>>61734245 I don't know that you could say he didn't influence anything musically, but I can't necessarily say he did either.
All I know is he made some kick ass music, performed under some interested alter egos, and I would have LOVED to have seen him live in the 70's or 80's. David Bowie was never entirely about the music, he was a stage performer. He was a play write in a sense. He was a set maker. He designed every facet of his tours in order to go inline with the concepts of his albums. That is what made him an accomplished ARTIST and not just a musician.
>>61734299 >le contrarian meme OP is right, stop overusing that word ffs Bowie was innovative in the sense that the pushed the boundaries of personal expression and blurred the lines between genders, but when it comes to music he was a massive trendhopper
>>61734475 Why are Bowie contrarians so needlessly on the offensive about the fact that people liked Bowie's work? >inb4 'le contrarian buzzword' It is perfectly applicable here. Especially since OP's post is something that is factually incorrect.
>>61734735 >the musicians "influenced" by him were in reality influenced by the actual innovative musicians from which Bowie took inspiration, like Eno and countless Krautrock bands What a stupid thing to say. Bands who influenced are always going to have their influences themselves. By your logic, nobody influenced anyone, period.
That claim doesn't remove Bowie of any credence of influencing others, especially in consideration of him kickstarting the glam rock and proto-punk movement.
>>61734819 >>61734817 I don't really agree with what I said there, Bowie definitely was influential.
I'm just trying to make sense of OP's badly worded post before attacking him personally like >>61734452 did. He meant that Bowie wasn't innovative (what is kind of true) and you'd have realized that if you actually tried to read his post twice
>>61734910 >He meant that Bowie wasn't innovative (what is kind of true) and you'd have realized that if you actually tried to read his post twice That isn't true in the slightest either. He helped pioneer the glam rock and punk movements, which was innovative for its time. Plus his stage performances and makeup style innovated the way people approached those things.
>>61734932 >He helped pioneer the glam rock and punk movement You're right about glam rock– that's why I said "kind of true"– but the proto-punk movement already was in full swing before he even recorded his first album >Plus his stage performances and makeup style Not musically relevant
>>61734735 >The thing is, the musicians "influenced" by them were in reality influenced by the actual innovative musicians from which Krautrock took inspiration, like Stockhausen and countless 20th century classical artists
>If you look at it that way, at least music-wise, Krautrock didn't influence anyone
>>61734245 The interviews with his video director for blackstar makes it clear that Bowie doesn't really have a clear meaning behind most things he does and just picks cool imagery...they described how he said "lets put a tail of that women, it's kind of sexual". The truth is that most of bowies lyrics and art is the same way...it's just a superficial bundle of random stuff that doesn't go much further than a particular image, for better or worse. Most of the depth is a beat up
T. Rex was psychadelic folk in the 60s, just like Bowie was. Their self-titled kind of pushed them in the glam direction, but Electric Warrior was really the one that kickstarted the glam movement and propelled T. Rex into protopunk territory in 1971. Meanwhile, you could argue that The Man Who Sold The World, released in 1970, was more punk than any of T. Rex's early work before Electric Warrior.
>>61737008 You're right, he was influential, but only in the sense that he influenced those who he did because those artists heard Bowie before they did Neu, or Eno or whoever it be, and they mightn't have been able to connect to it in such an abstract form, it not being swerved towards a pop audience. His wider exposure and watering down more abstract and bold new musical inventions were influential, but that is not necessarily a good thing and it certainly doesn't make Bowie a good or respectable artist
>>61737133 what is your point? punk does not mean instantaneous. The man who sold the world is not glam rock, its just generic hard rock from 1970. And what relevance does TMWSTW being 'more punk' than Pre EW have?
>>61737140 You're partially right; he definitely did take influences from those artists and combine them with pop sensibilities. However, that doesn't make his compositions any more or less nuanced, interesting, or influential. He never cribbed wholesale from anyone, either.
Also, in case you didn't know, he collaborated directly with Eno, so I wouldn't say that he "watered it down". Made it more palatable, maybe, but Eno came through so strongly on Low and Heroes that none of his complexities and intricacies were lost.
>it certainly doesn't make Bowie a good or respectable artist Yeah, you're right. He's a good and respectable artist because his music was fucking great.
>>61737200 If you care to refute any of my arguments or post anything other than "lol ur dum m8", I'll be here.
>Glam rock emerged from the English psychedelic and art rock scenes of the late 1960s and can be seen as both an extension of, and reaction against, those trends. Its origins are associated with Marc Bolan, who had renamed his folk duo T. Rex and taken up electric instruments by the end of the 1960s. Often cited as the moment of inception is his appearance on the UK TV programme Top of the Pops in March 1971 wearing glitter and satins, to perform what would be his second UK Top 10 hit (and first UK Number 1 hit), "Hot Love". In 1973, a few months after the release of the album Tanx, Bolan captured the front cover of Melody Maker magazine with the declaration "Glam rock is dead!"
>From late 1971, already a minor star, David Bowie developed his Ziggy Stardust persona, incorporating elements of professional make up, mime and performance into his act. Bowie, in a 1972 interview in which he noted that other artists described as glam rock were doing different work, said "I think glam rock is a lovely way to categorize me and it's even nicer to be one of the leaders of it".
> protopunk only emerging in the 70's Fucking Peruvians were releasing punk rock in '64 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb46GBRhby8
I find it really hard to believe that some obscure South American shithole was ahead of the rest of the world, not to mention I found this through VICE which automatically means its wrong/behind the times.
>somehow is relevant if a musician is the creator or just a follower of a trend, even when he is the most influential artist of said trend >the fact that he died is not relevant to understand a concept album about his death
>>61737334 I wasn't already in that conversation to have been rekt, but if you consider an argument won by saying 'you're wrong bowie WAS influential', then, i dont know, youre stupid
it seemed like alot of people weren't understanding the relationship between trend hoping and it denouncing the credit one receives for the influence they caused.
>>61737245 we differ in how successful we think bowies albums are, theres not much to argue about. only
>Also, in case you didn't know, he collaborated directly with Eno, so I wouldn't say that he "watered it down". Made it more palatable, maybe, but Eno came through so strongly on Low and Heroes that none of his complexities and intricacies were lost. except this
if you think the work that eno did on here (that is some of his most exposed stuff, that bowie gets credit for) is his best or most interesting work, you're crazy
If you don't know how much Bowie influenced music theough bands such as Joy Division, R.E.M., Sonic Youth, The Pixies and many other that list him as one of their main influences, then my friend I think you're the stupid one
>>61734245 Bowie was an overrated hack who was more known for his wild appearance than his talent at composing or performing. Anyone who isn't completely oblivious to music history knows that he was a trendhopper who basically ripped off other shit that was going on around him and watered it down for a mainstream audience. His few good albums were collabs with more talented musicians like Eno. Berling Trilogy is like 60% Eno's doing
>>61737841 >implying I would listen to something as boring and prescribed as sonic yoot Pixies were alright, if you like that whole Nirvana thing I suppose you also think Nirvana were geniuses for blindly copying Pixies
>>61737859 Everything he touched he did better than the original artists. Glam was a parody before Bowie stepped in. Pretty much everything from 70-83, despite taking influence from other sources, managed to outperform any of those sources.
>>61738125 As far as glam goes Bolan was first Then Bowie Then Gary Glitter By the time Gary arrived there were already like 10 other bands doing it He was really big tho, pretty sure he was the main reason Bolan tried to kill it off in 73
>>61737245 >complexities >Eno Eno says himself he isn't a musician in the sense that say Robert Fripp is. He was more like a sound designer.His stuff wasn't complex in a musical sense. The concepts he worked with and the execution are brilliant but complex isn't the right word to describe it. His complete lack of music theory can make for some interesting melodies often though. From how he describes his trial and error method to composing melodies, I'd say it's a pain in the ass to do though.
Did Bowie get any formal singing training in his early years? It definitely seems that once he got to the late 70s he developed some more advanced vocal techniques and his later 90s work is even more so technically impressive than his earlier works.
Thread replies: 116 Thread images: 6
Thread DB ID: 421810
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.