The most restless star musician there's ever been. I'm sure /mu/ can scrounge up some musician who fluctuated from electronic pop to Tibetan throat singing to some other shit, but no one of Bowie's stature has ever been as willing to just wipe the board clean dive headfirst into new sounds and styles as Bowie was.
Made god tier albums in his prime ( inspired and launched iggy pop and lou reed's solo careers, co-wrote and produced their masterpieces) that were innovating and both critically acclaimed and successful. Insipired almost every pop artist
Faded more in obscurity but kept changing his style and sound never compromising his artistic integrity ( although he made some bad albums sure)
Came back after 4 decades to release another masterpiece ( a concept album about his own death at that) recorded while terminally ill that was once again critically acclaimed and comercially successful despite staying true to his art. Regained mainstream relevance right before he died, amassed lots of new fans from a newer generation, achieved legendary status. Went out with the biggest bang possible
He was more impressive by the fact that he was committed to reinventing himself musically and continued to make decent music decades after his prime than his actually quality of his music which never matched what he did in the 70s.
>>61839649 Bowie was pretty good at finding new trends before they reached pop. He was able to reinvent himself but still did not lose any familiarity from most of his fans. Kinda in a way like the modern pop image, but he dressed up for the role a lot better than today's artist
>>61839792 You can fuck right off if you think any of those constitutes a chance in direction. Rush was just evolving with the sound, prog rock didn't exist in the same way by the 80's and it didn't exist in the same way by the 90's.
Bjork is weird and experimental but came twenty, thirty years after bowie.
David Bowie wasn't the best musician in the world, but he was unapologetically himself. Every album he wanted to try something a little different or new and he had characters and themes and concepts. In his eccentricity was an artist and in his cunning he was a businessman. And he wasn't always great, lord knows the world pretty much abandoned him in the 90's. But he did practically invent glam rock.
>>61839893 Zappa is technically the better artist, but Zappa was abrasive. There's nothing wrong with that for people who appreciate it, but the mass appeal of David Bowie brings together unlikely people. I couldn't tell you how many times I've been able to make new friends with interesting folk just because we started talking about our favorite era of Bowie.
He had a long, productive career making above average music during a wide range of periods in pop culture and he had a powerful, charismatic image that people could embrace and reference. He had a huge impact on the world, it would be weird if people weren't still talking about his death a week later. Is that actually hard for you to understand or did you just need attention? There are easier ways, go start a sharethread and talk about some music you really like. Give people a reason to appreciate you rather than baiting them into momentary, impersonal contact.
>>61839649 He was an overrated hack more known for his wild appearance than his (lack of) talent at composing or perfoming. 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 Mick Ronson and Brian Eno
>>61839649 Even his bad albums are most artist's average.
>god tier Hunky Dory, Ziggy, Station to Station, Low, Blackstar >great tier Aladdin Sane, Heroes, Lodger, Scary Monsters, Heathen, The Next Day >good tier Space Oddity, The Man Who Sold the World, Young Americans, Outside, Reality >ok tier Diamond Dogs, Let's Dance, Tonight, Black Tie White Noise, Earthling >bad tier David Bowie, Pin Ups, Never Let Me Down, Hours
This is actually a really interesting subject, in terms of popular music history. So excuse me for sperging out a bit, because I think it's cool:
David Bowie was/is great because he made intelligent pop music that synthesized an incredible range of avant-garde influences (classical Japanese theatre, expressionism, krautrock, cabaret, hermetic philosophy, occultism, Weimar performance art, and the aesthetics of fascism to name a few), spoke intelligently and eloquently about those influences and his stylistic choices, and looked cool doing it.
More artistically relevant, though, is that he was basically super calculating and masterful when it came to knowing how his decisions would be perceived. Bowie had an uncanny knack for understanding the exact effect that certain stylistic choices would have, and he used that effect as part of the experience in and of itself.
Blackstar, itself, is actually a great example of this. He wants to restore his legacy, so he releases one last transgressive avant-garde album. And he dies right afterward. Sure, it's conceptually lofty to write an album about your death while you're dying, and the music is pretty good. But think of your emotions with regard to that album. You can't think about it without thinking of his death, and with that grand conceptual masterstroke (that decision to dedicate the last months of your life to making a work of art), he knew the emotional impact of his final effort would be way stronger than if it were just another collection of well-written songs. And it's a reward that he wouldn't even live to receive. His dedication to effect basically outshone his actual life.
Critically speaking, I think that's what's special about David Bowie. That weird, almost supernaturally keen sense of how certain stylistic choices will be perceived, and of the power of effect. I can't think of a pop musician who was more dedicated to effect than he was.
>>61843434 >So basically he made a good image of himself.
Yes. To the point where the music played into the image, which played into the holistic aesthetic experience of what he made. Which is impressive.
>AND BOWIE IS NOT AVANT GARDE STOP THIS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Settle down. During the 70s he cited a veritable fuckton of actual avant-garde influences, even when he was making accessible fairly accessible artpop. Obviously calling Blackstar "avant-garde" is technically a misnomer, but it's easier than saying "experimental fusion of jazz and rock, funk, electronic, and pop that will be considered inaccessible to the typical radio audience."
I never said that Bowie was an avant-garde musician.
>>61839649 Literally nothing famailia, he's an overrated hack who managed to market himself as a master of the avant-garde but really just produced bland pop music that should have been forgotten long ago. Make no mistake, Bowie was not a good musician but a good marketer, he's not the heir to The Beatles but the heir to the marketing department of Anheuser-Busch. The musical equivalent of a tasteless fizzy lager marked as the 'king of beers' produced in enormous quantities for mass consumption. Literally the epitome of faux-music masquerading as art.
>>61839649 He influenced people across 2 generations. Actually 3. Gen X'ers, Gen Y'ers, and Millennials, his music is deliciously groovy bby, his image was insane, he didn't care what anybody thought, he was just...cool.
>>61841211 Not knowing David Bowie was the artist behind the fucking song "Fame". Not remembering Heroes. Not remembering Space Oddity. Not remembering Fascination, or Man who Sold The World. Not even Let's Dance.
>>61847039 >Because as a producer and a writer he's made some fantastic albums. I don't agree. >There's a lot of music I don't like, but that doesn't mean I automatically think it's bad music. You should be more trusting of your own judgement, in that case.
>>61847102 At least we can agree upon that. More so what I was getting at was the fact just because you don't like it, does not automatically qualify it as bad. I understand where you're coming from though.
>>61847102 No. There's a very big difference between something being bad and not liking something, i don't like Pearl Jam because i can't stand Vedder's voice, doesn't mean that his voice or the band are bad.
Anyone feel like Bowie had to have some "REAL RAWK N ROWL" songs on his album to satisfy the label he he was on? I've noticed both diamond dogs and alladin sane start with generic rock and roll sound and then transition into a low key, weird, slow song of completely different genre.
>>61841709 Also Bowie has those god tier albums, but if we count all his good albums he has around 12. I'm not saying he's THE GREATEST MUSICIAN OF ALL TIME, but i don't understand in whose mind an artist with more than 10 good albums is mediocre.
>>61847259 >There's a very big difference between something being bad and not liking something Only if you choose to draw that distinction. There's no objective standard for what makes something "good" or "bad".
>>61839649 He was just cool. Some people have that aura, he was one of them. He was not on a par with Hendrix or The Beatles, but he made some good music. A bit weird and artsy, but not annoying. Would have preferred to hear that Roger Waters or some other super douche had bought it.
>>61839649 The fact he did what he felt like doing but still keeping his fans on check. It's troublesome for artist to risk it and make something their fans will either hate or love. Bowie did this and did it correctly. You can also say he is one of the founder of various genres across music now days and inspired tons of artists whether they were pop artists, rock artists, or whatever genre. Dude was an icon and even if he is considered a hack or just a copy cat by many then fucking hell if he wasn't a god damn good hack/copy cat.
Thread replies: 130 Thread images: 6
Thread DB ID: 445881
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@example.com with the post's information.