CBC Arts46%

This new Earth, Wind & Fire documentary isn’t just playing the hits 28%

By Nathan Chizen0%

6/9/2026, 8:00:53 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Biased Writer Voice, and Self-Serving Bias, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 20.5% saturation with 161 hits. Analysis detected 1,665 faulty-reasoning hits from 787 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39% and a BS Rank of 28% (14,786 of 20,367 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 72.60% of the article peer group.

There’s a new Earth, Wind & Fire documentary streaming now. 
Titled Earth, Wind & Fire: To Be Celestial vs That’s the Weight of the World, it charts the genre-bending groups’ origins and their cultural impact, all under the leadership of band leader Maurice White. 
Helmed by drummer and documentary filmmaker Questlove, it's also a display of The Roots musician’s ever-increasing prowess as director and music historian, opting for a subject-led film that often brings audiences to unexpected places within the band’s history. 
Today on Commotion, culture critic Jay Smooth joins host Elamin Abdelmahmoud to talk about the new film, and how it goes beyond the surface of hits like September to somewhere more meaningful. 
We've included some highlights below, edited for length and clarity. 
For the full discussion, which also covers the new Netflix docu-series Michael Jackson: The Verdict, listen and follow Commotion with Elamin Abdelmahmoud on your favourite podcast player. 
WATCH | Today's episode on YouTube: 
Elamin: There are people who maybe only know them through hits like September. 
But where do Earth, Wind & Fire sit in the pantheon of successful live bands? 
Jay: I think that's what makes this documentary so cool  they're always going to be known for those hits like September and Shining Star  [is it] really shows you how much deeper their cultural impact was, especially for people my age growing up in the ’70s and ’80s. 
They had this whole body of work with all these innovative jazz elements and horn arrangements, and connections to our African roots and uplifting messages. 
I'm probably part of a generation of kids who grew up with this African instrument in our house, the kalimba  also known as the thumb piano  because of how Maurice White and Earth, Wind & Fire introduced us to [it] and all this culture. 
[They] really captured our imagination with their presentation on record and on stage. 
And I think the documentary does a great job of showing how deep that legacy goes. 
Elamin: When you see them on stage, there's something about the spectacle that makes you go, “Oh, they're creating a world, and I want to be a part of that.” 
What do you think sets Earth, Wind & Fire apart from other bands? 
Jay: I think Maurice White had this really particular vision of connecting his audience to the past and African roots. 
He also had this futuristic vision that you could see even on the album covers back then. 
It was a mix of ancient [Egyptian] and futuristic space technology. 
And he captured that really well over the years on the stage show, and kept making it more elaborate where eventually band members would be floating in the air as they played their solos. 
It was just a beautiful lore and mythology we could connect to. 
Elamin: This new documentary is directed by Questlove of The Roots. 
What do you think of his approach to telling their story in this documentary? 
Jay: We've seen a number of documentary works from Questlove and his team, and I think this is the most polished, fully realized one [yet], where he does something difficult. 
If you're making a documentary that's driven entirely by the interview subjects  with no narrator coming in to fill in the blank spaces and connect things  it takes a lot of skill to curate [the] tape in a way that feels like it's telling a cohesive story that gets at the essence of the [it]. 
And I think this documentary, especially, takes the Earth, Wind & Fire story and tells us why their legacy is important, why their art is important and lets us get to know them as people in a really elegant [and] thorough way that I really appreciate. 
Elamin: What do you make of the kind of historian that Questlove is becoming? 
Because I'm interested in the fact that he's becoming an archivist of a certain kind of musical history. 
What do you think of that trajectory? 
Jay: I think he's come to play a really important role  that I really appreciate  [in] getting these stories told. 
He's in a position where he can get funding and promotion and all the right voices to speak to him in order to tell stories that otherwise might not have been spicy enough, or had enough crossover appeal to get told on this scale  and I love that. 
You can listen to the full discussion from today's show on CBC Listen or on our podcast, Commotion with Elamin Abdelmahmoud, available wherever you get your podcasts. 
Interview with Jay Smooth produced by Ty Callender. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 20.5%Nathan Chizen: 4.4%CBC: 2.6%Confirmation Bias20.5%This article: 1.9%Nathan Chizen: 0.7%CBC: 0.7%Anchoring Bias1.9%This article: 5.1%Nathan Chizen: 3.9%CBC: 3.2%Availability Heuristic5.1%This article: 1.7%Nathan Chizen: 1.8%CBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic1.7%This article: 4.3%Nathan Chizen: 0.5%CBC: 0.9%Hindsight Bias4.3%This article: 11.1%Nathan Chizen: 1.9%CBC: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias11.1%This article: 5.6%Nathan Chizen: 3.3%CBC: 4.2%Framing Effect5.6%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.3%CBC: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.3%CBC: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.3%CBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.4%Nathan Chizen: 3.9%CBC: 4.0%Optimism Bias10.4%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 1.4%CBC: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Nathan Chizen: 4.1%CBC: 5.7%Negativity Bias1.5%This article: 12.6%Nathan Chizen: 1.6%CBC: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias12.6%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 1.2%CBC: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 2.5%Nathan Chizen: 0.1%CBC: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias2.5%This article: 9.7%Nathan Chizen: 2.9%CBC: 1.2%In-Group Bias9.7%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 1.1%CBC: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 20.2%Nathan Chizen: 5.3%CBC: 3.7%Halo Effect20.2%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.2%CBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.3%Nathan Chizen: 2.5%CBC: 1.2%Recency Bias9.3%This article: 6.5%Nathan Chizen: 0.8%CBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect6.5%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.1%CBC: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 1.6%CBC: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.6%CBC: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.0%Nathan Chizen: 2.6%CBC: 3.7%Appeal to Authority10.0%This article: 5.6%Nathan Chizen: 1.5%CBC: 1.3%False Dilemma5.6%This article: 1.8%Nathan Chizen: 1.4%CBC: 0.4%Slippery Slope1.8%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.5%CBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 1.7%Nathan Chizen: 11.4%CBC: 4.9%Hasty Generalization1.7%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.6%CBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.2%Nathan Chizen: 3.6%CBC: 4.3%Appeal to Emotion7.2%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 1.4%CBC: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 10.2%Nathan Chizen: 2.2%CBC: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.2%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.1%CBC: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.3%CBC: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.4%CBC: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.4%CBC: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.9%Nathan Chizen: 4.2%CBC: 3.3%Anecdotal7.9%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.2%CBC: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.8%Nathan Chizen: 1.9%CBC: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.8%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.7%Nathan Chizen: 0.3%CBC: 0.1%Middle Ground1.7%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.1%CBC: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.1%CBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.1%CBC: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.9%Nathan Chizen: 0.9%CBC: 1.1%Unattributed Quote8.9%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.7%CBC: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 17.3%Nathan Chizen: 3.3%CBC: 4.9%Biased Writer Voice17.3%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.8%CBC: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.5%CBC: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nathan Chizen: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Nathan Chizen: 4.2%CBC: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.9%

787 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers74%attributed speech204writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageElamin Abdelmahmoud • 13 words • 100.0% coverageElamin Abdelmahmoud • 15 words • 0.0% coverageJay Smooth • 50 words • 0.0% coverageJay Smooth • 25 words • 100.0% coverageJay Smooth • 46 words • 0.0% coverageJay Smooth • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJay Smooth • 16 words • 100.0% coverageElamin Abdelmahmoud • 30 words • 0.0% coverageElamin Abdelmahmoud • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJay Smooth • 20 words • 0.0% coverageJay Smooth • 17 words • 0.0% coverageJay Smooth • 11 words • 0.0% coverageJay Smooth • 34 words • 0.0% coverageJay Smooth • 12 words • 0.0% coverageElamin Abdelmahmoud • 11 words • 0.0% coverageElamin Abdelmahmoud • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJay Smooth • 30 words • 0.0% coverageJay Smooth • 57 words • 100.0% coverageJay Smooth • 46 words • 100.0% coverageElamin Abdelmahmoud • 14 words • 0.0% coverageElamin Abdelmahmoud • 18 words • 0.0% coverageElamin Abdelmahmoud • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJay Smooth • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJay Smooth • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jay Smooth

100%flagged-word coverage
448 attributed words77% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -34.3 ptsWriter: 34.3%Jay Smooth: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice+30.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jay Smooth: 30.4%30.4%Unattributed Quote+12.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jay Smooth: 12.7%12.7%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.