Where's Bowie?

[Analogman]

I figure this is all I need:

 

Space Oddity

The Man Who Sold the World

Hunky Dory

The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars

Aladdin Sane

[LouieB]

I figure this is all I need:

Fuddy Duddy.....

 

LouieB

[Analogman]

Fuddy Duddy.....

 

LouieB

 

True.

 

I don't think you will find me dancing to, uh, Let's Dance anytime soon.

[Sid Hartha]

Seriously, can you think of an artist that owned the 70s harder than Bowie?

[LouieB]

Seriously, can you think of an artist that owned the 70s harder than Bowie?

Elton John...

 

LouieB

[Sir Stewart]

Fuddy Duddy.....

 

LouieB

 

Sometimes the term fits though. If you were saying that it's for the best that say, I don't know, Clapton, seemed to be 'fading away' and enjoying collecting royalties, I'd probably agree. But Bowie, while no doubt not at the height of power anymore, put out records in the 90s that signified he was still the chameleon artist doing stuff that, if nothing else, challenged him and didn't merely feed off his legacy.

[mountain bed]

I figure this is all I need:

I might include some Thin White Duke, but yeah.

[LouieB]

Sometimes the term fits though. If you were saying that it's for the best that say, I don't know, Clapton, seemed to be 'fading away' and enjoying collecting royalties, I'd probably agree. But Bowie, while no doubt not at the height of power anymore, put out records in the 90s that signified he was still the chameleon artist doing stuff that, if nothing else, challenged him and didn't merely feed off his legacy.

There are those that would argue that Bowie never did an original thing in his life; that he merely chased whatever trend was current at the time. (A rock critic in the Reader wrote an article to this effect decades ago calling him a suitcase artist.)

 

I understand your point on one level, yet maybe he feels like he has nothing left to prove, or maybe he isn't in very good health. There are artists who can produce original material in their later careers and others that it is simply painful to watch (take Dylan's most recent album...please...). Is Bowie capable of coming up with something worth his time? Maybe? Clapton seems content to be the guitar god he always was. Perhaps Bowie no longer feels he needs to be the cameleon any longer. Been there, done that, time to relax and collect the royalties. At least it would be fun to see him be in a movie from time to time.

 

LouieB

[Sir Stewart]

There are those that would argue that Bowie never did an original thing in his life; that he merely chased whatever trend was current at the time. (A rock critic in the Reader wrote an article to this effect decades ago calling him a suitcase artist.)

 

I understand your point on one level, yet maybe he feels like he has nothing left to prove, or maybe he isn't in very good health. There are artists who can produce original material in their later careers and others that it is simply painful to watch (take Dylan's most recent album...please...). Is Bowie capable of coming up with something worth his time? Maybe? Clapton seems content to be the guitar god he always was. Perhaps Bowie no longer feels he needs to be the cameleon any longer. Been there, done that, time to relax and collect the royalties. At least it would be fun to see him be in a movie from time to time.

 

LouieB

 

I agree with all of this, but the point is what you're saying here contradicts your earlier fuddy-duddy post, which suggested to me that you think older artists should just fade away and collect royalties.

Maybe I'm wrong, who cares.

[tinnitus photography]

Seriously, can you think of an artist that owned the 70s harder than Bowie?

 

Pink Floyd

Roxy Music/solo Eno

Amon Duul II

Neil Young

[moxiebean]

Maybe Bowie's gonna pull a Duchamp (one of his heroes) & give the appearance of retiring, while secretly toiling at a career-summing work (ala etant-donnes) that won't see the light of day until after he's gone.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Elton John...

 

LouieB

 

Word.

[LouieB]

I agree with all of this, but the point is what you're saying here contradicts your earlier fuddy-duddy post, which suggested to me that you think older artists should just fade away and collect royalties.

Maybe I'm wrong, who cares.

I don't think either......or I think both.

 

If Bowie can figure out a new angle to his career that is going to be interesting and vital, go for it. Clapton hasn't been really interesting in decades, but he still keeps putting stuff out. How are we supposed to feel about him? Or the Rolling Stones who are making a ton of dough this week on Exile, yet they can't think of a single new thing to do. But hey, that's okay they are the Rolling Stones, Clapton is Clapton, Bowie could do the same and make plenty of folks here happy just to have new product of some sort.

 

As for caring or not caring for older artists...see the jazz thread. Some people can do the same old thing and never look back because each day the same old thing is new.

 

Actually I personally like Let's Dance and I like Heros and I like Young Americans. My daughter who is 23 adores anything Bowie does, this year or any year, even that stupid Labryinth movie. Man Who Fell to Earth is a great movie. I would like to see Bowie act if he doesn't care to sing.

 

LouieB

[LouieB]

 

Amon Duul II

 

Really? How can a group that is hardly known by anyone rule anything.

 

I am sticking with Elton John....

 

LouieB

[jff]

Bowie, at the top of his game:

 

 

Is that a young G.E. Smith on guitar?

[Sir Stewart]

As for caring or not caring for older artists...see the jazz thread. Some people can do the same old thing and never look back because each day the same old thing is new.

 

That's a whole other bowl of soup. Age prejudice in the arts only seems to be tolerated when it is directed at rock musicians.

[tinnitus photography]

Really? How can a group that is hardly known by anyone rule anything.

 

I am sticking with Elton John....

 

LouieB

 

because they made Phallus Dei and Yeti.

 

 

they rule in my tiny realm.

 

 

Hawkwind could also garner honorable mention.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

I don't think either......or I think both.

 

If Bowie can figure out a new angle to his career that is going to be interesting and vital, go for it. Clapton hasn't been really interesting in decades, but he still keeps putting stuff out. How are we supposed to feel about him? Or the Rolling Stones who are making a ton of dough this week on Exile, yet they can't think of a single new thing to do. But hey, that's okay they are the Rolling Stones, Clapton is Clapton, Bowie could do the same and make plenty of folks here happy just to have new product of some sort.

 

As for caring or not caring for older artists...see the jazz thread. Some people can do the same old thing and never look back because each day the same old thing is new.

 

Actually I personally like Let's Dance and I like Heros and I like Young Americans. My daughter who is 23 adores anything Bowie does, this year or any year, even that stupid Labryinth movie. Man Who Fell to Earth is a great movie. I would like to see Bowie act if he doesn't care to sing.

 

LouieB

 

Discussions of this nature make me appreciate Bruce Springsteen that much more. Since he turned 50, he has released five Studio records, Two liv records, four live dvds, a live historic show, released a remasterd edition of a classic work and performed live more than many acts half his age (didn't feel like counting all his live shows since septemter 1999).

[uncool2pillow]

Low, Heroes, Lodger are indispensable.

[Sid Hartha]

Is that a young G.E. Smith on guitar?

Yes. He was fairly regular in Bowie's touring band during the latter part of the 70s.

[Sir Stewart]

Discussions of this nature make me appreciate Bruce Springsteen that much more. Since he turned 50, he has released five Studio records, Two liv records, four live dvds, a live historic show, released a remasterd edition of a classic work and performed live more than many acts half his age (didn't feel like counting all his live shows since septemter 1999).

 

From a hardcore Stones fan, this general sentiment/list of things could come, too.

[Synthesizer Patel]

I was hoping this was going to be a "where's wally/waldo?" type thread.

 

Led Zeppelin ruled the 70s. or Brian Eno if we're talking "cool".

 

Bowie was in Extras, acting (although it was crap - not his fault though, i guess) - that's the last time I've seen him

[suites]

Actually a nice picture of Bowie in the new Rolling Stone...he looks great.

 

So maybe he is OK and just waiting until a certain time.

[LouieB]

That's a whole other bowl of soup. Age prejudice in the arts only seems to be tolerated when it is directed at rock musicians.

Maybe that is because alot of rock artists get lame when they are older or just simply aren't that interesting any more. I know what you are talking about. Then again rock bazillionaires like Bowie and Elton John and (fill in the blank) really have little motivation to do anything new or creative after awhile. They generally don't get dropped by their record companies because their back catalogues are worth a gazillion dollars. Even older rock artists that are still slightly hunger put in the effort, but others honestly don't have to.

 

LouieB

[Lammycat]

There are plenty of older rockers that don't live off of royalties/megafame that simply choose not to write/perform any more, though. I think it's a little unfair to call folks out resting on their laurels in old(-er) age simply because they're rockers. Most people like to kick back/retirement-mode when they hit above mid-life, regardless of profession....