I liked Bowie for many years before his death. But a big part of his successes was because of his theatrics, image and social ability. Musically, he's not extraordinary. And he wasn't very original either. He owes A LOT to his collaborators Mick Ronson, Tony Visconti, Marc Bolan, Lou Reed, Iggy Pop, Carlos Alomar, Brian Eno, Robert Fripp, among others, all of whom were probably more artistically accomplished than he was.
Many people hold him so dearly today as well because he seemed like a really "nice guy". Let's just acknowledge these facts.
Maybe so, but Bowie should be acknowledged for being able to bring so many creative people to his doorstep. Let's not forget him being the producer for what are arguably both Reed and Pop's best solo efforts.
> Musically, he's not extraordinary.
He kind of was.... especially within a pop context.
> He owes A LOT to his collaborators
Fair point. The individual virtuoso is often a bit of a myth within pop music.
>we don't care who plays guitar on a pop album
Mick Ronson had a lot to do with the sound in the early 70's albums, creatively. Carlos Alomar was a right hand aristically during his mid 70's period. Fripp was brought in by Eno, and was a big part of the sound in the album Heroes and Scary Monsters.
>but Bowie should be acknowledged for being able to bring so many creative people to his doorstep.
Sure, but the point is that those artists are in fact more original than him
op! i think all of the things you do about david bowie but i still enjoy his music quite a bit and i have to admit how big of an influence his music has been on my life. except i'd never call lou reed more "artistically accomplished" than david bowie. as fucking if. and do you not understand that many of those guys were only who they were because they had bowie as a spring board? surely his direct actions and outpout aren't 100% the cause for the adoration the masses have for him, but it's still him, it's still his adoration, it exists, whether or not it's "valid" "concrete" isn't important, just like god. we all know he doesn't exist but since people believe it we simply have to deal with it. and it doesn't hurt not to complain about god's non existence, much like it wouldn't hurt for you not to complain about people being stupid the way people will always be stupid.
1: bowie made great music many people enjoy
2: some people make him a god, which he clearly wasn't, gods don't exist
3: op is mad that people are upset and reacting in a predicable and unavoidable way and is now complaining on 4chan
4: op is a fag
never listened to much bowie. i loved Station to Station and enjoyed Next Day. I'm loving Blackstar as well. I knew that he was influenced by Scott Walker, and I never noticed this too much before, but Blackstar reminds me tremendously of Scott Walker even though musically they are worlds apart.
ok now i know this is a thread about Bowie, but with his recent death, here's hoping Scott Walker is still around and making music into his 80s
that's probably basically true. i expect david bowie is much better at making a great album than composing a great piece. if i wanted a great composition i'd ask chopin and if i wanted a great rock album with great direction, production, and a generally high level of quality in all of the various aspects of an album, i'd ask david bowie. he certainly wouldn't out play someone who is better than him though!
>many of those guys were only who they were because they had bowie as a spring board?
Because he had the money and fame
>but it's still him, it's still his adoration, it exists, whether or not it's "valid" "concrete" isn't important
>just like god, we all know he doesn't exist
Please, do not compare a human to the creator of the universe. Also *tips fedora*.
>much like it wouldn't hurt for you not to complain about people being stupid the way people will always be stupid.
Education is key
I'm not complaining by the way.
>4: op is a fag
>which he got from his abilities, both musical and networking
it was still "him"
>people over value him and like him for things other than his music, that's normal and not something new worth starting a thread about
>that's what i'm trying to do for you here big boy
>you're the unnecessary one. please make better posts
Why is it that if an artist doesn't play everything themselves (which most artists don't) that everyone jumps on it saying that everyone else involved in the albums was more important than the person credited with making the music. Usually it's with women but people are saying it about Bowie too now it seems. Apparently any musician who uses studio musicians is a hack that is just leeching off other people.
Most of those people also owe him a lot in turn though. It wasn't that they acted as a crutch to him, they all just worked together a lot. He helped sculpt a lot of some of those peoples best works like they did his.
>on it saying that everyone else involved in the albums was more important than the person credited with making the music.
Nobody said that, I said all of the other people I mentioned were better artists because they made better work individually
>Apparently any musician who uses studio musicians is a hack that is just leeching off other people.
Nobody ever said that
>Nobody said that, I said all of the other people I mentioned were better artists because they made better work individually
That's poor reasoning. You cannot so easily say that they made better work individually. Also, you're equating being a better artists with talent. The most important part of being an artist is not talent, it's vision.
ott Walker (Scott Engel) was one of the many pop stars of the Sixties who delivered radio-friendly refrains for mass consumption, aided by a marketing campaign that emphasized his cute looks over his uninspired songs (rings a bell? yes, those were the days of the teen idols and of the Beatles).