virgin Bowie fan writes...
Aladdin Sane
He's absolutely right. You have a closed mind toward music. That doesn't
necessarily mean you are stupid. So grow the fuck up & take a little
criticism...
--
http://www2.carolina.net/aladdin/index.htm
Maybe I'll see you next Friday night. Maybe I won't, but that's all right...
Cause in my possession is a signed confession that say's "I'm the best you
could ever have"
Too bad....
Mediaslime wrote in message
<199804210129...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>Right, I said something negative. I am scum. I think you're confusing the
>concept of opening one's mind with the concept of throwing away all
critical
>faculties. I bet you think that if people can't say anything positive they
>should say nothing at all. Fucking Christian book burner. I was making a
>general query, but cleary you are unable to comprehend someone having
>preferences of any kind. Slave. I'm only glad there's something called
>evolution that is weeding people like you out of the gene pool. But in the
>meantime, if there's anyone out there who has a serious answer to my
serious
>enquiry, please post a message. JamFanHot's advice - in summary, I should
just
>shut up and like everything that Bowie has ever done - unfortunately falls
flat
>on these discerning ears. Any grown-ups out there who can offer a proper
reply
>to my original enquiry? (Sorry for the tone of this but I get angry when I
get
>drawn into conversations with people whose only access to the means of
>communication should be via an appearance on the Jerry Springer Show.)
Mediaslime
Um, that's 'virgin' as in someone who's avoided his music up until the past
couple of months (male not female, 27 not 17, sorry one-handed typers). Bought
the 69-74 compilation and thought it was great; bought Aladdin Sane, Hunky Dory
& Ziggy Stardust as a result. Just bought the 74-79 compilation today (UK
release date) and it's shit. Am I missing something? The only really decent
track is 'Look Back In Anger' (some of the other stuff towards the end of the
album is OK-ish). Am I one of those indie kids who can only relate to the 72-74
stuff, does this era need more than one listen to get into, or is there
something wrong with this compilation (I hate slow stuff and soul stuff)? Is
there anything else from the 74-79 period with the same kind of hard sound as
Look Back In Anger? Is there any point me buying the final two compilations in
this series when they appear? Until recently I'd heard no Bowie stuff at all
(at least not consciously) other than the 83 stuff - Let's Dance etc - which
was big when I was a kid (I hated that stuff and still do) but I really got
into him after buying the 69-74 compilation. The 74-79 compo sucks, though. Did
he become shit after Aladdin Sane or am I looking in the wrong place? Any
advice (other than 'get out more')?
JamFanHot
i think you need to open your mind son. u sound a litle narrow-minded when it
comes to music
>(I hate slow stuff and soul stuff)?
>(I hated that stuff and still do)
> The 74-79 compo sucks, though.
>he become shit after Aladdin Sane
> and it's shit. Am I missing something?
You are missing a much needed lobotomy.
Personal page on PFUNK and other music.
http://members.aol.com/JamFanHot/index.html
updated regularly
Mediaslime
William Edward Altizer
I think the problem here is that the 74-79 compilation is not exactly the
'best of all possible track-listings', if you know what I mean. Not only
is it a bizarre bracket of dates (69-76 and 77-82 would have made more
sense) but an odd selection of songs, period. Some would argue that the
late 70's was actually Bowie's finest epoch. Indeed, albums like Low
(1977), Heroes (1977), Lodger (1979) and Scary Monsters (1980) need to be
experienced in their entirety. Compilations just don't do them justice.
Perhaps the greatest crime committed by the Best Of album is the absence
of any of the outstanding instrumental tracks from the '77 albums. If you
like Look Back in Anger, though, you'd probably like the Scary Monsters
album. I heartily recommend it, and I hope I've answered some of your
questions.
Bill
BTW, I don't think a proper reissue program would lead to posts like this.
The last I heard, the whole point was to attract new fans, not repel
them...can't wait for the next installment of the 'EMI mangles Bowie's
back catalog' series...
Mediaslime
Thanks for the info. Another puzzling fact re the compilations is that the
69-74 one has 20 tracks and is a full length CD (78 minutes). The 74-79 one
only has 18 tracks, but it could quite easily have had 20 as it comes in at
only 69 minutes. Weren't there two other tracks from that period that the
compilers felt worthy of inclusion? Why are four of the songs on there as
Single Edit versions when there was clearly enough spare time on the CD to
include them as full versions? The whole situation makes it seem as if they had
worked out a full length running order then dropped two of the tracks prior to
release. Anyone know anything about this?
Ali Afshar
Mediaslime wrote in message
<199804210129...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
<snip>
>I'm only glad there's something called
>evolution that is weeding people like you out of the gene pool.
Surely *everyone* knows that Evolution is a notion invented by satan
(through the likes of Darwin and Lamarck) to undermine The Lord's apparent
power in the eyes of the people. ;)
cheers,
Ali
btw, I strongly prefer Bowie's earlier stuff (pre 76-77) but that does not
exclude me from listening and enjoying his work after that. After all he is
the master.
Ice Fiend
>Why are four of the songs on there as<BR>
>Single Edit versions when there was clearly enough spare time on the CD
>include them as full versions? The whole situation makes it seem as if they
>worked out a full length running order then dropped two of the tracks prior
>release. Anyone know anything about this?<BR>
I think this might have to do with the relative rarity of some single edits on
CD. EMI also wants the hardcores who already have all of the albums to have a
reason to purchase this one. (As many people have mentioned, this is also the
reason for the inclusion of "It's Hard to be a Saint...").
Should the EMI issues have been given more tracks to fill up the CD? Sure, why
not? Is the track listing a good representation of this span of his carreer?
Perhaps. Do you have to like it? No. If you like David Bowie, that does not
mean that David Bowie dictates your tastes in music.
When I bought the Singles 2CD set, I looked at which songs I liked and disliked
and looked at which albums they came from. Immediately, I thought I would never
buy Low or Heroes, because I thought the songs were weak. Now the two are my
favorite albums, by any artist. If you have the patience and the money, I'd
suggest at least giving these two albums a chance.
Peter Cross
I have found your original question (and some of the answers) very interesting.
Bowie for me has always been one of those people who always deserved
your attention, no matter what he was doing. You were never too sure
what he would come up with next. You might like his new work, you may
hate it but I would always have a listen to satisfy my own curiosity.
I had never been a big DB fan in my teenage years but liked some of
his 80's stuff. Now aged 26 & I bought Earthling, loved it and
decided to have a listen to some of his earlier work. I have now just
about got all his albums.
I think my own taste in DBs music differs from your own. I enjoy many
of his earlier tracks but my fav period is 77-80.
I think you would really enjoy Lodger and Scary Monsters. Both these
albums are full of great songs and are probably my own personal favourites.
Station to Station, Low & Heroes are also great albums but you may
find these harder to get into.
Young Americans takes some getting used too but after a while slowly
grows on you.
Hope this helps you to enjoy more DB
Cheers.
David Koenig
In article <199804210104...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
media...@aol.com (Mediaslime) wrote:
= Um, that's 'virgin' as in someone who's avoided his music up until the past
= couple of months (male not female, 27 not 17, sorry one-handed typers). Bought
= the 69-74 compilation and thought it was great; bought Aladdin Sane,
Hunky Dory
= & Ziggy Stardust as a result. Just bought the 74-79 compilation today (UK
= release date) and it's shit. Am I missing something? The only really decent
<snip>
In my not so humble opinion, 1976-1980 was Bowie's greatest period of
musical output. If you're expecting more of the glam rock of the early
70's days, you won't get it out of this period, but you will get some
amazing avante-garde rock, which is STILL on the cutting edge. I'm quite
serious when I say that I think Low (1977) sounds less dated today than
1.Outside (1995). However, this compilation won't give you a good
indication of the period for a few reasons:
1) The crummy chronology:
1976-80 is a much more complete period than 1975-79. Not only was Scary
Monsters (1980) the culmination of much of Bowie's work in the late 70's,
but Young Americans (1975) doesn't fit with the rest of the work very well
either. YA was a bit of an aberration for Bowie. I mean, it's not at all
unlike him to dabble with different styles of music, and this was his
"plastic soul" period, in which he was heavily influenced by Philadelphia
soul music. But it was very short lived. If you don't like soul music,
avoid YA, but that should not deter you from any of the other albums.
2) The crummy track selection:
Now this is the biggest problem. EMI put together a selection of tracks
which is not very representative of Bowie's work from this period. Not
only did they leave off any and all instrumentals, which comprise a large
part of Bowie's output during this period, but they left off what is
considered by many (including myself) to be Bowie's greatest song ever and
the greatest rock'n'roll song of all time, i.e. Station To Station.
Instead they replaced them with a lousy Bruce Springsteen cover (It's Hard
To Be A Saint In The City) which wasn't even good enough to make it onto a
Bowie album, a laughable soul remake of one of Bowie's old glam standards
(John, I'm Only Dancing Again), and a few other questionable selections.
3) The organic nature of Bowie's albums from this period:
See, the problem here is that *no* compilation will fairly represent
Bowie's work from this period very well, because the albums tend to be much
more organic, coherent wholes than collections of songs. Take, for
instance the album Low, which Bowie recorded with Brian Eno in 1977 after
he moved to Berlin. Many critics and fans alike consider this to be
Bowie's finest album. It is an amazing, groundbreaking work of art, a
fusion of Kraftwerkesque electronic dance music and Enoesque ambient. But
do you know how many hit singles were on it? ZERO. That's because the
album does not have any one single outstanding song which would garner a
lot of radio play. Instead it is a very tight, coherent whole work, which
needs to be heard in its entirety to be appreciated. The same goes for all
of Bowie's albums from 1977-80, though moreso for Low and "Heroes" (1977)
than for Lodger (1979) and Scary Monsters (1980).
My advice to you is that if you like Look Back In Anger, check out Lodger,
whence the song was taken, and Scary Monsters. They are probably the
closest to what you are looking for. However, do not rule out Low and
"Heroes", most especially because half of each of those albums is
instrumental, and totally unrepresented on the new compilation. Station To
Station is worth it for the title track alone. But Young Americans would
probably not be your style.
However, there's another thing to consider here as well. Most of Bowie's
music form this era is much deeper and more cerebral than his straight
ahead rock'n'roll glam-era material. It takes multiple listenings and an
open mind to appreciate. There are plenty of close-minded music listeners
who can only appreciate music on a superficial level and can't digest
anything that's not in verse-chorus form with a catchy melody. And you may
very well be one of those people. In that case, might I refer you to the
Rolling Stones.
--
dek17 AT columbia DOT edu
Overheard on alt.movies.kevin-smith
-----------------------------------
Dominic: Did anyone else notice that Monica Lewinsky is alleged to have
visited Clinton in the White House 37 times?
glamson: in a row?
joshua geller
lo...@in.sig (David Koenig) writes:
> 1976-80 is a much more complete period than 1975-79. Not only was Scary
> Monsters (1980) the culmination of much of Bowie's work in the late 70's,
> but Young Americans (1975) doesn't fit with the rest of the work very well
> either. YA was a bit of an aberration for Bowie. I mean, it's not at all
> unlike him to dabble with different styles of music, and this was his
> "plastic soul" period, in which he was heavily influenced by Philadelphia
> soul music. But it was very short lived. If you don't like soul music,
> avoid YA, but that should not deter you from any of the other albums.
I disagree entirely. the 'young americans' stuff became the 'station
to station' stuff.
bowie talked about playing 'plastic soul'. this was a bit of his
self-deprecating humor, which has always been relatively active
irregardless of his level of drug consumption.
in fact he played very good soul. and then he took it into very
interesting places, so it wasn't really soul anymore.
I'd bet that you are not much into soul music.
best,
josh
Mediaslime
>He's absolutely right. You have a closed mind toward music. That doesn't
>necessarily mean you are stupid. So grow the fuck up & take a little
>criticism...
A closed mind towards music? Because I expressed the fact that I wasn't a fan
of soul? You, I take it, have an 'open mind to music'. Which, according to the
definition inherent in your argument, means you like every kind of music ever
made. You love classical just as much as pop, opera as much as rock, show tunes
as much as blues, experimental avant garde as much as you like hip-hop. You
love the Spice Girls, Metalicca, Mariah Carey and DJ Shadow just as much as you
love Bowie. You love German marching bands and Tibetan nose-flautists, drunks
singing Christmas carols, neo-Nazi thrash metal bands, car alarms, the mating
calls of whales, Boney M and Billie Holiday. You think 30 minutes of white
noise is as good as any 4 minute pop or rock song. You refuse to differentiate
or discriminate against any form of sound. Truly you are amazing. Scientists
should study you. If, on the other hand, any of the above statements is
incorrect then you have exactly - exactly - the same closed mind to music that
I have. It's called the ability to make judgements and form preferences. It's
what separates us from amoeba (the poor things are deaf and incapable of ration
thought). Is the ability to judge and hold preferences really something that I
should be ashamed of? Pity the critic and crucify the reader.
Mediaslime
I saw that gloomy film about heroin addicts, Christiane F, about ten years ago
and remember some of the music as being pretty good. I've got a feeling it was
Bowie instrumental stuff from the late 70s period. Was it? And if so, what
album?
William Edward Altizer
The Christiane F soundtrack was a compilation of tracks from Station to
Station ("TVC15" and "Stay"), Low ("Warszawa"), Heroes ("Heroes", "V-2
Schneider", "Sense of Doubt"), Stage ("Station to Station (live)"), and
Lodger ("Boys Keep Swinging", "Look Back in Anger"). Of these,
"Warszawa", "V-2 Schneider" and "Sense of Doubt" were instrumentals.
Bill
bP
> Is there anything else from the 74-79 period with the same kind of hard sound
> as Look Back In Anger?
Try these albums in this order:
1) Scary Monsters
2) Sound and Vision
3) a live boot from the 10-Spot show or similar
4) Earthling
5) Lodger
Optional:
6) Tin Machine
7) Vampires and the Human Flesh (another boot)
8) Live, and Stage
Don't worry about 74-79 so much - 1,5,6 and parts of 2 hail from that period,
but you'll get a more representative dose with 1-5, and these albums seem
more essential if you want Bowie's 'hard sound'. By the sound of it, you
are definitely -not- going to be happy with the early part of the Berlin
trilogy, and I'd wait to sample the edgier Eno stuff after you've been more
intrigued by these plays first.
Sound and Vision has a better sampling (albeit shorter) from 74-79, and if you
buy that and Scary Monsters your next two times out (check the used CD bin
first), you are going to be fairly pleased, I think. Earthling, Lodger and
a really good live boot from this last tour should help round it out (you
really should lay hands on something live, and the 10-Spot set was a great
sampler, and is not hard to find), and the optional selections offer some
variety.
By the way, should Scary Monsters do the trick, that watershed album
spawned a terrific group of artists (and erstwhile Bowie collaborators)
trying similar things with syncopation, synthesizer and souped-up guitars.
Belew, with and without the Bears, Fripp, and Rundgren's Utopia all leap to
mind. Ok, maybe not the last one, but just avoid anything with the words
'Peter Schilling' on it...
bP
David Koenig
In article <ypvu37m...@shell5.ba.best.com>, joshua geller
<dcl...@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
= I disagree entirely. the 'young americans' stuff became the 'station
= to station' stuff.
=
= bowie talked about playing 'plastic soul'. this was a bit of his
= self-deprecating humor, which has always been relatively active
= irregardless of his level of drug consumption.
Okay, you do have a point. The legacy of Young Americans is audible in
Station To Station, but it's still not really a soul album in the same way
YA is. I found it much more accessible than YA at first, which is why I
was recommending it to him. I think that StS is really a transition
between his soul sound and his Berlin sound, but because I much prefer the
Berlin sound those are the elements I tend to pick up out of StS.
= in fact he played very good soul. and then he took it into very
= interesting places, so it wasn't really soul anymore.
=
= I'd bet that you are not much into soul music.
No... I'd bet you'd be surprised by how much I agree with you. I think
Young Americans is a very good soul album, but I admit when I first heard
it I found it difficult to get into, because I thought soul wasn't really
my thing. I always loved the hit singles Young Americans and Fame, but the
rest seemed pretty boring. However, after many repeated listenings, I have
begun to appreciate the album more. I still definitely prefer the Berlin
stuff, but it's growing on me. And as I learn to appreciate YA more, it's
also helping me appreciate StS more, but I still think that StS is the
easier one to start with, and that's why I was differentiating it in my
previous post.
I think you hit the nail on the head in this post. It's not so much a case
of Bowie abandoning the soul sound so quickly; it's just that he
transformed the sound into something very different so quickly that there
really is no other Bowie album that sounds like Young Americans.
BTW, "irregardless" is not a word. Just a pet peeve of mine.
JamFanHot
> The legacy of Young Americans is audible in
>Station To Station, but it's still not really a soul album in the same way
>YA is.
Very True. Station To Station was influenced by much the same things as Young
Americans such as philly soul acts like the ojays, harold melvin and the blue
notes etc etc. But with STS you get Bowie's take and own version of it. The
disco rhythms of the ambitious title track. The overall clean and warm drum
sounds and the funky rhythm guitar work are all on display. Great synthesis.
It just really bothers me when someone says they hate a paticular type of music
especially soul music. Probably because he is white and only likes white
oriented music.
Mediaslime
From JamFanHot
>It just really bothers me when someone says they hate a paticular type of
>music
>especially soul music. Probably because he is white and only likes white
>oriented music.
Perhaps you could explain to me what 'white oriented music' is. I was unaware
that they have begun making music specifically tailored to the colour of one's
skin. I'm most interested. Please tell me where I can get some. More
specifically, do you know anywhere that sells white middle class slightly
overweight vegetarian oriented music.
JamFanHot
hehehe. . . . i only made this statement to provoke respones. . .i am aware it
is an absurd statement but i hope u understand what i was trying to
say<<Probably because he is white and only likes white
>>oriented music.
Personal page on PFUNK and other music.
http://members.aol.com/JamFanHot/index.html
updated regularly
Ice Fiend
>hehehe. . . . i only made this statement to provoke respones. . .i am aware
>is an absurd statement but i hope u understand what i was trying to<BR>
>say<<Probably because he is white and only likes white<BR>
>>>oriented music.<BR>
I'm a white male, and most of the music I own happens to be performed by white
males. I guess I'm a racist. hee hee indeed.
JamFanHot
,>I'm a white male, and most of the music I own happens to be performed by
>white
>males. I guess I'm a racist. hee hee indeed
yup i guess you are, then. real pity
Mediaslime
What better example of multi-ethnic society can there be than a man who gave
Nazi salutes and sang about Churchill's lies and Himmler's sacred realm.
mor...@hotmail.com
I
> BTW, "irregardless" is not a word. Just a pet peeve of mine.
>
> --
>
about as bad as " proactive"
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Mark Tennenhouse
Mediaslime <media...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199804222330...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> More specifically, do you know anywhere that sells white
> middle class slightly overweight vegetarian oriented music.
You mean the Indigo Girls?
;)
MjT
chicken
David Koenig wrote:
> BTW, "irregardless" is not a word. Just a pet peeve of mine.
ir*re*gard*less (adverb)
[probably blend of irrespective and regardless]
First appeared circa 1912
nonstand : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early
20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the
attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently
repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such
a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can
be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen
over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use
regardless instead.
Martin A
Surely the point about the compilation break is it marks the break up of
the Spiders , a fairly logical break point IMHO.
Martin Curry,
29/4/93 The day the music died.
Martin A
Sound and Vision was on Low wasn't it?,I thought it got into the singles
chart. Not sure about Breaking Glass or Be my Wife though.
Martin Curry,
29/4/93, The day the music died.
RedfieldP
Sound and Vision went #1 in the UK if I'm not mistaken...