"Was Bowie better than the Beatles?"
Marquee Moon
ANUS409 wrote:
>
> looking back on each careers respectively, I would have to say Bowie might
> just be the greater musical talent. His catalog certainly is varied, and
> has covered a lot of different musical grounds. The Beatles did pave the
> way, but I think Bowie took it to the next level. So, as a result, I
> would have to say that Bowie produced better material than the Beatles
> did. What do you think? Feel free to comment...
Considering that Beatles and Bowie are my favorites and that I was
always indentified by others as a Bowie fan, Id still have to say that
the Beatles win this one hands down -- and always will. Bowie's work is
broader and stands on the Beatles' work, but John Lennon's talent alone
was much, much deeper than Bowie's ever was or will be.
Marquee
Marquee Moon
ANUS409 wrote:
>
> looking back on each careers respectively, I would have to say Bowie might
> just be the greater musical talent. His catalog certainly is varied, and
> has covered a lot of different musical grounds. The Beatles did pave the
> way, but I think Bowie took it to the next level. So, as a result, I
> would have to say that Bowie produced better material than the Beatles
> did. What do you think? Feel free to comment...
Considering that Beatles and Bowie are my favorites and that I was
always indentified by others as a Bowie fan, I'd still have to say that
sean monaghan
I find it amusing that so many people presume the Beatles to be the
defining talent
of the 60's and perhaps all time.
The simple truth is that the Rolling Stones were a far greater talent.
Their albums from Beggers Banquet
through to Sticky fingers were unsurpassed by any group or artist except of
course for Bowie and Leonard Cohen.
Cohen - there's someone else who leaves the Beatles pissing in the wind.
slan,
Sean.
Marquee Moon <mar...@creative.net> wrote in article
<33894C...@creative.net>...
Richard Gjerde
On 26 May 1997, ANUS409 wrote:
> looking back on each careers respectively, I would have to say Bowie might
> just be the greater musical talent. His catalog certainly is varied, and
> has covered a lot of different musical grounds. The Beatles did pave the
> way, but I think Bowie took it to the next level. So, as a result, I
> would have to say that Bowie produced better material than the Beatles
> did. What do you think? Feel free to comment...
>
IMO Bowie is a more significant artist than the Beatles were. The Beatles
made a lot of brilliant (at least in pop terms) music and were at the same
time the most popular band of their time. That combination is very rare,
and I think that is the explanation for the towering status they have.
Bowie on the other side has never been anywhere near as popular as the
Beatles (well, maybe almost in 1983) and has always had a reputation of
being a dilettante. There is something ironic and "arty" about him that
most people who listen to pop music either don't understand or dislike.
It is IMO no doubt that Bowie has been more influential on the development
of pop music than the Beatles. Maybe he will eventually receive his
recognition, but I doubt it. That is the price you have to pay for
working within such an unserious business.
richard
Richard Gjerde
On Mon, 26 May 1997, Marquee Moon wrote:
> ANUS409 wrote:
> >
> > looking back on each careers respectively, I would have to say Bowie might
> > just be the greater musical talent. His catalog certainly is varied, and
> > has covered a lot of different musical grounds. The Beatles did pave the
> > way, but I think Bowie took it to the next level. So, as a result, I
> > would have to say that Bowie produced better material than the Beatles
> > did. What do you think? Feel free to comment...
>
> Considering that Beatles and Bowie are my favorites and that I was
> always indentified by others as a Bowie fan, I'd still have to say that
> the Beatles win this one hands down -- and always will. Bowie's work is
> broader and stands on the Beatles' work, but John Lennon's talent alone
> was much, much deeper than Bowie's ever was or will be.
>
> Marquee
>
Deeper? Hardly. Lennon was just a simple-minded working class hero, with a
huge talent. Bowie is much more sophisticated IMO.
richard
Eva Crider
On 26 May 1997, sean monaghan wrote:
> I find it amusing that so many people presume the Beatles to be the
> defining talent of the 60's and perhaps all time. The simple truth is
> that the Rolling Stones were a far greater talent. Their albums from
> Beggers Banquet through to Sticky fingers were unsurpassed by any group
> or artist except of course for Bowie and Leonard Cohen. Cohen - there's
> someone else who leaves the Beatles pissing in the wind.
> slan,
> Sean.
>
The simple truth is that the Beatles and the Rolling Stones did entirely
different things...The Beatles were extraordinarily revolutionary for a
band that had so much popular appeal. (Note the two things together: I'm
not saying they were the most popular or the most revolutionary, but that
they managed an unusual combination of both).
AS for comparing them with Bowie, I'm not sure we can, because they come
from two different generation of pop music. What Bowie did could not
have been done with out the Beatles and the Stone and other groundbreaking
groups of the sixties. I will say that I don't think John Lennon's song
writing is any better than Bowie's -- without the rest of the band to
demand that John finished things, I think his work has flashes of
brilliance, but lousy craft, most of the time.
An entirely diffeent question is who the history books are going to
consider better. I suspect they will favor the Beatles, because a much
larger segment of the population would count the Beatles as influential.
Bowie, on the other hand, has always been on the edge of things...
E
--
Eva Crider cri...@obscure.org
"I used to think that everyone else but me was a fraud. It's simple logic
to realize that, except to a madman, the opposite must have been the
truth." -- Adrian Healey in Stephen Fry's _The Liar_.
Ice Fiend
Here's why Bowie is better than the Beatles...
... the Beatles got their start doing bubblegum music, which in my
opinion, requires the least amount of talent of any musical genre in the
history of manking. You think of a catchy phrase, say it about twenty
times, have the same old generic guitar strumming in the background, and
sing about love and general merriment. What an easy way to propel a
career.
... much of the Beatles success comes from being in the right place at the
right time. By no means are they the greatest group ever, but when they
started producing "revolutionary" music, it was what the public needed. A
lot of their success is based on circumstance. Ever wonder why the Beatles
are legends today while the Animals are not? Both talented bands, somewhat
similar sounds, the masses just chose the Beatles. Because they're so
CUTE! If anyone doubts that being cute sells records, check out the Spice
Girls posts... you might've seen one or two of them in this newsgroup.
... having more fans or selling more records does not prove any musical
superiority. As a matter of fact, musical superiority is difficult, if not
impossible to prove at all. But by saying that Leonard Cohen can't be as
good because I've never heard of him is pretty poor logic. When I bought
my first Bowie album, I could only recognize about 6 or 7 of his songs. I
could name more Madonna songs, or Michael Jackson songs than David Bowie
songs at the time. So are Jackson & Madonna are better than Bowie because
they have more #1 hits? I don't think so. Hanson has a #1 hit... if any
further proof that musical talent is NOT needed to get commercial success
is needed, let me know.
That's all.
*Jenny*
The sophisticated highschool drop out?! Who cares if Lennon was a
"working class hero"(most of people we know as 'famous'and
'sophisticated'today!), he was an artist, and was one of the most
talented poets to ever live! I'm not saying John's better than Bowie,
cause I LOVE Bowie, but I gotta stick up for the Lennon this time.
*Jenny*
a fan
>
> Yikes,
>
> I don't beleive what I just read.... One of the greatest things the
> Beatles did... was they quit while they were ahead and still had talent,
> while the Rolling Stones come out every few years with their latest "I need
> some money" album... and then to be followed by their "Begger's" tour.
>
> And Leonard Cohen... who is that? For someone who "leaves the Beatles
> pissing in the wind" I'd think he'd be a tad more popular than he is.
> Instead of all the hype about the Beatles... it should be for Leonard. I
> wonder why it isn't that way... perhaps 'cause he isn't as good as the
> Beatles? Hmmmm....
>
> As for the original question... Bowie doesn't even come close to the
> Beatles.
>
> Lugh
Since when is popularity the deciding factor when discussing artistic
merit? Please turn the Way Back machine on and remember the stellar
gold record performances of Vanilla Ice, Christopher Cross, Milli
Vanilli, and of course, the Spice Girls...
So Leonard hasn't sold a billion albums. There are worse fates. Nick
Cave and Tom Waits have produced highly creative, important works and
have not turned into industry darlings (or whores, depending on your
perspective...).
I am watching for your reply.
Richard Gjerde
On 28 May 1997, Lugh wrote:
> > Since when is popularity the deciding factor when discussing artistic
> > merit? Please turn the Way Back machine on and remember the stellar
> > gold record performances of Vanilla Ice, Christopher Cross, Milli
> > Vanilli, and of course, the Spice Girls...
> >
> > So Leonard hasn't sold a billion albums. There are worse fates. Nick
> > Cave and Tom Waits have produced highly creative, important works and
> > have not turned into industry darlings (or whores, depending on your
> > perspective...).
> >
> > I am watching for your reply.
>
>
> Popularity in itself is a way of showing merit. Merit means reward or
> punishment due. The artistic merit of the above performers gave them their
> reward.... lots of popularity. With such popularity comes high record
> sales, and money. The artistic merit of Leonard and Tom Waits didn't give
> them such a high award. Milli Vanilli received their reward at first...
> but when found out as fakes... their just punishment. It works both ways.
>
> Each person has their own opinion... but the combined opinions of people
> are the judge and jury of the sucess or failure of an artist.
>
> Sir Paul was knighted for his artistic merit. Leonard and Tom who?
>
>
> PS. For Leonard and Tom to have turned into industry "darlings" they would
> first need to be popular enough for the industry to want them in the first
> place.
>
Your seem to more or less think that quality is equivalent with
popularity. That is a fair view, but I think popularity is rather a
sign of mediocrity. It is ironic that Nick Cave actually has gotten a lot
more popular the last few years by producing albums that are only
pale shades of the ones he used to make in the 80's. The taste of the
masses is the least common multiple of all tastes and generally turns
out to be rather bland and primitive.
Bach and Schoenberg sell nowhere near as many albums as the Beatles, but
who can say that they made music of lower quality? At least no one who is
capable (which not too many are) of understanding their music.
richard
PS. Please respond by email as I will take 10 days of holiday now.
More Epi
I think that comparing Bowie to the Beatles is comparing apples to oranges
1. They both broke new ground in the music world.
2. Bowie's style is more avant garde.
3. The Beatles were a group/Bowie is a solo artist- 'cept for the ziggy
days.
4. Bowie is a much better actor than any of the Beatles.
5. There is a whole different generation who listen to Bowie. The only
Bowie single I've ever heard ex-hippies like was "space oddity".
So you cannot compare the 2 because there are too many intrinsic
differences.
Lugh
> Oh now who knows what'l happen in 50 years. Contrary to RockandRoll, Big
> band never claimed it would never die.
Your making Rock n' Roll sound like it's a person. Rock n' Roll never
said it would never die... a few people who sing Rock n' Roll did.... and
most of them were taking drugs at the time too.
> > And as for quality being the equivalent for popularity... a
resturant
> > with quality food becomes popular... one with lousy food isn't so
popular.
> >
> Ya but who wants to listen to a restaraunt? I like analogies as much as
> the next guy, but the same rules just don't apply. Remember, we're
> talking about music.
Eat your music... listen to your food? Yeah, you are right in that
aspect, and although the products are different, the rules apply to both of
them. It's like nature... only the best survive.
Lugh
rory phillip prendergast
On 28 May 1997, Lugh wrote:
> > Oh now who knows what'l happen in 50 years. Contrary to RockandRoll, Big
>
> > band never claimed it would never die.
>
> Your making Rock n' Roll sound like it's a person. Rock n' Roll never
> said it would never die... a few people who sing Rock n' Roll did.... and
> most of them were taking drugs at the time too.
heh yeah, maybe.
>
> > > And as for quality being the equivalent for popularity... a
> resturant
> > > with quality food becomes popular... one with lousy food isn't so
> popular.
> > >
> > Ya but who wants to listen to a restaraunt? I like analogies as much as
> > the next guy, but the same rules just don't apply. Remember, we're
> > talking about music.
>
> Eat your music... listen to your food? Yeah, you are right in that
> aspect, and although the products are different, the rules apply to both of
> them. It's like nature... only the best survive.
disagreement in this corner. Some shitty music becomes short term
popular. And any Devo fan (like myself) will tell you that the fittest
shall survive, yet the unfit may live. This is because it's a wiggly
world.
Lugh
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01BC6BAC.BB245A40
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>so what you are saying is that McDonalds, Jack in the Box, Denny's, et.
>al. have quality food?
>TA!
>Shaari
For fast food yes. There are many fast food chains that don't make =
it... 'cause their food sucks. (Try and find a Jack in the Box in New =
England.... good luck.) I think you have confused quality with healthy. =
Although the food in these resturants maybe loaded with fat... these =
fat burgers taste good to many people... who buy more... and keeps them =
in business. McDonalds came out with a lean burger awhile ago (I forget =
it's name... but it begin with a 'Mc' ;-) It was healthy yes... but =
didn't taste so good.. and didn't sell well. =20
I expected you might write something like this... since you don't eat =
meat. But I, like many other 'meat eaters' would prefer an Arch Delux =
over a tofu burger any day.
I think it has something to do with quality.
Lugh
------=_NextPart_000_01BC6BAC.BB245A40
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"Trident 4.71.0544.0"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT size=3D2>>so what you are saying =
is that=20
McDonalds, Jack in the Box, Denny's, et.<BR>
>al. have quality food?<BR>
>TA!<BR>
>Shaari</FONT></FONT>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Calisto =
MT"><FONT=20
size=3D+0><STRONG></STRONG></FONT></FONT>For fast food yes. There are =
many fast=20
food chains that don't make it... 'cause their food sucks. (Try and =
find a Jack=20
in the Box in New England.... good luck.) I think you have confused =
quality=20
with healthy. Although the food in these resturants maybe loaded with =
fat...=20
these fat burgers taste good to many people... who buy more... and keeps =
them in=20
business. McDonalds came out with a lean burger awhile ago (I forget =
it's=20
name... but it begin with a 'Mc' ;-) It was healthy yes... but didn't =
taste so=20
good.. and didn't sell well. </FONT></FONT>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT size=3D2>I expected you might write =
something=20
like this... since you don't eat meat. But I, like many other 'meat =
eaters'=20
would prefer an Arch Delux over a tofu burger any day.</FONT></FONT>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT size=3D2>I think it has something =
to do with=20
quality.</FONT></FONT>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT size=3D2>Lugh</FONT></FONT>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT size=3D2></FONT></FONT>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT size=3D2><BR>
</FONT></FONT> </P>
</BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_01BC6BAC.BB245A40--
rory phillip prendergast
> you're either in the mood or not. The Beatles may have been groundbreaking in
> their day, but that was long ago.
>
> In conclusion, in present day terms I would say David Bowie is the better
> musician.
>
Were the Beatles ever not groundbreaking In Their Day? It is, I guess,
Bowie's day. IMO, Earthling was neither groundbreaking nor remotely
exciting. I've got plenty of strict "jungle" tapes by DJ's and artists who
make their livings by and pattern their lives after that sort music.
Bowie's jungle sound is lackluster. I think it whould have been better as
backdrop for his beautiful voice and exceptional song writing talent.
Instead he made it the meat and potatoes of a consequently mediocre
album. I try to listen to it because I did pay ten bucks for it,
but I always seem to turn it off and play Heroes or Ziggy in it's
stead.
The only groundbreaking done in his recent work is getting MTV to play
semi-electronic music for a short while. (and that style biter Prodigy
beat him to the punch) Sort of turned into an anti-Earthling rant. Sorry
bout that. And other than that, I make no comparison between Bowie and
the Beatles.
Tychot
In article <01bc6b85$47241260$ea24c998@gandalf>, "Lugh" <lu...@lords.com>
writes:
>And as for quality being the equivalent for popularity... a resturant
>with quality food becomes popular... one with lousy food isn't so
popular.
>
>
so what you are saying is that McDonalds, Jack in the Box, Denny's, et.
Eva Crider
On 29 May 1997, Dara O=B4Kearney wrote:
> Bowie is by no means a great actor, but he is a reasonably good one,=20
> and can be great on his day. He's very uneven - he's had more=20
> embarrassing performances than most 'real' actors, but he's had a few=20
> corkers too. I don't understand how anyone who watches him in TMWFTE,=20
> TLTOC, Elephant Man (it's difficult to see Ringo pulling off that=20
> role on stage) or even Basquiat could come away thinking "Bowie can't
> act".
Add Merry Xmas, Mr. Lawrence to that list. If you like those World War II
things, it is mesmerizing. [Although seeing it again, recently, I think
the brilliant performance there is Tom Conti's -- Bowie is a great heroic
character in MCML, but Conti is so subtle it is amazing...]
Eva
Eva Crider
On Thu, 29 May 1997, Lugh wrote:
>
> ma...@acsu.buffalo.edu wrote in article ...
> Bowie is a better artist than the Beatles ever were. For one thing, Bowie
> never sold his soul to pop culture to achieve success. The Beatles did
> exactly that with puppy-love songs like "I Wanna Hold Your Hand."
>
> I wanna Hold your Hand was written in the early sixties... what's
> Bowie's excuse then for writing 'The Laughning Gnome', or the really
> cutesy 'When I'm Five'?
>
You know, he has a point here. Bowie put out a good 5 years of what I
consider drivel (some of it charming drivel, mind you) before 'making it
big.' How can we criticise the Beatles for "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" in
the face of 'The Laughing Gnome'?
When the Beatles hit the US in 1964, they were behaving as virtually all
pop bands behaved. By the time Bowie was putting things out in the mid to
late sixties, pop music had branched out considerably. There is some
excuse for the Beatles 'cuteness.' I'm not sure David has the same
defense.
Having said that, I still think it is an apples and oranges comparison...
E
Dara O寐earney
rory phillip prendergast wrote:
> Were the Beatles ever not groundbreaking In Their Day?
I think they weren't that ground-breaking in a lot of their days.
And as individuals, they were never ground-breaking.
>It is, I guess,
> Bowie's day. IMO, Earthling was neither groundbreaking nor remotely
> exciting. I've got plenty of strict "jungle" tapes by DJ's and artists who
> make their livings by and pattern their lives after that sort music.
> Bowie's jungle sound is lackluster.
I don't think Bowie set out to make, or made, a jungle record.
For me, Earthling is a jungle-influenced pop record (as is U2's
cleverly titled 'Pop'). It's also an industrial-influenced pop
record, on Earthling, Bowie mishes and mashes a few styles together.
If you don't like the album, that's fine - these things are a
matter of taste. But if you are comparing Earthling with
'strict jungle', I think it's an unfair comparison, because
it's not what Bowie was trying to make. I know a lot of people
who like 'strict jungle' who don't like Earthling, and I know
some who hate jungle but love Earthling. One guy commented to
me: "It took Bowie to make jungle sound interesting".
And that may be the point: Bowie took aspects of jungle and made
it more interesting or accessible to the more general listener.
Slan leat,
Dara.
Dara O寐earney
Lugh wrote:
> It's like nature... only the best survive.
I'm not sure this is true any more, of anything. These days,
we've got things like welfare, positive discrimination and so
forth to help the weak survive.
In musical terms, I definitely don't think it's the case. I
don't see how the Spice Girls are any better than the hundreds
of different acts who tried, are trying or will try that sort of
thing. I heard a song on radio the other day and thought it was
the Spiceys. I also thought "Hey, that's a bit better than their
other stuff". As it turned out, it was a German soundalike group
(I think they're called the Funky Diamonds), who outsell the
Spiceys in Germany but nowhere else.
I think these days the strong survive, but so do the lucky and
the strongly marketed. It has even been suggested by some music
journalists that central to the Spiceys appeal is that they are
not much more talented (or even better-looking - they're more
"girl next door" than supermodel types) than the rest of us.
We can look at the them and ustifiably think "I could almost do
that". Kids can look at them and think "I could do that when I grow up".
In the 70's, the market for music was significantly smaller than
it is now. Only those with a genuine interest (some might say
appreciation for) in music bought many albums. These days,
just about everyone buys CDs, which means lowest common
denominator artists like Celine Dion clean up.
People sometimes wonder "How come Bowie sells less in the
90's than he did in the 70's?" The answer is "He doesn't -
it's just the others sell more so he seems to fare less well
by comparison". I think Bowie still appeals to the same type
of people he did in the 70's. Most Bowie fans I meet these
days have very wide tastes in music, and buy way more CDs
than the average person. Whereas the multitudes who just buy
a few CDs each year don't tend to go for Bowie.
On the popularity as measure of quality thing, long term
popularity aspect, it's true that James Joyce sells more books
these days than most of the pulp novelists of the 60's. But
chances are even if we come back in a hundred years, he still
won't have caught them up, in terms of total numbers sold.
Yet most people would accept that Joyce is a better, or more
important, writer.
Slan libh,
Dara.
Andrew Adams
Eva Crider <cri...@obscure.org> wrote in article
<Pine.LNX.3.94.970529...@marduk.obscure.org>...
On 29 May 1997, Dara O´Kearney wrote:
>> Bowie is by no means a great actor, but he is a reasonably good one,
>> and can be great on his day. He's very uneven - he's had more
>> embarrassing performances than most 'real' actors, but he's had a few
>> corkers too. I don't understand how anyone who watches him in TMWFTE,
>> TLTOC, Elephant Man (it's difficult to see Ringo pulling off that
>> role on stage) or even Basquiat could come away thinking "Bowie can't
>> act".
>Add Merry Xmas, Mr. Lawrence to that list. If you like those World War II
>things, it is mesmerizing. [Although seeing it again, recently, I think
>the brilliant performance there is Tom Conti's -- Bowie is a great heroic
>character in MCML, but Conti is so subtle it is amazing...]
>Eva
I agree that MCML is an excellent film, and you are absolutely spot on
about Tom Conti's performance. However, I just find Bowie's performance
totally wooden and unconvincing.
I agree that he is excellent in TMWFTE, but then his acting style, and
the fact that he was spaced out on cocaine, make him all the more
effective as an alien. I think his acting style makes him ideal for roles
such as this, and The Hunger and Labyrinth, but when asked to play
a real human being in role requiring real emotional and psychological
depth he couldn't hack it.
I accept that he received rave reviews for The Elephant man, but I was
not able to see it, and I can only judge him on what I have seen.
Regards
Andrew
Lugh
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01BC6C27.5803CE20
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
ma...@acsu.buffalo.edu wrote in article ...
Bowie is a better artist than the Beatles ever were. For one thing, =
Bowie
never sold his soul to pop culture to achieve success. The Beatles did
exactly that with puppy-love songs like "I Wanna Hold Your Hand."
I wanna Hold your Hand was written in the early sixties... what's =
Bowie's excuse then for writing 'The Laughning Gnome', or the really =
cutesy 'When I'm Five'? =20
------=_NextPart_000_01BC6C27.5803CE20
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"Trident 4.71.0544.0"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<P> </P>
ma...@acsu.buffalo.edu wrote in=20
article<PINE.GSO.3.96.97052...@XENA.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU> =
...<BR>
<HTML><BODY><FONT size=3D2>Bowie is a better artist than the Beatles =
ever were.=20
For one thing, Bowie<BR>
never sold his soul to pop culture to achieve success. The Beatles =
did<BR>
exactly that with puppy-love songs like "I Wanna Hold Your =
Hand."<BR>
<BR>
I wanna Hold your Hand was written in the early sixties... what's =
Bowie's excuse=20
then for writing 'The Laughning Gnome', or the really cutesy 'When I'm =
Five'? =20
</FONT></FONT>
</BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_01BC6C27.5803CE20--
ir00...@mindspring.com
>[...] when asked to play
>a real human being in role requiring real emotional and psychological
>depth he couldn't hack it.
>I accept that he received rave reviews for The Elephant man, but I was
>not able to see it, and I can only judge him on what I have seen.
>
part was well played for all that.
Steven
ANUS409
>As for the original question... Bowie doesn't even come close to the
>Beatles.
in my opinion, the Beatles only made three albums: Sgt. Pepper, The
White, Abbey Rd. So, I would compare DB's best (Low, Diamond Dogs,
Station to Station, Scary) to theirs, and see where they stand...
ANUS409
>And your right when you
>say, he took it to a higher level, I would totally have to agree with
>that!
and remember, Bowie got the "B" in his name from the Beatles, so already,
he was talking the "goodies" and making them his own. That is what Mick
did with the nigger's music (he stole it just like Elvis did). Bowie did
it in the past, and will keep doing it till he kicks the bucket. He is a
thief, pure and simple -- but he knows how to cover his tracks...
Eva Crider
On Thu, 29 May 1997 ma...@acsu.buffalo.edu wrote:
> Bowie is a better artist than the Beatles ever were. For one thing, Bowie
> never sold his soul to pop culture to achieve success. The Beatles did
> exactly that with puppy-love songs like "I Wanna Hold Your Hand."
Four words: Never Let Me Down...
Although I'd dispute that he sold his soul. Seems to still have it at
this point.
>
> Of course, the later Beatles, a la Sgt. Peppers, is still a great album
> today because it manages to sound current, despite the fact that it was
> released in 1967. A lot of Bowie's stuff was specific to the time he
> recorded it, like Ziggy Stardust (and indeed, Earthling, with its heavy
> jungle influences)
I'd say anything post Rubber Soul by the Beatles is great...(My fav is
Revolver actually, because I think that -- please don't hit me -- Sgt.
Pepper is overproduced...)
One thing we are running into here, if you all have not realized it, is
that it is damned difficult to define "best" or "better..."
Eva
gus...@hotmail.com
I quite like the Beatles work... we must consider that they were a huge
Bowie influence... But talking about Dave, i believe that his albums are
much more influential than the Beale (specially in terms of
Brit-bands....).
When it comes to John Lennon, I have the following opinion: most of the
wonderful beatles songs were written by Paul, but john was considered the
hero because of his working-class hero style and because he got shot,
while Paul is still here...... No offense!... i quite like John solo
stuff!
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
ANUS409
> Hanson has a #1 hit... if any
>further proof that musical talent is NOT needed to get commercial success
>is needed, let me know.
hey man, don't dis Hanson -- those kids can really play!
jerry logan
sean monaghan <ro...@iol.ie> wrote in article
<01bc6a0f$35312c40$23297dc2@default>...
> I find it amusing that so many people presume the Beatles to be the
> defining talent
> of the 60's and perhaps all time.
> The simple truth is that the Rolling Stones were a far greater talent.
> Their albums from Beggers Banquet
> through to Sticky fingers were unsurpassed by any group or artist except
of
> course for Bowie and Leonard Cohen.
> Cohen - there's someone else who leaves the Beatles pissing in the wind.
> slan,
> Sean.
>
> Marquee Moon <mar...@creative.net> wrote in article
> <33894C...@creative.net>...
> > ANUS409 wrote:
> > Considering that Beatles and Bowie are my favorites and that I was
> > always indentified by others as a Bowie fan, I'd still have to say that
> > the Beatles win this one hands down -- and always will. Bowie's work is
> > broader and stands on the Beatles' work, but John Lennon's talent alone
> > was much, much deeper than Bowie's ever was or will be.
> >
> > Marquee
> >
> Bowie. Beatles. They are both amazing artists. It's like comparing apples
to oranges. Not possible. One must be peeled in layers. The other must be
bit ito with gusto. Enjoy what they have given us and admire them for who
they are.
ma...@acsu.buffalo.edu
On Fri, 30 May 1997, Eva Crider wrote:
>
> Four words: Never Let Me Down...
>
> Although I'd dispute that he sold his soul. Seems to still have it at
> this point.
>
Well, pretty much everything Bowie put out in the eighties was
crap. But I'd say that's because the eighties in general were a crappy
decade for music, with their cheese-mo synth-pop crap. Bowie was trying to
anticipate the future of modern music and stay at the helm- even back in
the Ziggy Stardust days, he was hailed for being years ahead of his time.
He's doing the same thing now, with VASTLY better results.
-Matt Kirisits
Mark Catroppa
Anus;
I have to really hand it to you my man, everywhere you go and whatever
questions you ask, threads and flames suddenly erupt. You did this in
the Who ng as well. You truly are the king of usenet.
Regards;
Andrew Adams
Eva Crider <cri...@obscure.org> wrote in article
<Pine.LNX.3.94.97053...@marduk.obscure.org>...
> On Thu, 29 May 1997 ma...@acsu.buffalo.edu wrote:
>
> > Bowie is a better artist than the Beatles ever were. For one thing,
Bowie
> > never sold his soul to pop culture to achieve success. The Beatles did
> > exactly that with puppy-love songs like "I Wanna Hold Your Hand."
>
>
> Four words: Never Let Me Down...
>
> Although I'd dispute that he sold his soul. Seems to still have it at
> this point.
In an interview for the BBC just before his birthday Bowie admitted that
during the 80's he had let commercial considerations override his artistic
judgement.
> >
> > Of course, the later Beatles, a la Sgt. Peppers, is still a great album
> > today because it manages to sound current, despite the fact that it was
> > released in 1967. A lot of Bowie's stuff was specific to the time he
> > recorded it, like Ziggy Stardust (and indeed, Earthling, with its heavy
> > jungle influences)
>
> I'd say anything post Rubber Soul by the Beatles is great...(My fav is
> Revolver actually, because I think that -- please don't hit me -- Sgt.
> Pepper is overproduced...)
I agree totally. Revolver is my favourite Beatles album by a mile.
Sgt. Pepper was certainly groundbreaking at the time in
terms of production techniques and packaging, but, apart from
A Day In The Life and She's Leaving Home, most of the songs are
rather weak and the whole album sounds, IMO, rather twee and dated.
Compare it with the first Velvets album, released the previous year,
which still sounds breathtakingly powerful and original today.
> One thing we are running into here, if you all have not realized it, is
> that it is damned difficult to define "best" or "better..."
>
> Eva
Absolutely, but then we wouldn't be able to have these arguments :-)
Regards
Andrew
rory phillip prendergast
Oh they both suck. Especially the Chemical Brothers. My god.
On 30 May 1997, ANUS409 wrote:
> >and that style biter Prodigy beat him to the punch
>
> the Chemical Bros. blow away that spiky-haired Bastard!
>
>
rory phillip prendergast
What the fuck? Are you out of your vulcan mind? What the hell are you
talking about?
rory phillip prendergast
On Fri, 30 May 1997 gus...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I quite like the Beatles work... we must consider that they were a huge
> Bowie influence... But talking about Dave, i believe that his albums are
> much more influential than the Beale (specially in terms of
> Brit-bands....).
>
> When it comes to John Lennon, I have the following opinion: most of the
> wonderful beatles songs were written by Paul, but john was considered the
> hero because of his working-class hero style and because he got shot,
> while Paul is still here...... No offense!... i quite like John solo
> stuff!
>
Most of the wonderful beatles songs were written by Lennon/McCartney.
IMHO, John was the better lyricist.
*Jenny*
Right on Man........ *Jenny*
Happy Phantom
> > > Bowie. Beatles. They are both amazing artists. It's like comparing apples
> > to oranges. Not possible. One must be peeled in layers. The other must be
> > bit ito with gusto. Enjoy what they have given us and admire them for who
> > they are.
Oh, pompus horse shit.
Bowie was better. Get over it.
HP
*Who never really understood the cultural phenomanon of four whiny
British guttersnipes*
--
-=-==-=-==-=-==-=-==-=-==-=-==-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-==-=-==-=-==-=-==-
I can’t give you all my dreams, nor the life I live.
You and I won’t friendship miss, that’s all we got to give.
Who will take your dreams away? Takes your soul another day.
What can never be lost is gone, it’s stolen in a way.
Please, don’t stand too close to me. Can you hear my heart ?
Take my woe and lean on me when we’re not apart.
Now our mission is complete and our friends are hid.
Evil things brought down by the light,
Life goes on until the end.
-Marianne Faithfull
- happyp...@innocent.com http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/4296 -
Circus Ego
Marianne Faithfull? Speaking of pompus horse shit...
Circus Ego
*Who really understands that the Smiths were the four whiny British
guttersnipes, not the Beatles*