Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2020 8:59:25 GMT
Being played in clubs as a measure of artistic height is new to me. It's one aspect of Bowie and was used to illustrate his multifarious achievements. That's the thing with these nominations, these artists appear very one-dimensional in comparison.
Club culture has been a huge subcultural force in youth culture for 40 years or so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2020 9:11:42 GMT
Anyway listen to this. Incredible..
|
|
fange
god
Listening to long jazz tracks
Posts: 4,559
|
Post by fange on Jan 9, 2020 9:11:48 GMT
That's the thing isn't it, the sheer range of styles that he tried and did so well in his post-1970 catalogue.
Hunky Dory, Ziggy, Alladin Sane, D Dogs, Young Americans, Berlin era, Modern Love pop rock, Black Tie White Noise period, and the 2000s stuff had a lot of good music too.
Bruce and Elton did very well for mine, but ultimately not at the same level.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Jan 9, 2020 9:17:50 GMT
How you measure greatness? What criteria can you apply?
We do value variety, eclecticism, artistic development and all that. Artists who take us on journeys through their career. Maybe that’s significantly down to the Beatles who set some kind of standard for everybody else to live up to and like the Beatles he managed to pull off all the above but with great commercial songs. Hit records. I'm gonna do a soul record now....here's Young Americans groovers. By comparison some of the artists mentioned do seem rather one note and earthbound.
Art is subjective is one of these things that gets trotted out all the time but not all art is equal. The idea of some kind of “objective” standard/criteria is something that’s always interested me but it’s not something I see discussed very often. Especially not these days where to actually state such opinions (“X is better than Y”) seems anathema to some.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2020 9:21:46 GMT
That's the thing isn't it, the sheer range of styles that he tried and did so well in his post-1970 catalogue. Hunky Dory, Ziggy, Alladin Sane, D Dogs, Young Americans, Berlin era, Modern Love pop rock, Black Tie White Noise period, and the 2000s stuff had a lot of good music too. Bruce and Elton did very well for mine, but ultimately not at the same level. Yes, and then there's the whole way he staged that journey as a theatrical narrative which would astound and entrance.
On a side note though, I reckon Rayge should make Joni Mitchell the next subject of his hagiography. I don't know her music as well as I should really, I've been tip toing around her for years.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Jan 9, 2020 9:39:52 GMT
Try Court and Spark, G.
I suspect that period leading into Hissing will be more up your street than the earlier acoustic singer songwriter stuff
|
|
|
Post by npht on Jan 9, 2020 14:35:10 GMT
Bowie from the perspective of well rounded and influential would be the answer.
If we are talking just music output there are a few that come to mind. Dylan(do we count Nashville Skyline, Self Portrait and New Morning?) Not this boards cup of tea but Robert Fripp comes to mind (lots of side projects) Joni Mitchell is a good one. Frank Zappa would be another although Frank left us too early Neil Young but he doesn't have the diversity of Bowie.
|
|
|
Post by oh oooh on Jan 9, 2020 14:51:34 GMT
The Wombles were also kings of disguise
|
|
loveless
god
Bringing ballet to the masses. Sticking to the funk.
Posts: 2,814
|
Post by loveless on Jan 9, 2020 14:58:36 GMT
When I first joined mojo4music nearly 20 years ago, I remember butting up against something in a thread (the topic, not Bowie related, is immaterial) where someone (assuredly Slider) said something about "Oh, well, WE DECIDED that...", and I remember my reaction vividly, just thinking "Oh, wow - the internet is full of these fucking squares who require some form of consensus." NOT regarding scientific fact, but more "The best example of ___ is ___. We took a poll, you know."
And, rightly or wrongly, I thought "You know what? FUCK your little consensus! John San Juan is here, motherfuckers!"
Such was the strength of my own feeling about a lot of this shit.
To that end, there's something about this unshakable feeling that, no matter how much love I have for Bowie's best work, it will never be sufficient by some recurring communal standards.
It couldn't possibly matter that I played a lot of it onstage for a number of years, or the countless hours I spent proselytizing in my early 20s, the going off him and then coming back, the rapturous experience I had when David Bowie Is came to Chicago 5 years ago (we went on my 45th birthday, and...I sincerely hope you all got to enjoy it at one time or another), the playlists, CDs, mix tapes, etc. I used to make of my own "top tier Bowie" (it had to be JUST THE RIGHT version of "John, I'm Only Dancing" or "The Prettiest Star" or "Holy Holy" or "The Supermen" or "Let Me Sleep Beside You" or "1984" - he was a widely bootlegged act at the time, and the early 90s spate of reissues made a lot of that stuff flesh, finally), the (by no means, not always fantastic) number of guises I saw him perform under during a period when he was clearly "searching for something" (being front row in a small theater for Tin Machine provides zero bragging rights, as you can imagine...ditto the tour with Nine Inch Nails...etc.). I love and loved him more than most, I'd say, and yet...
Ultimately, he's spotty (and this, for me, is one of many areas where the Beatles comparisons end abruptly). I don't think it all works. The much heralded Young Americans era seems like the sort of thing then-massive has been Barry Gibb was doing with far greater artistic success. Fucking "Nights On Broadway", son. Once we get past Station... and Low, the number of songs "that can make me break down and cry" dwindles to a precipitously low number.
I love him, love his voice, love his songs, his bands, I love his range ca. 69-77, his humanity ("Kooks", "Heroes", "Sweet Thing", etc.), but...in terms of "You can go ahead and throw all your other one note 1970s bullshit in the bin", I'm not having it. There's a TON of music from that decade that I enjoy more frequently than Hunky Dory or Diamond Dogs - and for whatever failings you may find in the likes of Neil Young, Stevie Wonder, Joni Mitchell, Led Zeppelin, Rundgren, Queen, Yes, Big Star, Marvin Gaye (I deliberately included a handful of "not at all universally loved here or elsewhere" personal favorites, solely for "sneer value"), this bollocks about "they are all drab, one note, monochrome, second rate also rans compared to our technicolor God" is...well, ultimately it's a belief that (while I don't remotely share it) I admire the ever loving fuck out of.
I'm GLAD he's got people digging on him to that rarefied extent. I'm not having it, but...right on, Dave!
|
|
nolamike
star
Old Fart At Play
Posts: 874
|
Post by nolamike on Jan 9, 2020 15:10:46 GMT
Bowie from the perspective of well rounded and influential would be the answer. If we are talking just music output there are a few that come to mind. Dylan(do we count Nashville Skyline, Self Portrait and New Morning?) Not this boards cup of tea but Robert Fripp comes to mind (lots of side projects) Joni Mitchell is a good one. Frank Zappa would be another although Frank left us too early Neil Young but he doesn't have the diversity of Bowie. If you define "well rounded" as meaning "made music in many different styles," then sure, Bowie is up there as one of the best in the post-Beatles world. But I don't know that he's the most influential. Perhaps for the type of music most often discussed on this board, but overall, I think there are others from the '70s whose music has influenced a larger number of artists, especially if we're talking about the state of popular music today. And I think there are plenty of artists whose overall output since 1970 beats Bowie's.
|
|
loveless
god
Bringing ballet to the masses. Sticking to the funk.
Posts: 2,814
|
Post by loveless on Jan 9, 2020 15:15:34 GMT
Every time I hear someone like fucking Siouxsie talk about seeing "Starman" on TOTP and the clouds parting and grayest, darkest Grimsby (or wherever the fuck she's from) turning into the land of Oz forevermore, I'm just like..."yeah, I guess I like 'Starman' in SPITE of what you just said."
|
|
|
Post by oh oooh on Jan 9, 2020 15:49:43 GMT
Every time I hear someone like fucking Siouxsie talk about seeing "Starman" on TOTP and the clouds parting and grayest, darkest Grimsby (or wherever the fuck she's from) turning into the land of Oz forevermore, I'm just like..."yeah, I guess I like 'Starman' in SPITE of what you just said." Yeah, as you're no doubt aware, that one's a bit of a thing with Brit punks and New Wave artists. There's a list as long as Bowie's kimono of second-tier popstars (Holly Johnson, Marc Almond, Ian McCulloch, Bono (probably)) whose lives changed forever because he put his arm around Ronson LIVE ON TV. I can still see how it must have been genuinely thrilling (from that same era, it's only really beaten on that score by the Pistols with Grundy) but the way folk bang on about it DOES get tiresome - and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of dissent (which is another reason why I was always drawn to Mark E Smith interviews in the 80s - 'Bowie's a fucking charlatan and his imitators can fuck off' etc.)
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Jan 9, 2020 15:51:23 GMT
Is it that different to seeing the Beatles on Ed Sullivan and waxing lyrical over that?
Bowie was about escape, transformation. If you weren’t/aren’t that way inclined and aren’t interested in such things his appeal might be somewhat lost. In some ways he offered a particular kind of British escape from suburban hell which in the 70s was fantastically exotic and attractive.
In America this desire to escape was maybe less pronounced but it’s still universal obv
Shall we mention “authenticity “?
|
|
loveless
god
Bringing ballet to the masses. Sticking to the funk.
Posts: 2,814
|
Post by loveless on Jan 9, 2020 15:59:14 GMT
Is it that different to seeing the Beatles on Ed Sullivan and waxing lyrical over that? I was anticipating this question. There's people who tell that story and you're like "Oh, right on, fuck yeah, I get it, etc." And then...there's this Beatles Channel on satellite radio, where they have all of these bumpers every 15 minutes or so between songs, sometimes you get one of the Beatles talking about something, and just as often you get these really "Who gives a fuck!??" types like Sheryl Crow or someone (basically, "the American Limahl", to bring it all back home) talking about their big Beatles epiphany (maybe Ed Sullivan, maybe something else) and...yes, my reaction is similarly "You're not gonna ruin the Beatles for me, Toby Keith."
|
|
|
Post by npht on Jan 9, 2020 15:59:59 GMT
Bowie from the perspective of well rounded and influential would be the answer. If we are talking just music output there are a few that come to mind. Dylan(do we count Nashville Skyline, Self Portrait and New Morning?) Not this boards cup of tea but Robert Fripp comes to mind (lots of side projects) Joni Mitchell is a good one. Frank Zappa would be another although Frank left us too early Neil Young but he doesn't have the diversity of Bowie. If you define "well rounded" as meaning "made music in many different styles," then sure, Bowie is up there as one of the best in the post-Beatles world. But I don't know that he's the most influential. Perhaps for the type of music most often discussed on this board, but overall, I think there are others from the '70s whose music has influenced a larger number of artists, especially if we're talking about the state of popular music today. And I think there are plenty of artists whose overall output since 1970 beats Bowie's. Yes was talking different styles. I was really talking from a rock perspective not really pop music. The trick with pop music is its always changing and careers aren't as long. There is a lot of 70's music I like more than Bowie but its not as popular. When you start looking at several decades the pickings are much smaller, hence why I stated Bowie since he continued to put out various music past the 70's although a lot of people don't like his output since the 70's. What others are you talking about that influenced a larger audience for several decades. If you are just going to give me 70's artists that have done nothing import since I'm not counting them. I'm looking for someone who has multiple albums of various types of music in multiple decades. Elton John was mentioned but is his music really different over all these years?
|
|