Album of the day (#929): The Rise And Fall Of Ziggy Stardust - Music

Guest

yourself wrote:

its called having an opinion isn't it? He tends to get pissed at pseudo-experimental pop albums which regular critics (even worse than scaruffi) think are revolutionary. He takes it out on the albums as much as the critics.

ps: In Rainbows does deserve a 5. Actually worse. Radiohead deserve worse scores all around.

Back to david Bowie, Low and Ziggy Stardust are the only two Bowie album's I really enjoy all the way through. And even Ziggy Stardust itself is kind of cheesy as a whole. Some albums are okay, others are pretty much unlistenable to me.

He can give all of their albums 3s and 4s (I don't have any problem with that whatsoever) but when he gives Kid A 3.0 then he should give Pablo Honey 0.5 or 0.0 or sth because that album is clearly a less imaginative album with a lot of filler and is blatantly ripoff aesthetics-wise.

meccalecca
Voice of Reason

Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment

yourself wrote:

its called having an opinion isn't it? He tends to get pissed at pseudo-experimental pop albums which regular critics (even worse than scaruffi) think are revolutionary. He takes it out on the albums as much as the critics.

ps: In Rainbows does deserve a 5. Actually worse. Radiohead deserve worse scores all around.

Back to david Bowie, Low and Ziggy Stardust are the only two Bowie album's I really enjoy all the way through. And even Ziggy Stardust itself is kind of cheesy as a whole. Some albums are okay, others are pretty much unlistenable to me.

Although I like more of his work than you do, I agree about Bowie. His discography is incredibly inconsistent. Many of his albums have 1 or 2 songs I totally love surrounded by mediocre.
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com

yourself

tekin wrote:

He can give all of their albums 3s and 4s (I don't have any problem with that whatsoever) but when he gives Kid A 3.0 then he should give Pablo Honey 0.5 or 0.0 or sth because that album is clearly a less imaginative album with a lot of filler and is blatantly ripoff aesthetics-wise.

Yeah, I agree with what your saying about Pablo Honey completely. Like, I think he could try and justify it in someway, but it couldn't be consistent with his own musical values about originality/identidy ect. I don't really care though.

meccalecca wrote:

Although I like more of his work than you do, I agree about Bowie. His discography is incredibly inconsistent. Many of his albums have 1 or 2 songs I totally love surrounded by mediocre.

yeah, that is exactly what I mean, a few memorable songs and then lots of stuff I feel apathetic about.

hairymarx1

Gender: Male
Location: London

meccalecca wrote:

How can you say there's no substance? What classifies as substance?

The Rise & Fall of Ziggy Stardust consists of quite a bit of social commentary and sexual exploration. Beyond that there's the whole storyline about fame, false idols, and the price that comes with those things. Just listen to Rock & Roll Suicide.

Sure it's wrapped in the whole glam aesthetic, but it's kind of extreme to say there's no substance here.

In my view, it's superficially executed in a way that has an undoubted appeal to a teenager of the early 1970s. I used to love this album as a teenager. That's the point, really. It's a lightweight pop record absent of the kind of intellectual gravitas it purports to aspire to. Bowie is the archetypal showman and when stripped of the gloss little of any artistic value remains underneath.

Mother Nature's Son

Gender: Male
Age: 31

The first 4 songs, "Lady Stardust" and "Ziggy Stardust" are great. The rest is okay. I don't agree that all his albums are inconsistent, at least it's not the case with Hunky Dory and Low, both great from start to finish.
_________________
"The Beatles, the greatest band known to mankind." - Bismah Mughal

meccalecca
Voice of Reason

Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment

hairymarx1 wrote:

In my view, it's superficially executed in a way that has an undoubted appeal to a teenager of the early 1970s. I used to love this album as a teenager. That's the point, really. It's a lightweight pop record absent of the kind of intellectual gravitas it purports to aspire to. Bowie is the archetypal showman and when stripped of the gloss little of any artistic value remains underneath.

So, are you saying that music loved by teenagers is of lesser artistic value than music loved by adults?

or that because Bowie doesn't challenge the limitations of music that his music lacks substance?

I studied conceptual art in college, and currently work at a collective of fine art magazines. I've observed many "challenging" artists referred to as geniuses, but in all actuality, their art was forced, a reactionary pursuit to stand out by being different rather than excelling at their craft. Provocation through ideas is important to the advancement of any art form, but I find the most genuine artists to be those who tap into the childlike nature of just making what feels natural.

I'm not saying Bowie is either of these things. But appeal to youth as an act of dismissal of his craft is a terrible argument.
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com

Norman Bates

Gender: Male
Age: 51
Location: Paris, France

Awesome album. Home of the hits.

Guest

meccalecca wrote:

So, are you saying that music loved by teenagers is of lesser artistic value than music loved by adults?

or that because Bowie doesn't challenge the limitations of music that his music lacks substance?

I studied conceptual art in college, and currently work at a collective of fine art magazines. I've observed many "challenging" artists referred to as geniuses, but in all actuality, their art was forced, a reactionary pursuit to stand out by being different rather than excelling at their craft. Provocation through ideas is important to the advancement of any art form, but I find the most genuine artists to be those who tap into the childlike nature of just making what feels natural.

I'm not saying Bowie is either of these things. But appeal to youth as an act of dismissal of his craft is a terrible argument.

Well said

hairymarx1

Gender: Male
Location: London

meccalecca wrote:

So, are you saying that music loved by teenagers is of lesser artistic value than music loved by adults?

or that because Bowie doesn't challenge the limitations of music that his music lacks substance?

I studied conceptual art in college, and currently work at a collective of fine art magazines. I've observed many "challenging" artists referred to as geniuses, but in all actuality, their art was forced, a reactionary pursuit to stand out by being different rather than excelling at their craft. Provocation through ideas is important to the advancement of any art form, but I find the most genuine artists to be those who tap into the childlike nature of just making what feels natural.

I'm not saying Bowie is either of these things. But appeal to youth as an act of dismissal of his craft is a terrible argument.

I think that Bowie's art is extremely unchallenging in its totality. I think he cynically and crudely manipulates profoundly good ideas and concepts into bad and trivial ones in what I regard as his singular pursuit of commercial success. He likes to give the impression that his chameleon-like persona amounts to a succession of innovations when in truth at every stage they have been highly derivative, calculated for maximum commercial impact. In that regard, I think your characterization of some art as being forced and reactionary, is an accurate description of Bowie's work.

Jasonconfused
If We Make It We Can All Sit Back and Laugh

Gender: Male
Location: Washington

hairymarx1 wrote:

I think that Bowie's art is extremely unchallenging in its totality. I think he cynically and crudely manipulates profoundly good ideas and concepts into bad and trivial ones in what I regard as his singular pursuit of commercial success. He likes to give the impression that his chameleon-like persona amounts to a succession of innovations when in truth at every stage they have been highly derivative, calculated for maximum commercial impact. In that regard, I think your characterization of some art as being forced and reactionary, is an accurate description of Bowie's work.

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

_________________