Ok eventually the bubble would have burst but do you think he could have got even more public and made an album to even outsell Let's Dance and his other Big 80's sellers. Let's say for argument's sake he never team up with Gabrals for TM and after NLMD he continued to make another huge seller.

Sure the consequence would have destroyed him completely by going done the route Phil Collins ended up and being outcasted for good. But I believe he probably would have done something as big or bigger.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Suspected of being a shoulder surfer
But he didn't know from shit
About challenge response systems"

Yes, without doubt. He is till capable of it.....writing something massive ......it would be great if it happened on his own artistic merits.....to some degree I think it may depend upon the writing techniques he uses.....he seems to shy away from the conventional it as it seems to take him further away from his principles and what he enjoys doing?

As long as he makes music and it continues to be interesting I think most of us couldnt care less whether it sold or not?

Bowie is not the big stadium performer. He became one because of Let's Dance but he's more left field than that. I think the success of Let's Dance confused him, plus his falling out with Visconti didn't help. I think he recognised that he could end up like Rod Stewart or Phil Collins and it frightened him. He didn't want to get bigger and so did Tin Machine. Whatever you think of Tin Machine, it was ultimately the right move.

On a related note, I think two essential things nudged him mid-stream and forever altered his career trajectory. One, the death of Lennon which made him reappraise his bid for a dark unsettling mystique and two, his second marriage and the inevitable tilt that entailed towards a beautiful people aesthetic.

I'm not criticizing his choice of spouse. That's entirely none of my business. But from a purely speculative, artistic vantage had he, say, married a fellow artist as Lou Reed and Elvis Costello did, for example, we might have seen more cutting-edge art out of him post-Scary Monsters. Yes, I adhere to the old saw of Scary Monsters being the essential terminus of groundbreaking art until probably Outside.

What's his marriage got to do with it. He didn't marry Iman until 1992. She's got nothing to do with his 80's output. We all forget the age element in this. Sometimes performers lose it a bit as they get older. They lose the ability to take risks and the daring and lets not forget the role cocaine played in Bowie's creativity. It may have fucked him up but it did seem to aid his creativity. As he got older, he gradually stopped taking drugs and perhaps became less risky creatively.

He could have gone for the blatant commercial route and got a producer such as the Was brothers or Quincy Jones. Both Huge names at the time. Or make a Let's Dance 2. Luckily he came to his senses.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Suspected of being a shoulder surfer
But he didn't know from shit
About challenge response systems"

Let's Dance 2! Oh god no! I have tried and tried to like Let's Dance over the years but it really leaves me cold.

Not totally convinced with the Lennon angle because Letsdance came after Lennons death, and basically dwarfed his former work ?

I think he would rather be respected for great music, than music for chart purposes ,because he himself is an admirer of good music he'd want no less for himself ?

I've never really understood what makes a record like letsdance a massive success leaving the likes of Ziggy or Aladdinsane or Diamond Dogs in the shade sales wise ?

I always think its a bit unkind to make comparisons with Rod Stewart ,because Rod Stewart was a massive international star right from the off ,Maggie May was an American no1 hit as well as here, so Rod didn't really have a choice ,he was put straight in at the top , and has been true to that ever since !

I think an artist should do what they do well ,and keep doing it ,Bowie is a great purveyer of the stark and the strange and in that is probably the biggest star in the world !

I blame a lot of Bowie's frustrations on the people who copied his style too much ,and thats why he went for the blues style of Letsdance because he knew he wouldn't be followed there , and in doing so compromised his own art ?

"I blame a lot of Bowie's frustrations on the people who copied his style too much ,and thats why he went for the blues style of Letsdance because he knew he wouldn't be followed there , and in doing so compromised his own art ?"

that's so true, he was a victim of his own success really and sorted of painted himself into an artistic corner. Had Lets Dance failed the album would probably be seen in a different light from his fans.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Suspected of being a shoulder surfer
But he didn't know from shit
About challenge response systems"

It's perhaps a bit rude to cite anyone's spouse in any context. I'm not personalizing. However I've found that a life partner can exert a profounf effect on your life's trajectory. I should know. I've had, er, more than one of them...which is to say kinda more than one life.

I am not sure he'd have had it in him. The reality is that he lost his touch. In particular the ability to write great songs. Consider what he committed to vinyl between 71 and 80 in terms of quality and quantity. The peak is around hunky dory/ziggy. What follows is him repeating himself ( but doing it very well) on AS, treading water on PU, pastiching himself (very well) on DD and then... Then he looks for inspiration in other musical forms, and by colliding Philly soul and krautrock produces YA and STS. But the tunes are drying up - there are only 12 songs on both those albums, two are covers. And note: no b sides, no outtakes of note. Low has one side of instrumentals by numbers (thanks to eno) and a side of largely sketches of songs, heroes much the same. Lodger is patchy and SM even more so. Don't get me wrong: these are terrific albums by any standard, but anyone who was listening to Bowie then knew he was going off the boil.

Maybe his choice of spouse was a factor, maybe his damned pretension was another: if he'd worked at his craft rather than dabbled at acting, painting, directing and whatever other vanity projects he was allowed to play at, he might have regained his touch.


Jules

"..SM even more so" you mean for the fact he turned back on himself to dig up Tired of My Life and I am a Laser?

Critical acclaim seems to be easier for him to achieve than Commercial success. Where as a lot of artists it seems to be the other way around.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Suspected of being a shoulder surfer
But he didn't know from shit
About challenge response systems"

Exactly, SoS : it's a patchy album, too, melodically. The great bowie melodies and hooks are only glimpsed at., its a patchwork of bits of tunes cobbled together. It's an album of an artistic force falling apart. I think that's what makes it such a hard listen.

Jules

I think he just got older. As I've said before, it would be very, very difficult for Bowie to write a song that was meaningful to me, because I'm older too. Different story when I was growing up and off the leash at 16 though, his songs spoke to me but over time, I've gained a lot of experience of my own and don't really need a multi-millionaire rock God telling me about the pitfalls of life, how good or how bad life can be and so on. That's probably partly the reason that I can be critical of him at times, because I'm seeing him through my own older eyes, rather than those of a star struck teenager.

So unless he does something REALLY special, I think anything he records and releases now won't be much more than aural wallpaper to me. Very disappointing and a sad fact of life, but that's the way it is now for me and Bowie. I count myself lucky enough to have just come of age to appreciate how fucking head and shoulders he was above anyone either before and after.

Mist.

"Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, simply surrounded by assholes." - William Gibson.

Not sure if Bowie,s craft was ever forced ,because as you say the stuff flowed during the 70s !

Perhaps he should have had a sabatical after SM and just acted or whatever and once he'd got bored he could have resumed his music making ? apparently he nearly toured in either 81 or 82 ,I wish he had because he would have looked at his future slightly differently ?

For me SM is a vital album and he got loads of acclaim for it ,and lets not forget three big selling singles too ! so was it a case of Bowie making it big internationally anyway ,perhaps not all the blame should be put on Letsdance ?

It's a very rare artist and performer that can maintain an output to a high standard over several decades. Bowie isn't the only one to lose it is he? It's easy for us to speculate but it can't be easy having all that expectation on your shoulders everytime you go into the studio. I think Bowie became very self concious about this expectation.

You're right Andy, he should have had some time out after SM but I think his finances were fucked weren't they? Hence the big deal with EMI and Let's Dance and don't forget his falling out with Tony Visconti. I know I go on about it but I think it really affected him not just with his music but also personally. Visconti would have brought him back down to earth after Let's Dance.

Has anyone ever gone over a decade making vital acclaimed music ? perhaps Tom Waits but he has a set style [is that a fair statement ?] I personally like pretty much everything by James ,but most of my favorite artists have had patchy periods !

The Beatles were only together for seven years ,and I rather suspect they would have gone patchy too ?

With the notable exception of Dylan, no one has sustained it over decades and he certainly had his patchy periods! We should be thankful that the Dame gave us as much as he did. I do think though andy that your point about visconti is a good one. At the very least he needed a strong character to colloborate with. Seems to me it's no coincidence that his good work was produced with folks like Visconti, ronson, eno, iggy pop and even the obnoxious fripp close by.

Good points Jules. Bowie's widely credited farflungness could have been as much a bid to tap fresh reservoirs of creativity as a determined artistic orientation --eclecticism born of drying wells.

Sammy

If 'yassassin' isn't the sound of desperation, I don't what is!

Jules'

1970 was his Robert Johnson crossroads year. The tarot cards are everywhere. After a near-decade as a journeyman nonentity, as Trynka elaborates, he mystically transforms into a consummate artist. Howver the allotment was a decade only. We should all be so lucky.

Dylan certainly had his bad patches during the 1980's. Knocked Out Loaded and Down In The Groove are his Tonight and Never Let Me Down ; and Infidels and Under The Red Sky aren't much better. Even His Bobness succumbed to the 80's malaise. And like Dylan, Bowie lost his mojo during that period, too; but like Dylan he got it back as that decade drew to a close.

For me, Bowie's music in the 90's and beyond has been underrated and unfairly neglected. It's due for major reassessment IMO. Of course, he could never hope to reach the level of the 1970's. No one could sustain that. But Black Tie White Noise was a very solid return to form indeed while Earthling sounded modern and foward looking. Hours was deceptively unassuming and as for Outside and Buddha Of Suburbia , well they remain two of his most challenging and vital recordings since Scary Monsters. They are fantastic works. And let's not forget how diverse all those albums are to one another when they're placed back to back. Bowie, as always, never standing still musically or creatively.

For me, Bowie's bad patch lasted from 1984-1987. Maybe till 1990 if you include Tin Machine (which still remains a contentious issue; some hated it while others thought it a creative and cathartic exercise). I'd argue that the period from 1981 to 1983 doesn't really count because he was relatively inactive during that time until *Let's Dance* which is what it set out to be; an upbeat, mainstream pop album.

So, yes, 84-90 wasn't great for Bowie; but the neglect and ignorance by modern critics of his 90's output (and beyond) is the real disappointment here. That is due for re-valuation. And not before time.

You can plead for re-evaluation all you like, but it'll still be shit. Don't you think we WANT it to be good? But it isn't. Face it. If you find a tuneless derivitive racket 'vital', fine but if you think that the work of a performer as much loved as Bowie could be 'underrated' you are deluding yourself. That's the popular musical equivalent of Fergie saying everyone is against Man Utd.

Jules

Oh and when writing decades in short form, eg '70s', note that it doesnt take an apostrophe. It is a plural not a contraction.

at the end of the day it's all subjective.

Had he continued the way he was going after NLMD he may well have ended up majorly depressed but even richer. 1990 may have lead to an album with Bryan Adams (there were rumours of such)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Suspected of being a shoulder surfer
But he didn't know from shit
About challenge response systems"

Jules, calm down, calm down.

I'm expressing an opinion. That's all. A point of view. My point of view. That's all. It's just as valid (or not) as yours. As anyone's.

Thanks for the grammatical correction too. I'm so devastated I inadvertently got that wrong. How crushing, how positively devastating.

Oh, and it's 'derivative' by the way not 'derivitive'.
Not that I'm splitting hairs at all.......

Michael - 'I think he just got older. As I've said before, it would be very, very difficult for Bowie to write a song that was meaningful to me, because I'm older too. Different story when I was growing up and off the leash at 16 though, his songs spoke to me but over time, I've gained a lot of experience of my own and don't really need a multi-millionaire rock God telling me about the pitfalls of life, how good or how bad life can be and so on. That's probably partly the reason that I can be critical of him at times, because I'm seeing him through my own older eyes, rather than those of a star struck teenager.

So unless he does something REALLY special, I think anything he records and releases now won't be much more than aural wallpaper to me. Very disappointing and a sad fact of life, but that's the way it is now for me and Bowie. I count myself lucky enough to have just come of age to appreciate how fucking head and shoulders he was above anyone either before and after.'



Commendations on that post.

At the end of the day you can argue the toss on what means what to who but it's all subjective and personal to each person.

The fact is the guy has done what he has done and the legacy of that is out there. There is no more.

Not sure it was inadvertent; you made the error repeatedly in your earlier post. But it was good to see you edited this one a couple of times to cover your arse! That's good, I approve of that.

As for your opinion of the Dame's later work, I didn't take issue with that. What I took you to task for was your contention that his later work is somehow underrated, a claim that when you consider the affection he's held in, is a hard one to support with evidence.


Jules

Oh and three dots to indicate an unfinished thought ...

Jules, I did edit my last post a couple of times, yes, but that's because I type too quick sometimes and don't thoroughly check it before submitting it. That's my excuse anyhow. What's yours? )

Joking aside, like I said in another post it's all subjective, this matter of Bowie's more recent output. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Some don't rate it, some do.
Me? I just happen to think it's been undervalued (from the 1990s onwards). That's not to say I think Bowie as an artist has - not at all. Just that parts of his recording work has.

Dash

This 'it's all subjective' line is getting boring. Yes we all know that. Now can we move on? What of his work has been under valued, and what's the evidence of this under valueing?

Jules

The one tour I always forget was the 1990 Sound and Vision tour ,for me it was pretty poor ,I dont know why he felt he had to explain that he wasn't going to play the hits again ,I mean just don't do it your bound to change your mind and end up looking silly !

I still prefer it when a tour supported a new album ,ok you still have to play older tunes to fill in the time ,but the new should be the focus !

There's subjectivity and then there's a too-rich guy beset by millionaire concerns who adopts that ponderous God-voice to ram it all through. You can hear the wizard frantically spinning the dials in the booth. It's about midway in the mix. Mystery is like virginity. You get it only once.

I reject the subjectivity boondoggle out-of-hand. The sound of fumes is unmistakable and can be empirically verified.

"The one tour I always forget was the 1990 Sound and Vision tour ,for me it was pretty poor"
it was a pretty senseless tour I know. Only to promote his back catalogue for Ryko/EMI and that's it. Nothing new. Unless Pretty Pink Rose counts.

" Mystery is like virginity. You get it only once. "

I like that

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Suspected of being a shoulder surfer
But he didn't know from shit
About challenge response systems"

There's subjectivity and then there's a too-rich guy beset by millionaire concerns...

If we were talking about Woody Guthrie singing Union songs, you might have the beginnings of a point but this is David Bowie after all. Maybe you're having a good laugh and if that's the case, all's well.

To offer my own perspective on some of this (if that counts for anything), I came to discover Bowie at a changing point of time. I was 18 years old and the year was 1991. The first new Bowie release I experienced was Tin Machine II and to be perfectly honest, it had me gobsmacked why people did not recognise its excellence. The same applied to Black Tie White Noise. More so for Buddha. More so again for Outside and Earthling. What I could never fathom were older fans - who shared an equal passion for his 70s work - but then had an absolute cut off point of 1980, or sometimes 1983. Perhaps it is underlined by the point made by Mist - that the age of the listener is a big factor. Another dividing factor was that new generations of fans never had to experience first hand what critics had deemed "the long dark night of David Bowie". The problem of those years could now be fixed by a firm hand on the "skip" button.

So regarding the argument between Jules and Dash Away, we should keep in mind how critically maligned Bowie was at the end of the 80s. That is something he had to fight against and probably only really achieved with his last two albums. In the meantime, there was probably something of a 'lag effect' as the last of the 'slagging off' generation of critics dwindled and died or revised their positions. Judging from what I've witnessed on Bowie message boards for the last dozen years, I would say that if anything albums like Buddha, Outside and Earthling are considered a good deal better again than Heathen and Reality but that is mainly among Bowie obsessives. Although people assume that health is the main reason why Bowie has not gone on, it might also be because he's finally found piece of mind with his position. With the last two albums, he finally swayed critical opinion and engaged a wider portion of his audience - at last some comfort and distance from the 80s monster he originally created.

Adam

This 'critically maligned' guff has to be put to bed. Firstly, ALL of his albums have received generally positive reviews, some such as Tonight, NLMD,BTWN far better than their dubious artistic content would merit. Most of them charted well too - Tonight got to number one unbelievably. So, far from being maligned, in fact reviewers and punters were clearly DESPERATE for his records to be good. The trouble lay in the product, it was ill considered and poorly executed. He has said as much himself. The various sideshows - film after film of truly terrible acting, stage shows where looked a fool and a public persona of a pompous arse - all contributed. That's when the ridicule began, but hey the daft hair and a clockwork spider?

As he said if only there had been someone around to tell him ( or him to listen). Enter Eno and in outside he at least attempts to make something serious again, and though not for me ('art crime'? I think not) I see its merit.

No, don't blame the critics for pointing out that the emperor's arse was bare, and, anyway, they only did so in retrospect.

Jules

What Adam said.

One of the main reasons I think his work post 1990 has been undervalued is when any discussion of his work is written or talked about you hear that old mantra that Scary Monsters is his last great true album.
For some fans/critics it may be, but for me that patently isn't true. Some of the 90s stuff is as good, if not better.

It would be interesting to hear from David Buckley and Nicholas Pegg on this. Both have researched Bowie and his work extensively. From a critical point of view to they think his post 1990 work is ripe for rediscovery? Has been undervalued due to the sheer greatness of his 70s output?

Are you a bit soft in the head dash? You cannot 'rediscover' something that hasn't been lost in the first place. You forget that the guff you say you enjoy sold in large numbers, and he played around the globe delighting saps like you. That it didn't become ANY MORE popular is pretty obvious to the rest of mankind...

jules

Sheer demographics may trump even the strongest personality cults.

There are seismic, cultural events where music plays a commanding role. There is plain bad or purely pedestrian music. Then there are adept, well-crafted songs i.e. 'just music'. That may describe 1) Bowie 70s 2) Bowie 80s and 3) Bowie 90s and beyond, respectively.

It's hard to front a cultural event in a youth-obsessed society. Over 30s must resign themselves, at best, to crafting good music to shrinking audiences. Some deny the creeping advance of age and seek to parody themselves. Fans can parody themselves too by endlessly tapping a reservoir of nostalgia. That way, everyone gets pathetic together.

OK, Jules.

Whatever.