home
radioThese are reader comments for the article 'Larry Norman: The David Di Sabatino's Fallen Angel documentary'
Reader Comments
Posted by Ray Ware in Nashville, TN @ 18:19 on Apr 7 2010
Mike
Thanks for taking the time to reflect on the turmoil of the Larry Norman story. There is profound poetry in each of our stories. If truth be told no one wants there story told aloud. We prefer to stay in the shadows. We very much prefer the dark to the light. However, that propensity confessed, we should not be fooled. Each of our stories will be known or they will remain unhealed.
You do good service to the Body in speaking the truth that you have observed and sifted through with reason and discernment. The sorting through our stories in light of God's story is a high calling. Thank you for the saneness of your interpretation.
Ray Ware
Mike
Thanks for taking the time to reflect on the turmoil of the Larry Norman story. There is profound poetry in each of our stories. If truth be told no one wants there story told aloud. We prefer to stay in the shadows. We very much prefer the dark to the light. However, that propensity confessed, we should not be fooled. Each of our stories will be known or they will remain unhealed.
You do good service to the Body in speaking the truth that you have observed and sifted through with reason and discernment. The sorting through our stories in light of God's story is a high calling. Thank you for the saneness of your interpretation.
Ray Ware
Posted by William in Never mind @ 07:18 on Apr 7 2010
the way i heard it, di sabatino didn't have much respect for mr. rimmer's journalistic techniques...and even after mr. rimmer threatened him that this story would be negative, he didn't budge.
as for not interviewing the family...why interview people who are going to lie? what use is that?
larry norman was a sociopath. how else do you explain neglecting a son? doing the other things that he did.
this doc is about the closest thing that you'll ever get to the truth about this guy. i am glad he did it. i hope he continues.
the way i heard it, di sabatino didn't have much respect for mr. rimmer's journalistic techniques...and even after mr. rimmer threatened him that this story would be negative, he didn't budge.
as for not interviewing the family...why interview people who are going to lie? what use is that?
larry norman was a sociopath. how else do you explain neglecting a son? doing the other things that he did.
this doc is about the closest thing that you'll ever get to the truth about this guy. i am glad he did it. i hope he continues.
Reply by brian jewkes in dudley @ 11:11 on Dec 29 2010
If youre gonna say something negative about a person , at least have the guts to give your name.
If youre gonna say something negative about a person , at least have the guts to give your name.
Reply by Dougie in Glasgow @ 15:00 on Apr 18 2010
I find it interesting that you assume the Normans are automatically the "liars" here. The Wallaces have said publicly that Charles Norman was not Larry's brother, now that Charles' birth certificate has been published online, it would seem the Norman family are due an apology and some of the things being said by some people accusing Larry of various sins ought to be scrutinised more closely or taken with a pinch of salt.
I find it interesting that you assume the Normans are automatically the "liars" here. The Wallaces have said publicly that Charles Norman was not Larry's brother, now that Charles' birth certificate has been published online, it would seem the Norman family are due an apology and some of the things being said by some people accusing Larry of various sins ought to be scrutinised more closely or taken with a pinch of salt.
Posted by James Crichton in Newcastle upon Tyne @ 11:11 on Apr 5 2010
Thanks Mike for another great balanced article, telling it the way you heard it & bringing it to the UK.
There are a couple of things that have been impressed on me recently as i have followed this topic on other sites & what others have said.
Concerning ourselves:-
Luke 6v37 (from v 37-42)
2 Peter 1v10-11. Period
Thanks Mike for another great balanced article, telling it the way you heard it & bringing it to the UK.
There are a couple of things that have been impressed on me recently as i have followed this topic on other sites & what others have said.
Concerning ourselves:-
Luke 6v37 (from v 37-42)
2 Peter 1v10-11. Period
Posted by gary pomeroy in san jose, calil. usa @ 15:57 on Apr 1 2010
I wonder if Di Sabatino will make a film on Randy Stonehill now that he is going through a divorce , Lord help us.........
Israel Tapes & Cooper Wires(guitarist)
I wonder if Di Sabatino will make a film on Randy Stonehill now that he is going through a divorce , Lord help us.........
Israel Tapes & Cooper Wires(guitarist)
Posted by J. Nordstrom in British Columbia, Canada @ 21:26 on Mar 29 2010
Great article, perhaps the most balanced article on the documentary and Larry's life I've seen so far.
My impressions of Larry began to fade as I read his liner notes. Often defensive, these liner notes were clearly written to cement his reputation amongst his fanbase. However, when we listen to his oft-defensive songs and read his constantly self-righteous liner notes, we see that he built an image for himself that he certainly couldn't and didn't live up to. It didn't take me much research to discover the trumped-up, equivocal nature of many of Norman's claims.
However, Di Sabatino's documentary makes many of the same mistakes: it quotes many people who may have not been an authority; it doesn't tell Larry's family's side of the story (it didn't really get a chance); it links words and images to give the viewer a contrived impression. In short, Di Sabatino's documentary works like a personal piece of art, not a journalistic or historical document. Much like Larry's defensive ramblings, the documentary's tone and bias often come off as unnecessarily abrasive, especially due to editing.
The complicated Larry Norman story needs a more balanced view in publication, something much more balanced than Norman's self-made image or Di Sabatino's documentary. Unfortunately for fans and viewers, it seems like a balanced view of Norman's life won't appear until his family stops fighting Norman's image-battle posthumously and participates in the discussion. Until then, we will only have two opposite sides of the picture, both emotionally charged far beyond their use as documents. Di Sabatino documents his own image and ego in the documentary; Larry documented his own image and ego through his songs and writings.
You've done your journalistic duty right here, Mr. Rimmer. I hope to see more or check your own "back catalogue" on the subject. Thanks for the balanced, concise article.
Great article, perhaps the most balanced article on the documentary and Larry's life I've seen so far.
My impressions of Larry began to fade as I read his liner notes. Often defensive, these liner notes were clearly written to cement his reputation amongst his fanbase. However, when we listen to his oft-defensive songs and read his constantly self-righteous liner notes, we see that he built an image for himself that he certainly couldn't and didn't live up to. It didn't take me much research to discover the trumped-up, equivocal nature of many of Norman's claims.
However, Di Sabatino's documentary makes many of the same mistakes: it quotes many people who may have not been an authority; it doesn't tell Larry's family's side of the story (it didn't really get a chance); it links words and images to give the viewer a contrived impression. In short, Di Sabatino's documentary works like a personal piece of art, not a journalistic or historical document. Much like Larry's defensive ramblings, the documentary's tone and bias often come off as unnecessarily abrasive, especially due to editing.
The complicated Larry Norman story needs a more balanced view in publication, something much more balanced than Norman's self-made image or Di Sabatino's documentary. Unfortunately for fans and viewers, it seems like a balanced view of Norman's life won't appear until his family stops fighting Norman's image-battle posthumously and participates in the discussion. Until then, we will only have two opposite sides of the picture, both emotionally charged far beyond their use as documents. Di Sabatino documents his own image and ego in the documentary; Larry documented his own image and ego through his songs and writings.
You've done your journalistic duty right here, Mr. Rimmer. I hope to see more or check your own "back catalogue" on the subject. Thanks for the balanced, concise article.
Reply by J. Nordstrom in British Columbia, Canada @ 03:17 on Apr 2 2010
Exactly, Allen. Di Sabatino's documentary does not function due to its obvious bias, heavy-handed tone, and poor references. If people want a "Larry Norman Story," they need everybody's involvement. I can't imagine how Di Sabatino could imagine that his documentary could be authoritative or "authentic" without the Norman family's participation. Di Sabatino jumped the gun to make the documentary so soon. The documentary will not have the longevity of a more balanced, journalistic work. It will always be a "fringe" documentary, useful for the snippets from the interviews, but useless as a "Bible Story." The documentary will never gain the respect of historians, except as a footnote.
I look forward to reading your book and your responses to the documentary, Allen.
Exactly, Allen. Di Sabatino's documentary does not function due to its obvious bias, heavy-handed tone, and poor references. If people want a "Larry Norman Story," they need everybody's involvement. I can't imagine how Di Sabatino could imagine that his documentary could be authoritative or "authentic" without the Norman family's participation. Di Sabatino jumped the gun to make the documentary so soon. The documentary will not have the longevity of a more balanced, journalistic work. It will always be a "fringe" documentary, useful for the snippets from the interviews, but useless as a "Bible Story." The documentary will never gain the respect of historians, except as a footnote.
I look forward to reading your book and your responses to the documentary, Allen.
Reply by Allen Flemming in california @ 17:34 on Mar 30 2010
As to making the film more authentic by giving the Norman's point of view: With the exception of Charles no other Norman received an invitation to be part of Fallen Angel.
As to making the film more authentic by giving the Norman's point of view: With the exception of Charles no other Norman received an invitation to be part of Fallen Angel.
Posted by brian jewkes in dudley @ 10:33 on Mar 29 2010
Dear Mike, i have thought long and hard about responding to this. I am the B.Dukes? you mention in your article. I can assure you that i am not some rabid fan of Larrys who cannot accept unpleasant allegations about someone they care for. Neither do i think Mr Sabatino is the devil. I do however still think it is wrong for a Christian magazine or any other to put into print or give platform to unproven gossip. I may have come to the wrong conclusion over your friendship with Mr Sabatino, but your article does state you had prior contact before the interview. Mr sabatino also seems to have assumed a warm welcome from you, hence his irritation ,when he didnt recieve it. Btw. i have been a member of Larrys Phan club for years. I have never been coherced to buy anything, niether has Charley or any one else from Solid Rock tried to get me to boycott Mr Sabatinos film. As for not listening to your show before,not true , i have on several occassions, but never felt the need to respond until my friends character was assaulted. Its called loyalty. As for the gathering together of an ex wife and several disgruntled buisness partners , i would say it was a miracle anything good was said about Larry. If when we die , would we want such a group of those who have had differences withus in life ,be the ones to celebrate it.
Mike I have not now, and nither then any annimosity towards you , and wish you well.
Finally , the last communication i had with Larry he requested that all his friends continued to pray for Mr Sabatino and not to be hostile towards him.
Dear Mike, i have thought long and hard about responding to this. I am the B.Dukes? you mention in your article. I can assure you that i am not some rabid fan of Larrys who cannot accept unpleasant allegations about someone they care for. Neither do i think Mr Sabatino is the devil. I do however still think it is wrong for a Christian magazine or any other to put into print or give platform to unproven gossip. I may have come to the wrong conclusion over your friendship with Mr Sabatino, but your article does state you had prior contact before the interview. Mr sabatino also seems to have assumed a warm welcome from you, hence his irritation ,when he didnt recieve it. Btw. i have been a member of Larrys Phan club for years. I have never been coherced to buy anything, niether has Charley or any one else from Solid Rock tried to get me to boycott Mr Sabatinos film. As for not listening to your show before,not true , i have on several occassions, but never felt the need to respond until my friends character was assaulted. Its called loyalty. As for the gathering together of an ex wife and several disgruntled buisness partners , i would say it was a miracle anything good was said about Larry. If when we die , would we want such a group of those who have had differences withus in life ,be the ones to celebrate it.
Mike I have not now, and nither then any annimosity towards you , and wish you well.
Finally , the last communication i had with Larry he requested that all his friends continued to pray for Mr Sabatino and not to be hostile towards him.
Posted by Brindleman in Sussex @ 02:20 on Mar 29 2010
I tend to agree with Sabatini...why journos get involved in the story, I have no idea. Tell me about Larry and/or the making of the documentary. Why have you put yourself in this story, Mike?
You get in the way of it. I think he has a point about you not being a good journalist...sorry to say.
I tend to agree with Sabatini...why journos get involved in the story, I have no idea. Tell me about Larry and/or the making of the documentary. Why have you put yourself in this story, Mike?
You get in the way of it. I think he has a point about you not being a good journalist...sorry to say.
Posted by Allen Flemming in California @ 23:30 on Mar 28 2010
How easily people will believe a lie if someone says it often enough, loud enough, or puts it in a film.
My name is Allen Flemming, I am writing the biography of Larry Norman. Next month I will be posting evidence that will reveal that Fallen Angel's attacks on Larry Norman are for the most part a work of fiction.
(I will let Cross Rhythms know when I post this information)
How easily people will believe a lie if someone says it often enough, loud enough, or puts it in a film.
My name is Allen Flemming, I am writing the biography of Larry Norman. Next month I will be posting evidence that will reveal that Fallen Angel's attacks on Larry Norman are for the most part a work of fiction.
(I will let Cross Rhythms know when I post this information)
Posted by Dougie Adam in Glasgow @ 21:21 on Mar 28 2010
Hey Mike
congratulations on trying to put forward a balanced view of things and showing everyone involved are human beings rather than monsters... something which often gets forgotten as people begin arguing about the specifics of the film.
I disagree with the claims from David Di Sabatino that it is only "Larry Norman Fanatics" with "bad theology" who complain about his film. I know a number of Larry's fan club are 'facebook friends' with the Wallaces and would like to see things settled peacefully and conclusively. Some of the fan club have said on the fan club website a DNA test should be carried out. The impression David likes to give is that it is people with an idolatorous view of Larry who have a problem with his film because they can't handle the truth about their fallen idol. From knowing a lot of big fans and collectors I don't recognise this pictire of Larry Norman fans as accurate or very fair... they have a range of views on the film and it's claims and many would contend that just as David and the Wallaces have sadly been the recipients of hate mail and abuse, so too have some people who have argued with or questioned their case.
My own view is the reason why Fallen Angel has caused such a stir and received some animosity is because the research is patchy. Cliff Richard and Steve Scott are the only European artists featured out of decades of Larry working with people outwith America, and the film deals with the most controversial parts of Larry's life and doesn't try to be even handed with some of the controversies.
Hey Mike
congratulations on trying to put forward a balanced view of things and showing everyone involved are human beings rather than monsters... something which often gets forgotten as people begin arguing about the specifics of the film.
I disagree with the claims from David Di Sabatino that it is only "Larry Norman Fanatics" with "bad theology" who complain about his film. I know a number of Larry's fan club are 'facebook friends' with the Wallaces and would like to see things settled peacefully and conclusively. Some of the fan club have said on the fan club website a DNA test should be carried out. The impression David likes to give is that it is people with an idolatorous view of Larry who have a problem with his film because they can't handle the truth about their fallen idol. From knowing a lot of big fans and collectors I don't recognise this pictire of Larry Norman fans as accurate or very fair... they have a range of views on the film and it's claims and many would contend that just as David and the Wallaces have sadly been the recipients of hate mail and abuse, so too have some people who have argued with or questioned their case.
My own view is the reason why Fallen Angel has caused such a stir and received some animosity is because the research is patchy. Cliff Richard and Steve Scott are the only European artists featured out of decades of Larry working with people outwith America, and the film deals with the most controversial parts of Larry's life and doesn't try to be even handed with some of the controversies.
The opinions expressed in the Reader Comments are not necessarily those held by Cross Rhythms.
Larry Norman a flawed human being? Good heavens, what a scandalous accusation. I suppose next you'll be telling us he couldn't walk on water, either. Is there no end to these BLAPHEMIES?!?!
Actually, thanks for a well written, nicely balanced article. And kudos to Crossrhythms for supporting you when controversy arose (that's a rare thing in these politically correct times).
God bless you. Keep up the good work.