> Bowie was a protagonist of his times, although a poor musician: to say that Bowie is a musician is like saying that Nero was a harp player (a fact that is technically true, but misleading). Bowie embodies the quintessence of artificial art, raises futulity to paradigm, focuses on the phenomenon rather than the content, makes irrelevant the relevant, and, thus, is the epitome of everything that went wrong with rock music.
What do you think /mu/? Did bowie commercialise what was good about rock?
>i know you are but what am i: the post
> Scaruffi was a protagonist of his times, although a poor critic: to say that Scaruffi is a critic is like saying that Hitler was a front man (a fact that is technically true, but misleading). Scaruffi embodies the quintessence of artificial criticism, raises eccentricity to paradigm, focuses on the idiosyncrasies rather than the content, makes irrelevant the relevant, and, thus, is the epitome of everything that went wrong with criticism.
>the epitome of everything that went wrong with rock music.
He might as well be talking about politics, sports or any form of arts or entertainment.
As these expressions become accessible they become commodified and the experience of taking them in and subsequent analysis becomes its own commodity among spectators. Scaruffi himself is just a marketer in this way.
The vast majority of people who express themselves and do not market their expressions (and I mean their smallest expressions, like going out to eat at a restaurant) in these days and in recent history, you have never heard of.
4chan's anonymous expressions are actually one of the last bastions of the antithesis of this reduction to capitalism phenomenon. They allow to manifest the underbelly of repressed, unacceptable expressions. 4chan's legacy is racism, sexism, terrorism, harrassment, exploitation and wanton exploration of perverse sexualities and interactive fantasy obsessions.
The reason 4chan is reviled in popular culture only ostensibly is due to such manifestations; the real reason is that there is nothing to market, nothing to exploit and no one to blame.
Having total freedom like that can lead to a lot of attraction from stupid people whose opinions and views are held as equal to others. 4chan is a definite example of why anarchy would be awful in real life.
He's not entirely wrong. Bowie wasn't exactly known for musicianship, and he would even admit so. He was a fantastic songwriter though, and he knew who to bring into his work space to make the most of the songs he wrote. The rest of it is drivel from a man who simply doesn't enjoy Bowie's music. Bowie was always pushing himself to try something new, and he (almost) always knew exactly what effect it would have on his career, and, in the case of Blackstar, his legacy.
The thing Scaruffi forgets is that Bowie was never that commercial- even during the 80s. He was always on the fringe in terms of pop artists, always better known for what he had done than what he was doing.
I disagree. Rock music was and has always been commercial. Like Iggy Pop once said "I would've sold out, but no one bought me". The point was always to make money out of a big phenomenon, but the Beatles happened and the labels started going for "safe" instead of "wild" like they used to in the 50's.
That all said, Bowie wasn't "safe", he was definitely "wild", but it just so happened everything he did was being made much better by other people at the time. Even some of his best albums that people post around here so much are only that good because of other big musicians he worked with (Brian Eno and Robert Fripp).
So I don't agree with that, but I do agree Bowie wasn't that good. Still good, just not a huge genius.
i instantly fell in love with this old man as soon as I saw this article
the truth is, Bowie is a boring fucking pedophile who makes shitty bland songs about how sad it is to fuck supermodels and snort cocaine, and he has a gigantic legacy of shitty albums behind him too, and if we're honest, he took the spotlight over better pop music only because he had the "marketable" (white, male) appearance
if we're talking about his peak era, krautrock and George Clinton's bands, were better by a mile, and if you consider pop music from any time, David "child molester" Bowie stands no chance against the likes of mike slammer, inner city, black box, the klf, sl2, and so on, but you know why those artists never made the cut
and you sound like a delusional polman likely set off by the obvious fact I stated that a majority white country literally mere 5 years ago after blacks had separate water fountains and bus seats reacts better to a white artist
reddit loves Bowie and hates recognition of social inequality BTW, which you would know if you didn't sit in an echo chamber all the time
Bowie was literally 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 Eno and Mick Ronson