-climactic and missed a chance to demonstrate how the 2 longest serving lineups brought the level of playing back up to, and even past, the early years.

2) The story behind the decision to stop playing in Oct. 2014 got completely glossed over. All you see is the band taking a bow on stage and a brief mention of it. I get that art imitates life and maybe it was supposed to feel as awkward as it really was, but there's as much intrigue to that one storyline as there was at any other point in their history.

3) I appreciate the 5 folks who did the charrettes throughout ( especially Alan Paul who is terrific as always) but it would have been good to hear from a broader range of perspectives. The guys they featured were business-focused plus Paul who brought the historian / critic perspective. Would have liked to hear from folks closer personally to the band member and other musicians.

4) No mention of Quinones, who after the original 4 has been there longer than any other member and re-invented their percussion sound

5) No mention of Jacky P or Jimmy ( or of the 2000 run at all for that matter )

6) Thought it was incredibly important and courageous to focus as much on the Arista years as they did. I still don't ever plan on owning those two albums thanks in small part to how they treated it.

7) Willie Perkins has either a sweating condition or was really nervous during his charrettes

8) Didn't realize I'm No Angel was picked up from a demo by a British dude

9) The infamous punch by Dickey occurred during a "fistfight" over Govt. Mule co-billing disputes with the ABB at the Peachfest? That's what I recall hearing while they showed an early-looking pic of the Mule onstage with a Peachfest sign in the background.

10) Not familiar with ABB Biographer Scott Freeman, but he laid down the greatest line of the show during his charrette when he was like, "I was in a band with Jaimoe --- that's how far they had fallen" in the 80's.... classic!

Was it my poor hearing or did the host call Berry Oakley BARRY????

I thought it was mostly slow and boring and the focus was terrible. They had tons more on the Toler brothers years than they did on the Warren-Derek years, which makes no sense.

And was there a reason nobody in the band was interviewed? I did enjoy hearing from Johnny Sandlin, etc., and the two biographers were good, but I don't understand why we didn't hear from Gregg or Butch or Chuck or Warren, etc. Is it simply the format of the show to just interview outsiders? If so, then it's stupid. Also, not nearly enough footage of them playing. And, I have to admit, I found it aggravating that a documentary on a great American band was narrated by an Englishman.

Other than that, I liked it...

The band interviews would have cost more money and possibly an inquiry into the footage and music that the did use for the documentary. There are hundreds of these (I think all British produced) rock docs out there that use what I can only assume as public domain footage and talking head interviews.

If they were to interview band members, then there would likely be licensing fees and other contracts that would need to be negotiated in order to make it an authorized doc.

These documentaries aren't bad, I find them enjoyable. I would love just to hear Alan Paul sit down and do a Q&A with a group of fans as I really appreciate his takes. The thing I don't like about these docs is the generic music they put in the background during segues. The same slide riff over and over. Each one of these docs no matter the band has some generic music that gets played the whole time then they mix in some sound bytes of the actual band.

This doc and the one on the early years come up on here from time to time and I always say this band is due and deserves a "Running Down A Dream", "History Of The Eagles" or "Living In The Material World" style documentary with full participation of the band.

9) The infamous punch by Dickey occurred during a "fistfight" over Govt. Mule co-billing disputes with the ABB at the Peachfest? That's what I recall hearing while they showed an early-looking pic of the Mule onstage with a Peachfest sign in the background.

10) Not familiar with ABB Biographer Scott Freeman, but he laid down the greatest line of the show during his charrette when he was like, "I was in a band with Jaimoe --- that's how far they had fallen" in the 80's.... classic!

I don't think they mentioned Peach Fest at all, I think they just said it was a fistfight over Gov't Mule. I did notice that almost a second later they showed a picture of Dickey wearing a Woody shirt from the "Let's Get Together" album cover.

Scott Freeman wrote the book "Midnight Riders: The Story Of The ABB". It was the go to ABB bio before Alan Paul's came out. His line about being in Jaimoe's band was incredible.

I thought it was mostly slow and boring and the focus was terrible. They had tons more on the Toler brothers years than they did on the Warren-Derek years, which makes no sense.

And was there a reason nobody in the band was interviewed? I did enjoy hearing from Johnny Sandlin, etc., and the two biographers were good, but I don't understand why we didn't hear from Gregg or Butch or Chuck or Warren, etc. Is it simply the format of the show to just interview outsiders? If so, then it's stupid. Also, not nearly enough footage of them playing. And, I have to admit, I found it aggravating that a documentary on a great American band was narrated by an Englishman.

Other than that, I liked it...

The band interviews would have cost more money and possibly an inquiry into the footage and music that the did use for the documentary. There are hundreds of these (I think all British produced) rock docs out there that use what I can only assume as public domain footage and talking head interviews.

If they were to interview band members, then there would likely be licensing fees and other contracts that would need to be negotiated in order to make it an authorized doc.

These documentaries aren't bad, I find them enjoyable. I would love just to hear Alan Paul sit down and do a Q&A with a group of fans as I really appreciate his takes. The thing I don't like about these docs is the generic music they put in the background during segues. The same slide riff over and over. Each one of these docs no matter the band has some generic music that gets played the whole time then they mix in some sound bytes of the actual band.

This doc and the one on the early years come up on here from time to time and I always say this band is due and deserves a "Running Down A Dream", "History Of The Eagles" or "Living In The Material World" style documentary with full participation of the band.

I don't think the cost has anything to do with the band members not being interviewed.

Unlike the authors with books to promote, they have no incentive to talk and are probably happy to keep private matters private, as they should be. If anyone would stand to benefit from airing their side of the story, it would be Dickey, and he has been a pretty quiet gentleman despite all the remarks made about him.

I also don't get the fascination on this site with Alan Paul. I do not recall his becoming active here until he had a book to promote.

Although I did not like the way the last 20 years of the band were presented in the final 15 minutes, in general I found the show enjoyable.

I'll disagree with money having nothing to do with why band members weren't involved. They likely weren't pursued for the documentary because they do these docs on the cheap, that's why there are so many of these unofficial ones out there. Getting band members, record labels and actual licensing involved changes the game for them.

Who cares if Alan Paul was active here before he had a book to promote or not? He wrote a great book about the band that this site is dedicated to. Obviously the guy put a lot of work into the book.

I agree they could have done more with the last 20 years of history, but I get why it was glossed over as well. Truthfully other than Dickey leaving the band it likely doesn't have a whole lot of interest to the casual fan. Almost every band documentary (and most books) is 75% the early years - the peak of their fame and 25% wrapping the story up. I like the full detail, but most gloss over the ending unless there is something groundbreaking that causes the ending.

[Edited on 9/8/2016 by WarEagleRK]

if I could do it again I would not have participated in this film FWIW. Also FWIW, I've been active up here for many many years. had a different account before that I got locked out of and made a new one. I posted in the Guest Book all the time.. not sure how much I ever realized these forums existed.

Alan,

If you can't answer, that's fine but just out of curiosity why would you pass on it now?

Also any insight on how these docs get around copyrights and licenses? Is it a fair use type situation?

The video had good production values. The lighting was good, the camera was good (locked down?), and the editing worked. Everybody interviewed gave good accounts ... for the most part (coming back to this). Someone mentioned the idea that so little archival footage exists. Someone else questioned whether the band members were accessible.

Lack of archival footage is one thing. This video re-raises the million dollar question: WHY was the final show not professionally shot with 6 or more cameras? Did management consider this undertaking to be too expensive? Not only did they miss the chance to ca$h-in "Last Waltz" style - they had no footage to use in a "historic" video about the band. Brief clips from the show were obviously taken from a fan's cell phone!

There were a couple of instances when the person talking on screen wasn't ID'ed (lower third graphics) until the third time they spoke. Some of these faces were simply not recognizable by the everyday Allman Brothers fan. The ... large guy ... who spoke for quite a long time about his machismo dealings with roadies and other backstage sorts. He is/was something to do with Capricorn business - I'm still not really sure who this guy is, or how his tales of badassery even fit into the program.

The name of the video (NOT calling this a "film") was "After the Crash". The title alone is enough to offend long time and die-hard fans. AFTER the crash. The ending seemed rushed and hurried. As others have stated, the last 20 years of the band's history was dealt with in the last 5 minutes of the video.

Sometimes when the idea for a project comes up, you have to evaluate what your resources and sources are. Sometimes, you have to re-evaluate and ask, "do I have everything I need to make this project work?" And sometimes, you have to realize that you simply do not.

If you can't answer, that's fine but just out of curiosity why would you pass on it now?

Also any insight on how these docs get around copyrights and licenses? Is it a fair use type situation?

They just used stuff! And that's mostly what I'm upset about. They took my book, scanned a bunch of photos and just used them with no permission, credit or payment. Me being in it makes it look like I endorsed it... a lot of people seem to think I wrote or directed or produced it, actually.. I just sat and talked to them for an hour or a bit more...

I think overall it's ok... but I agree with some of the flaws noted by others... and don't really wish to be associated with the product... I have no issue with anything I said or how they used it. (I think. Need to watch it again more carefully.)