Re: CompilationsNo score for this post
|January 10 2017, 6:48 PM |
It's fair to say it is A bowie compilation and that it is generally disparaged on this forum- including by yourself just there. But my question is how does it differ from any other standard compilations made in the past- I don't think it does, so it merely becomes the K-Tel compilation of it's day. So no problem with it in my book. As Bowie has now entered history (a.k.a.the past), this particular compilation is as likely to hook a new fan as any other. The comparison with Beethoven, Elvis etc. is that they all now dead musical guys and their works will be forever rehashed and put out as compilations- so again, what is wrong with THIS compilation? (genuine question- I'm not trying to be antagonistic).
Maybe the phrasing in the rest of my post is...lacking clarity?!? The point was really a general one (and maybe viewed though the filter of this site) that "better" compilations (such as WCIBN) are frequently also dismissed as being lightweight or a missed opportunity by not including certain songs etc.- but in my case, something that is very familiar to some fans here (the '76 Nassau gig)- I was only able to access it as a really bad quality cassette back in the day.
So, for me, WCIBN was brilliant for including that gig all spruced up, as well as the Gouster obviously. So there will always be different levels of interest in his work by the public- a lot less want to hear the early workings of Fascination than want to hear Heroes, and the market will always reflect. IMHO.