Was Bowie the original British punk?

12346

Comments

  • mgvsmithmgvsmith Posts: 16,452
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Electra wrote: »
    Ferry wrote Another Time, Another Place :)

    Edit - Sorry, I just realised you were talking about the albums, rather than the tracks themselves :o

    Still, it's a good excuse to post a great song :)

    I know, and Ferry has done later covers albums but what seemed stylish and innovatory in the 70s seemed lazy in the 80s and 90s. I lost interest until 'Dylanesque'. I know someone who helped with the 'Titanic' and other Ferry gigs and they say he's still class. Much prefer Eno.
  • Glenn AGlenn A Posts: 23,794
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    embryo wrote: »
    I'm not forgetting it at all, in fact I'd say 'Pinups' illustrates my point perfectly - it's easily the most inconsistent of his 70s album in my view, even if there are some great moments.

    I think the quality dipped when he did Young Americans, not widely liked by the fans, but Pin Ups was quite a good album.
  • mgvsmithmgvsmith Posts: 16,452
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    embryo wrote: »
    I'm not forgetting it at all, in fact I'd say 'Pinups' illustrates my point perfectly - it's easily the most inconsistent of his 70s album in my view, even if there are some great moments.
    Glenn A wrote: »
    I think the quality dipped when he did Young Americans, not widely liked by the fans, but Pin Ups was quite a good album.

    I think 'Pinups' was as consistent as most of the other 70s albums and I remember surprise but not much dissent about it. For me 'Diamond Dogs' has songs which don't quite work.
    I agree that 'Young Americans' did divide fans but 'Low' and 'Heroes' restored faith and are genuinely innovative.

    I'll admit I lost interest after 'Lodger' (there was much better music around) and I haven't listened to 'Tin Machine'.
  • ElectraElectra Posts: 55,660
    Forum Member
    mgvsmith wrote: »
    I think 'Pinups' was as consistent as most of the other 70s albums and I remember surprise but not much dissent about it. For me 'Diamond Dogs' has songs which don't quite work.
    I agree that 'Young Americans' did divide fans but 'Low' and 'Heroes' restored faith and are genuinely innovative.

    I'll admit I lost interest after 'Lodger' (there was much better music around) and I haven't listened to 'Tin Machine'.

    Tin Machine - If There Is Something

    Listen. Just listen to what he did to it. He took something beautiful & ruined it :cry:
  • mgvsmithmgvsmith Posts: 16,452
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Electra wrote: »
    Tin Machine - If There Is Something

    Listen. Just listen to what he did to it. He took something beautiful & ruined it :cry:

    Yes, that has always been a favourite of mine and shows off Roxy at their best, especially Ferry's vocals. Critics during the 70s suggested that Roxy's first is a timeless and culturally significant work. It was in an old NME.

    I may listen to some more 'Tin Machine' but really anything I've heard from Bowie post about '82 has been tedious at best.

    For me Eno outshines both of them because he has kept his creative edge well into his 60s. Although I will concede that much of Eno's work has been collaborative and not all of it is music related but overall Eno is the more complete artist.
  • Admiral StarAdmiral Star Posts: 2,114
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mgvsmith wrote: »
    Y

    I may listen to some more 'Tin Machine' but really anything I've heard from Bowie post about '82 has been tedious at best.

    Heathen is very good I think. Came out in 2002.
  • Admiral StarAdmiral Star Posts: 2,114
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Glenn A wrote: »
    I think the quality dipped when he did Young Americans, not widely liked by the fans, but Pin Ups was quite a good album.

    I like young Americans, especially the Across the Universe track.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 554
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mgvsmith wrote: »
    Yes, that has always been a favourite of mine and shows off Roxy at their best, especially Ferry's vocals. Critics during the 70s suggested that Roxy's first is a timeless and culturally significant work. It was in an old NME.

    I may listen to some more 'Tin Machine' but really anything I've heard from Bowie post about '82 has been tedious at best.

    For me Eno outshines both of them because he has kept his creative edge well into his 60s. Although I will concede that much of Eno's work has been collaborative and not all of it is music related but overall Eno is the more complete artist.

    As someone else has mentioned, 'Heathen' is a great latter-day Bowie album. As is 'Outside', which saw him reunited with Eno on production duties - definitely one of Bowie's most creative post-70s releases.
  • marcusgvmarcusgv Posts: 135
    Forum Member
    embryo wrote: »
    As someone else has mentioned, 'Heathen' is a great latter-day Bowie album. As is 'Outside', which saw him reunited with Eno on production duties - definitely one of Bowie's most creative post-70s releases.

    I had a listen to 'Outside', not a patch on any of the Berlin Trilogy records but there are a couple of songs 'No Control' and 'Strangers when we meet' which are pretty good. I knew 'The Hearts Filthy Lesson' from Se7en.

    I think the album would be better without all the narrative bits but probably is the best since the 70s.
  • VideoNiceyVideoNicey Posts: 109
    Forum Member
    David Bowie was more of a chameleon than a punk, which you can take as an insult or a compliment.

    He began his musical career at the same time as the Kinks, the Who, the Small Faces and so on, so he was a Mod to begin with. That didn't work, so he turned all cor-blimey Anthony Newley music hall. That didn't work either, so he went down the Syd Barrett route with the Laughing Gnome. Then he became a wacky mime artist. Eventually he got a hit with Space Oddity, which was genuinely fantastic. Absolutely no complaints from me about that one. Sadly, things started to get a bit screwy when he decided to go down the standard route of "dressing up like a pranny to distract people from the unremarkable music". Which naturally, he ripped off from Lou Reed (who is also a prat) and the New York Dolls.

    Lots of people were making better music than him during his imperial Life On Mars / Ziggy Stardust phase, but this doesn't seem to have bothered his critics. Then he jumped on the Lou Reed bandwagon (Lou Reed is also a clot, by the way), flirted with neo-fascism, then birthed the miserable "plastic soul" genre - a limp imitation of a genre, which is, at best, emotionally charged and tremendously exciting. Then electropop, then he was a new Romantic... come on Dave, make your mind up!

    I don't mind bands progressing and changing their style - the Who, for example, went from being the Kings of the Mods to psychedelic Carnaby Street to the monarchs of hard rock to arena stars, but they always tipped the hat to their past by opening with 'I Can't Explain'. But junking entire chunks of your back catalogue because it's "unfashionable" just makes you look like a desperate hipster. "Now I'm this, now I'm that..."

    Dancing In the Street with Mick Jagger - Christ on a bike, how dreadful.

    I won't even mention Tin Machine...oh, sorry!
  • PointyPointy Posts: 1,762
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Bowie Is... Great. :cool:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 554
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    VideoNicey wrote: »
    David Bowie was more of a chameleon than a punk, which you can take as an insult or a compliment.

    He began his musical career at the same time as the Kinks, the Who, the Small Faces and so on, so he was a Mod to begin with. That didn't work, so he turned all cor-blimey Anthony Newley music hall. That didn't work either, so he went down the Syd Barrett route with the Laughing Gnome. Then he became a wacky mime artist. Eventually he got a hit with Space Oddity, which was genuinely fantastic. Absolutely no complaints from me about that one. Sadly, things started to get a bit screwy when he decided to go down the standard route of "dressing up like a pranny to distract people from the unremarkable music". Which naturally, he ripped off from Lou Reed (who is also a prat) and the New York Dolls.

    Lots of people were making better music than him during his imperial Life On Mars / Ziggy Stardust phase, but this doesn't seem to have bothered his critics. Then he jumped on the Lou Reed bandwagon (Lou Reed is also a clot, by the way), flirted with neo-fascism, then birthed the miserable "plastic soul" genre - a limp imitation of a genre, which is, at best, emotionally charged and tremendously exciting. Then electropop, then he was a new Romantic... come on Dave, make your mind up!

    I don't mind bands progressing and changing their style - the Who, for example, went from being the Kings of the Mods to psychedelic Carnaby Street to the monarchs of hard rock to arena stars, but they always tipped the hat to their past by opening with 'I Can't Explain'. But junking entire chunks of your back catalogue because it's "unfashionable" just makes you look like a desperate hipster. "Now I'm this, now I'm that..."

    Dancing In the Street with Mick Jagger - Christ on a bike, how dreadful.

    I won't even mention Tin Machine...oh, sorry!

    Bowie always performed new and old songs on tour, he has never 'junked' his back catalogue. Often he has even managed to successfully reinterpret his old material so that the different eras sound less incongruous together. Obviously some material will fall by the wayside over time, but that happens with all artists who have released a lot of music - not everything can be performed all the time, and not everything stands the test of time anyway. Bowie's chameleonic nature is one of his best assets, as far as I'm concerned, even if he did make some missteps along the way.
  • mushymanrobmushymanrob Posts: 17,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    VideoNicey wrote: »
    David Bowie was more of a chameleon than a punk, which you can take as an insult or a compliment.

    He began his musical career at the same time as the Kinks, the Who, the Small Faces and so on, so he was a Mod to begin with. That didn't work, so he turned all cor-blimey Anthony Newley music hall. That didn't work either, so he went down the Syd Barrett route with the Laughing Gnome. Then he became a wacky mime artist. Eventually he got a hit with Space Oddity, which was genuinely fantastic. Absolutely no complaints from me about that one. Sadly, things started to get a bit screwy when he decided to go down the standard route of "dressing up like a pranny to distract people from the unremarkable music". Which naturally, he ripped off from Lou Reed (who is also a prat) and the New York Dolls.

    Lots of people were making better music than him during his imperial Life On Mars / Ziggy Stardust phase, but this doesn't seem to have bothered his critics. Then he jumped on the Lou Reed bandwagon (Lou Reed is also a clot, by the way), flirted with neo-fascism, then birthed the miserable "plastic soul" genre - a limp imitation of a genre, which is, at best, emotionally charged and tremendously exciting. Then electropop, then he was a new Romantic... come on Dave, make your mind up!

    I don't mind bands progressing and changing their style - the Who, for example, went from being the Kings of the Mods to psychedelic Carnaby Street to the monarchs of hard rock to arena stars, but they always tipped the hat to their past by opening with 'I Can't Explain'. But junking entire chunks of your back catalogue because it's "unfashionable" just makes you look like a desperate hipster. "Now I'm this, now I'm that..."

    Dancing In the Street with Mick Jagger - Christ on a bike, how dreadful.

    I won't even mention Tin Machine...oh, sorry!

    nice to see you posting here (music) (after our concurance on the ofah thread) :)
  • AndreaMCAndreaMC Posts: 3,227
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    David Bowie has always been a musical vampire, he has an ear for what sounds interesting or maybe just an awareness of what others are attracted to soundwise and tries to clone the ideas parrot like in a rather simplistic fashion. He went out of his way to attach himself to Iggy pop and then tried to get him to tone down his energy and make him into a vapid clone of himself with Bowie as mentor of course. When Iggy Pop committed himself for help in beating heroin Bowie turned up at the sanitarium or clinic to try and get him hooked again by bringing drugs with him. He didn't want to lose his control over Iggy. He is no innovator but an impersonator. Also he has himself stated that he uses a dadaesque method of coming up with his lyrics. In other words he jumbles up words and literally pulls them out of a hat. This is someone who truly has nothing to say for himself. A total fraud nothing person.:(
  • RikScotRikScot Posts: 2,095
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    AndreaMC wrote: »
    David Bowie has always been a musical vampire, he has an ear for what sounds interesting or maybe just an awareness of what others are attracted to soundwise and tries to clone the ideas parrot like in a rather simplistic fashion. He went out of his way to attach himself to Iggy pop and then tried to get him to tone down his energy and make him into a vapid clone of himself with Bowie as mentor of course. When Iggy Pop committed himself for help in beating heroin Bowie turned up at the sanitarium or clinic to try and get him hooked again by bringing drugs with him. He didn't want to lose his control over Iggy. He is no innovator but an impersonator. Also he has himself stated that he uses a dadaesque method of coming up with his lyrics. In other words he jumbles up words and literally pulls them out of a hat. This is someone who truly has nothing to say for himself. A total fraud nothing person.:(

    Bet you stole that from somewhere, like you say Bowie did ;)
  • AndreaMCAndreaMC Posts: 3,227
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Stole what?:confused: Facts about Bowie? I don't get you, but it sounds like you're implying that I'm not capable of writing a brief estimation of Bowie by myself? What's up with that?
  • mushymanrobmushymanrob Posts: 17,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    AndreaMC wrote: »
    Stole what?:confused: Facts about Bowie? I don't get you, but it sounds like you're implying that I'm not capable of writing a brief estimation of Bowie by myself? What's up with that?

    it was a joke... :)
  • mushymanrobmushymanrob Posts: 17,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    AndreaMC wrote: »
    David Bowie has always been a musical vampire, he has an ear for what sounds interesting or maybe just an awareness of what others are attracted to soundwise and tries to clone the ideas parrot like in a rather simplistic fashion. He went out of his way to attach himself to Iggy pop and then tried to get him to tone down his energy and make him into a vapid clone of himself with Bowie as mentor of course. When Iggy Pop committed himself for help in beating heroin Bowie turned up at the sanitarium or clinic to try and get him hooked again by bringing drugs with him. He didn't want to lose his control over Iggy. He is no innovator but an impersonator. Also he has himself stated that he uses a dadaesque method of coming up with his lyrics. In other words he jumbles up words and literally pulls them out of a hat. This is someone who truly has nothing to say for himself. A total fraud nothing person.:(

    .... so bowie wasnt the original british anything then, let alone punk! :)
  • AndreaMCAndreaMC Posts: 3,227
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    That's ok then:) but I hope it didn't prevent you from finding at least some grain of truth in what I said. :D
  • mushymanrobmushymanrob Posts: 17,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    AndreaMC wrote: »
    That's ok then:) but I hope it didn't prevent you from finding at least some grain of truth in what I said. :D

    (it wasnt me btw who joked, i just jumped in :) )

    i should know, im old enough, but i didnt like bowie so i took not notice much of him...lol.. you presented a well reasoned opinion on why you dont like him... cant argue with that, fair play!
  • mushymanrobmushymanrob Posts: 17,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    although several here have presented well thought out and reasoned posts against bowie, he is still seen as a major influence on the british music sceen...
  • bspacebspace Posts: 14,303
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    if your looking for the missing link to british punk then look no further than

    Peter Hamill's Nadir's Big Chance
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadir%27s_Big_Chance
    The first British citation of the word "punk" in relation to music in the Oxford English Dictionary is dated January 1976 (citations from the USA date from 1971), yet Nadir's Big Chance was released in February 1975. Hammill can therefore lay claim to being the first British musician to use the term in his album's sleeve notes.

    It's also very good and as they where essentially Van der Graaf Generator they could actually play
  • AndreaMCAndreaMC Posts: 3,227
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    although several here have presented well thought out and reasoned posts against bowie, he is still seen as a major influence on the british music sceen...

    I wouldn't argue that he has been a big influence but I wouldn't say a positive one. He's one of these people who seems to have no firm opinions and there's nothing from him by way of a positive message so I don't think at the end of the day he'll end up with anything like the legacy he thinks he has.;)
  • PointyPointy Posts: 1,762
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    AndreaMC wrote: »
    David Bowie has always been a musical vampire, he has an ear for what sounds interesting or maybe just an awareness of what others are attracted to soundwise and tries to clone the ideas parrot like in a rather simplistic fashion. He went out of his way to attach himself to Iggy pop and then tried to get him to tone down his energy and make him into a vapid clone of himself with Bowie as mentor of course. When Iggy Pop committed himself for help in beating heroin Bowie turned up at the sanitarium or clinic to try and get him hooked again by bringing drugs with him. He didn't want to lose his control over Iggy. He is no innovator but an impersonator. Also he has himself stated that he uses a dadaesque method of coming up with his lyrics. In other words he jumbles up words and literally pulls them out of a hat. This is someone who truly has nothing to say for himself. A total fraud nothing person.:(

    Iggy is no angel. The stories concerning him, heroin and young girls are pretty shocking. Bowie is an excellent lyricist who took to chopping up his lyrics as a purely artistic exercise. I would say his tackling of gender and sexuality in his work struck a chord with many a person as well.
  • ElectraElectra Posts: 55,660
    Forum Member
    Pointy wrote: »
    Iggy is no angel. The stories concerning him, heroin and young girls are pretty shocking. Bowie is an excellent lyricist who took to chopping up his lyrics as a purely artistic exercise. I would say his tackling of gender and sexuality in his work struck a chord with many a person as well.

    Well, f*ck me sideways. Who'd've thought it :D The fact is, there was a point in his life when he was so far out of his tree he didn't know what, or who, he was doing. You're talking about someone who cut himself open onstage, in a fit of self loathing ffs. Another photo
Sign In or Register to comment.