Written by Guest on 12.01.2016 at 16:39

Written by Bad English on 12.01.2016 at 16:10

Written by Guest on 12.01.2016 at 15:22

[
comparing Bowie to Madonna is ridiculous
Bowie has experimented a lot throughout his career, you may not know that. He considers himself a pop artist though and he's been anything but that.

gosh you still don't get, Maradona and David each created next album different sound,

so Maradona sings? ROFLMAO

Madonna, Maradona, same thing, who gives a...

well in Jackie Chan movie he told 'she looks like a Maradona'' idiot Maradona is footy player, you mean Madona''

Bovie and such pop artists are similar, non album has similar sound, if Bowie wont gave old Ziggy shit he wont be so fanose

Written by Bad English on 12.01.2016 at 16:48

Written by Guest on 12.01.2016 at 16:39

Written by Bad English on 12.01.2016 at 16:10

Written by Guest on 12.01.2016 at 15:22

[
comparing Bowie to Madonna is ridiculous
Bowie has experimented a lot throughout his career, you may not know that. He considers himself a pop artist though and he's been anything but that.

gosh you still don't get, Maradona and David each created next album different sound,

so Maradona sings? ROFLMAO

Madonna, Maradona, same thing, who gives a...

well in Jackie Chan movie he told 'she looks like a Maradona'' idiot Maradona is footy player, you mean Madona''

Bovie and such pop artists are similar, non album has similar sound, if Bowie wont gave old Ziggy shit he wont be so fanose

he was famous before Ziggy, he made a lot of great music after Ziggy as well.

comparing Bowie to Madonna is insulting, at least to me; why not compare Bowie to Pink Floyd, they made different albums as well.

So you listen to Madonna (you know some things about her) - LOL - keep up the good work

Pink Floyd still follows own root and yes he made good one, I like 5 albums, he was like Stones what was good in 60's later just ehhh

Written by Bad English on 12.01.2016 at 18:37

Pink Floyd still follows own root and yes he made good one, I like 5 albums, he was like Stones what was good in 60's later just ehhh

David Bowie always experimented, The Stones did not, they stopped doing that when Mick Taylor (who replaced Brian Jones) left. That was '72 if I remember right. Bowie never stopped trying new things. Just listen to his last album but then again, I'm sure you won't like it since proggish, experimental music is not your type.

One of the greatest musicians of all time. what a huge loss to the world, both musically and more broadly creatively.

rest in peace Duke.

Written by Bad English on 12.01.2016 at 16:48

Bovie and such pop artists are similar, non album has similar sound, if Bowie wont gave old Ziggy shit he wont be so fanose

Bowie was not a pop artist. He was an artist.

Anyone who even remotely knows anything about Bowie knows, his music went through so many shiftings, it's impossible to fit him in a box. Not only, he was also an actor (and a great one as well!), painter, sculpturist.

When it comes to comparing Bowie to Madonna, there is one BIG, GREAT, ENORMOUS difference: Bowie was a trendsetter, a man ahead of his time. He set his mind on what he wants to do, what he wants to represent & how to do it and set a linfe of trends throught the decades, many, so many came to follow. Madonna however, has simply been following the scene and made herself fit to whatever was popular in order to stay relevant and gain new following.

There are so many artists who have done major changes in their sound, appearance and artistry, but a few really did it with style and made a difference. Bowie was undoubtedly one of them. It would make more sense to compare him with Cher, than Madonna. Also, Bowie was incredibly talented and his talent never wore off - not even once. Madonna, well if you know her life story and her work, she made it because she is incredibly persistent and hard working. Her talent was and is a lesser proportion of her success.

That being said, I cannot tell you how Bowie's death hit me. No celebrtiy death has such impact on me, because Bowie's music became a bigger and bigger part of my life, as I grew older. Low is still & will remain one of my all time favourite albums. RIP Major Tom, Starman, Thin White Duke, David Jones, David Bowie.

There's nothing wrong with pop, and I wouldn't dismiss the excellent sense Madonna had that kept her relevant and fresh. (Ray of Light is rightly regarded as an excellent pop album and a successful reinvention.) The difference is consistency, of course: Madonna's career is full of hits and misses, whereas Bowie has great albums over four decades. And she's more a performer than a musician, of course. But I don't see why you'd make the comparison or diss either of them.

I don't know if Bowie was so much ahead of his time as carefully attuned to what was already making its way to the surface of popular music, and picking it up. It's hindsight, of course, but he seems to have had an uncanny sense for what would be hip, and make it his own. Take Low, for instance - it's not as if Brian Eno, John Cale, Kraftwerk etc. hadn't already done something in the general style, but the album doesn't sound derivative.

Did some rawkin' work with Tin Machine as well.

Written by Bad English on 12.01.2016 at 18:37

Pink Floyd still follows own root and yes he made good one, I like 5 albums, he was like Stones what was good in 60's later just ehhh

What do you mean? Pink Floyd changed styles very often.

A Saucerful of Secrets, Ummagumma and Atom Heart Mother
The Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here
Animals
The Wall
The Final Cut
A Momentary Lapse of Reason
The Division Bell and The Endless River

A big simplification of some, not all, of their albums and there are so many different styles. Was A Momentary Lapse of Reason sticking to their roots? Or The Final Cut which was basically a Roger Waters solo project. The Division Bell is so far from Ummagumma or Dark Side etc -- for many reasons obviously.

Basically I don't know what you mean by sticking to their roots?

Written by Belegûr on 26.01.2016 at 01:38

Written by Bad English on 12.01.2016 at 18:37

Pink Floyd still follows own root and yes he made good one, I like 5 albums, he was like Stones what was good in 60's later just ehhh

What do you mean? Pink Floyd changed styles very often.

A Saucerful of Secrets, Ummagumma and Atom Heart Mother
The Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here
Animals
The Wall
The Final Cut
A Momentary Lapse of Reason
The Division Bell and The Endless River

A big simplification of some, not all, of their albums and there are so many different styles. Was A Momentary Lapse of Reason sticking to their roots? Or The Final Cut which was basically a Roger Waters solo project. The Division Bell is so far from Ummagumma or Dark Side etc -- for many reasons obviously.

Basically I don't know what you mean by sticking to their roots?

like every album has in diferent direction keeping PF sound, but PF is not a metal band, I like music, but I have been over listened in days when I was child, my old mans stuff when there was no I net to me

How much have you actually listened to his later albums, BE? You said he did maybe 5 good albums, by which I assume you mean The Man Who Sold the World, Hunky Dory, Ziggy, Aladdin Sane and Diamond Dogs. (Or Station to Station rather than The Man?)

So what exactly is your opinion of, say, Heroes, Low, Scary Monsters, 1. Outsider and now Blackstar (which are all considered excellent by a pretty large group of people, so they're hardly the obscure, unapproachable art stuff you referenced)? To be honest, I was shocked by just how good Blackstar is. It's a little uneven, but the best tunes are haunting. Like Scott Walker, it seems he aged well.

Thanks for dragging this back to Bowie.

Written by IronAngel on 26.01.2016 at 13:51

How much have you actually listened to his later albums, BE? You said he did maybe 5 good albums, by which I assume you mean The Man Who Sold the World, Hunky Dory, Ziggy, Aladdin Sane and Diamond Dogs. (Or Station to Station rather than The Man?)

So what exactly is your opinion of, say, Heroes, Low, Scary Monsters, 1. Outsider and now Blackstar (which are all considered excellent by a pretty large group of people, so they're hardly the obscure, unapproachable art stuff you referenced)? To be honest, I was shocked by just how good Blackstar is. It's a little uneven, but the best tunes are haunting. Like Scott Walker, it seems he aged well.

have spinned every last album in my life, non was good to me , lets say if I receive those a b day gifts, I would give those to someone else as b day gifts ...
like I told I can listen inly 70's those what I mentioned

I LOVE Bowie, one of my favorite musicians of all time. Virtually everything he did in the 70s is awesome and will definitely stand the test of time. His very early stuff is a bit tedious (pre space oddity) and he had some missteps in the 80s with some overtly comercial stuff (Let's Dance is uneven, Tonight has a few good songs, Never Let Me Down should be flushed down a toilet), but he regained his footing in the 90s and never lost it again. Of his later work, my favorites are Heathen (an ethereal, dreamy album), and Black Star (I love the experimentation). I had the honor of seeing him perform live four times, twice in the Roseland Ballroom in NYC (that's right, I saw Bowie in a club, and The Cure and Dave Gahan were in the audience with me). I would say that if the 20th century had four musical geniuses they would be: David Bowie, Snorre Ruch, Philip Glass, and Dmitri Shostakovich. But that's probably a discussion for another thread.