Bowie Station : View Topic: Images Vol. 31

Navigation

Poll

You must be logged in to view polls

Bowie General > Images Vol. 31

Welcome to our Forums	FAQ Search
	Controls · View New Posts · Mark All Read

You are in: Forums / Bowie General / Images Vol. 31

homebrew

Posted at 2025-07-18 15:00:41(10 hrs ago) (Bowie General / Images Vol. 31)

Uploaded: 152.57 GB
Downloaded: 375.96 GB
Posts: 135

Ratio: 0.41
Location: United States of America

These articles appear just as they were posted in the Usenet group alt.fan.david-bowie by group member Jamie Soule aka AladINSAnE. I have made no attempt to alter the formatting, spelling, grammar or edit in any way.

IMAGES: Part 31

The work continued. Bowie, along with his "hand picked" posse of
vigilante musicians continued on their "anything goes" free for all. The
focus again was on the music. In a contradiction to Bowie's recording
style, as I said earlier, the lyrics were left, and they would not be
written in the studio this time.

Somebody had an idea. The idea was to take the song All The Young Dudes
and play it backwards. Yep, backwards. Since ALL ideas, especially those
that involved insanity were welcomed during the recording of Lodger, it
was immediately accepted as something that should be tried. It was too.
Not only was it tried, but Bowie liked what he heard and he used it for
a track on the album. The mid section of the song Move On, well, it is
actually All The Young Dudes played in reverse. There was another
previously written song by Bowie which appeared as well on Lodger. I am
referring to the song Red Money. The instrumental track of Red Money is
identical to Sister Midnight, a song which Bowie wrote for Iggy Pop
while they were living together in Berlin, and it appeared on his album
Lust For Life. The lyrics and title of the song were re written by Bowie
for the version that appears on Lodger. I personally do not mind Red
Money, but Sister Midnight in my opinion is far superior. The fact that
Red Money works well as a track on this album is an exception to the
rule however. I say this because as foolish and illogical as it sounds,
Bowie should NOT PERFORM SOME OF HIS OWN WORK.

"Huh?" You say? Yes, and I mean that. Bowie has written a lot of
material and given it away while collaborating with other artists, most
notably Iggy Pop. While in Berlin during the Low/ Heroes period Bowie
co-wrote two albums with Iggy, Lust For Life, and The Idiot. Although
Iggy is given co-writing credits on both albums, the truth is that the
songs themselves were almost entirely written by Bowie. Most of you
would be familiar I am sure with the song Lust For Life, made popular
because of its appearance in the hit movie Trainspotting. This film
surprisingly featured a considerable amount of music from Iggy Pop
albums, and very refreshing in my opinion. Lust For Life was written by
Bowie on a ukulele while he was laying on the floor in his Berlin
apartment watching television. The rhythm for the song was copied from
the tapping Morse Code beat of the theme. from the Forces Network. The
songs Bowie wrote for others are in many instances "classics" when
performed by those he wrote them for. However, when Bowie decides to
perform them himself, the results in most cases are beyond horrid. The
word "sickening" applies quite well as a description too.

Now, you can suck on this. I may get some "hate mail" for what I am
about to unload on you here, but quite frankly I do not really care,
because what I am going to say is the truth. Period. If you can't handle
it, well, too fucking bad. You have my condolences. First of all, any
serious Bowie listener probably owns, or should own, three Iggy Pop
albums, Raw Power, Lust For Life and The Idiot. The reason I say this is
because if you are serious about knowing all of Bowie's work, you should
own these because of the immense contribution he made to them. Raw Power
features not only the handy work of David Bowie, but Mick Ronson as
well. This was more or less a "breakthrough" album for Iggy which gained
him some notoriety among the record buying public. This of course was
due to the involvement of Bowie and Ronson, and the ensuing publicity.
As far as The Idiot and Lust For Life, well, they could be classed as
David Bowie albums really, and not just "albums" either. They are both
CLASSICS, and it is no wonder either when you look at when they were
made, and what Bowie was producing between 76 and 78. They stand up to
anything.

I am going to let you in on something. I am going to answer a question.
I am going to provide the answer that solves a mystery, and the mystery
is why serious Bowie listeners from the seventies seem to despise the
album Tonight. The answer is relatively a simplistic one, and it is
because those who despise Tonight are mostly the ones who own copies of
Lust For Life, The Idiot and other Iggy Pop albums. You see, out of the
nine tracks which appear on Tonight, seven originally appeared on Iggy
albums, and those who actually own these albums have a distinct
advantage over those who do not. The advantage is that they can make a
comparison between the original versions, and the versions that appear
on Tonight, as well as other Bowie albums. Therefore, those serious
Bowie listeners who actually have what is required to make an educated
comparison will, as a majority, come to the same conclusion. The opinion
shared by myself and these others happens to be that Bowie's versions of
these songs are a shade lower than absolutely pathetic. They are an
embarrassment. There are, as I know, those of you who like these tracks
the way they appeared on Tonight. All I can say to that is, because you
have never compared them to the originals, your opinion is not an
"informed" one, and therefore you are not in any position to comment. I
have noticed in the past however that ignorance does not seem to deter
you. You still defend that album.

I am really going to get it for this next remark, but, as the saying
goes, the truth sometimes hurts. If you have heard the version of the
song Tonight, as done by Bowie, it is the closest thing to outright
blasphemy that you will ever have the misfortunate to encounter. I am
telling you that if you defend it, you are ignorant. I say that with
reason as well, because I am not prone to making statements that I can
not defend, as most of you already know. If you defend this song I will
be willing to bet that you have no fucking clue what it is about. Do
you? If so, then you tell me. I will say that it's not a love song
between a girl and her television set. The way Bowie and Tina sing it
the subject matter should be easy for you to figure out. So? I'm
waiting. What is the song Tonight about? Romance? Love? Boy meets girl?
Well? How about a first time romantic encounter, I mean the way it is
sung that is possible, isn't it? Tonight, after all, is an "emotional"
song. Do you know, do you know FOR SURE? First of all, does this ring a
bell? " I saw my baby, she was turning blue. I knew that soon her young
life was through. And so I got down on my knees, down by her bed, and
these are the words to her I said." You have, of course, heard that
before, or have you? Tell me, where is it from? If you don't know, and
you are a defender of Bowie's version of Tonight, let me say that you
look quite foolish about now. Why? Because you have just proven to me
that you are ignorant of what it is you are defending. YOU do not even
know the song, yet you are professing to be educated enough to have
others take your opinion as being relevant. Good luck, but it won't work
with me. Sorry, I've been around too long. Oh, and I know too much also.
<LOL>

If those words remain a mystery, then may I offer you some
enlightenment? They are the lyrics to the first verse of a song called
Tonight. Now, before you retaliate and say that isn't true, it is the
first verse, on the ORIGINAL version. For those who have the original
they will understand it when I say that Tonight is a very powerful song,
emotionally, and that has probably got a lot to do with the subject
matter, and how Iggy expresses it. What is Tonight about then? A heroin
overdose, that is what it is about. It is about a boy who is watching
helplessly as life slips away from his girlfriend. He tries in vain to
reassure her that, "Everything will be alright tonight," yet knowing all
along that she is surely going to die. Since he can't save her, he
professes his love to her by saying, " I am gonna love her to the end.
I am gonna love her to the end. I will love her 'til I die I will see
her in the sky." That my friends, is what Tonight is about. Those who
have Lust For Life knew this already.

Now, have you seen the video of Bowie and Tina Turner performing this
song live? Nice, isn't it? They're all smiles, giggles and quite cute as
they "flirt" with each other. Oh, add in a few laughs as well. The album
version is really smooth, nice and slick, a duet with Tina. They both
try their best you can tell to sound really "sexy." I guess you are
supposed to be all cute looking and flirtatious, a few smiles, some
giggles, and sound real sexy when you sing a duet about a girl dying of
a heroin overdose. Right? Oh, how stupid of me, I damn well forgot about
one of the most important things, the dancing. Bowie and Tina perform
some really fine dance moves while singing with sexual overtones about a
heroin overdose, and a girls death. I guess songs about drug overdoses
and a young girl dying are great dance material? Hey, why not, they sing
it like it is a "fun" song. You know, happy, easy going. You can hum
along, or sing the chorus. I have an idea. Let's all do this together,
it will be really enjoyable. We can all sing the first verse together.
Think of how happy it will make us feel. Okay now, after me on the count
of three. Remember, sing it really happily, okay? All together now, one,
two, three, " I saw my baby, she was turning blue. I knew that soon her
young life was through. And so I got down on my knees, down by her bed,
and these are the words to her I said. Everything will be alright
tonight." Didn't that sound nice, really uplifting? Given the subject
matter who wouldn't say Bowie's version is better? Well, me for one,
and anyone else who is not an idiot of course. Oh, and serious Bowie
listeners too.

It took the rest of the world twenty some odd years to discover what
Bowie listeners had know since 1977, that Lust For Life was one kick ass
tune. Well, the one that appeared on Iggy's album. I do not recall where
I got it, but I do believe it must have been sent to me by a person who
was not an admirer of my writing, as I think that it was an attempt to
"do away" with me on a somewhat "permanent" basis. I have a bootleg of
Bowie performing a live version of Lust For Life. I do not know when, or
where, it was recorded, however I do know that it is HIDEOUS beyond
description to listen to. It is really, really awful. He croons the song
as though it is a lounge act he is performing, you can almost picture
the "tip jar" on top of the piano. I value my ears and this song as
performed by him is an assault. Tonight in comparison is a blessing. He
also had the audacity to perform the classic Iggy tune, I Wanna Be Your
Dog, again with disastrous results. Why would he even think that you
could make this into a "nice" little tune to hum along with. If you own
Party then you know Bang Bang. You also know, being educated enough to
compare, that it is destroyed completely when sung in falsetto by
someone in a red suit, who is dancing the Tango in front of a big red
plastic spider with glowing legs. I happen to like China Girl from Let's
Dance, basically because of the production work which is beyond perfect.
The track is as slick, and as smooth as glass, so much so that you would
be hard pressed to find a better "pop" sound anywhere on this planet
anyway. It is unfair to compare them, because of style considerations,
but for pure raw energy the Iggy version is untouchable, especially
live. Not only can Bowie not pull off the songs he writes for others on
his own solo albums, but the same is true for live performances. I am
talking from experience here as I have seen Iggy more than a couple of
times. One of those times was in 1977, with Bowie on piano.

As I said, I think Red Money works well. It is much more tolerable than
the long winded rambling boring rendition of Sister Midnight that he
lavished on unsuspecting audiences in 76. If you are familiar with Red
Money you will recognize the lyric regarding the "small red box." There
is a meaning to this line. Bowie was doing a considerable amount of
painting around this time, and in many of his pictures this "small red
box" would appear. It was painted in almost unconsciously. Bowie thought
it to be a representation of "unresolved issues." In my estimation I
believe that in Bowie's mind he believes that he is offering some sort
of tribute, a note of recognition and respect, for a person when he re
records their work. It is the thought that counts though when you honour
someone, and this is why his cover versions should NEVER go beyond the
"thinking" stage, because once recorded it is difficult to imagine that
his intentions were to honour anyone. Two words I would like to see come
to mind when Bowie considers recording other artists work. Those words,
to quote Bowie are, "Project cancelled."

Lodger, although there is a substantial number of Bowie listeners who
find that the musical "style" displayed on the album is not to their
taste, deserves respect for the various approaches to music that were
accomplished on it. Simply put, that album is "all over the place." It
is the most diverse of Bowie's albums when it comes to style. The
rhythms throughout the tracks on the album alone deserve high credits.
African Night Flight to name one. It easily matches Peter Gabriel's
Biko. Where else would you find an album with a track that has an
African rhythm to it such as African Night Flight, and then two tracks
later encounter something as Turkish sounding as Yassassin, to a reggae
beat. The backing vocals on Look Back In Anger, I cautiously say that
they are almost "Beatle style harmonies." Bowie was aiming for a very
German sound as the backing for Red Sails. Whether this was achieved I
guess is a matter of opinion. What I do know is he is the only artist
who would dare to overlay such a background with a Chinese sounding
melody, talk of travels to the "hinterland," and end it off with a few
numbers and directions indicating that the hinterland is so fa, fa, far
away, so fa-fa-fa-fa-fa. The departure from the conventional is nowhere
more apparent than on DJ, and like Lodger itself, it too is overlooked
for the most part. To be able to find words that would properly do
justice to this song as a description would be a difficult task indeed.
The song is absolutely brilliant, and stands as one of the most unique
pieces ever composed by Bowie. The song, first off, is extremely
appropriate for the time that it was written. One thing that is easily
forgotten is the fact that DJ came out at a time when disco was all the
rage, and DJ, in part anyway, exposes the entire "disco scene" for the
foolishness it really was. I used to believe that most of what came out
of the disco era was quite useless where music is involved, but then
sometimes when I compare it to much of what I hear on the airwaves
today, I am not so sure.

Think about this for a minute and then tell me if I am right. We all are
aware that when it comes to Bowie's work, especially the work produced
during his really innovative phase in the mid to late seventies, the
music critics seem to "miss the point." That is not all they miss
either, there is something else and you will notice it, well the absence
of it being mentioned, in almost every review you will ever read. This
oversight is common for reviews not on a few albums, but ALL OF THEM, no
matter what year. I mean from 1969 right through until 2002. I am
completely bewildered by the fact that I have never once seen a music
critic mention the fact that Bowie happens to posses a remarkable voice.
The man can actually sing. How this manages to escape these experts
lends credence to the theory held by most Bowie listeners that they are
in fact all fucking deaf, as well as stupid. The vocals on one
particular track from Lodger are so ignored in my opinion that it would
be better if they didn't exist. I say this because those who ignore them
do not deserve them. Ooops, there I go again, a few more well placed
comments aimed at winning a popularity contest. The power of Bowie's
voice that is demonstrated in his ability to hold some of the notes for
the length of time he does on Fantastic Voyage is astounding, to say the
least. Calling Bowie a rock singer is something that I avoid, and I
detest hearing that term used on him. The reason is that it is rather
demeaning to take such a brilliant artist, and "dump" him in a category
with every other rock singer. Well, since the media sticks him in there
anyway, let me say this. If you compare David Bowie's vocal abilities
with the rest of the "singers" out there, the truth is that ninety nine
and a half percent percent of them would choke to death before they
could match a quarter of the vocal range he is capable of, and they
would suffocate if they tried to hold a note half as long as he is able
to. Hmmmm? How does anyone miss that, especially those "experts?"

It has been argued that Lodger is an album which divides Bowie fans into
three groups, those who see it to be a truly brilliant album, and yet
severely underrated, those who are indifferent towards it and those who
do not give it very high marks compared to other Bowie albums. Bowie
himself raised a good point once saying that a lot of fans were under
the impression that the "process" he used with Eno, and the way that
they approached music, was somehow different when making Lodger,
compared to Low and Heroes. I believe that this is a very relevant point
due to the fact that Lodger seems to be a complete departure from the
work that appeared on the two previous albums. Well, according to Bowie
my guess would be incorrect, because according to him the same approach
was used for all three albums. He did however provide a reason why he
thought fans would tend to think that Lodger was different. He explained
that in his opinion, " it's the lack of instrumentals that give you the
impression that our process was different. It really wasn't though." I
reported earlier in this piece that I was not aware of how the idea came
about to record All The Young Dudes backwards. Well, since I wrote that
several hours ago I have found the answer. May I share it?

As it turns out the idea was "stumbled" upon by Bowie. Here is how he
said it happened, "I had put one of my reel to reel tapes on backwards
by mistake and really quite liked the melody it created. So I played
quite a few more in this fashion and chose five or six that were really
quite compelling. Dudes was the only one to make the album, as I didn't
want to abandon the 'normal' writing I was doing completely. But it was
a worthwhile exercise in my mind. It has the same title as the song I
wrote for Iggy. But as the one for Jim was a working title, I passed it
onto the Lodger song." The credits on the album Lodger reveal that one
of Brian Eno's contributions was for his use of a "Cricket Menace."
Bowie revealed the nature of this "instrument" in this fashion. He
explained, "Little crickety sounds that Brian produced from a
combination of my drum machine ( I would and still do, use one to write
with when I'm on my own) and his 'briefcase' synth. You can hear them on
African Nightflight." There, you now have something "new" to listen for
the next time you decide to give Lodger a spin. Now, aren't I helpful?
<LOL>

This fact I found out while doing some research for this particular
instalment of Images. Truthfully, I have NEVER heard this complaint
before about Lodger. .Let me ask you all first. What is your opinion of
the way Tony Visconti and Bowie mixed the final tapes for Lodger? My own
personal opinion is that I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. I think
the sound is well balanced, I don't know of any place off hand where the
sound is muddy, and I find overall that the highs and lows are well
equalized throughout the entire album. Apparently, I have discovered
that not all people share this view. I have learned that there is a
substantial number of Bowie listeners who are of the opinion that the
final mix on Lodger leaves a lot to be desired. This really came as a
surprise to me, so I decided to do a little "digging" to find out what
more I could. Well, what I found was the last thing in the world I ever
expected. You see, as it turns out, Bowie listeners are not the only
ones who believe that the mixing of Lodger could have been better, David
Bowie thinks so too. There is another person as well who is not overly
pleased with the mix. This name, coupled with Bowie's, will surely come
as a surprise to you. Ready? Tony Visconti. Let me make it clear that I
would not have stated Bowie or Visconti's opinion of the mix on Lodger
if the source of the information was an article that someone had
written, and this just happened to get mentioned. I thought it was
necessary to include this information because Bowie's own personal views
concerning his work are always important for an article such as this
one, and so are the views of others who are directly involved in the
recording process, such as Tony Visconti. The source for this
information was not "second hand," I can assure you. It came from a
decent source, Bowie. This quote is from an interview I discovered while
I was looking for some opinions about the mixing of Lodger. I wanted to
know if there were in fact many people who did not like the way the
final version of Lodger was mixed. Bowie said, " I think Tony and I
would both agree that we didn't take enough care mixing. This had a lot
to do with my being distracted by personal events in my life and I think
Tony lost heart a little because it never came together as easily as
both Low and Heroes had. I would still maintain though that there are a
number of really important ideas on Lodger. If I had more time I would
explore them for you but you can probably pick them out as easily."

I want to close this part of Images by talking about a quote from Bowie
that I know every one of you will enjoy because it is a very revealing.
This quote is one of those that you just know comes straight from his
heart. It is powerful, and powerful because it is said with conviction.
IT IS BOWIE TALKING, AND THIS IS TRUTHFULLY WHAT HE BELIEVED.

The conversation was about Low, Heroes and Lodger. The person conducting
the interview asked Bowie this question, "Were you aware of their
importance (of those albums when you were making them?"

Do you know what Bowie's answer was?
No?
I'll tell you next time.

Bye.

AladINsaNE

To be blah, blah, blah, blah...............................

*BACK TO THE INDEX <index.htm>*

""I don't begrudge any artist for finding an audience"
- David Bowie abt. 1987

<< Prev 1 Next >>

Locked

You are not permitted to post in this forum.

Latest Forum Posts

Latest Topic Title	Replies	Views	Author	Last Post
Images Vol. 31	0	50	homebrew	by homebrew 2025-07-18 15:00:41
Dancing in the Streets ("GREATEST Music Video of All Time") video restoration	8	253	Cheesus	by Cheesus 2025-07-18 12:57:54
where are the box sets?	49	5250	ayres	by professormouse 2025-07-17 03:52:21
Run Piper run - ya rehearsal tracks	14	583	Ballhaus	by professormouse 2025-07-15 09:43:05
Run Piper Run Casino Records vinyl	21	1616	Rael076	by Rael076 2025-07-11 16:53:32
An All Time 'Low'	2	246	Mythicalking	by Mythicalking 2025-07-11 08:38:48
Glass Spider Tour - Chant Of The Ever Circling Skeletal Family	3	378	kanishknishar	by professormouse 2025-07-08 19:13:53
Health Issues	48	8183	Steveboy	by Moony 2025-07-06 15:17:23
Images Vol. 30	0	399	homebrew	by homebrew 2025-07-05 14:00:12
Images Vol. 29	0	515	homebrew	by homebrew 2025-06-28 14:35:28
Images Vol. 28	0	543	homebrew	by homebrew 2025-06-21 14:11:48
Cracked Actor concert footage date?	2	903	Rael076	by Rael076 2025-06-15 22:36:49
A BELATED HAPPY 10th BIRTHDAY BOWIE STATION	10	878	Steveboy	by Davesolar 2025-06-10 14:53:18
Images Vol. 27	0	622	homebrew	by homebrew 2025-06-07 13:22:32
Images Vol. 26	1	855	homebrew	by professormouse 2025-06-01 01:39:58

Online Users

Newest Members