Bowie is OK, but there is more

lolobugg

I prefer Marc Bolan to Bowie...

helplessdancer

2 ways in
1) recognizing his absolute genious over decades of releases, especially focusing on the early stuff
2) coming to terms there are better "singers" out there....like van morrison in his prime(way better than chris imo)
work with # 1 and # 2 will fall into place and you will find you r nit picking  lol
enjoy the ride!!

brianlux

It's funny to me to think that I said something about how I said Bowie was a good singer (implying he was not a great singer), because when I stop to think about some singers that I really like--

J Mascis
Bob Dylan
Lou Reed
Captain Beefheart
D Boon
David Johnason

-- I wonder if anyone is going to take me seriously? 

Thoughts_Arrive

BinFrog said:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpIhsGg2SJ0

One of my favourite songs of his. 

Thoughts_Arrive

Anyone who says he cannot sing should listen to Wild is the Wind.
Since when do singers have to have these perfect voices? 
Look at Dylan, Cobain, Corgan, they're not these mega voices but their voices suit their music and their music is awesome.
If you want that singing perfection then go and watch The Voice.

brianlux

Thoughts_Arrive said:

Anyone who says he cannot sing should listen to Wild is the Wind.
Since when do singers have to have these perfect voices? 
Look at Dylan, Cobain, Corgan, they're not these mega voices but their voices suit their music and their music is awesome.
If you want that singing perfection then go and watch The Voice.

I totally agree.  To my ears, the feeling behind the voice counts more than the technical  perfection of some singers.  In fact, singers with technical perfection who lack the feeling bear no interest for me.

JOEJOEJOE

Plain and simple, Bowie was a true artist, and produced one of the all-time great bodies of musical works.

Thoughts_Arrive

brianlux said:

Thoughts_Arrive said:

Anyone who says he cannot sing should listen to Wild is the Wind.
Since when do singers have to have these perfect voices? 
Look at Dylan, Cobain, Corgan, they're not these mega voices but their voices suit their music and their music is awesome.
If you want that singing perfection then go and watch The Voice.

I totally agree.  To my ears, the feeling behind the voice counts more than the technical  perfection of some singers.  In fact, singers with technical perfection who lack the feeling bear no interest for me.

Exactly.
All these The Voice contestants who go on to make albums, sure they can sing very well but they don't sound unique and there is no feeling to me.

Thoughts_Arrive

I thought he sings well on Let's Dance (the song).

JH6056

Just was back in NYC and saw the Bowie exhibit at Brooklyn Museum for the 2nd time.  This time I didn't have my daughter with me so I could really stop and read/look at/listen to every.single.thing that is there.

He really was a true artist, SO MANY TALENTS and skills!  And literally genre-defining, at multiple stages of his career.

Me, I don't really care what anyone thinks of his voice compared to any other artist, or even of his whole body of work.  I think both his voice and his body of work are stunning and there is abundant evidence that he changed lives and inspired other artists I have tremendous respect for as well.

And he was a really good mime too, who knew? LOL!  (I'm serious about the mime part!)

rgambs

JOEJOEJOE said:

Plain and simple, Bowie was a true artist, and produced one of the all-time great bodies of musical works.

A true artist, and one of the all-time unique bodies of musical works, but all-time great??  
That's quite a stretch.  
Putting Bowie up there with Bach, Beethoven, the Beatles, Zeppelin, Neil Young, Pearl Jam, etc etc shows how weak his catalogue is, not how strong.

I don't hate DB, and I don't think his body of work sucks or anything, but I agree with the central premise of this thread, that he's very much overrated by his diehard fans.
Novelty isn't automatically equal to quality.

jeffbr

But couldn't the same thing be said about Pearl Jam? We're biased, so I think we could be accused of "overrating" them. They haven't put out an great album for over a decade (12 years ago today, to be exact), on many of their "great" albums there is still filler and throw away music, and Vedder's vocals fell off a cliff post-2000 when he changed up his technique after the abuse his voice was subjected to in the early years due to his raw technique/style. Look, I'm obviously a big fan of PJ, but if you go to a general rock board, or to a different band's site, you won't find the universal love and adoration for this band that you find here. I think objectivity in art critique is fairly impossible, so I understand the love and respect that Bowie receives, and understand the love and respect PJ receives. I wouldn't say PJ is higher or lower in the "great body of work" category than Bowie. They're both Hall of Fame inductees for a reason. Not that the RRHOF is the sole arbiter of greatness, but it is indicative of their pioneering, influence, impact and popularity.

PJ_Soul

rgambs said:

JOEJOEJOE said:

Plain and simple, Bowie was a true artist, and produced one of the all-time great bodies of musical works.

A true artist, and one of the all-time unique bodies of musical works, but all-time great??  
That's quite a stretch.  
Putting Bowie up there with Bach, Beethoven, the Beatles, Zeppelin, Neil Young, Pearl Jam, etc etc shows how weak his catalogue is, not how strong.

I don't hate DB, and I don't think his body of work sucks or anything, but I agree with the central premise of this thread, that he's very much overrated by his diehard fans.
Novelty isn't automatically equal to quality.

I'm not a die hard fan, and I 100% agree he's one of the all-times greats, and absolutely belongs in that list of yours, and not as a weak addition at all. He's better than Neil Young, who I love, and much more creative than The Beatles. Bowie was truly groundbreaking. Also, I think Bowie has Pearl Jam beat by a lot in this context. I don't think PJ belongs in that list at all TBH, even though I love them. Do you really think that PJ belongs up there with Zeppelin and Beethoven??
I sincerely have no clue why you are suggesting Bowie somehow lacks quality.

brianlux

Time will tell, of course, but I believe David Bowie will go down in rock history as one of the great major players.  I would bet on it.  I'll collect your cash in the afterlife. 

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

Time will tell, of course, but I believe David Bowie will go down in rock history as one of the great major players.  I would bet on it.  I'll collect your cash in the afterlife. 

I think he already has gone down in rock history as one of the great major players.... I'm surprised there is any debate going on here. We may as well be debating whether or not The Beatles or Elvis or Hendrix will go down as one of the great major players in rock history IMO.

JH6056

rgambs said:

JOEJOEJOE said:

Plain and simple, Bowie was a true artist, and produced one of the all-time great bodies of musical works.

A true artist, and one of the all-time unique bodies of musical works, but all-time great??  
That's quite a stretch.  
Putting Bowie up there with Bach, Beethoven, the Beatles, Zeppelin, Neil Young, Pearl Jam, etc etc shows how weak his catalogue is, not how strong.

I don't hate DB, and I don't think his body of work sucks or anything, but I agree with the central premise of this thread, that he's very much overrated by his diehard fans.
Novelty isn't automatically equal to quality.

I agree with all above who have raised several eyebrows at this statement.  But honestly it is more than anything just a sign of how some PJ fans (and really every band has these fans) are blinded by their own love of an artist or several artists, OR by their determination NOT to like another artist.  There is subjective opinion "I like his voice/I don't like his voice", but then there is looking at the evidence out there of the impact an artist had, whether you like them or not or you adore them or not.

It's actually stunning that anyone would say that putting Bowie up there with those on your list shows how weak his catalogue is.  I'm really curious about the criteria you're using to judge this: let's look at your list and take Neil Young and Pearl Jam.  What is it about their catalogues and more importantly their IMPACT that you think proves that they are "all-time greats"?  And what is lacking in Bowie's catalogue that you think proves he is NOT an all-time great?

JH6056

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

Time will tell, of course, but I believe David Bowie will go down in rock history as one of the great major players.  I would bet on it.  I'll collect your cash in the afterlife. 

I think he already has gone down in rock history as one of the great major players.... I'm surprised there is any debate going on here. We may as well be debating whether or not The Beatles or Elvis or Hendrix will go down as one of the great major players in rock history IMO.

Totally agree.  Brianlux you'll only be collecting from a few in this convo, and then you can buy the rest of us drinks in that great Afterlife Bar (or cafe)!

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

Time will tell, of course, but I believe David Bowie will go down in rock history as one of the great major players.  I would bet on it.  I'll collect your cash in the afterlife. 

I think he already has gone down in rock history as one of the great major players.... I'm surprised there is any debate going on here. We may as well be debating whether or not The Beatles or Elvis or Hendrix will go down as one of the great major players in rock history IMO.

For sure! 

Anyone in doubt of Bowie's excellence would do themselves a favor to start with Ziggy and work up through the years and really listen.  His influence in sprung far and wide and his creative brilliance is excellent.

JH6056 said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

Time will tell, of course, but I believe David Bowie will go down in rock history as one of the great major players.  I would bet on it.  I'll collect your cash in the afterlife. 

I think he already has gone down in rock history as one of the great major players.... I'm surprised there is any debate going on here. We may as well be debating whether or not The Beatles or Elvis or Hendrix will go down as one of the great major players in rock history IMO.

Totally agree.  Brianlux you'll only be collecting from a few in this convo, and then you can buy the rest of us drinks in that great Afterlife Bar (or cafe)!

First round's on me regardless! 

Thoughts_Arrive

Rate him, don't rate him
Like him, don't like him
Think he's a great, don't think he's a great
Noooo
Beep! Beep!

brianlux

Thoughts_Arrive said:

Rate him, don't rate him
Like him, don't like him
Think he's a great, don't think he's a great
Noooo
Beep! Beep!

Turn to the left
Turn to the right!