The Official David Bowie Thread (indie, albums, Berlin, title)

[Piss Me Off]

From what i know it's not massively hated, no.

[boo boo]

Richard Jalen is the same guy who thinks The Beatles only appeared to be good musicians because of George Martin.

I wouldn't take him too seriously. And I also find that what he usually thinks is a popular opinion really isn't.

[Rainard Jalen]

Originally Posted by boo boo

Richard Jalen is the same guy who thinks The Beatles only appeared to be good musicians because of George Martin.

I don't think they even appeared to be "good musicians". The musicianship itself, as you pointed out elsewhere, was largely simple and unpretentious (e.g. George's solos). What I attribute to George Martin is much of the clever instrumental arrangements, interplay, counterpoint, polyphony and whatnot that appeared in the band's better output such as on Revolver. It is a fact that none of them were extremely talented instrumentalists (though Paul was indeed very good). Note when I say "talented", I'm comparing that to the standards of the rock music that came out of the era when technical proficiency was starting to become the thing, i.e. the later 60s (the Yardbirds had Beck, Clapton and Page as an example) and the 1970s. I never meant that comment to slate the Beatles. It's just a fact that they had their origins in the earlier tradition of late 50s/early 60s rock'n'roll where high technical proficiency on instruments was not important. Instrumental virtuosity was traditionally important in Jazz, not in early Rock music. The fact that the Beatles were not virtuosi on their respective instruments merely reflects that they didn't have their origins in the era where being able to do almost inhuman things with guitars became the fashion of popular music. That is all, really. If somebody feels the need to lie to themselves and insist that the Beatles were in fact virtuosi, then fine, so be it. If one is so insecure in liking the Beatles that they feel they need to justify it to themselves by believing things about them that are simply untrue, then great. Though they should keep it to themselves. Personally I can love the Beatles for the genius of their songwriting and melodies, and leave the virtuosity for the hard, prog and jazz rock that was to come later on.

I wouldn't take him too seriously. And I also find that what he usually thinks is a popular opinion really isn't.

Any examples aside from what you are alleging about Young Americans?

Young Americans did as a matter of fact receive significantly less positive responses from music journalists than did Hunky Dory, Alladin Sane and Ziggy Stardust.

As for Bowie fans, well, I've spoken to at least a few who were not keen on Young Americans among his 70s work (and Diamond Dogs). The jury's out on what the bigger Bowie fans here think.

[Urban Hat€monger ?]

Originally Posted by boo boo

Young Americans is fantastic.

If any of Bowies 70s work is worthy of trash talk, then surely it's Diamond Dogs, the only good song on that was Rebel Rebel, really.

Apart from the title track , Sweet Thing , Candidate , 1984 , We Are The Dead

[boo boo]

To Jalen-

Yeah you're saying they were average musicians, aside from Lennon I have to disagree. They were a really good ensemble, I never said they were virutosos, hell no. But you seem to think they need to be virutosos in order to be considered good musicians, and that ain't true.

Harrison is simple, so what? So is Clapton. So is Gilmour.

And people really don't consider how good of a bassist McCartney actually was, their songs had really melodic basslines that you wouldn't find anywhere else in rock music at the time. Paul didn't play so much like he was just part of the rhtyhm section, and that of course influenced tons of rock bassists, everyone from Entwhistle to Squire.

Ringo was simple, but he wasn't lacking, you have a lot of "simple" drummers that use the same beats over and over, like Watts and Rudd. But Ringo was able enough to play whatever it was he needed to and just about every song has something unique about the drums.

Instrumentally, Lennon was the only weak link in the band. Though he had some great riffs to his name and his rhythm playing was tight enough. But his limitations were especially noticable in his solo career where his playing figured in more prominately and also Beatles songs where he played lead.

Just listen to The End, and how weak Lennons solo licks are compared to Harrison and McCartneys. Harrison and McCartney were both really good guitarists, they were simple but that dosen't make them a sloppy mess.

I do agree that they worked better as an ensemble way better than they did on their own. Chemestry is key, obviously.

To Urban-

Well nothing else other than Rebel Rebel really stood out to me, but it's been ages since I listened to that album so maybe I should give it another spin, I just remembering it being really boring.

[Piss Me Off]

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

Young Americans did as a matter of fact receive significantly less positive responses from music journalists than did Hunky Dory, Alladin Sane and Ziggy Stardust.

As for Bowie fans, well, I've spoken to at least a few who were not keen on Young Americans among his 70s work (and Diamond Dogs). The jury's out on what the bigger Bowie fans here think.

Well i'd say it's one of the weaker albums of his 70's output definitely, but it's weak out of a very strong bunch. I know the critics didn't like it as they thought it was just cheap soul but there's songs on there (title track, Somebody Up There Likes Me) that soar along and build up brilliantly, and i've already declared my liking for Fame.

[boo boo]

I really prefer glam era Bowie to Berlin era, which aside from Low I'm not too into.

[Piss Me Off]

I'd go glam too, probably as that's the Bowie that i first got into.

[boo boo]

So am I the only one who liked Space Oddity?

Not great but good, a hell of an improvement over his first album thats for sure.

[Piss Me Off]

It's one of the, still quite a few, Bowie albums i haven't heard