Folk rock greats recall LA enclave in ‘Echo in the Canyon’

( PG-13 ) ( Monitor Movie Guide )

In Andrew Slater’s ‘Echo in the Canyon,’ musicians like David Crosby and Stephen Stills discuss the California haven where their talent was incubated.

Courtesy of Greenwich Entertainment
Jakob Dylan (l.) and Tom Petty are featured in ‘Echo in the Canyon,’ which explores folk rock’s roots.

Early in the fascinating documentary Echo in the Canyon, rock legend Eric Clapton describes why, at the start of his career, he gravitated to the hilly Los Angeles enclave of Laurel Canyon. “I was attracted to eccentrics,” he says, “and they were all there.” 

The eccentrics to which he is referring made up some of the greatest talents of the folk rock era covered in the film’s 1964-68 time frame. These include such luminaries as David Crosby, Stephen Stills, Brian Wilson, Roger McGuinn, and Graham Nash, all of whom are interviewed in the movie. Several artists-in-residence who came later, such as Jackson Browne, are also featured. Others, most conspicuously Joni Mitchell, are not.

If you care anything about the music of groups like The Byrds, Buffalo Springfield, The Mamas and the Papas, The Beach Boys, or Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, the ramshackle, engagingly anecdotal “Echo in the Canyon” is required viewing. Directed by the veteran music industry producer Andrew Slater and featuring Jakob Dylan, Bob Dylan’s gifted musician son, as a kind of master of ceremonies, it offers up a cross section of reminiscences from that era intercut with appearances from a newer generation of artists, including Beck, Regina Spektor, Norah Jones, the late Tom Petty, and Jakob Dylan himself. We also see clips from a 2015 tribute concert in LA featuring many of these younger musicians covering songs from those Laurel Canyon years.

What makes this more than just a movie for fans of that music – and what music! – is that it delves into what made that era such a creative cauldron, comparable in some ways, as the film points out, to Paris in the 1920s and ’30s. It’s certainly possible – especially if you grew up listening to “Mr. Tambourine Man” (composed by Bob Dylan and covered by The Byrds), or “Go Where You Wanna Go” from The Mamas and the Papas, or scores of other sonic marvels – to experience this film as a vast nostalgia trip. But Slater and Dylan don’t overdo the hearts and flowers. The musicians featured here are important because their music was important.

Crosby, probably interviewed the most extensively by Dylan, freely admits that his career has been fraught with addictions and bust-ups with fellow musicians. But when he talks about how he and others “put real poetry” on the radio, he may be bragging, but he’s also right. 

Laurel Canyon was geographically close to the music industry and yet tucked away in the Hollywood Hills. The camaraderie among resident musicians in those years was strong enough that, as Nash tells it, you could knock on any door and say, “Hey, listen to this.” Drop-in visitors included Ringo Starr, who talks about his admiration for The Byrds and amusingly about the difference between the laid-back atmosphere of LA recording studios and their fussy British counterparts. Starr also pays tribute to The Beach Boys, whose classic album “Pet Sounds,” with its interlocking narratives, was a prime influence on “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band.” Brian Wilson, in turn, talks about how The Beatles’ album “Rubber Soul” influenced “Pet Sounds.” 

The ways in which these artistic inspirations abounded and cross-fertilized is the central theme of “Echo in the Canyon.” Perhaps by necessity, this approach downplays some of the darker aspects of that era. Drug anecdotes are mostly presented lightheartedly, and Wilson’s harrowing psychological battles go unremarked. Including such material would have made for a richer panorama, but the focus here is on the conviviality of those Laurel Canyon years and the creative ferment and idealism that came out of it. As Nash says, looking back, “I still believe music can change the world.” Grade: B+ (Rated PG-13.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.