|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
View Poll Results: All the Young (and Older) Dudes, Vote! | |||
5 | 3 | 30.00% | |
4 | 1 | 10.00% | |
3 | 3 | 30.00% | |
2 | 2 | 20.00% | |
1 | 1 | 10.00% | |
Voters: 10. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
05-21-2018, 11:58 AM | #2 (permalink) |
Account Disabled
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Aalborg
Posts: 7,634
|
I've "cheated" and listened to a couple albums ahead of schedule, so I already have my reaction to this one penned.
________________________ This album is Bowie showing how inept he is at singing soul numbers and the whole mess is completely unconvincing from top to bottom. Overblown arrangements that drag on for ages, weak lead vocals that are consistently outsung by the backing singers, phoney baloney emoting and more insincere pastiche than I could possibly ever tolerate on one album. He apparently calls this approach "plastic soul". It's only too fitting. Play to your strengths, Bowie. This album is almost downright awful. 1/5 _Previous ratings:__________________ (Rated on a scale relative to only Bowie's own discography, where 1 means the worst he's done and 5 means the best he's done.) David Bowie: 1/5 Space Oddity: 2/5 The Man Who Sold The World 4/5 Hunky Dory 3/5 The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust 3/5 Aladdin Sane 3/5 PinUps 2/5 Diamond Dogs 2/5 Young Americans 1/5 Station to Station Low Heroes Lodger Scary Monsters Let's Dance Tonight Never Let Me Down Black Tie White Noise 1. Outside Earthling Hours Heathen Reality The Next Day Blackstar |
05-21-2018, 12:52 PM | #3 (permalink) |
Aficionado of Fine Filth
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: You don't want to look in there.
Posts: 6,876
|
Bowie tries making a soul/funk album but can't pull it off. Except for a couple of songs (the title track and "Fame") this is a dull and forgettable effort. There's even a lame cover of a Beatles song thrown in that just sounds out of place among the other tracks here. Most of this album is just made up of already weak soul and funk that's been watered-down to the point of blandness. This LP is really just two hit songs surrounded by a lot of empty filler.
|
05-21-2018, 01:15 PM | #5 (permalink) |
Account Disabled
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: The Black Country
Posts: 8,827
|
Harsh reactions for me.
Fascination is amazing. Young Americans, Somebody Up There Likes Me, Right, very good tracks as well. Fame is one I'm not that big on tbh. He can do soul/funk. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCtKDdBE9kI ^ Why isn't this embedding? Torn between 3 & 4. I'll vote 3. |
05-21-2018, 01:19 PM | #6 (permalink) |
Account Disabled
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Aalborg
Posts: 7,634
|
It's mainly his awkward vocal approach to the material and the generally bloated and sterile feeling songs (that rarely fail to run two minutes past their welcome) that sinks the album for me. It's not the type of music, just Bowie's hamfisted take on it.
|
05-21-2018, 04:14 PM | #7 (permalink) | |
Born to be mild
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: 404 Not Found
Posts: 26,992
|
Quote:
__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018 |
|
05-21-2018, 04:20 PM | #8 (permalink) | |
Account Disabled
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Aalborg
Posts: 7,634
|
Quote:
And you're right, Cobain's image was based on sort of anti-fashion stance, but he ended up being somewhat fashionable and glam in spite of himself. In the 90s, you didn't hire Anton Corbijn to direct your video without having some concern for putting across an image. I thought Soundgarden sounded like a million other bands, and I just never got the infatuation with Pearl Jam. They actually sounded to me like a bunch of wannabe folkies, or maybe a bunch of folkies who had jumped on the grunge bandwagon. I can't even be bothered verifying whether that is historically accurate, except that I know a couple of them came from Green River. There's an anecdote about Def Leppard doing an unplugged performance at a radio station in the post-grunge era in which they played several unplugged numbers with three-part harmonies. When the DJ commented, “That was incredible,” Joe Elliot replied, “You must be a product of the nineties. There is nothing incredible about three guys singing in tune.” I remember grunge was identified as a movement and game-changer almost as soon as it hit, whereas hair metal wasn't even a term used for that music until many years later. Most of the bands in that genre probably saw themselves in the same harmless fun, hard rocking/pop tradition started by Van Halen. When I think of 1992, I remember "Let's Get Rocked"-era Def Leppard and Slaughter alongside Nirvana on MTV. It's not like September 1991 hit and Bret Michaels suddenly had to go get a job at IHOP. What really makes this time special I think is it's the last time young people were all bonded together by a common music culture. This was pre-internet, and everyone still watched the same videos on MTV, whether it was Dr. Dre, Def Leppard or Metallica. As '91 and '92 happened, the metal bands were losing members and generally falling apart, generally through their own excess (Motley Crue, Warrant, Cinderella, Poison). Bon Jovi put out "Keep the Faith" and while it didn't sell at the level of its predecessors, it was a hit and I wonder if other similar bands could've survived just by staying active through the era. I think grunge gets entirely too much credit for this. Most hair metal fans weren't interested in a "cool" image--in fact a lot of them were casual listeners, if I remember correctly. I knew plenty of people into Poison et al, but none of them were music freaks. There's no way hair metal could last much longer since it started around '82/'83... it's just the way it goes, musical trends change, Nirvana gets way too much credit. Nirvana kinda destroyed rock n roll swagger once and for all, and today we all suffer the consequences, living in a world without rock stars, leather, spandex and excess.In my opinion, nirvana ruined rock music . They pretty much created all of the crappy bands that most of us hate today. They influenced a bunch of kids who knew some power chords to form punk bands, which leaves us with blink-182, sum 41, new found glory, etc. they also made all of this "sad, depressed, suicidal" crap popular, which leaves us with papa roach, korn, boxcar racer, etc. Nirvana did somewhat ruin rock music because of what it would influence later on. i.e post-grunge, nu metal, rap rock, and I'll even go as far as saying that they influenced mainstream emo/screamo which along with "crunk music" would lead to the worst abomination of all, Brokencyde. Simply put, grunge influenced post-grunge which influenced nu metal and rap rock since most of those bands share the "Oh my whole life is horrible, **** everything" attitude. Bands from all three of those genres pretty much fed off of the cash of angsty teens and stupid douchebags who don't know **** about music. Not to mention all of the scene kids who worship Kurt Cobain just because he died. Grunge did more damage to rock music then any other style after it faded away liking rock music just became uncool especially with all the rap taking center Stage in the 90s. 98-99 when nu metal started to grow and become main stream like korn and limp bizkit, the only rock that was left after Cobaine died was what Hoottie and the blowfish and other acts similar to them. All other heavy metal acts that were still around sort off when underground for the majority of the 90's. Remember back then it was all about RAP MUSIC you had entire generation of kids talking and acting BLACK and that led to people making fun of rock music & heavy metal all i heard back then was "ohh you listen to that white boy ****". The grunge bands killed the bling effect of rock and the music industry sat on their hands too long on how to deal with internet sales/protection... they screwed themselves. Old time rock n roll might not have been as arty as grunge, but it sure was a heck of a lot more fun. I could not stand a second of Nirvana...probably the most overrated band in the history of music...IMO of course. GnR were huge then...at least far more established than Nirvana at the time when both bands were a going concern. GnR even asked Nirvana to open shows on the UYI tour, but Kurt Cobain outright refused and instead fostered a beef with Axl Rose. Since Kurt Cobain's death, Nirvana has attained a legendary sort of status that they definitely didn't have when KC was alive, and it has also eclipsed how big GnR were at their peak. Guns'n'roses were the bigger band. they had bigger concerts and the hype around Use Your Illusion albums was HUGE. At the time, GnR was treated as a superstar band. I was a teen in 1992 (the year both UYI1&2 and Nevermind had been out for a while) and in my class G'N R (as well as Def Leppard) was massive with a bunch of hits while Nirvana was a cool side-thing with one big hit that most people liked but not obsessed over. That's how I remember the moment of the releases. A couple of years later G N' Rwas no longer cool and Nirvana was the ultimate cool. GnR were playing stadiums while Nirvana played arenas and large theatres. They fronted every magazine , every time you put MTV on it was G n R. Guns' songs, musicianship, diversity and raw talent were superior to Nirvana, plus they appealed to a wider audience. They were rooted in Led Zeppelin and Aerosmith, so many older generation classic rocks fans also loved them, not just the kids. Back in 1992, GNR was the biggest band in the world, period. Nirvana was just the quintesential hipster band and after Kurt comitted suicide they obtained immortal status. After '94 GNR stopped being relevant, while Nirvana was still talked about a lot. But GNR sold more records and tickets and were more "mainstream" . Teen Spirit hit in the fall of 1991. It wasn't an overnight thing, but 1992 saw a quick rise in the grunge bands. I remember noticing how depressing music became around that time. Around 1994, I remember Korn, Wu Tang Clan, Dr Dre, Tool, and Nine Inch Nails on heavy rotation on MTV. That's when I quit listening to modern music for several years. However, I miss those Hair Metal days. I say this...It was a fun time to be a fan. Going to see a band was an event. And the girlss! Let just say they seemed to enjoy the "culture". If you didn't see it and all you know is the current hipster revisionist history, I can understand why it seemed silly. It was silly, even then. But we didn't care. The songs sounded great. Took my son to see Arcade Fire a year ago. A good band. The audience seemed to enjoy themselves. But they had know idea what it was like when Motley Crue or Bon Jovi hit the stage. I feel sorry for kids today. |
|
05-21-2018, 06:16 PM | #10 (permalink) |
Born to be mild
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: 404 Not Found
Posts: 26,992
|
I'm gonna agree with the basis consensus here: this just doesn't sound like Bowie, and after the Holy Quadrology of Hunky/Ziggy/Aladdin/Diamond, it's something of a let down. Bookended by two great songs, yes, but the rest is pretty low-grade fare and it really sounds like he was trying to force a change on himself that he really didn't want and wasn't capable of achieving. Kind of a poor effort, and it really didn't lead to much in the way of a change of musical direction, as he went totally a different way after this. Voting 3, only for "Fame" and title track. And yeah, screw yet another cover when he had just released an album of covers.
Edit: Okay, "Can You Hear Me" is a really nice song too. But the album's pretty short on tracks too. Good or bad thing? Dunno, but it's bad value if you were stuck with buying vinyl back then.
__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018 Last edited by Trollheart; 05-21-2018 at 06:25 PM. |
|