Head To Head
Log In
Register
Unsung Forum »
Bowie, genius or not...
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 14 – [ Previous | 15 6 7 8 9 10 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
sanshee
sanshee
1080 posts

Edited Jul 28, 2010, 16:17
Re: Bowie, genius or not...
Jul 28, 2010, 16:11
Maybe Bowie could be re-categorised in 'tooth phases'.

You'd have:

1 Full on delapitated (from around '68)

2 Whitened (from around '83)

3 Total 'reconstruct' (from around '99/2000)

x

EDIT:

I'd have to check, but that'd be about right I reckon.

:-)

x
zphage
zphage
3378 posts

Edited Jul 28, 2010, 16:15
Re: Bowie, genius or not...
Jul 28, 2010, 16:15
keith a wrote:
zphage wrote:
keith a wrote:
zphage wrote:



interesting, but derivative


That's a bit rich coming from someone who likes Budgie.


Actually 68/69 Budgie was ahead of its time.

Davy was in his Newley phase then, wasn't he?


What are you basing that on - demo's, live shows? The first album wasn't released until 1971.

I like the description in the NME Book Of Rock Vol 2 back in the 70's when they called Budgie "a somewhat pedestrian heavy riffing outfit".

If you like that kinda thing, good luck to you.




formed in '67,

pedestrian riffing is bass driven as opposed to Zep, Purple, and Sabbath

and different than Free's bass driven sound
Moon Cat
9577 posts

Re: Bowie, genius or not...
Jul 28, 2010, 16:16
Moments of splendour, moments of cack. Inventive, maybe a bit too self-consciously zeitgeisty during phases of his career, but I'd argue the body of work has enough merit to put him in the region of the 'greats', and the star quality on display is apparent. Amazing looking pop star too!

Genius is something of a de-valued word in terms of pop and rock. I've been guilty of over using it myself on several occasions. It's become kind of the go-to word to emphasise one's personal enthusiasm for a band or artist rather than a definably objective description that can be universally agreed upon. But, so what? It's pop innit?
zphage
zphage
3378 posts

Re: Bowie, genius or not...
Jul 28, 2010, 16:20
Moon Cat wrote:
Moments of splendour, moments of cack. Inventive, maybe a bit too self-consciously zeitgeisty during phases of his career, but I'd argue the body of work has enough merit to put him in the region of the 'greats', and the star quality on display is apparent. Amazing looking pop star too!

Genius is something of a de-valued word in terms of pop and rock. I've been guilty of over using it myself on several occasions. It's become kind of the go-to word to emphasise one's personal enthusiasm for a band or artist rather than a definably objective description that can be universally agreed upon. But, so what? It's pop innit?


I agree.

Genius is a devalued term nowadays.

Bowie has some good and bad.

His production does get a little thin, and he can sound whiney.

I love the live albums that everybody hates, he sounds a little more full bodied.

Station to Station is a great album, too short.
keith a
9435 posts

Re: Bowie, genius or not...
Jul 28, 2010, 16:22
zphage wrote:
keith a wrote:
zphage wrote:
keith a wrote:
zphage wrote:



interesting, but derivative


That's a bit rich coming from someone who likes Budgie.


Actually 68/69 Budgie was ahead of its time.

Davy was in his Newley phase then, wasn't he?


What are you basing that on - demo's, live shows? The first album wasn't released until 1971.

I like the description in the NME Book Of Rock Vol 2 back in the 70's when they called Budgie "a somewhat pedestrian heavy riffing outfit".

If you like that kinda thing, good luck to you.




formed in '67,

pedestrian riffing is bass driven as opposed to Zep, Purple, and Sabbath

and different than Free's bass driven sound


I know they formed in 1967. I just looked it up when you said they were ahead of their time in 1968-69 and I thought they must have released albums much earlier than I'd thought.

I checked. They didn't.

So, as a matter of interest, on what then are you basing your view that they were ahead of their time in 68-69?
Squid Tempest
Squid Tempest
8787 posts

Re: Bowie, genius or not...
Jul 28, 2010, 16:24
stray wrote:
Squid Tempest wrote:


Am I right in thinking that Ableton is good for controlling synths and patch management etc? That would certainly be handy for me in a live setting.


Yeah and No, I have often remapped controllers live while I'm playing cos it's so easy (click any on screen control, twiddle/press a midi controller, done) but most software is like that these days. Sending midi is also pretty simple, once you've set the prefs. Patch management, well in terms of virtual synths that works pretty well, patches can basically become seperate instruments. As for the management of patches of external instruments, well that's pretty crap tbh (bordering on non existent really) but it's not summing I do really.


Dunno why I'm even thinking about that TBH, I wouldn't want to use a computer live anyway now I come to think about it!
machineryelf
3679 posts

Re: Bowie, genius or not...
Jul 28, 2010, 16:26
zphage wrote:
keith a wrote:
zphage wrote:
keith a wrote:
zphage wrote:



interesting, but derivative


That's a bit rich coming from someone who likes Budgie.


Actually 68/69 Budgie was ahead of its time.

Davy was in his Newley phase then, wasn't he?


What are you basing that on - demo's, live shows? The first album wasn't released until 1971.

I like the description in the NME Book Of Rock Vol 2 back in the 70's when they called Budgie "a somewhat pedestrian heavy riffing outfit".

If you like that kinda thing, good luck to you.




formed in '67,

pedestrian riffing is bass driven as opposed to Zep, Purple, and Sabbath

and different than Free's bass driven sound


FFS Budgie were a trio, pretty difficult to be driven by anything else, I love Budgie but at no point in their career were they ever cutting edge, they are a superior hard rock band hamstrung by a vocalist who can be best described as unusual
keith a
9435 posts

Re: Bowie, genius or not...
Jul 28, 2010, 16:27
zphage wrote:


Lord, you are really the only one that has tried to articulate,

the rest is mostly sycophantic fan boy stuff,

that he mostly comes off as a 70's Beck (also called a genius by his fans)


Perhaps some of us thought your initial message was too crass and provocative to bother giving it serious thought and discussion?

I think most Bowie fans are quite open about the fact that he's also released some rather underwhelming records. Hardly syophantic...
machineryelf
3679 posts

Re: Bowie, genius or not...
Jul 28, 2010, 16:34
They weren't , they were ploughing the same rut Sabbath, Heep and a bunch of others were, admittedly at the time it was a fresh rut but nothing unless playing blues through fuck off stacks was that startingly original. Try the Yardbirds,Kinks, Blue Cheer or [darkcloudsloom] CLAPTON [oh no , it's the C word]

Or compare Budgie to Pink Floyd in 67, or whatever, how the fuck do you get from Bowie to Budgie, where is that 6 degree site

btw greatest metal LP ever The Man Who Sold The World, lets get that ball rolling:-)
zphage
zphage
3378 posts

Edited Jul 28, 2010, 16:40
Re: Bowie, genius or not...
Jul 28, 2010, 16:39
keith a wrote:
zphage wrote:


Lord, you are really the only one that has tried to articulate,

the rest is mostly sycophantic fan boy stuff,

that he mostly comes off as a 70's Beck (also called a genius by his fans)


Perhaps some of us thought your initial message was too crass and provocative to bother giving it serious thought and discussion?

I think most Bowie fans are quite open about the fact that he's also released some rather underwhelming records. Hardly syophantic...



the nature of your fandom shouldn't be a fragile egg


you usually have no problem being blunt
Pages: 14 – [ Previous | 15 6 7 8 9 10 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

Unsung Forum Index