# So did anyone actually like David Bowie that much?



## sosophisticated (Feb 4, 2016)

Because I didn't really. And I never knew anyone, in real life, or online that ever claimed to be "really into Bowie" or a "huge David Bowie fan" Prior to his death that is, when it seems everyone came out of the woodwork to exclaim how distraught they were at his passing. I actually believed some of it for a while until I realised it was the Princess Diana Effect all over again.

I'm not denying he had some songwriting skills, at least early on. I even had a lot of his early work on CD once. But his early success owed a lot to guitarist Mick Ronson, and from about '74 on the records get increasingly bland.

One of the biggest gripes I have with his music is that he was essentially a follower of current music trends. In his own words he said that he "never really wanted to be a rock star" and that he thought he could make it by "faking rock & roll" Hardly words from a man with strong musical convictions. His late 70s records seem to be New Wave, most of the 80s was spent faffing about with synth pop, then highly processed electronica in the early 90s. I have heard most of Blackstar and find it mainly a depressing collection of weird sounds.

He couldn't really play an instrument that well and his onstage antics are usually embarrassing to watch. I dare anyone to watch without cringing segments of The Diamond Dogs tour when he's being led about on stage on ropes, literally like a dog on a leash

And last but by no means least, I absolutely cannot stand his voice. It wavers like an irregular heartbeat, and either seems to be a high pitched squawk or a low pitched purr. Yuck.

Sorry if that sounds harsh but if 70% of someone's output is trash and they get worshipped like a god, then expect a backlash!


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

He has always been one of my favourite pop/rock artists, certainly top10, from the first time I heard his songs in 1973. That he is not your taste is fine, describing his output as 70% trash is your personal opinion, and should not be stated as if it were a fact.

As usual, it appears TC members find it easier to start denigrating negative threads than talk about something they like.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I would listen to a few of the songs on the radio back in the day, but never desired to pick up any albums.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

He's never been an idol or someone who changed my life as a listener, but he wrote some very good song that I like. Anyway even before his death I knew a lot of people who saw him as a god, so the reaction of the world to me wasn't unexpected at all.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I think he was a great singer and songwriter. And he did not follow trends, he was the initiator of trends like glam rock and new wave. And he moved on to different things by the time other bands jumped on the bus.

He was a better musician than you might believe. He started out as a saxophonist, not a singer. And he played all the guitars on Diamond Dogs. And according to producer Tony Visconti, he was a decent percussionist too.

And jazz legend Pat Metheny stated how impressed he was with Bowie's vocal performance on their collaboration, This Is Not America. David did all the lead and background vocals because nobody else in the studio could sing.

Your Princess Diana analogy is totally false. David Bowie was selling millions of records and touring the world playing large arenas since the 1970s. Many years before his huge success in the 80s with Let's Dance.

Personally, I prefer the albums up to 1976, because I like his more rock n roll material, as opposed to the experimental pop stuff. I just don't care for the sound and production on the records after Station To Station.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Not me. Couldn't stand him. Same deal with Bruce Springsteen.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

I listened to Bowie and had some albums.
I liked his music a lot.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I am a fan of David Bowie's work with the exception of the three albums between _Scary Monsters_ and _Black Tie White Noise_ and about half of the Tin Machine material. He never released a particularly enthralling live album either. Interesting point about Bowie's voice - when he started to sing deeper I thought it was maybe because of the Scott Walker/Jacques Brel influence. Granted he wasn't an a-list musician but he was good (and confident) enough to handle guitar duty on the _Diamond Dogs_ album on all but two tracks. I would never say he was an innovator but when he used certain musical styles as conduits (i.e. the blue-eyed soul of _Young Americans_ or the noise-rock textures of _1.Outside_ he still usually managed to stamp more than his fair share of individual identity onto them.


----------



## EarthBoundRules (Sep 25, 2011)

I'm not a huge fan of most of Bowie's works, except for _Hunky Dory_ and _Ziggy Stardust_ which are among my favourite albums.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

I think his look and style were a lot more influential that his music.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Hunky Dory is a beautiful record. I'd say it's more Beatle-esque, and quintessentially English sounding. And I admire anyone that can write such a beautiful melody as Life On Mars?

Aladdin Sane is my favorite Bowie rock n roll album. The latest remaster sounds fantastic! The title tracks to this album, and Station To Station are some of the finest tunes he ever wrote, imo.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Morimur said:


> I think his look and style were a lot more influential that his music.


Just like his old mate Lou? NO I think he was much better than that and so was his style.

I found him interesting and I most enjoyed the theatrical aspect to all he did. He took on musical styles like an actor takes on roles. Sometimes he was most convincing.

And to get back to the original point, in England there are many people in their early 50's for whom he was THE man. I was not at all surprised by the outpouring of grief, even if I felt none myself.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I got into Bowie around the time of Diamond Dogs through a friend in grade 12 who had been on board since Bowie's start. I was pretty resistant, but did get to appreciate a good deal of that early stuff. I followed him through the boring disco phase and really got to like him quite a bit in his Berlin phase. I completely lost track of him after that. All things considered, for a pop artist, I think he did pretty well for himself and his music will live on for some time to come.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

brotagonist said:


> All things considered, for a pop artist, I think he did pretty well for himself and his music will live on for some time to come.


As he aged, he certainly continued to be more relevant as an artist than his colleagues, Elton John, Rod Stewart, or even Paul McCartney. Does anybody give a damn about the records those guys have made in the past 25 years?


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

starthrower said:


> As he aged, he certainly continued to be more relevant as an artist than his colleagues, Elton John, Rod Stewart, or even Paul McCartney. Does anybody give a damn about the records those guys have made in the past 25 years?


Unfortunately many people still do give a damm, otherwise that loathsome thresome wouldn't be so disgustingly rich.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Morimur said:


> Unfortunately many people still do give a damm, otherwise that loathsome thresome wouldn't be so disgustingly rich.


It's the last phase of idol worship for the baby boom generation, as they feel the pangs of mortality closing in. And it's the end of a dying era of popular music, the likes of which will not be experienced again anytime soon.

Sure, the younger generations have their pop idols, but does anybody respect Beyonce, Kanye West, etc. for their artistry or musicianship? I think not. And I don't get all of the hype over Adele, either? She's not exactly Aretha Franklin.

Most of the talented musicians are under the radar, and they'll never have the cultural impact of the 60s generation. I don't know if there are any innovators out there today like Hendrix or Zappa, but they'll never become household names being true to their musical vision in today's music business world.


----------



## Elizabeth de Brito (Feb 10, 2016)

I think lots of people liked David Bowie - it's true more people get nostalgic and start caring when someone dies - Amy Winehouse, Kurt Cobain, Princess Diana all got more press and passed into legend, more so than had they continued living. 

Maybe people came out of the woodwork because a lot of his music they liked was from the 70's, not his recent output and weren't paying attention to him because they were paying attention to other stuff. It was the same thing when Michael Jackson died - playing all his songs on a loop on every music TV channel and radio station.

Lots of people like Bowie. Lots of people don't. Same as Mozart, Jane Austen, JK Rowling and, dare I say it, the Beatles. You don't have to like Bowie, I like some of his songs - Changes is one of my favourites but I can't stand Space Oddity.

And don't apologise for sounding harsh. Be honest. People should be honest, I think too many people say and think what society wants them to think without creating opinions themselves. If you like a musician then great. If not then don't.

I feel the same way about the Beatles. Lots of their music is utter rubbish and they get worshipped.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Not me. Couldn't stand him. Same deal with Bruce Springsteen.


I can totally understand Springsteen but Bowie? How disappointing hp.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Bowie was the man, I'm not the biggest fan of that genre in general but Bowie was definitely the one with the best music in my opinion and he explored all kinds of genres like no one else of his peers. Not to mention he played all the instruments not just one or two like everybody else and I mean obscure instruments too. 

He was a true visionary and like any visionary (who doesn't want to just keep making the same thing over and over) there will be some of his stuff that doesn't speak to you but if you look around I'm sure you can find some treasures in his discography that will grab and move you.


----------



## Elizabeth de Brito (Feb 10, 2016)

Okay I'll give you Rod Stewart and Paul McCartney quite happily but Elton John, really?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Elizabeth de Brito said:


> Okay I'll give you Rod Stewart and Paul McCartney quite happily but Elton John, really?


Out of curiosity, I ask whether you have heard a song by Elton John that you have liked? My own experience is that, if an artist's or group's output is large enough, there will be something that I will enjoy. What is your experience?


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

sosophisticated said:


> Because I didn't really. And I never knew anyone, in real life, or online that ever claimed to be "really into Bowie" or a "huge David Bowie fan" Prior to his death that is,


Is this because you are too young to have been a teenager in the early 1970s?

I was a teenager in those years and he was tremendously popular *and* tremendously 'trendy'. Yes. loads and loads of 'real' people loved his music - and loved to be seen carrying his LPs.

He was also tremendously influential for many following bands - especially in terms of opening up the possibilities for music, performance and style. This influence manifested itself to the greatest extent (I suppose) in diverse fields in Britain such as 'glam rock' in the 70s, the 'alternative' music scene in the late-70s and early 80s, and 'new wave' and 'new romantics' from the early 80s onwards.

And 'no' - I am not one who ever liked his music much and I never owned any of his LPs - but loads of those I knew at the time certainly did.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Elizabeth de Brito said:


> .... but Elton John, really?


Is there *anyone* on this thread who was a teenager in the early 70s??? 

and, no .... I couldn't abide Elton either - but he was genuinely hugely popular in those days too


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Can't say I liked anything of his. But some people must have done. I can't imagine why though, personally.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Is there *anyone* on this thread who was a teenager in the early 70s???
> 
> and, no .... I couldn't abide Elton either - but he was genuinely hugely popular in those days too


I was just out of my teens.


----------



## Guest (Feb 12, 2016)

Curiously constructed OP...



> *So did anyone actually like David Bowie that much?*
> 
> Because I didn't really.​


​So, because you didn't really like him that much, you think that perhaps no-one else did, really?
​I assume you've done the basics, like looking up his discography on wiki and seen the number of gold and platinum sales?


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I was just out of my teens.


its not intended to be rude, but you struck me as being much older than this - "But some people must have done. I can't imagine why though, personally" - makes it sound as if you were the same generation as my parents and couldn't understand people under 25 at the time


----------



## Guest (Feb 12, 2016)

Headphone Hermit said:


> I was a teenager in those years and he was tremendously popular *and* tremendously 'trendy'. Yes. loads and loads of 'real' people loved his music - and loved to be seen carrying his LPs.


I was too. I can't recall any other (living) figure in the UK at the time who had more cult status, cool, influence than Bowie.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Elton made some great records in the first half of the 70s. It got pretty cheesy after that. I never bought the records at the time because I was a kid with no money. But I've since picked up Tumbleweed Connection, Captain Fantastic, and the debut album, and it's good pop/rock music. I didn't care for his over the top Liberace glitter stage presentation, but I don't think about that listening to the records. Same with Bowie.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

David Bowie Prays the Our Father

This is the one by him I like the best. I think Jesus helped him write the lyrics.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

I don't really know any of David Bowie's music. The outpouring of praise after his death seems reasonable to me, though. Just like when Michael Jackson died, people are more reluctant to speak ill of the recently dead and would rather remember the best parts of the person's life.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Nowadays, any memorial seems over the top simply because there's so much more media. People spend half the day online visiting sites, reading tweets, going on Facebook, and then complain about overkill. 

Bowie was not "worshipped like a god." To use that as an excuse for a rant is silly.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

GreenMamba said:


> Bowie was not "worshipped like a god." To use that as an excuse for a rant is silly.


Personally, I get more perturbed when the media puts politicians and business people on a pedestal to be worshipped after their passing. Steve Jobs and Ronald Reagan were lauded as if they were saints or liberators of oppressed races. It really turned me off. But I feel like these are the people that the corporate media wants society to look up to. Billionaires, and business friendly politicians. And never anybody that takes a stand for the intrinsic value of things, or speaks truth to power.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

This may be too extra-musical for this forum, so I will just say that Reagan and Jobs had some traits and accomplishments that endeared them to a lot of people. Whether or not you liked them, they had tremendous influence well before their dates of death.

There are musicians, both living and dead, that I feel do or do not deserve their reputation. All I can do is listen to what I like and speak up for who I like.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I've always respected Bowie as an original artist, but truth be told it is a very small percentage of his total output that I really like. I feel the same way about Zappa. But that said I do think Zappa was a more talented musician than Bowie, and I get a little turned off by the fact that Bowie seemed to use image and the fact he was bi-sexual as part of his appeal, too much non-musical nonsense tied up with his fame.


----------



## Elizabeth de Brito (Feb 10, 2016)

Yeah, I'd agree with you there. Pretty much most artists on the planet in every genre have something I like. Case in point - I dislike every single Beyonce song except one - Love On Top which is a gorgeous, soulful, pop song. And yes, I love Your Song by Elton John and Crocodile Rock and others but not Candle in the Wind.


----------



## Elizabeth de Brito (Feb 10, 2016)

Age does not have anything to do with it. I think it's about your social circles. For instance I like Doctor Who and spent many years not knowing anyone else who did, especially fellow females. Lat year I came to London and discovered a group full of people who did, including lots of girls. I know it's not music but it's a similar situation. I know people my age (28) who like Bowie and people who don't just like Mozart, Beyonce, Muse, everything else.


----------



## Iean (Nov 17, 2015)

I love Bowie for his music, his theatrics, his ability to move from one genre to another with commendable results, and the fact that he influenced some of my favorite artists : Arcade Fire, Suede, and The Cure:angel:


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I, for one, cannot believe that Bowie was not strongly influenced by the phenomenon of Arthur Brown. Brown, as _The Crazy World of Arthur Brown_, created a sensation with his great song _Fire_, performed with his trademark metal facemask and flaming crown and his wild gyrations. The Fire side of the Crazy World album remains one of the strongest "concept" pieces in rock history, and is compelling listening. Brown's voice and Bowie's had many similarities, and Brown's 1967-68 theatricality had to have been a strong but never acknowledged factor in Bowie's early career. Anyone who hasn't heard the entire Fire portion of the Crazy World album is in for a delightful surprise. Here is the song _Fire_, excerpted from that album as a video. It is to be played LOUD, like all good Rock.


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> I, for one, cannot believe that Bowie was not strongly influenced by the phenomenon of Arthur Brown.


I can believe. Where do you see the influence?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> I can believe. Where do you see the influence?


MacLeod, honestly, I cannot help you. You will have to soldier on alone.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

True - Bowie did draw on theatrics, especially mime and dance, but I'd be surprised if Arthur Brown's demonic psychosis was in any way a factor - 'Fire' seems more like proto-Alice Cooper territory to me.


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> MacLeod, honestly, I cannot help you. You will have to soldier on alone.


Sure. I just can't see the connection myself.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> Sure. I just can't see the connection myself.


I will go this far for you: I suggest that you punch in Arthur Brown David Bowie into your favorite search engine and begin to sift through what comes up. As elgars ghost hints, Alice Cooper will also pop up along with Brown and Bowie; there was an efflorescence of experimentation in on-stage theatricality going on at the time, and these artists were watching one another. Brown was off the mark early, and others slipstreamed behind him. If you want more detail, you can look it up.


----------



## sosophisticated (Feb 4, 2016)

Whatever David Bowie was, he was not - I repeat NOT- influential. He was a follower. A follower of music style and visual style. People often say he was a chameleon. You know what chameleons do don't you? They change their colours to remain innocuous within their current surroundings.

_ That was Bowie exactly. _

Even today with Blackstar people are saying it sounds like Radiohead. I wouldn't know I'm not that familiar with Radiohead, but people say it frequently.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> its not intended to be rude, but you struck me as being much older than this - "But some people must have done. I can't imagine why though, personally" - makes it sound as if you were the same generation as my parents and couldn't understand people under 25 at the time


No not that old - just can`t understand why people liked Bowie. Even when I was much younger. :lol:


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

sosophisticated said:


> Whatever David Bowie was, he was not - I repeat NOT- influential. He was a follower. A follower of music style and visual style.


All English rockers were influenced by American music. Jazz, Blues, Rock are American musical inventions.


----------



## JohnD (Jan 27, 2014)

I can't imagine you listened to "Low" very closely if you call his post-1974 work "bland". I like some of Bowie's work from all of his periods and none of it seems bland to me, not even the stuff I don't like. Barry Manilow is bland, not David Bowie!

I think the worth of music is relative, not absolute. Just because you don't like someone, it doesn't convince me that his work is "trash". I think Bowie was a gifted artist and his use of fashion and images sometimes obscured his talents. He was also a great collaborator who worked with Lou Reed, Iggy Pop, John Lennon, Brian Eno, Robert Fripp, Luther Vandross and many others. Furthermore, his ability to play with different images is proof to me that, unlike many other pop artists, he didn't take himself too seriously. I have a lot of respect for him as both an artist and a person.


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> I will go this far for you: I suggest that you punch in Arthur Brown David Bowie into your favorite search engine and begin to sift through what comes up. As elgars ghost hints, Alice Cooper will also pop up along with Brown and Bowie; there was an efflorescence of experimentation in on-stage theatricality going on at the time, and these artists were watching one another. Brown was off the mark early, and others slipstreamed behind him. If you want more detail, you can look it up.


I did all that. It did not establish anything other than that there was a lot of stuff going on simultaneously, and as has been repeatedly observed with, for example, The Beatles and The Beach Boys, it's inevitable that contemporary artists watch and listen to each other's work. That's not the same as being able to say that the influence of AB is visible in DB's product.



starthrower said:


> All English rockers were influenced by American music. Jazz, Blues, Rock are American musical inventions.


True dat! But some more directly than others, and once the UK rock scene had established itself, the influence of one city over another, one trend over another, one artist over another became more important.


----------



## Iean (Nov 17, 2015)

Is it a requirement for an artist to be an innovator or to start a musical revolution or to play 1000 instruments or to have a voice of Pavarotti for some TC members to like that artist?:angel:


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> I did all that. It did not establish anything other than that there was a lot of stuff going on simultaneously, and as has been repeatedly observed with, for example, The Beatles and The Beach Boys, it's inevitable that contemporary artists watch and listen to each other's work. That's not the same as being able to say that the influence of AB is visible in DB's .


How do those Beatles lyrics go? "I say Yes; You say No. You say Stop; I say Go, Go ,Go."? This from memory. In this instance, I will assert that AB must have influenced DB. And you will say they watched and influenced one another's work, but you haven't found the proof beyond what our own eyes and ears and the Zeitgeist tell us. So be it. Let us all Rest In Peace.


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> And you will say they watched and influenced one another's work, but you haven't found the proof


No, I won't say that and no, I didn't say that. I simply said that they watched and listened to each other, not they influenced each other: that's a step too far to establish, IMO.

You can assert all you like, but I don't see any evidence (and I don't mean 'proof') of what you say.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> No, I won't say that and no, I didn't say that. I simply said that they watched and listened to each other, not they influenced each other: that's a step too far to establish, IMO.
> 
> You can assert all you like, but I don't see any evidence (and I don't mean 'proof') of what you say.


Okie Dokie. I will again assert that I can't believe that DB was not influenced by AB. So, There!


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> No, I won't say that and no, I didn't say that. I simply said that they watched and listened to each other, not they influenced each other: that's a step too far to establish, IMO.
> 
> You can assert all you like, but I don't see any evidence (and I don't mean 'proof') of what you say.


I heard him pick his favourite tracks on Radio several times. This one surprised me.






He recorded an album of music that influenced him.






No evidence of Arthur Brown. But unless you produce some, this discussion is going nowhere.

There was a lot of 'theatrical' stuff going on in the 1960's. He woudl be the frist to influence Lindsay Kemp.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Kemp


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Iean said:


> *Is it a requirement for an artist to be an innovator or to start a musical revolution* or to play 1000 instruments


Until I found this forum I had no idea anybody rated musicians like that. Surely music is as good or as bad as it sounds, regardless of whether the musician was the first or the thousandth person to do something, and certainly regardless of whatever commonly-cited authorities have to say on the subject.



Iean said:


> *...or to have a voice of Pavarotti *for some TC members to like that artist?:angel:


I hope not. That hard, dry little voice makes me nauseous.

Bowie's voice was pleasant enough. Here he is, taking time out from the noise pop of the era to duet with the singer who probably was the most influential pop vocalist of the twentieth century:






So, to answer the question, no, I didn't like Bowie that much- his creepy stage persona and pretentiousness were off putting to me- but perhaps there was a certain amount of talent there that the manufactured stars of today don't have.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

At this time Arthur had developed his outstanding stage-act - with the quite dangerous climax of setting fire to a huge helmet he wore. Several times he got burned....

The wild and passionate energy of the first album is hard to describe - hearing is believing. Vincent Crane is as much a virtuoso on his keyboards as is Brown with his voice. You'll hardly find another band that featured just drums, a guitar and keyboards delievering such an intensive, manic performance.

The interest and enthusiasm of the audiences were enormous. The Crazy World did a tour with The Who, Joe Cocker and other bands - after a while they were alternately co-heading with The Who! 
Then up-coming acts like Genesis and David Bowie were their support acts - and obviously had a good look at Arthur's stage show. Peter Gabriel is quite open about it as well. He once told Brown before one of his gigs: "You will see a lot of yourself in me tonight."

The above, copied out of a Google reference obtained by searching Arthur Brown David Bowie, is the sort of "evidence" that, in addition one's own eyes, ears, common sense, and familiarity with the Zeitgeist, supports the not-crazy notion that AB was an influence on DB. If we are going to not only include a sworn statement by DB that he either was or was not influenced by Brown, or the fact that he did not rename himself Arthur Bowie or David Brown, or that he did not do a cover of Fire, or that he did not adopt the wearing of a flaming helmet as hard evidence for or against, then the idea of influence (maybe it was even mutual) is quite reasonable, even inevitable. If all these discussions are to hinge upon court-suitable or scientific-journal standards of evidence, then the friendly nature of these speculations is quite completely replaced by an arid pedantry indeed--a pedantry some seem to cultivate as a hobby, however.


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> If all these discussions are to hinge upon court-suitable or scientific-journal standards of evidence, then the friendly nature of these speculations is quite completely replaced by an arid pedantry indeed--a pedantry some seem to cultivate as a hobby, however.


I see nothing arid in asking people to explain their ideas and their thinking. You put out an idea that seemed to me improbable, but instead of elaborating so that my thinking might be enlarged, you withdraw and lamely tell me, twice (like I didn't get it the first time) to Google or Wiki for myself.

No-one is asking for court-suitable anything.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> I see nothing arid in asking people to explain their ideas and their thinking. You put out an idea that seemed to me improbable, but instead of elaborating so that my thinking might be enlarged, you withdraw and lamely tell me, twice (like I didn't get it the first time) to Google or Wiki for myself.
> 
> No-one is asking for court-suitable anything.


Again, it is clear that I cannot help you. You must indeed soldier on alone.


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

I don't think we liked David Bowie, but loved the guy - we grew up with him - and though a cliché now his was the soundtrack to our younger years and most of the others as well. I think what irks some people is the fact they can't accept Bowie was the true epitome of a rock star, the very character he originally created in the guise of Ziggy Stardust then destroying and reinventing himself time and time again, always original and most importantly for his fans, always cool. He was lucky as well in being one of the most photogenic men on the planet and had an appeal to both sexes.

I think the best of Bowie's work combines memorable, cleverly fused tunes with lyrics which though at first seemed scrambled and surreal do in fact make perfect sense on repeated listening. Bowie's star shone brightest until the mid eighties when the he'd completed the Glass Spider tour. As much as he tried with other projects, (Tin Machine) and his later albums, Bowie was slightly out of kilter with the times, and what he created with the best intentions could at times be seen as obscure and pretentious. What Bowie did possess was an honesty and integrity in his work, and even if you felt he had produced another dud you knew it was a well meant one.

As to his best work; well it would be hard to name half a dozen artists of the late sixties early seventies whose every album could truly be classed as a classic - Spaced Oddity through to Scary Monsters at least, and the Berlin trilogy go down as masterpieces of their own. To individual songs Bowie's are part of the nation's fabric and many more as well; Changes, Life on Mars, Heroes, Young Americans, Fame, Fashion - yes, too many to name. It is hard to listen to each CD without picturing the image he had created for himself at that particular time, and this added to the freshness and allure of the artist and kept us guessing what was coming next.

Certainly Bowie copied others in his formative years and even his voice was based on that of Antony Newley which he freely admitted. I don't agree with others that Bowie was a follower but I think he was a lot more calculating with his image and style than he ever admitted. Certain trends were anticipated and then used - think Serious Moonlight tour - suited and urbane and ready to face the new decade of the eighties, and the early glam-rocker who was wound up as too many more were emerging from the shadows. The only area I never enjoyed Bowie in was his acting which always seemed very self-conscious and at worse wooden, but again it contained Bowie's usual integrity, and some of the films such as The hunger and The Man who fell to earth have gained a cult status.

There have been few artists in the pop culture who have been so creative and have achieved such a world wide following. Bowie's death for many didn't produce a sentimental, mawkish, self-absorbed out-pouring of grief; it produced shock and then sadness amongst us who were with him in spirit for the last forty years or so. Many of us hadn't seen Bowie in a stadium for nearly three decades but he was still our figure-head and whatever left of centre material he might have produced we all waited in hope Bowie would produce another great album, just as he did in his heyday.

I did like David Bowie that much, and a few days after hearing his death I was outside and his song, The Buddha of Suburbia was playing in my head. Rather than thinking this was just the death of another rock star the only thing I could do was look at the grey January clouds and weep for part of me that had died too.


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

elgars ghost said:


> He never released a particularly enthralling live album either.


Try David Live from 1974, RCA Records. I found this has an edge and rawness you seldom find and there's a glamorous desperation about Bowie's interpretations.

Stage is a good 'middle' period live album and you get a good wedge of the Berlin material as well.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Alydon said:


> Try David Live from 1974, RCA Records. I found this has an edge and rawness you seldom find and there's a glamorous desperation about Bowie's interpretations.
> 
> Stage is a good 'middle' period live album and you get a good wedge of the Berlin material as well.


I agree that both were representative in terms of where Bowie was at musically (and, especially in the case of the former, personally as well) but I've never got on with either - _David Live_ sounded too ragged whereas in contrast _Stage_ sounded too dispassionate (one or two tracks aside), and certainly was not helped by the mix-out of audience noise which made it sound more like a full-length soundcheck more than a concert (a failing which similarly hamstrung another live album some years later, Japan's _Oil on Canvas_. But as you say, _David Live_ has an edge to it which makes it sound more like an authentic live document, and if I did have to choose one it would be that.

However, I appreciate your advocacy so maybe the time will come for me to reappraise both of them (I've never heard either on CD, so maybe that medium has served them better).


----------

