Bowie conundrum

harry p

unread,

Mar 27, 2001, 6:43:01 PM3/27/01

to

Here's a tough(maybe impossible) one for Mr. B fans - Which do you think is
his best alum title track? Sure you can narrow it down to two, but then
what? Is it Tonight, or Never Let Me Down? Talk about between a rock and a
hard place!

JJ

unread,

Mar 27, 2001, 6:22:23 PM3/27/01

to

title songs
not many make it.
not just Bowie.
it is always the fourth song.
yes?

--
I'm the BIGGEST fan
I'll never forget 'whats his name'

http:\\frogtiger.terrashare.com
tho...@dhmail.net

harry p <gba...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<tc1uqvo...@corp.supernews.com>...

ALADINSANE

unread,

Mar 27, 2001, 8:48:31 PM3/27/01

to

Huh. This makes no sense at all.
What do you mean, "Narrow it down to two?"

I will spend no time with this

AladinsaNe

F. Dromburgess

unread,

Mar 28, 2001, 7:00:39 AM3/28/01

to

dont mention it...oh you already did.
you izn't insane your just crazy
whaha whaha whaha whahooooo

--

http:\\127.0.0.1
the underground

ALADINSANE <j.s...@home.com> wrote in article
<3AC14388...@home.com>...

gcb

unread,

Mar 28, 2001, 1:50:14 PM3/28/01

to

ALADINSANE wrote in message <3AC14388...@home.com>...

>I see why you are undecided Mr. Insane, as it is a most difficult choice.
They certainly are two undeniably great songs, making it nearly impossible
to choose your favorite. Do you best!

harry p

unread,

Mar 28, 2001, 2:36:47 PM3/28/01

to

gcb wrote in message ...

>You're so right Mr. Gcb, but I'm sure Mr. Insane will make his decision
soon. Which one do you vote for?

gcb

unread,

Mar 28, 2001, 2:43:30 PM3/28/01

to

harry p wrote in message ...

>>I don't know how to break this to ya Harry, but that was sarcasm. I think
both of those songs, the entire albums they're from, and the rest of his
80's stuff sucks!

F. Dromburgess

unread,

Mar 28, 2001, 5:31:52 PM3/28/01

to

oooh that had to hurt Jonny.
you know Nick, these celebrity death matches
are get stranger by the day.

--

http:\\127.0.0.1
the underground

gcb <gcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<tc455vr...@corp.supernews.com>...

Wenzel Siccotic

unread,

Mar 28, 2001, 8:43:48 PM3/28/01

to

harry p wrote:

> >>I see why you are undecided Mr. Insane, as it is a most difficult choice.
> >They certainly are two undeniably great songs, making it nearly impossible
> >to choose your favorite. Do you best!
> >
> >You're so right Mr. Gcb, but I'm sure Mr. Insane will make his decision
> soon. Which one do you vote for?

The best song is Tonight

I thoroughly enjoy listening to blasphemy being committed.
What a warm feeling it is to hear one of my favourite Iggy songs
desecrated to the point that a version by Frank Sinatra, Donny
Osmond, Tony Bennett, Hillary Clinton, Winston Churchill or an
alley cat would be more merciful.

The song has been butchered at the beginning as the lines, "My baby,
she was turning blue. I knew that soon her young life would be through.
And so I got down on my knees. Down by her bed. And these are the words
To her I said. Everything will be alright tonight," have been omitted.

Bowie croons this song like some fucking lounge lizard in a one star hotel.
If that isn't terrifying enough he has Tina Turner for backup to make sure
that everyone vomits. He coos along with Tina as if this is some sort of
cozy lovely dovey romantic ballad. Do you know what he is crooning to?
Do you
know what the song is about? It is about a girl dying of a heroin overdose.
That's right, the song is about a heroin overdose. It is one of Iggy's
most
powerful songs. Here is Bowie with some half baked attempt to transform
this song into a romantic piece to rival Wild Is The Wind.

I have to go.
I'm really sick. <vomit spews from mouth, eyes, ears and nose>

alaDinsane

Buffer Underrun

unread,

Mar 28, 2001, 8:56:58 PM3/28/01

to

On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 01:43:48 GMT, Wenzel Siccotic <j.s...@home.com>
wrote:

>
>
>harry p wrote:
>
>> >>I see why you are undecided Mr. Insane, as it is a most difficult choice.
>> >They certainly are two undeniably great songs, making it nearly impossible
>> >to choose your favorite. Do you best!
>> >
>> >You're so right Mr. Gcb, but I'm sure Mr. Insane will make his decision
>> soon. Which one do you vote for?
>
>The best song is Tonight

I haven't listened to that album for years, but Iggy's Don't Look Down
is a favourite of mine. Killing it with that pathetic reggae
arrangement was so hideous.

Went this mornin' to the cemetery, seen ol' Rudy Valentino buried,
lipstick traces on his name - he never looked down...

Buffer

Imma Sicottic

unread,

Mar 28, 2001, 11:18:04 PM3/28/01

to

Welcome home

Buffer Underrun

unread,

Mar 29, 2001, 8:33:30 AM3/29/01

to

Nice to be back. I've kill-filed the people who wind me up, so this
time I might stay.

Has much happened? I've missed some posts because they get cleared
from the server fairly rapid.

Buffer

On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 04:18:04 GMT, Imma Sicottic <j.s...@home.com>
wrote:

>Welcome home
>

Martial Law

unread,

Mar 30, 2001, 1:58:16 PM3/30/01

to

Wenzel Siccotic wrote in message

>
>The best song is Tonight
>
>I thoroughly enjoy listening to blasphemy being committed.
>What a warm feeling it is to hear one of my favourite Iggy songs
>desecrated to the point that a version by Frank Sinatra, Donny
>Osmond, Tony Bennett, Hillary Clinton, Winston Churchill or an
>alley cat would be more merciful.
>
>The song has been butchered at the beginning as the lines, "My baby,
>she was turning blue. I knew that soon her young life would be through.
>And so I got down on my knees. Down by her bed. And these are the words
>To her I said. Everything will be alright tonight," have been omitted.
>
>Bowie croons this song like some fucking lounge lizard in a one star hotel.
>If that isn't terrifying enough he has Tina Turner for backup to make sure
>that everyone vomits. He coos along with Tina as if this is some sort of
>cozy lovely dovey romantic ballad. Do you know what he is crooning to?
>Do you
>know what the song is about? It is about a girl dying of a heroin overdose.
>That's right, the song is about a heroin overdose. It is one of Iggy's
>most
>powerful songs. Here is Bowie with some half baked attempt to transform
>this song into a romantic piece to rival Wild Is The Wind.
>
>I have to go.
>I'm really sick. <vomit spews from mouth, eyes, ears and nose>
>
>alaDinsane

Well it's easy enough to understand when Iggy's singing it. From your
description I consider myself lucky to never have heard the Bowie version. I
actually started tuning Bowie out after attending a show on the Lets Dance
Tour. I think they could've saved the arena clean up crew a lot of mopping
if they had handed out vomit bags at the door. I had previously seen the
DD,Soul,StS, and Low Tours, so became sick and digusted watching Serious
Moonlight. I've since heard a few bits and pieces of the two albums that
followed and knew I right in passing them up. Tin Machine had its moments,
but the greatest hits tour was something I thought I'd never say about
Bowie - Boring! What a sham to go out and do lifeless renditions of those
songs. He redeemed himself some with Outside and Earthling, but went back
into the crapper with Hours. I've got my hand on the chain and am ready to
pull if he comes up with another record like that. Who's with me?

Martial Law

Buffer Underrun

unread,

Mar 30, 2001, 11:13:22 AM3/30/01

to

On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 10:58:16 -0800, "Martial Law"
<martial...@lycos.com> wrote:

>Bowie - Boring! What a sham to go out and do lifeless renditions of those
>songs. He redeemed himself some with Outside and Earthling, but went back
>into the crapper with Hours. I've got my hand on the chain and am ready to
>pull if he comes up with another record like that. Who's with me?
>
>Martial Law

I am. Let's nominate someone to buy the album when it comes out. They
can rip it, MP3 it up, and share it with us so we can evaluate it.
Then we can have a vote on if we should all buy it or not. Over 50%
say aye, and we part with the dosh, under and we'll just burn our own.
:-)

Buffer

Imma Sicottic

unread,

Mar 30, 2001, 11:30:11 AM3/30/01

to

Not me.

The Glass Spider Tour was way better than the Station To Station Tour.
The Station tour was so bad they didn't even have coloured lights. Bowie
didn't sing Heroes either.

unread,

Mar 30, 2001, 6:48:20 PM3/30/01

to

"harry p." wrote:
> >I'm not sure I totally agree with you Mr. Chaotic, but you're certainly
> right about the colored lights. Do you think it's because he's so cheap?
> I've heard he's tighter than two coats of paint.
> >harry p.

Cheap isn't the word. More like Eboneser Scrooge Bowie.

True story here.

Bowie paid his band on the $2,000 per week plus expenses on the 78
Heroes tour. Most of the band members were asked back to play on The
Serious Moonlight tour five years later. Now after five years one would
think that wages would rise. Bowie offered $1,000.00 per week plus
expenses a wage cut of 50%. This is why none of them returned with the
exception of Alomar.

There was quite a nasty scene between Bowie and Stevie Ray Vaughn.
Vaughn was not satisfied with the wages and wanted his band Double
Trouble to front the tour. Bowie said no. Eventually Vaughn gave up on
the idea of fronting the tour but remained firm on the wages. Bowie
responded to Vaughns request for more money by offering him the enormous
sum of $300.00 per show. Vaughn had been in rehearsals during the
"negotiations" but basically told Bowie to fuck off and he left the
tour. Then the unthinkable happened. Vaughn and his management company
went to the media.

In 1983 Isolar, Bowie's management company which he owns, issued a
letter to all of Bowie's employees, friends, acquaintances and all of
his relatives whether near or distant. The letter stated that they were
not to speak to any person from the media about David Bowie or relating
to David Bowie. It further stated that any person who violated this
demand would never be spoken to ever again by David. Bowie signed each letter.

This outburst by Vaughn threatened this new "character" Bowie crafted
out with the help of a New York based image consulting company a and
public relations firm. David was presented as the clean living all
around good guy. He was an international celebrity that was down to
earth and did a fabulous job being a single parent. Bowie was furious at
Vaugnh. Bowie and his management went into damage control mode as this
was a serious problem with no easy solution. It may seem easy to solve
but there were two problems. First of all it could not be ignored. The
press would be relentless and if not satisfied it was certain that
rumours would be printed and do more damage. Secondly, they could not
risk sending Bowie to straighten things out because if he so much as
slipped up once it would be game over. The press would have crucified
him. The solution they came up with is to send a spokesman on behalf of
the band. A press conference was arranged and a nervous looking Carlos
Alomar was sent to tell the media that everyone "did okay."

As a final note in 1983 Bowie signed with EMI America for an estimated
17 to 21 million and was also paid the highest fee ever for a singe
performer at the US festival. He made 1.5 million for his appearance and
retained all of the rights to his performance both audio and video. Now,
including the tour and the souvenir sales Bowie made an estimated
50 to 70 million dollars that year. Living in Switzerland and using a
series of holding companies he would have been able to use their tax
laws on company capital gains. It is quite possible he paid only ten
thousand dollars in taxes.

aladINSane

harry p.

unread,

Mar 30, 2001, 10:58:27 PM3/30/01

to

That story certainly raises a more than a few questions. Here are three:

A. He seemed so nice in interviews during the 70's. Why the change in the
80's?
B. Why would a good musician like Carlos Alomar put up with being treated
like that? Did Bowie have incriminating photos of him or something?
C. Did Bowie hold a grudge and smolder inside while Stevie Ray's career took
off after he left? Did anyone ever check to see if that helicopter had been
tampered with?

Imma Mentilkase

unread,

Mar 30, 2001, 10:59:09 PM3/30/01

to

"harry p." wrote:
>
> That story certainly raises a more than a few questions. Here are three:
> A. He seemed so nice in interviews during the 70's. Why the change in the
> 80's?

The answer is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

B. Why would a good musician like Carlos Alomar put up with being treated
> like that? Did Bowie have incriminating photos of him or something?

Alomar waswith Bowie for ten years and was the band leader. Being second
to Bowie he was paid substancially more than the others.

C. Did Bowie hold a grudge and smolder inside while Stevie Ray's career took
> off after he left? Did anyone ever check to see if that helicopter had been
> tampered with?

Maybe Earl Slick killed him to get on the tour.

Imma Mentilkase

Toxic Frog

unread,

Mar 30, 2001, 11:59:20 PM3/30/01

to

Crappy story - I hate thinking that my favorite musician pulled stunts
like that.
I wonder if anyone has a genuine transcript of the letter that was
sent out?... I'd like to read it...

I'm not a bowienet subscriber, and I don't like the stories I've heard
about it. It should be a FREE service, where fans can order stuff
that's not available over the counter, and auction off bowie
paraphernalia, a la Ebay (he could make a profit off a small
percentage of the transaction and I wouldn't bitch). I'd subscribe if
Bowienet were free, and the man could send me brochures full of all
sorts of silly Bowie stuff that I'd probably buy (and I wouldn't bitch
if he wanted to charge me 5 bucks for the brochure)...

I mean GEEZ - how much money does he need?

Maybe he's building a spaceship.... I think I saw something about it
on TV...

Toxic Frog
toxic...@hotNOSPAMmail.com
remove NOSPAM to email

Richard H.

unread,

Mar 31, 2001, 6:44:31 AM3/31/01

to

In article <3AC556AD...@home.com>, Imma Mentilkase
<j.s...@home.com> wrote:

> "harry p." wrote:
> >
> > That story certainly raises a more than a few questions. Here are three:
> > A. He seemed so nice in interviews during the 70's. Why the change in the
> > 80's?
>
> The answer is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Yeah, everyone must keep in mind how badly David got rogered by DeFries
and all the other parasites at MainMan......he's probably still paying
them in some form.

There certainly didn't seem to be any restrictions on David's charity in
the 70's--he was virtually a one-man welfare branch. Everyone had their
hand in the cookie jar.

I'm sure all this was weighing on his mind and still does.

-Richard

Imma Mentilkase

unread,

Mar 31, 2001, 9:29:52 AM3/31/01

to

"Richard H." wrote:

> Yeah, everyone must keep in mind how badly David got rogered by DeFries
> and all the other parasites at MainMan......he's probably still paying
> them in some form.

This is the truth is it?
Please fill me in with the facts.
Tell me why Bowie got taken by Defries.

Let me see some proof to substantiate your statement.

Imma Mentilkase

Martial Law

unread,

Mar 31, 2001, 3:12:16 PM3/31/01

to

Imma Mentilkase wrote in message <3AC5EA81...@home.com>...

>Most everyone seems to accept this as fact, but I've never seen any proof
of this. Fans probably took it as truth on Bowie's word alone at one time,
but we all know now how much that means. Anybody here know what really
happened?

Martial Law

Buffer Underrun

unread,

Mar 31, 2001, 2:57:23 PM3/31/01

to

On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 12:12:16 -0800, "Martial Law"
<Martial...@lycos.com> wrote:

>>This is the truth is it?
>>Please fill me in with the facts.
>>Tell me why Bowie got taken by Defries.
>>
>>Let me see some proof to substantiate your statement.
>>
>>Imma Mentilkase
>
>>Most everyone seems to accept this as fact, but I've never seen any proof
>of this. Fans probably took it as truth on Bowie's word alone at one time,
>but we all know now how much that means. Anybody here know what really
>happened?

He didn't exactly get 'taken' by Defries. As far as I can tell, Bowie
was going nowhere before Mainman - and all his previous efforts to
become a star had failed. Along comes Defries, saying 'we're gonna
make you a star', DELIVERS, and they all lived happily ever after...
That is until the Star wonders what the fuck he's doing, letting a
management company take such a huge slice of the pie. But that was the
deal. When you sell your soul there's no going back.

Buffer

Imma Nutkase

unread,

Mar 31, 2001, 3:59:25 PM3/31/01

to

Buffer Underrun wrote:
>
> He didn't exactly get 'taken' by Defries. As far as I can tell, Bowie
> was going nowhere before Mainman - and all his previous efforts to
> become a star had failed. Along comes Defries, saying 'we're gonna
> make you a star', DELIVERS, and they all lived happily ever after...
> That is until the Star wonders what the fuck he's doing, letting a
> management company take such a huge slice of the pie. But that was the
> deal. When you sell your soul there's no going back.

This guy is right just like Jesus.
If it weren't for Defries Bowiezoids would have no God. Little dave
wouldn't have been able to make it on his own with When I'm Five. If it
weren't for Tony putting cash in Dave would have gone bye bye.

It was Tony who saved David's career so we could all get to see him sell
the farm in 84 and reduce himself to a nit wit. We could have missed him
fuck up his own songs that he gave to Iggy, <nice trick> What would we
do without the laugher he brought into our lives. Remember Merry
Christmas Mr.Flower Eating Prisoner Of War With Salon Hair Dressed In
Versache, Just A Dummy Holding A Pig and The Italian Food Poisoning.

If it wasn't for Defries there would have been no BIG FUCKIING RED
ARACHNID WITH GLOWING LEGS and we never would have seen Frampton
decimate Sons Of The Silent or Bowie make a complete ass of himself.

Lets Kill Defries?
Buffer, you got a kidney pie lid?

Imma Nutkase

Martial Law

unread,

ALadinSane

Richard H.

unread,

Apr 1, 2001, 7:29:06 AM4/1/01

to

In article <g72dctsh737ftdes2...@4ax.com>, Buffer Underrun
<davn...@clara.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 20:21:06 -0500, su...@netset.com (Richard H.)
> wrote:
>
>
> >Some might say that since Dave knew DeFries was going to cash in on his
> >subsequent albums, he deliberately tried to commit career suicide with the
> >Berlin trilogy.
>
> This is a joke, isn't it? Please, your sarcasm is killing me. Either
> that, or you're saying Low, Heroes & Lodger were made in an effort to
> annul the management contract? I don't think so!

The court's decision, made in March (I think) 1975, awarded DeFries 50% of
Bowie's earnings from September 1972 to March 1975, as well as 50% of all
future royalties on Hunky Dory, Ziggy Stardust, Aladdin Sane, Pin-Ups,
Diamond Dogs, David Live, and also Space Oddity and The Man Who Sold The
World. MainMan were also awarded 50% of Bowie's fees from all the songs he
had written in that period, even going back to his Decca recordings.

But here's the cruncher: MainMan was awarded 16% of David's earnings until
September 30, 1982, when his contract with MainMan expired.

His last album before the trial was Young Americans, a throwaway which
even Bowie has distanced himself from, although it sold well and gave him
a #1 in the USA.

His albums after the trial were increasingly experimental and his sales
dropped dramtically until 1980's Scary Monsters.

His first album after his contract expired was Let's Dance, which was his
best-selling album ever.

Do I really think David tried to commit career suicide just to spite
DeFries? No.
He could have done a 'Metal Machine Music' if he wanted to do that.
I am completely convinced that David believed in his 1975-82 work 100%.
However, I do believe it's no coincidence that he totally went for mass
appeal right after his MainMan concert expired.

As you know, Bowie is constantly changing his appearance and musical
style, and it leads a lot of people to wonder "Who is the real Bowie?".
When he goes from American soul to German electronica, it makes one wonder
which of the two he really likes (could it be both?) What's pose and
what's passion?

In my opinion, it's the mass appeal albums you've gotta question. He
always disowns them 2 or 3 years after they are made anyway. I'm convinced
Bowie considers himself an 'artiste' and he has said over and over again
how he loves to experiment, he'd rather play obscure B-sides than the
hits, etc., etc., blah blah.

Ok, so why did he do Young Americans? The stuff I've read suggests it was
because he wanted a big hit in America.

Why did he do the Greatest Hits tour? To 'finance Tin Machine', as I
remember on an interview disc.

I'd love to know what godforsaken sentiment spawned Black Tie, White
Noise. Oblivious marital bliss? An attempt to show Iman he has 'soul'? A
product of 90's record sales demographics that suggested Dave should do an
'urban' album? (BTW, has he started publicly apologizing for this one yet
like he did Tonight and Let's Dance?--I haven't kept up with his late 90's
interviews.)

DB: innovator and master of musical styles or careerist who uses his bank
book as his musical compass?
There's evidence on both sides.....

-Richard

Buffer Underrun

unread,

Apr 1, 2001, 8:31:36 AM4/1/01

to

On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 06:29:06 -0500, su...@netset.com (Richard H.)
wrote:

>The court's decision, made in March (I think) 1975, awarded DeFries 50% of

>Bowie's earnings from September 1972 to March 1975, as well as 50% of all
>future royalties on Hunky Dory, Ziggy Stardust, Aladdin Sane, Pin-Ups,
>Diamond Dogs, David Live, and also Space Oddity and The Man Who Sold The
>World. MainMan were also awarded 50% of Bowie's fees from all the songs he
>had written in that period, even going back to his Decca recordings.

That's a helluva lot of money for a manager! The thing is though, he
signed up for the deal, and he must've known what he was doing at the
time. It must be great being a manager - low profile (I don't think
I've ever seen a picture of Deepfreeze), all that money and cast iron
contracts... Jeez!

>But here's the cruncher: MainMan was awarded 16% of David's earnings until
>September 30, 1982, when his contract with MainMan expired.

The price of fame, huh?

>His last album before the trial was Young Americans, a throwaway which
>even Bowie has distanced himself from, although it sold well and gave him
>a #1 in the USA.

Yes, he disowned it for a while- plastic soul, and all that, but it's
a classic in retrospect. Nobody else can make throwaway stuff as good.

>His albums after the trial were increasingly experimental and his sales
>dropped dramtically until 1980's Scary Monsters.

I don't think that was intentional regarding the management contract
though. There may be something in it, but these were his best albums.
Every one was fantastic. You could go out and buy them without
recommendation and never be disappointed.

>His first album after his contract expired was Let's Dance, which was his
>best-selling album ever.

This was perhaps the first one I was disappointed with. At the time I
was pleased with its hit status because I could say to people, look ya
bastards - I was right all along, but that was all. I never play it
now - I didn't buy the CD (and I never will). I have it on an MP3 comp
somewhere and I wouldn't even bother burning it as an audio disc.

>Do I really think David tried to commit career suicide just to spite
>DeFries? No.

That's how your original post came across.

>He could have done a 'Metal Machine Music' if he wanted to do that.
>I am completely convinced that David believed in his 1975-82 work 100%.
>However, I do believe it's no coincidence that he totally went for mass
>appeal right after his MainMan concert expired.

That's pretty obvious though.

>As you know, Bowie is constantly changing his appearance and musical
>style, and it leads a lot of people to wonder "Who is the real Bowie?".
>When he goes from American soul to German electronica, it makes one wonder
>which of the two he really likes (could it be both?) What's pose and
>what's passion?

Those were the best days. There isn't another artist on the planet who
had the same diversity and ability to pull it off. The suprises were
substantial and worked consistently, up until Let's Bloody Dance.

>Ok, so why did he do Young Americans? The stuff I've read suggests it was
>because he wanted a big hit in America.

Obviously.

>Why did he do the Greatest Hits tour? To 'finance Tin Machine', as I
>remember on an interview disc.

If he said that, it was just bull. God knows what Tin Machine was
about. I always thought it was just a transparent gimiky stupid
subplot devised by Gabrels in order for people to forget about those
awful in-yer-face wanna-be commercial albums that never really worked
and lost him a lot of fans.

>I'd love to know what godforsaken sentiment spawned Black Tie, White
>Noise. Oblivious marital bliss? An attempt to show Iman he has 'soul'? A
>product of 90's record sales demographics that suggested Dave should do an
>'urban' album? (BTW, has he started publicly apologizing for this one yet
>like he did Tonight and Let's Dance?--I haven't kept up with his late 90's
>interviews.)

I don't think I've played it more than five times. For me, it's much
worse than Tonight and NLMD. I can't find the words to say how boring
an album it was. That was the reason I took so long to buy 1.Outside -
leaving out TBOS in between. I just don't care how much money Defries
made; it's pretty arguable that he deserved it.

Buffer

AlaDinsaNe

unread,

Apr 1, 2001, 10:23:12 AM4/1/01

to

Hello Richard.

I have read your post and to be honest I find it difficult in some
places to comprehend. I have some questions which I hope you don't mind
answering for me.

May I begin by asking you where you got these ideas from? Is there any
evidence to substantiate these "theories" of yours, and if there is I am
rather eager to see it.

"Richard H." wrote:
>
> Some might say
that since Dave knew DeFries was going to cash in on his
> subsequent albums, he deliberately tried to commit career suicide with the
> Berlin trilogy.

Now you start this all off with the statement that, "Some might say." I
wish to know who. I find it difficult to entertain the idea that anyone
would say this

>that since Dave knew DeFries was going to cash in on his
> subsequent albums

How? What was the arrangement between the two parties?
Do you even know?

>he deliberately tried to commit career
> suicide with the Berlin trilogy.

Please explain this "deliberate suicide." Is this your concoction or is
the the handy work of someone else? Whoever is the "brains" behind this
misguided interpretation had better learn something about this period
before they speak. As it stands, to make such a statement displays true
ignorance. This statement is asinine. It is so far from reality that I
am having difficulty believing someone actually thought it, let alone
write it down. I want to see the facts. Where are they? Richard, I
believe, until you prove otherwise, that there is no information which
you can provide that is substantial enough to give any credence to this
allegation. It can be proven to be false, but I will give you the
benefit of the doubt for now. Answer these please.

How was this a "suicide attempt?" It can't be for the style of music or
poor record sales can it? If so then that is not unusual for Bowie. The
ambient style of music he tampered with on Low would not lead to any
demise. If you disagree then please explain why other artists who have
also been experimenting , most longer than Bowie in the ambient area,
are still around. Please explain why the likes of David Sylvian, Trey
Gunn, King Crimson, Fripp, Eno, Belew, Holdsworth, Jobson, Wakeman and
about fifty others have not met their demise? Much of their work
compliments this period.It can't be because of poor record sales either.
Although the sales were low RCA still fought to retain him?

How do you account for the fact that this was one of his most productive
phases? Between 1977 and 1979 he has credits on eight albums, did two
tours and played a lead role in one feature film. Does this sound like
suicide? Furthermore it was during this period that Bowie made Low,
which remains today as his favourite album. How do yo account for his
accomplishments? Are you aware of what transpired in the making of Low?
I have posted an article for you on the group to read about this time
frame. This is not the workings of a man who seeks to become
unproductive. I am waiting to hear your explanations.

> What is more, as I understand it David was legally bound to pay a
> percentage of all his earnings directly to DeFries until 1982, when his
> MainMan contract expired.

My question here is, what is your point? What does it matter? Was it a
large or small percentage? Which contracts were these percentages on, as
there were three? If things were so bad because of the contracts tell me
the what was in the conracts.Bowie could care less. Are you trying to
imply Bowie was broke. He wasn't.

Bowie had four million by the end of 76.

Your post is void of any sense.

AladinSAne

Richard H.

unread,

Apr 1, 2001, 1:10:00 PM4/1/01

to

In article <3AC74882...@home.com>, AlaDinsaNe <j.s...@home.com> wrote:

> Hello Richard.
>
> I have read your post and to be honest I find it difficult in some
> places to comprehend. I have some questions which I hope you don't mind
> answering for me.
>
> May I begin by asking you where you got these ideas from? Is there any
> evidence to substantiate these "theories" of yours, and if there is I am
> rather eager to see it.

Have you read my reply to Buffer? I think it has most of what you're
looking for.

> "Richard H." wrote:
> >
> > Some might say
> that since Dave knew DeFries was going to cash in on his
> > subsequent albums, he deliberately tried to commit career suicide with the
> > Berlin trilogy.
>
> Now you start this all off with the statement that, "Some might say." I
> wish to know who. I find it difficult to entertain the idea that anyone
> would say this

Well, I think MainMan probably felt this way at the time. And I'm sure you
are aware of the RCA executive who upon hearing Low advised David to go
back to Philadelphia and try to recreate Young Americans.

> >that since Dave knew DeFries was going to cash in on his
> > subsequent albums
>
> How? What was the arrangement between the two parties?
> Do you even know?

Yes.

> >he deliberately tried to commit career
> > suicide with the Berlin trilogy.
>
>
> Please explain this "deliberate suicide."

As I told Buffer, I don't really believe it was deliberate career suicide;
it was a wind-up I used to try to spark up debate about Bowie's motives
and the possible realities concerning his 'chameleon' persona musically.

Is this your concoction or is
> the the handy work of someone else? Whoever is the "brains" behind this
> misguided interpretation had better learn something about this period
> before they speak. As it stands, to make such a statement displays true
> ignorance. This statement is asinine. It is so far from reality that I
> am having difficulty believing someone actually thought it, let alone
> write it down. I want to see the facts. Where are they? Richard, I
> believe, until you prove otherwise, that there is no information which
> you can provide that is substantial enough to give any credence to this
> allegation. It can be proven to be false, but I will give you the
> benefit of the doubt for now. Answer these please.

Again I refer you to my previous post.

> How was this a "suicide attempt?" It can't be for the style of music or
> poor record sales can it? If so then that is not unusual for Bowie. The
> ambient style of music he tampered with on Low would not lead to any
> demise.

You can't argue that Low flew in the face of what was considered
'commercially viable', can you?

If you disagree then please explain why other artists who have
> also been experimenting , most longer than Bowie in the ambient area,
> are still around. Please explain why the likes of David Sylvian, Trey
> Gunn, King Crimson, Fripp, Eno, Belew, Holdsworth, Jobson, Wakeman and
> about fifty others have not met their demise?

Most of the artists you mentioned are coasting off the fumes of their
respective pasts. The few people who buy their albums are rabid
Japan/Roxy/Yes fans hoping to catch a glimpse of past glory amidst the new
material. (I am guilty of it myself)

Their record labels sign them and keep them solely on reputation with the
ever-dwindling hopes that they might wring out one more hit. That, and
it's a much richer market today than ever before and labels can afford to
support artists under the guise of art, their yuppie conceit 'ambient'
albums providing a handy pedigree to compensate for the fact that nobody
buys them.

Much of their work
> compliments this period.

Xeroxes it, more like.

It can't be because of poor record sales either.
> Although the sales were low RCA still fought to retain him?

Well, of course! Everyone was still hoping for Ziggy Mark 2. Are you gonna
tell me you didn't see anyone dressed as a previous Bowie incarnation on
the STS tour? Or that people didn't request old songs?

> How do you account for the fact that this was one of his most productive
> phases? Between 1977 and 1979 he has credits on eight albums, did two
> tours and played a lead role in one feature film. Does this sound like
> suicide? Furthermore it was during this period that Bowie made Low,
> which remains today as his favourite album. How do yo account for his
> accomplishments? Are you aware of what transpired in the making of Low?
> I have posted an article for you on the group to read about this time
> frame. This is not the workings of a man who seeks to become
> unproductive. I am waiting to hear your explanations.

I never said he was lazy and his own opinion of his work is irrelevant to
what I'm talking about here. My point is that he has interesting timing
for his commercial and experimental periods.

Just read what I said to Buffer and then let's see what you think.

-Richard

Gerard de Noord

unread,

Apr 1, 2001, 4:17:54 PM4/1/01

to

Aladin,

Aggressive, aggressive. Your killing the best thread in weeks for no special
reason, stating that people's posts are void of sense. Shortly you'll come
up with mindless dribble and all the other cut&paste insults you've stashed
on your Mac. Go finish the essay we're all waiting for. Don't rely on your
talent. Before you know it this group will agree that your older work was
far better.

Gerard

"AlaDinsaNe" <j.s...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3AC74882...@home.com...

AlaDinsaNe

unread,

Apr 3, 2001, 5:18:23 AM4/3/01

to

Hi Richard

Before I start I want to ask something. What is your assessment of the
period from 76 -79 and the work that was produced? I take it that you
have little regard for it.

"Richard H." wrote:

> Have you read my reply to Buffer? I think it has most of what you're
> looking for.

No, it was off the server. Even if I did see it my questions are my
questions, not Buffer's.

> > Please explain this "deliberate suicide."
>
> As I told Buffer, I don't really believe it was deliberate career suicide;
> it was a wind-up I used to try to spark up debate about Bowie's motives
> and the possible realities concerning his 'chameleon' persona musically.

A wind up of what? Are you telling me it was a good-bye old days,
MainMan, Lippman, Angie and the lifestyle, and in with the new?

> Is this your concoction or is
> > the the handy work of someone else?
>

> Again I refer you to my previous post.

I did not see it.

> > How was this a "suicide attempt?"
>

> You can't argue that Low flew in the face of what was considered
> 'commercially viable', can you?

So what. Where is the point. Are you attempting to make me believe that
just because something is not mainstream it is designed to hurt a
career? Good luck.

> If you disagree then please explain why other artists who have
> > also been experimenting , most longer than Bowie in the ambient area,
> > are still around. Please explain why the likes of David Sylvian, Trey
> > Gunn, King Crimson

> Most of the artists you mentioned are coasting off the fumes of their
> respective pasts. The few people who buy their albums are rabid
> Japan/Roxy/Yes fans hoping to catch a glimpse of past glory amidst the new
> material. (I am guilty of it myself)

You're not fucking serious here are you? Are you? It is April the
foolish
and all. If on the remote chance you are no let me tell you that this is
ridiculous. This is one of the most uneducated appraisals I have ever
seen. One thing I noticed about you is you present your opinions and
they are disguised as facts. This is dangerous because new fans come
here for information. An opinion should be stated as such. If an opinion
is perceived as a fact then these readers are getting what they think is
accurate information when in reality it is not. A good example is your
opinion here

> Most of the artists you mentioned are coasting off the fumes of their
> respective pasts.

Ha! HA! Ha! That's precious. By your ascertain I guess they're non
productive has been are they? <falls on floor laughing my ass off>

The few people who buy their albums are rabid
> Japan/Roxy/Yes fans hoping to catch a glimpse of past glory amidst the new
> material. (I am guilty of it myself)

Did you read this? Really? I can't believe you posted something this
stupid willingly. You should not have posted something so blatantly
untruthful. You make it out to be a black mark, rabid fan, if you follow
these bands. Well, I will put them up against any band today in terms of
musicianship, and guess what? You could count on two hands the number
of musicians today who are of the same caliber. Your assertion that "we"
search for former glory is nonsense and you are not a wise man to
"brand" these people. For anyone reading this as well as Judge Richard
this is the truth. The real reason we listen to these artists is
because we prefer to listen to artists who actually have talent and are
able to compose intricate works them self. Music where the complexities
can be studied The musicians we prefer are among the most gifted and
intelligent who are able to stretch far beyond what is popular.The
popular being the repetitive, recycled, unimaginative three chord with
beat waste that is on the radio.

You seem to rate the Berlin Trilogy period as a blight.Do you rate a
band on record sales? If so you are off the page as I am talking about
music. The greats throughout history suffered through the pains of
having their works go unrecognized. Bella Bartok is a perfect example
and so is Bowie. You see the mass record buying audience isn't too
intelligent about music. This is why they swallow the, here today gone
tomorrow, packaged entertainer of today. I refuse to listen to most of
what is out there as I prefer to listen to music. Ninety percent or more
of these morons do not qualify as musicians. A musician imagines,
composes, experiments, invents and plays his works whether popular or
not. I resent being called a rabid fan because I have taste and prefer
intellectual music as opposed to what you probably listen to. You want
to name call?

You are sure short on any facts to back up your statements, aren't you?
Your ramblings on what you perceive is truth are so full of inaccurate
drivel that they almost fall apart on their own. Remember this piece of
brilliance ,"glimpse of past glory amidst the new material." What, pray
tell, what is this supposed to mean? "Former glory?" Please tell me
about the former glory of these people. It wasn't "former" as many of
these bands and individuals are still productive today. Not only are
they productive, but their work is just as good as it always was, if not
better. I defy you to prove that King Crimson's Vroom or Thrack are not
equal to or better than the early stuff. Where have Chris Squire or Jon
Anderson failed? There work is still fantastic. You cite Roxy Music.
Was their last album before the break up not worth buying? Was it only
"rabid fans" who bought it? Answer me. My recollection is that Avalon
was a major seller. I guess your theory applies to Eno as well? Just out
of curiosity what do you think U2 and Daniel Lanois would say about your
theory. You would be laughed out of the room. He worked with them only a
few months ago and produced. You would get the same response from INXS,
Sinead O'Connor, Peter Gabriel and countless more. It's a good thing
your theory did not apply in 1987 or U2 would not have had their largest
selling album that was produced by Eno. You are wrong. There is nothing
factual to support your claim. You must be a "rabid news group poster,"
one who opinionates away reality.

In your opinion and we've already proven how reliable it is

Who writes your material? This has got to be one of the most bizarre
pieces of speculative thinking I have ever witnessed

> Their record labels sign them and keep them solely on reputation with the
> ever-dwindling hopes that they might wring out one more hit. That, and
> it's a much richer market today than ever before and labels can afford to
> support artists

I don't suppose you have anything other than your imagination to add a
little credence to this. How did the record labels keep them before
they were rich? These guys have been around thirty years. Please tell me
what hits were made by Fripp, Eno, Gunn, Belew and the rest as I cannot
recollect one. Do you really expect me to believe a label would keep
artists on for over twenty years if they were not profitable? Go to
business school before commenting on these things please.Prove it.
Did it ever occur to you in the slightest that the real reason that
these artists survived is because they are artists, and exceptional ones
at that. They stand far above the sickening noise violations committed
by the so called "artists" of today. If you look at the figures below
you can readily see that your contention ifs absurd at best. This is why
the labels keep these artists

>their yuppie conceit 'ambient'
> albums providing a handy pedigree to compensate for the fact that nobody
> buys them.

Gee. That must be me. Hey, Niko did you see this. Feel free to join in.
Richard you never have to worry about Alzheimers when you get old
because there is nothing there to forget. This statement is something to
be expected either from a mental patient or someone who speaks on a
topic they know absolutely nothing about. The fact is that people do buy
them and that is why they are kept by a label. It is because they
produce exceptional work and sales are consitant. Since 1973 and
excluding Roxy Music Eno has made twenty five solo albums of which nine
are rated five out of five by All Music Guide. In addition he has
appeared in the credits of other artist's work as a contributor one
hundred and nine times. Robert Fripp has twenty one solo albums and five
are rated five star. In addition he has put out twenty albums with his
band King Crimson and appeared on other's work one hundred and fifty six
times. Now, you want me to believe that a record label would subsidize
forty one albums. Oh, I get it now, these guys put out forty six albums
combined and the record label finances one after the other and each one
didn't sell. One after the other forty six times. You fucking kill me.
I'm going to die laughing. Yes has put out thirty one albums in thirty
one years. Do you think it is luck that these bands have survived over
twenty five years? You'd be hard pressed to find a band these days good
enough to last ten.

"Yuppie Conceit" Fuck You.
Is that who bought Low, Heroes and Loger? Yuppies?
"Pedigree?" Low? Is Low a pedigree?

Relevant music is far beyond the realm of thinking of people who make
these kinds of noises

> Well, of course! Everyone was still hoping for Ziggy Mark 2. Are you gonna
> tell me you didn't see anyone dressed as a previous Bowie incarnation on
> the STS tour? Or that people didn't request old songs?

Who was? What is your point?
Are you telling me nothing.
So what if people like the older stuff?

Drivel. Drivel. Blah Blah Blah

Please email your respone, if you have one, to me as well. My server
sometimes does not store articles in the group too long.

AldInSANE

Richard H.

unread,

Apr 4, 2001, 12:30:12 AM4/4/01

to

In article <3AC99601...@home.com>, AlaDinsaNe <j.s...@home.com> wrote:

> Hi Richard
>
> Before I start I want to ask something. What is your assessment of the
> period from 76 -79 and the work that was produced? I take it that you
> have little regard for it.

The period from Station to Station to Scary Monsters is my favorite period
of Bowie's work and contains some of my favorite albums of all time by any
artist.

> "Richard H." wrote:
>
> > Have you read my reply to Buffer? I think it has most of what you're
> > looking for.
>
> No, it was off the server. Even if I did see it my questions are my
> questions, not Buffer's.
>
>
> > > Please explain this "deliberate suicide."
> >
> > As I told Buffer, I don't really believe it was deliberate career suicide;
> > it was a wind-up I used to try to spark up debate about Bowie's motives
> > and the possible realities concerning his 'chameleon' persona musically.
>
> A wind up of what? Are you telling me it was a good-bye old days,
> MainMan, Lippman, Angie and the lifestyle, and in with the new?

No, I was trying to wind you up by suggesting that Bowie embarked on a
experimental, non-commercial phase just to spite DeFries-- which is
something I don't really believe....I was just trying to start a
discussion.

However, I do believe that he deliberately waited until 1983 to start his
ultra-commercial period....when he knew he'd be free of DeFries
financially.

> > Is this your concoction or is
> > > the the handy work of someone else?
> >
> > Again I refer you to my previous post.
>
> I did not see it.
>
> > > How was this a "suicide attempt?"
> >
> > You can't argue that Low flew in the face of what was considered
> > 'commercially viable', can you?
>
> So what. Where is the point. Are you attempting to make me believe that
> just because something is not mainstream it is designed to hurt a
> career? Good luck.

My (rhetorical) idea was: why should David worry about whether his albums
in the 1975-1982 period were commercially viable if the money was just
going to line DeFries' pocket anyway.

In my other posts I laid out the 1975 court decision in detail, focusing
directly on the 16% of all earnings DeFries was awarded from 1975 to 1982.

> > If you disagree then please explain why other artists who have
> > > also been experimenting , most longer than Bowie in the ambient area,
> > > are still around. Please explain why the likes of David Sylvian, Trey
> > > Gunn, King Crimson
>
>
> > Most of the artists you mentioned are coasting off the fumes of their
> > respective pasts. The few people who buy their albums are rabid
> > Japan/Roxy/Yes fans hoping to catch a glimpse of past glory amidst the new
> > material. (I am guilty of it myself)
>
> You're not fucking serious here are you? Are you? It is April the
> foolish
> and all. If on the remote chance you are no let me tell you that this is
> ridiculous. This is one of the most uneducated appraisals I have ever
> seen. One thing I noticed about you is you present your opinions and
> they are disguised as facts. This is dangerous because new fans come
> here for information. An opinion should be stated as such. If an opinion
> is perceived as a fact then these readers are getting what they think is
> accurate information when in reality it is not. A good example is your
> opinion here
>
> > Most of the artists you mentioned are coasting off the fumes of their
> > respective pasts.
>
> Ha! HA! Ha! That's precious. By your ascertain I guess they're non
> productive has been are they? <falls on floor laughing my ass off>

1. Don't underestimate the newsgroup readers! They can separate fact from
opinion!
They are not mindless sheep waiting to be informed by you--I've noticed
that it's perfectly OK for everyone to fawn all over your posts (which are
opinion pieces) about the Station to Station and Heroes tours. Just
because you don't share my opinion doesn't make it any less valid.

1a. I know you fancy yourself as overlord of all Bowie fans, but I don't
give a fuck how many shows you've been to or how many limited edition
white-label picture discs imported from Belgium you have or even that
Carlos Alomar let you drink from his orange juice.....you're no more
important than anybody else here to me.

2. What I mean by 'they are coasting off the fumes of their own past' is
they have virtually no sales and no reason to be supported by a record
label other than their reputation.

> The few people who buy their albums are rabid
> > Japan/Roxy/Yes fans hoping to catch a glimpse of past glory amidst the new
> > material. (I am guilty of it myself)
>
> Did you read this? Really? I can't believe you posted something this
> stupid willingly. You should not have posted something so blatantly
> untruthful. You make it out to be a black mark, rabid fan, if you follow
> these bands. Well, I will put them up against any band today in terms of
> musicianship, and guess what? You could count on two hands the number
> of musicians today who are of the same caliber. Your assertion that "we"
> search for former glory is nonsense and you are not a wise man to
> "brand" these people. For anyone reading this as well as Judge Richard
> this is the truth. The real reason we listen to these artists is
> because we prefer to listen to artists who actually have talent and are
> able to compose intricate works them self. Music where the complexities
> can be studied The musicians we prefer are among the most gifted and
> intelligent who are able to stretch far beyond what is popular.The
> popular being the repetitive, recycled, unimaginative three chord with
> beat waste that is on the radio.

Yeah, yeah, sure.
You sidestepped my whole argument. Yes, you may like the aforementioned
artists, but you bought their albums because you liked the band they were
previously in and don't lie about it.

Or you're old and you can't deal with anything new so you hide behind
words like 'ambient' so you can condescend to young people and say 'See, I
only listen to artistes'....

> You seem to rate the Berlin Trilogy period as a blight.Do you rate a
> band on record sales? If so you are off the page as I am talking about
> music. The greats throughout history suffered through the pains of
> having their works go unrecognized. Bella Bartok is a perfect example
> and so is Bowie. You see the mass record buying audience isn't too
> intelligent about music. This is why they swallow the, here today gone
> tomorrow, packaged entertainer of today. I refuse to listen to most of
> what is out there as I prefer to listen to music. Ninety percent or more
> of these morons do not qualify as musicians. A musician imagines,
> composes, experiments, invents and plays his works whether popular or
> not. I resent being called a rabid fan because I have taste and prefer
> intellectual music as opposed to what you probably listen to. You want
> to name call?

I'm not even going to answer this because it is based on the erroneous
conclusion that I do not like the Berlin period.

> You are sure short on any facts to back up your statements, aren't you?
> Your ramblings on what you perceive is truth are so full of inaccurate
> drivel that they almost fall apart on their own.

Really? And you're going to prove I'm wrong by your factual description of
today's musicians as 'morons', right? I gave my opinion, now you're giving
yours--facts seem to have gone out the window, eh?

Remember this piece of
> brilliance ,"glimpse of past glory amidst the new material." What, pray
> tell, what is this supposed to mean? "Former glory?" Please tell me
> about the former glory of these people. It wasn't "former" as many of
> these bands and individuals are still productive today.

Sylvian, Eno, Fripp, and Wakeman all made their names with their
respective bands, all of which were more successful than anything the solo
artists have done.

Not only are
> they productive, but their work is just as good as it always was, if not
> better. I defy you to prove that King Crimson's Vroom or Thrack are not
> equal to or better than the early stuff. Where have Chris Squire or Jon
> Anderson failed? There work is still fantastic.

Yet I somehow doubt that there as many people at their concerts as there
were in the 70's....

You cite Roxy Music.
> Was their last album before the break up not worth buying? Was it only
> "rabid fans" who bought it? Answer me.

Yes!

My recollection is that Avalon
> was a major seller. I guess your theory applies to Eno as well?

Yep.

Just out
> of curiosity what do you think U2 and Daniel Lanois would say about your
> theory. You would be laughed out of the room. He worked with them only a
> few months ago and produced. You would get the same response from INXS,
> Sinead O'Connor, Peter Gabriel and countless more. It's a good thing
> your theory did not apply in 1987 or U2 would not have had their largest
> selling album that was produced by Eno.

That's different.
An Eno-produced record is different than an Eno record.
Basically an Eno record doesn't sell, and an Eno-produced record might
sell, depending on the artist.

And no, I don't think sales are the most important criteria with which to
gauge a musician's success, but since we are talking about why record
labels support solo artists, I think it is relevant.

You are wrong. There is nothing
> factual to support your claim. You must be a "rabid news group poster,"
> one who opinionates away reality.
>
> In your opinion and we've already proven how reliable it is
>
>
> Who writes your material? This has got to be one of the most bizarre
> pieces of speculative thinking I have ever witnessed
>
> > Their record labels sign them and keep them solely on reputation with the
> > ever-dwindling hopes that they might wring out one more hit. That, and
> > it's a much richer market today than ever before and labels can afford to
> > support artists
>
> I don't suppose you have anything other than your imagination to add a
> little credence to this. How did the record labels keep them before
> they were rich? These guys have been around thirty years. Please tell me
> what hits were made by Fripp, Eno, Gunn, Belew and the rest as I cannot
> recollect one. Do you really expect me to believe a label would keep
> artists on for over twenty years if they were not profitable? Go to
> business school before commenting on these things please.Prove it.

OK then, you explain how these people stay on a label, because they're
sure as hell not selling any albums and never were! It's by past
reputation only!!! How else can you possibly explain this?!!!

Record labels are businesses and for the most part couldn't care less
about the artistic merit of their products as it pertains to sales.

> Did it ever occur to you in the slightest that the real reason that
> these artists survived is because they are artists, and exceptional ones
> at that.

Yes!!
That's why record labels are so charitable to them and tolerate their
commercial failure.

They stand far above the sickening noise violations committed
> by the so called "artists" of today.

This is the 4th or 5th time you've made a comment like this, grandad.
What do you think people said about side 2 of Low at the time?
The only thing your comments reveal is that your mind is shut tight.
Someone ought to put a copy of STS in your hands, wrap you in bandages,
and shovel some dirt on you, you fossilized old cadaver.

If you look at the figures below
> you can readily see that your contention ifs absurd at best. This is why
> the labels keep these artists
>
> >their yuppie conceit 'ambient'
> > albums providing a handy pedigree to compensate for the fact that nobody
> > buys them.
>
> Gee. That must be me. Hey, Niko did you see this. Feel free to join in.
> Richard you never have to worry about Alzheimers when you get old
> because there is nothing there to forget.

Yeah, I'll probably be like you, a cantankerous old codger who hates
everything new and is bitterly jealous of anything that has any commercial
success.

This statement is something to
> be expected either from a mental patient or someone who speaks on a
> topic they know absolutely nothing about.

OK, but you're the one who calls himself Aladin Sane and makes
oh-so-hilarious drug jokes ad nauseum.

The fact is that people do buy
> them and that is why they are kept by a label. It is because they
> produce exceptional work and sales are consitant.

Usually the solo artists sell a tiny fraction of the albums that their
previous band did.

Since 1973 and
> excluding Roxy Music Eno has made twenty five solo albums of which nine
> are rated five out of five by All Music Guide. In addition he has
> appeared in the credits of other artist's work as a contributor one
> hundred and nine times. Robert Fripp has twenty one solo albums and five
> are rated five star. In addition he has put out twenty albums with his
> band King Crimson and appeared on other's work one hundred and fifty six
> times. Now, you want me to believe that a record label would subsidize
> forty one albums. Oh, I get it now, these guys put out forty six albums
> combined and the record label finances one after the other and each one
> didn't sell. One after the other forty six times. You fucking kill me.
> I'm going to die laughing.

OK jackass, now go get a copy of Billboard's record book and tell me how
many times the names Wakeman, Eno, Fripp, or Sylvian appear on the charts
as solo artists. Not very impressive, is it?

So are you going to tell me that labels keep these guys because the All
Music guide says they make good records, because this time it'll be me who
will die laughing.

You know these artists don't sell a significant amount of records, why is
it so hard for you to accept that these artists survive on their
reputation alone?

Yes has put out thirty one albums in thirty
> one years. Do you think it is luck that these bands have survived over
> twenty five years? You'd be hard pressed to find a band these days good
> enough to last ten.

1. Yes is a band (despite its ups and downs) that has had plenty of
critical and financial success throughout its history. Wakeman has
critical success only.

2.Bands (and solo artists) don't die anymore. It's the truth.
Reforming and scraping the bottom of the barrel is the norm today.
Jagger, Townshend, McCartney, Lydon, etc., etc., they're all guilty of it
from the world's most famous bands down to the most obscure new wave
bands, nobody has the sense to call it quits, so longevity means nothing
anymore.

> "Yuppie Conceit" Fuck You.
> Is that who bought Low, Heroes and Loger? Yuppies?

No, you idiot!!!
They were rabid Bowie fans, and so were you!!! That's my point!!!!

> "Pedigree?" Low? Is Low a pedigree?

Hell yes, it's a pedigree!
It's given him more artistic clout than any other record (except Ziggy,
possibly) and cemented his reputation as an artistic innovator rather than
a cheap trend-hopper like, say Madonna or something.

> Relevant music is far beyond the realm of thinking of people who make
> these kinds of noises
>
> > Well, of course! Everyone was still hoping for Ziggy Mark 2. Are you gonna
> > tell me you didn't see anyone dressed as a previous Bowie incarnation on
> > the STS tour? Or that people didn't request old songs?
>
> Who was? What is your point?
> Are you telling me nothing.
> So what if people like the older stuff?

My point is the vast majority of fans don't want experimental music. They
want hits. They want Rebel Rebel, not Warszawa. The same goes for the
record companies.

This does not mean that experimental music doesn't have its merits, but
still....

> Drivel. Drivel. Blah Blah Blah
>
> Please email your respone, if you have one, to me as well. My server
> sometimes does not store articles in the group too long.
>
> AldInSANE

My pleasure!
-Richard

Enas Nidala

unread,

Apr 4, 2001, 11:53:59 PM4/4/01

to

Hi Richard,

Pleasant surprise.

Just to let you know you are off my "nice people" list. I do not take
kindly,"as do others" to listen to you demean contributors in this
group. I'll deal with this at the end. Oh, and I have annihilated your
nonsense on lining Defries pockets by the way. It was really easy.

> No, I was trying to wind you up by suggesting that Bowie embarked on a
> experimental, non-commercial phase just to spite DeFries-- which is
> something I don't really believe....I was just trying to start a
> discussion.

Then how do you explain his other non commercial phases. Hunky Dory, Man
Who Sold The World etc. You act as though the trilogy was his only non
commercial phase. It wasn't. Explain?

> However, I do believe that he deliberately waited until 1983 to start his
> ultra-commercial period....when he knew he'd be free of DeFries
> financially.

Why. If you look at the revised contract Bowie came out way farther
ahead. He made massive amounts and what Defries got was a pittance in
comparison. Bowie immediately received $350,000.00. What he renegotiated
with Gem and Chrysalis on the publishing came to millions. What Defries
got meant nothing to Bowie. I challenge you to find and produce one
scrap of evidence from an interview or even a third party to
substantiate your claim. I'll wait and until you do your statement is a
theory based on a whim of thought with no reality behind it.

> > So what. Where is the point. Are you attempting to make me believe that
> > just because something is not mainstream it is designed to hurt a
> > career? Good luck.
>

> My (rhetorical) idea was: why should David worry about whether his albums
> in the 1975-1982 period were commercially viable if the money was just
> going to line DeFries' pocket anyway.

Your perception is contradictory to any reasoning. The FACTS prove you
wrong. First of all if he didn't want to line defries' pockets then
why didn't he hold back Young Americans as his contract stated that he
could. It was Defries who got an injunction in Superior Court to halt its
release due to alleged breach of contract allegations leveled against
Bowie and RCA. The plaintiffs were both MainMan and Gem. Gem filed
solely against RCA as a "co conspirator for aiding and advising" the
defendant. The injunction was issued immediately. It was not only RCA but
Bowie who fought to get the injunction lifted, Why, if it would line
Defries' pockets? He could have let Young Americans go and gone back to
the studio and done Low. He had the backing of RCA. Young Americans
produced his first gold single and the album sold 975,000 copies. His
largest to date. As I stated earlier the resulting contract was in
Bowie's favour.

Now. Why would Bowie not want his works to sell as he would hurt himself
far more than Defries? Why would he hurt himself.

You say Low is non commercial. In my opinion side one has a lot of
"commercial" potential with Sound And Vision and Breaking Glass. So does
Lodger with DJ, Look Back In Anger and Boys Keep Swinging. As far as
Heroes I can only say it would be the title song.
You say Heroes ic non commercial. I guess you know more than Bowie but I
will believe Bowie over you on this one. He thought it had huge
commercial potential. He recorded it in three languages hoping to get
airplay plus the video. The song Heroes was a commercial attempt.

> In my other posts I laid out the 1975 court decision in detail, focusing
> directly on the 16% of all earnings DeFries was awarded from 1975 to 1982.

Liar. You laid out nothing in detail and the piece you did lay out was
to serve your own means. The balance would have proven you wrong. You
say Bowie did not want to line Defries pockets? Well, allow me to end
this bullshit once an for all.Richard you should learn your discography
before writing these posts you know. But first the contract. As I stated
before the contract that was renegotiated substantially favoured Bowie.

First of all there was not one contract, there were three major ones and
a fourth added Your expiry dates are incorrect. The first contract was
with Chrysalis and signed Oct 23 1970. This contract gave them the
publishing rights to Bowie's material and Bowie agreed to deliver one
hundred songs. Defries not only gained the moneys from royalties but was
paid a "management" fee as well. On August 1st, 1971, a recording
contract was signed between Gem and Bowie. This contract gave Gem the
rights to Bowie's recordings for five years. Gem was owned by Defries
and accountant Laurence Myers. The third contract was between Defries and
Bowie.and signed August 12, 1971. This contract was a management
contract back dated to April 1970. This contract stated that Defries
will have the sole rights to David Bowie forever. There was no
expiration clause in the contract so he was stuck to Defries in
perpetuity. An employment contract to expire in 1983 was added.

In essence, through both MainMan companies, Defries owned Bowie and his
work. MainMan was incorporated June 30 1971 with the head office MainMan
Artistes Ltd in England and the subsidiary MainMan Ltd in America. The
contracts were iron clad and Bowie would finance everything. As follows
in the wording from the contract:-"there is no obligation to pay the
artists any fixed or actual proportion of income arising from services
beyond basic salaries set out in those agreements." Bowie's salary was
$75.00 per week. Mainman paid the living expenses of which 50% were to
be paid back by Bowie. MainMan got 50% of everything but what really
hurt Bowie is that they got their 50% on the "profits" after Bowie
absorbed all of the expenses. In addition MainMan received management
fees over and above the 50% split plus licensing fees and souvenir
sales. -"Assuming a loss it is carried to the artist." -" that profit is
then split 50% to the artist and 50% to MainMan."

The new contract signed March 1st,1975, between Bowie and Defries went
all Bowies way for the most part as Defries owed alot of money that he
could not pay without Bowie. First of all the "lifelong" contract was
voided and Bowie immediately received $350,000.
MainMan instead of getting 50% of all royalties after expenses got only
16.66%. In addition MainMan got only 25% of the publishing rights which
gave Bowie total ownership of his works and amounted to millions in
royalties. MainMan now only got 5% of live appearances. In return RCA
paid MainMan's debts of $530.000.The motivation for Bowie under this new
contract would be to make money.

Now Richard, listen closely to me. Your theory is fucked. You are a fool
to argue with me you know as you have not given one bit of evidence to
prove your point. I am not the type who makes ignorant statements of fallacy.

You say Bowie did not want to give Defries money.
Explain this then
What was the first released album after the contract was signed/
What was the second album released?
Not Low was it?

No, it was Changesone. That is what came out before Low. It was a
greatest hits package. Are greatest hits packages commercial? Greatest
hits packages are totally commercial and made for profit only. Do they
work? This one sure did. It was the first Bowie album to go platinum in
America as it sold 1,331,247 copies. The album contained songs that
Defries made MORE MONEY on than if he released a new album of fresh
material. Why would Bowie do this then if he wanted to make sure Defries
got no money? The reason is Defries and his cut were of no concern.

Just to finish off on this. I guess you won't mind explaining why Bowie
negotiated a deal to re-release his old material. This put close to one
million dollars in Defries pocket. Please explain why?

> 1. Don't underestimate the newsgroup readers! They can separate fact from
> opinion!

Really? Do tell

> They are not mindless sheep waiting to be informed by you--I've noticed
> that it's perfectly OK for everyone to fawn all over your posts (which are
> opinion pieces) about the Station to Station and Heroes tours. Just
> because you don't share my opinion doesn't make it any less valid.
> 1a. I know you fancy yourself as overlord of all Bowie fans, but I don't
> give a fuck how many shows you've been to or how many limited edition
> white-label picture discs imported from Belgium you have or even that
> Carlos Alomar let you drink from his orange juice.....you're no more
> important than anybody else here to me.

Oh. So you want to get personal do you. Fine by me. The gloves are off.
Say hello to Marcel DeGroot for me when you pass him. May I politely
inquire how and who gave you the right to accuse other members of this
group of "fawning." Is it a sin according to what is left of your brain
to like a post. I guess if you report truthfully what you eye witness
is an "opinion." Does that apply to the Japanese at Hiroshima too?
Furthermore it is not that I do not share your opinion it is that the
facts prove that your opinion is wrong. I see, you are allowed to have
an opinion. and I'm not. Well, I can have an opinion and reality says my
opinion is right in this case. Sorry?????? Your opinion is valid to the
mentally ill. I know you don't give a fuck, as you state, it shows. Gee,
you seem to know the content of all those posts of mine that you don't
give a fuck about. You're not "fawning" are you? Hey, send me some fan
mail, it's good for my ego. Oh, if you can find it in your heart to
forgive me for relating Bowie experiences in here I would appreciate it.
Oh to put your inferiority complex at ease please be assured I do not
consider myself more important than everyone else. If you see me that
way thanks for holding me in such high regard.

> Yeah, yeah, sure.
> You sidestepped my whole argument.

Lie.

>Yes, you may like the aforementioned
> artists, but you bought their albums because you liked the band they were
> previously in and don't lie about it.

I started listening to Roxy after I listened to years of Eno solo. I
hated Roxy Music. I gave up two free second row center seats for the
Avalon tour a friend wanted to give me I disliked them so much. I
reformed later. I only really started listening to Fripp and got the
Crimson back catalog after seeing the Frippertronics tour. That is the
truth. You would know better though?

> Or you're old and you can't deal with anything new so you hide behind
> words like 'ambient' so you can condescend to young people and say 'See, I
> only listen to artistes'....

Really. And you're an adult with the mentality of a ten to twelve year
old which is the definition of a moron in the dictionary. So, tell me
what I listen to. Don't forget the Dead Kennedys, Bauhaus, Tragically
Hip, Neil Finn and the rest. The Pistols, Siouxie, Subhumans, Skinny
Puppy, No Means No, DOA. Are these the artistes you mean? I didn't know
I was that cultured. Thank you for yet another compliment.

I'll send this now so you can dream up some more thoughts you can't
prove as a response. I may answer the rest later if I need a laugh.

Enas Nidala

Gerard de Noord

unread,

Apr 5, 2001, 3:44:00 PM4/5/01

to

Enas,

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to conclude that Bowie wanted Defries to make
some money.?

Gerard
<waggles tail uncomfortably>

"Enas Nidala" <j.s...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3ACBECF7...@home.com...

Buffer Underrun

unread,

Apr 5, 2001, 5:16:38 PM4/5/01

to

On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:44:00 +0200, "Gerard de Noord"
<gerard....@REMOVETHISwanadoo.fr> wrote:

>Wouldn't it be more reasonable to conclude that Bowie wanted Defries to make
>some money.?

Maybe? I've written to the almighty one (awaiting response) to ask if
he'd be interested in contributing to a know-it-alls tell-all FAQ for
newbie questions for this very group. Such a project, with sources
cited, may be very useful.

Buffer

Buffer Underrun

unread,

Apr 5, 2001, 5:23:37 PM4/5/01

to

On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 22:16:38 +0100, I <davn...@clara.net> wrote:

>
>Maybe? I've written to the almighty one (awaiting response) to ask if
>he'd be interested in contributing to a know-it-alls tell-all FAQ for
>newbie questions for this very group. Such a project, with sources
>cited, may be very useful.

Oh bugger the newbies, they can have TW and such. I meant a real
know-all peeps FAQ.

Buffer

Buffer Underrun

unread,

Apr 5, 2001, 5:38:26 PM4/5/01

to

And one that doesn't involve stamping over peoples opinions (they may
be misguided - they can be educated, right) and pride.

I'm tired of reading repeated put downs and snide rebuffals.

Where is Dara these days?

Where is Andy Stewart?

Where is Bonnie?

Where is that weird bitch who used to write in here? Christ, I've
forgotten her name....

Come to think of it, where is Jimmy?

They went away because of some of the nonsense. Maybe?

Buffer

Buffer Underrun

unread,

Apr 5, 2001, 6:05:11 PM4/5/01

to

On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 22:38:26 +0100, in alt.fan.david-bowie you wrote:

Hello Me

>>>Maybe? I've written to the almighty one (awaiting response) to ask if
>>>he'd be interested in contributing to a know-it-alls tell-all FAQ for
>>>newbie questions for this very group. Such a project, with sources
>>>cited, may be very useful.

Who is the 'almighty one', pray tell?

>>Oh bugger the newbies, they can have TW and such. I meant a real
>>know-all peeps FAQ.

That's very unkind. What about them - you'll be telling them they must
eat rice

>And one that doesn't involve stamping over peoples opinions (they may
>be misguided - they can be educated, right) and pride.

Ah, but the put downs can be jolly entertaining.

>I'm tired of reading repeated put downs and snide rebuffals.

Nancy bastard. These are what make this NG fun.

>Where is Dara these days?

Prob'ly writing statistics for a web site?

>Where is Andy Stewart?

Who knows?

>Where is Bonnie?

She does a good newsletter.

>Where is that weird bitch who used to write in here? Christ, I've
>forgotten her name....

Orandon? Gee, on another planet?

>Come to think of it, where is Jimmy?

Last I heard, some woman was keeping watch on his activities.

>They went away because of some of the nonsense. Maybe?

Bollox. They might read it in their spare time.

Who are you again? Oh, right., ahem.. sorry, I forgot your name.

Buffer

Enas Nidala

unread,

Apr 6, 2001, 6:59:39 AM4/6/01

to

Hi Richard,

When are you going to answer the questions I have?
I need them answered because I have attempted to
use them to support my "opinion." I think that they
suffice to make my opinion feasible and quite
probably correct. I mean until you demonstrate that
Bowie shunned the commercial domain after he and
Defries separated. We can't carryon our debate
unfortunately until these points are addressed.

Here are the main questions again in case you lost
the email I sent to you.

Have A Great Day!

Enas Nidala

You say Bowie did not want to give Defries money.
Explain this then
What was the first released album after the contract was signed/
What was the second album released?
Not Low was it?

No, it was Changesone. That is what came out before Low. It was a

Enas Nidala

unread,

Apr 9, 2001, 4:37:54 AM4/9/01

to

Hello again Richard,

I thought you may wish to know that I take your opinion very seriously
and that is why I have taken my time to investigate your information. In
addition to what I have discovered I believe that I am in a better
position to address some of the things you have said about why Bowie
elected to do the trilogy and the demeaning comments which you made
about me.

"Richard H." wrote:

> No, I was trying to wind you up

Well, you did it? Are you having fun? I'm nice to talk to when you're
civil. Too bad you're nasty.

>
> However, I do believe that he deliberately waited until 1983 to start his
> ultra-commercial period....when he knew he'd be free of DeFries

> financially. My (rhetorical) idea was: why should David worry about whether his albums

> in the 1975-1982 period were commercially viable if the money was just
> going to line DeFries' pocket anyway.

As I showed you earlier this statement is not correct at all. After the
contract was signed and following Station To Station, Changesone was
released. This was his first platinum album and sold in excess of one
million three hundred thousand copies in the US alone. Since this record
contained old material Tony Defries got more money. Ad to the fact also
that greatest hit compilations are about as commercial a product as you
can get and designed to sell. These types of recordings appeal to a
large segment of the buying marked as you can have the hits without the
expenditure of purchasing the entire catalogue. They are particularly good
for someone who is not a big fan of a particularly band but like some of
the songs.

Bowie released his back catalogue in 1983 along with RCA which in turn
made Defries close to a million dollars.

There is more. However, these two points alone disprove your statement. I
see you have not challenged these points I have presented. I have a
theory of my own. I think that you need to get a discography book that
contains all of the names and release dates of David Bowie's Lp's,
45's, cdr's and collectible recordings. In addition you should obtain
some information concerning any business dealings between Bowie, RCA,
Tony Defries and his companies. My theory is that you did not know when
Changesone came out or the sales records it achieved. My theory alleges
that in addition to that you are totally unaware of the business
relationship Bowie and Defries had after 1975. This leads to the
conclusion that you are ignorant. If that isn't enough you have been
defending this ignorance by name calling and reciting more ignorance. Do you
always post before you have the facts. I hope not. Ignorance of a topic
may cause you to defend a point which is wrong. Stress is the result of
being in a situation when you know you're wrong but can't admit it.
This can cause you to lose your cool because you risk embarrassment.
Embarrassment is the result of opening your mouth without knowing what
you're talking about. Now, since we discovered that you have little
knowledge of this topic you attempt to disguise this fact by mounting a
personal attack of name calling and making groundless insinuations. This
is all very stressful. A word of advice to you Richard if I may.
You should watch your stress. Stress can be quite harmful and you
risk killing your last brain cell

> In my other posts I laid out the 1975 court decision in detail, focusing
> directly on the 16% of all earnings DeFries was awarded from 1975 to 1982.

You laid all this out in "detail" did you? Really? Then tell me this.
Where is the $350,000.00 (three hundred and fifty thousand dollars) cash
payment that Bowie got? Well? How about the publishing arrangements that
Bowie made millions on? Where are the details concerning Bowie getting
the royalties and rights from Gem? How about the personal contract he
was released from? Where are all these details? Since they go against
your argument they were obviously too important to include.

> 1. Don't underestimate the newsgroup readers! They can separate fact from
> opinion!

Can they? How about fact from fiction? Right from wrong? Accurate or
inaccurate? True or False? Knowledge from ignorance? Intellect from
foolishness? Sane from mental? An Ignoramus from you? How? If someone
wouldn't have noticed your inaccuracies this nonsense of yours would have
gone by unchallenged. The damage is that their is probably some new fan
or other that may have believed it.

> They are not mindless sheep waiting to be informed by you--

That's right. They are Bowie listeners just like me who come to these
forums for a reason. That reason is for information, whether giving it
or seeking it. It is an opportunity to discuss, comment, praise,
criticize, share viewpoints and trade anything Bowie related. One would
hope that the information they get is correct. I am aware of several
instances where people have utilized this forum to aquire information
for different projects. In my opinion those who post information should
bear the responsibility of checking that the content is compared to
other sources. This way your post does some good rather than posting
unverifiable diatribe that is useless.

>I've noticed that it's perfectly OK for everyone to fawn all over your
posts (which are
> opinion pieces) about the Station to Station and Heroes tours.

Congratulations Richard you just won. I take great pleasure in
presenting you with The Cheap Shot That Leaves You Looking Like A
Spiteful Jealous Loser Award. So let me get this straight. I am being
ridiculed for writing stories about some of the Bowie concerts I
attended or other related things. I posted them in a Bowie news group so
that others who may have missed these tours, and wish to know more about
them, may hopefully get some idea of what it was like if I share my
experiences. Is that why you demean these posts? How do you think you
look right now? If I were you I'd go and put some Bowie on now. I
suggest I Pity The Fool to start.

> I know you fancy yourself as overlord of all Bowie fans,

Really. Is that because of my posts or because I know more than you.
Believe me knowing more than you doesn't make one too smart.

>but I don't give a fuck how many shows you've been to or how many
limited edition
> white-label picture discs imported from Belgium you have or even that
> Carlos Alomar let you drink from his orange juice.....you're no more
> important than anybody else here to me.

Hmmm. Well, you are the only one who seems to think that materialistic
things or a chance meeting would elevate some one. Is that how you
think? More idols than realities Uh. Uh. I'm okay you're fucked up. Uh.
Uh. Your brain is in backwards and that's not right. Oh, do you have
room for a little thought? Did you ever think that some other people in
the group may have asked me to write on various subjects? Why don't you
post your opinion of them? I'd be real interested in reading it

> Or you're old and you can't deal with anything new so you hide behind
> words like 'ambient' so you can condescend to young people and say 'See, I
> only listen to artistes'....

Yeah, I'm real old. Old and wise. Hide? Me? What a fucking laugh that
is. Me? You don't know me very well then. You ask anyone in here if I've
ever hidden from anything. I don't hide and I'll face you on any issue
or any topic you want. Go ahead mouthpiece try me. What do you want,
Laotian history, Cambodian history, Religion, Politics, Is stupidity
curable, you name it. Let's go. Speaking of hiding where are you? You
haven't answered my questions. Who's hiding did you say? I don't think
you are correct in me dealing with things. I'm dealing with you pretty
well so far, aren't I? I don't use word's like "ambient." Those words
are for smart people like Bill Gates and Albert Einstein.

>Ninety percent or more
> > of these morons do not qualify as musicians. A musician imagines,
> > composes, experiments, invents

> Really? And you're going to prove I'm wrong by your factual description of

> today's musicians as 'morons', right? I gave my opinion, now you're giving
> yours--facts seem to have gone out the window, eh?

Yep. Read the sentence slowly. I said that 90% do not qualify as
musicians implying that they do not possess near the intellect or talent
of some I mentioned. As players they are "technically" superior and I
stand by that. If you think I'm wrong the do this. Out of toady's
musicians please find me a better keyboard player than Keith Emerson, a
better guitar player than Fripp , Belew or Holdsworth, a better bass
player than Levin, a better drummer than Bruford, Palmer or Chester
Thompson, a better violinist than Jobson, a better sax player than McKay
or Bobby Keys, a better rhythm player than Richards or play's a lead like
Gilmour? Who writes better than Sinfield or Waters? Who compares to
Bowie? Go on. Enlighten me.

> An Eno-produced record is different than an Eno record.
> Basically an Eno record doesn't sell, and an Eno-produced record might
> sell, depending on the artist.

Oh, I see you separate an artists talents to prove your point. My cat
isn't even stupid enough to by that try again

> And no, I don't think sales are the most important criteria with which to
> gauge a musician's success, but since we are talking about why record
> labels support solo artists, I think it is relevant.

> OK then, you explain how these people stay on a label, because they're
> sure as hell not selling any albums and never were! It's by past
> reputation only!!! How else can you possibly explain this?!!!

I'll use common sense. No business retains a product that does not make
them money. Do you understand. The recording industry is no different.
If an artist does not make money they are let go. Any artist. The
shareholders of the corporation will not tolerate "dead weight." With
only five major labels the need for profitability is paramount due to
stiff competition. I agree that these artists do not sell a great deal
of albums. But they do sell and they are consistent sellers as well.
That has been proven over twenty to thirty years. Even though their
albums don't sell millions they still cover themselves and make a profit
for the labels which they are signed to. Many of today's so called
"talents" are one hit wonders that die out quickly. The record companies
make great profits in a short time but then they have to find a new
"flavour of the week." Artists like Reed, Iggy and Eno are a guarantee
of a certain amount of revenue. That is why they are resigned to their
labels. Explained.

> They stand far above the sickening noise violations committed
> > by the so called "artists" of today.
>

> This is the 4th or 5th time you've made a comment like this, grandad.

Do you get it now then?

> What do you think people said about side 2 of Low at the time?

The people who knew Bowie and had the brains to understand it thought
that it was brilliant. Bowie refused to promote it as he said, "It
speaks for itself." The people who didn't understand it, most, hated it.
Many clued in butt took twenty years. What does that tell you about the
average consumer?

> The only thing your comments reveal is that your mind is shut tight.
> Someone ought to put a copy of STS in your hands, wrap you in bandages,
> and shovel some dirt on you, you fossilized old cadaver.

Really, how kind. Your comment is so wrong, and juvenile, that it has no
effect on me. It only serves to show how little you appreciate Bowie to
even consider throwing dirt on Station To Station. You don't understand
that one either I presume.

> > Gee. That must be me. Hey, Niko did you see this. Feel free to join in.
> > Richard you never have to worry about Alzheimers when you get old
> > because there is nothing there to forget.
>

> Yeah, I'll probably be like you, a cantankerous old codger who hates
> everything new and is bitterly jealous of anything that has any commercial
> success.

You will never be like me until you gain an understanding of what music
is and you are able to separate a musician from an entertainer.

> OK, but you're the one who calls himself Aladin Sane and makes
> oh-so-hilarious drug jokes ad nauseum.

By the way do you have any dope?

> Usually the solo artists sell a tiny fraction of the albums that their
> previous band did.

Like Phil Collins, Andy Gibb, Billy Idol, Peter Gabriel, Peter Frampton
shall I go on or is this enough to disprove you.

> Since 1973 and

> You fucking kill me.
> > I'm going to die laughing.
>

> OK jackass, now go get a copy of Billboard's record book and tell me how
> many times the names Wakeman, Eno, Fripp, or Sylvian appear on the charts
> as solo artists. Not very impressive, is it?

So what. This has nothing to do with the conversation.

> You know these artists don't sell a significant amount of records, why is
> it so hard for you to accept that these artists survive on their
> reputation alone?

How do you account for the fact they are all wealthy if the don't sell anything?

> 1. Yes is a band (despite its ups and downs) that has had plenty of
> critical and financial success throughout its history. Wakeman has
> critical success only.

Bullshit. Journey To The Centre Of the Earth ring a bell?

> 2.Bands (and solo artists) don't die anymore. It's the truth.
> Reforming and scraping the bottom of the barrel is the norm today.
> Jagger, Townshend, McCartney, Lydon, etc., etc.,

> > "Yuppie Conceit" Fuck You.

That's them. What about the ones who are sill putting out great stuff.
Iggy, Reed, Finn, Waters, Ferry, Bowie. Huh?

> > Is that who bought Low, Heroes and Loger? Yuppies?
>

> No, you idiot!!!
> They were rabid Bowie fans, and so were you!!! That's my point!!!!

Low is most often fated as Bowie's best album and periodically as one of
the best albums ever made. The reviews of it as of today are stunning
yet only rabid fans bought it, Sure.

> > "Pedigree?" Low? Is Low a pedigree?
>

> Hell yes, it's a pedigree!
> It's given him more artistic clout than any other record (except Ziggy,
> possibly) and cemented his reputation as an artistic innovator rather than
> a cheap trend-hopper like, say Madonna or something.

clout with who ? People with rabies?

> > > Well, of course! Everyone was still hoping for Ziggy Mark 2.

Who is? What people? You? You say you like the Trilogy and go on to say
Bowie fans want another Ziggy. Bowie fans want to see Bowie create and
invent, not pump out cheap hits for cash. Where does that leave you?

> My point is the vast majority of fans don't want experimental music. They
> want hits. They want Rebel Rebel, not Warszawa. The same goes for the
> record companies.

Not fans who understand Bowie.

> > Please email your respone again. My server

> > sometimes does not store articles in the group too long.

> > AladInSANE