Urban Hat€monger ?

I assume this discussion went from being about McCartney vs Bowie to The Beatles vs Bowie because everybody realised it was futile trying to imagine McCartney's solo stuff & Wings to be anywhere near as good as anything Bowie put out.

__________________

[MERIT]

Possibly, but it would be hard to crown McCartney the "King Of Pop" whist only considering his work with the Beatles, and none of his solo/side work. If you're going to disregard that and only focus on his days with The Beatles, Lennon would be just as big a candidate for the crown as McCartney.

Necromancer

Lionel Richie also, as a solo artist anyway in my opinion, especially as a songwriter. But I am in no way comparing or putting him on the same level as Lennon or Bowie as music icons.

Lord Dweedle

MTV Named Jacksons death more Tragic than Lennons so its safe to say Micheal stays the king

Howard the Duck

i'm having one now, actually ha ha ha

__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

Neapolitan

Just because people imitated The Beatles and (to you) hardly anyone if not no one imitated Bowie doesn't refute what I said about The Beatles having an image. You even go on and talk about their image.

You are equating flamboyancy with image, well anything can be an image, Heavy Metal gangsta rap, or whatever genre you can bring up - have some kind of image.

Elton John, P-Funk?

Yeah exactly, they were constantly changing their image.

__________________

starrynight

Much of McCartney's stuff with The Beatles is basically solo stuff anyway, so I don't see much difference. Apart from the first hits they had many of Lennon's and McCartney's songs were largely wrote separately from each other.

__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

starrynight

Although I like some of his music I'm not sure he's really really produced as many good songs across the decades as McCartney. Icons? Yes that is about image, and most rock musicians depend on image, attitude, flamboyancy to make themselves cool to the young audience.

And Neapolitan asks about other good stuff in the 70s? Well singer-songwriters were much less about having a big iconic image (Elton John being the exception). Then of course there are other things like disco, the start of new wave/punk, progressive music, classical/experimental music, jazz. Lots of good 70s music.

__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

Howard the Duck

dear God, sir! have you heard Tonight? Black Tie White Noise? Pin-Ups? Young Americans? Earthling?

Macca's worst are better than those

__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

Unknown Soldier

You`re making stuff up now, I`ve never once stated that no one ever imitated Bowie For the record as is common knowledge, Bowie is one of the most influential artists ever both visually and musically. He basically single-handedly started off the glam rock movement in the early seventies and the new romantic movement in the eighties.

Flamboyancy and image can be different, but in a medium such as music where visuals are an important aspect they become pretty synonymous, as an artist tries to put out an image that matches their sound, whether this is a straightforward image or a flamboyant one depends on a number of factors. The difference is with Bowie, is that his image has changed drastically several times, making him in many aspects very image driven.