The Official David Bowie Thread

[Blaster XL]

Bowie was even great in some of his mid career pop stuff. Serious Moonlight was an incredible live show.

However, I still love old Bowie the most.

[Mrs Delusional]

Rock and roll suicide is pretty good to.

[Elly#1]

Not a big Bowie fan, but I like "Ziggy Stardust" and "Sound and Vision."

"Space Oddity" isn't too bad either.

[Lm Mt]

[YOUTUBE]87H4fjZzt7c[/YOUTUBE]

:bowdown: lololol

[livedieyoung]

What do people think of Low? I like it and it's clearly a very good album, but I never found the second side half as impressing as people tend to make out - especially considering the other great material of the same sort (e.g. Eno's) which had already been done prior.

[rkuchan1]

not the hugest bowie fan. nonetheless you have to respect his influence so:

gene genie
rebel rebel
heroes
man who sold the world

[New Life]

Bowie Rules
I have everone of his Albums and heaps of rare stuff
I can't get enough.

[Ivan John Chin]

My poll got in a little too late so I'll start it on another page entitled:
David Bowie favorites 2?
Damn, time limits fukk everything up, ya know?:banghead:

[Emma Rawwwrr]

I like your list. But you should definitely add

Always Crashing IN the Same Car
China Girl
Space Oddity
Let's Dance
D.J.
Look Back In Anger

[S h [A] h X e B]

I don't think they even appeared to be "good musicians". The musicianship itself, as you pointed out elsewhere, was largely simple and unpretentious (e.g. George's solos). What I attribute to George Martin is much of the clever instrumental arrangements, interplay, counterpoint, polyphony and whatnot that appeared in the band's better output such as on Revolver. It is a fact that none of them were extremely talented instrumentalists (though Paul was indeed very good). Note when I say "talented", I'm comparing that to the standarRAB of the rock music that came out of the era when technical proficiency was starting to become the thing, i.e. the later 60s (the YardbirRAB had Beck, Clapton and Page as an example) and the 1970s. I never meant that comment to slate the Beatles. It's just a fact that they had their origins in the earlier tradition of late 50s/early 60s rock'n'roll where high technical proficiency on instruments was not important. Instrumental virtuosity was traditionally important in Jazz, not in early Rock music. The fact that the Beatles were not virtuosi on their respective instruments merely reflects that they didn't have their origins in the era where being able to do almost inhuman things with guitars became the fashion of popular music. That is all, really. If somebody feels the need to lie to themselves and insist that the Beatles were in fact virtuosi, then fine, so be it. If one is so insecure in liking the Beatles that they feel they need to justify it to themselves by believing things about them that are simply untrue, then great. Though they should keep it to themselves. Personally I can love the Beatles for the genius of their songwriting and melodies, and leave the virtuosity for the hard, prog and jazz rock that was to come later on.


Any examples aside from what you are alleging about Young Americans?

Young Americans did as a matter of fact receive significantly less positive responses from music journalists than did Hunky Dory, Alladin Sane and Ziggy Stardust.

As for Bowie fans, well, I've spoken to at least a few who were not keen on Young Americans among his 70s work (and Diamond Dogs). The jury's out on what the bigger Bowie fans here think.