[Login] or [Signup]
Login
Username:
Password:
[Signup]
[Recover Account]

Navigation

Poll


You must be logged in to view polls
Bowie General > Images Vol. 58

You are in:  Forums / Bowie General / Images Vol. 58
Locked
homebrewPosted at 2026-01-24 17:30:27(2 hrs ago) (Bowie General / Images Vol. 58)


Uploaded: 152.57 GB
Downloaded: 376.37 GB
Posts: 180

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 58

More IMAGES
WARNING: I was too fucking lazy to spellcheck any of this so read it at your
OWN RISK!

The entire thing was an act, and I mean ALL OF IT. What emerged in 1983 as
THE REAL DAVID BOWIE not Bowie, it was a character playing the role of THE
REAL DAVID BOWIE. This "thing" was completely the opposite of who Bowie
really is, except for one thing, it has to be one of the most remarkable
reflections of David Bowie's creativity that there ever was. David Bowie
used his artistic abilities in an attempt to create a REAL DAVID BOWIE who
was not only a Pop Star, but the hottest entertainer on the planet. Remember
too, that it all had to be built from scratch, and along with that, his past
had to be erased. Who else but David Bowie could have pulled this off.
Everyone overlooks this, and in doing so they fail to realize just exactly
what Bowie managed to accomplish. You would be hard pressed to find a better
example of creative brilliance, or a better actor. Bowie was so convincing
that he deserved an Acadamy Award. What is truly astounding however, is that
he perpetrated all of this on the grandest scale possible, meaning all of
planet Earth. More on that later. Anyway, the truth is that anyone who
believed this to be THE REAL DAVID BOWIE, was in reality a victim of a
charade, and it was a charade. How do I know? Well, after closely following
Bowie all of these years, you can't help but learn a few things, and one of
them being that this REAL DAVID BOWIE, was nothing like the real David Bowie
who created it. Unlike the past, this time David Bowie really did become a
character. It was the first time he ever did as well.

Yes, I said it was the first time Bowie really became a "character," and
yes, I heard what you said too. Many of you believe that what I just said
is not only foolish, but entirely wrong. You will justify this by saying to
me that David Bowie assumed the role of many characters in the past, and
that is common knowledge. Bowie himself would never even think to dispute
it, just the opposite is true, he has admitted it hundreds of times. There
is something here however, that most people never consider. Have you ever
considered that all of those "characters" in the seventies may NOT have been
"invented" personalities, but were instead the "REAL" David Bowie? It is
worth considering, and I'll tell you why. It is because all of them,
including Halloween Jack, The Thin White Duke, Ziggy Stardust, Alad Insane,
and the "former" David Bowie, were NOT "characters" that Bowie hid behind,
THEY WERE DAVID BOWIE! Now, before you write this off as idiotic, and me an
idiot for saying it in the first place, I would like you to wait a minute,
and please hear me out. I trust that I have presented myself well enough
that not only will you conclude that what I said is viable, but it is also
correct.

There is no point in me argueing, Halloween Jack, The Thin White Duke, Ziggy
Stardust, and Aladinsane, among others, WERE CHARACTERS. That I will not
dispute. It is a common belief that Bowie used these "characters" to hide
his true identity, making it impossible for anyone to discover who he really
was. The lines between reality and fantasy, with regards to who Bowie is
became an indistinguishable blurr at the best of times, but this was only
partially due to these frequent "personality changes." Much of it also had
to do with the way Bowie played the media, with regards to what he said to
them. If anyone wishes to know how much faith and trust you can put in the
things Bowie says to the media I can suggest this. Just get an assortment of
interviews with Bowie, as well as some articles written about him, which are
spread over a few years. You wonder why it's nearly impossible to separate
fact from fiction? There's an easy answer to that, which becomes quite clear
after reading these interviews and articles which contain some of the finest
examples of Bowie's contradictions, hypocrisy, rewritten history, and
recollections of events that never ocurred to begin with. These words,
coming from such a vast array of identities, can make the task of sifting
out any reality or truth a very difficult one. Now, notice I said
"difficult," and not "impossible, however. The "difficulty" in attempting to
discover WHO David Bowie "really" is does not lie in having to separate
whether or not he is playing a "character," or if what he is saying is the
thruth. The difficultly lies in KNOWING WHERE TO LOOK.

Physicists learned this, and so have you, probably gained from experience.
Finding the solutions to things which are complicated can be extremely
difficult. This is usually not due to the severity of the problem, but more
so because we look for COMPLICATED ANSWERS to COMPLICATED PROBLEMS, and in
most cases the largest barrier which keeps us from finding the answers, does
not come from the problem we are trying to solve, but instead comes from the
way we think. Our own logic and common sense tells us that COMPLICATED
PROBLEMS must have COMPLICATED SOLUTIONS. This is the way we think, but it
is not the way things are in the Universe. Quite often, well in most cases
actually, things just don't work this way, because COMPLICATED PROBLEMS,
usually end up having SIMPLE SOLUTIONS. Our problem is that we have problems
thinking in "SIMPLE" terms. Also, we tend to be closed minded, having
preconceived thoughts and opinions even before we look for answers. Instead,
we should be open minded, and enough so that we can come to accept that
anything may be possible, even if it defies our own personal reasoning.
After all, "What does OUR logic and common sense have to do with anything?"
Who David Bowie really is has been a question that has been debated for
decades, and it seems that there is no simple answer. That is not true
though. There is an answer. Yet, once again, people are looking for a
complicated answer to a complicated question, and the complicated answers we
find only lead to more complicated questions, and of course these new
complicated questions require even more complicated answers. Get the point?
If this is true, then, is there a way to discover who the "REAL" David Bowie
is? Yes, there is, and the answer is a simple one. But first, you must
KNOW WHERE TO LOOK, and second, you must change your thinking. Get rid of
all that common sense, logic and reason. You see, everyone knows that
Halloween Jack, The Thin White Duke, Ziggy Stardust, Aladinsane, and the
others, are CHARACTERS that David Bowie hid behind. Right? Well? Right?
EVERYONE KNOWS THIS, don't they? I mean, it is only COMMON SENSE that
"characters" are not real. Our own REASONING says that characters do not
reflect reality, but mask it instead. LOGIC dictates that "characters" are
all based on FICTION. Now, I ask you. What does the fact that EVERYONE KNOWS
SOMETHING have to do with anything? What does YOUR PERSONAL OPINION of what
is COMMON SENSE, LOGIC, and REASON have to do with who David Bowie is as a
person? Who says that all "characters" are based on fiction? What if we're
all WRONG? Gee, then what? That sure opens up Pandora's Box, and the answers
within it. Let's pretend that EVERYONE IS WRONG. Let's suppose that all
"characters" are NOT BASED ON FICTION, and therefore are NOT MASKS TO HIDE
BEHIND. Let's say that Halloween Jack, The Thin White Duke, Ziggy Stardust,
Aladinsane, and the others, really are David Bowie, because they are you
know.

There is one question that I want you to ask you, and please do not read any
further until you have answered it. Who told you that these characters were
not David Bowie?

Well, what was your answer. You all probably said the same thing, and that
is "it just makes sense." That reasoning is normal. There are a few things
though, that I bet you never considered. Where did the idea come from that
the David Bowie you saw in the seventies was not the "REAL" David Bowie? Who
determined the fact that he was only assuming the personalities of
ficticious caharacters, therefore masking his true identity? Who said he's a
Chamillion? The answer you say to these questions, is that it all came from
many different sources. The fact that Bowie played a set of ficticious
characters in the seventies is stated as a fact in every Bowie biography you
ever read, it is in all the magazine articles, interviews, contained in all
of the advertising and promotional campaigns, and Bowie has said it himself
countless times. You probably believe that because this has been said so
long, so many times, and by so many people, that you could never determine
who started it all. Any fool knows that it wouldn't even be worth trying in
the first place, as it is far too COMPLICATED. Hmmm? "Complicated?" There's
that word again. Well then, Tony Defries. There you go. Simple, and that's
your answer. It was Tony Defries, he started the whole thing. The whole
David Bowie The Chamillion thing was not even Bowie's in the first place,
the idea came from Tony Defries during an advertising and promotions meeting
at MainMan. It was Defries who coined the word "Chamillion," and then FED IT
TO THE MEDIA. What did the media do after that? Well, guess. Yep. They wrote
it all down, and then printed it as if it were indeed a fact, without ever
bothering to find out if there was any actual truth behind it of course. Why
would anyone bother to complicate things with reality anyway, I mean, it's
only the media, the one thing that people rely on to tell them the truth.
It's not like accuracy is important or anything. From that point on it has
been crammed down everyone's throat by the media, and by Bowie, for so long
now, that it has become an accepted fact that it was all "characters." Just
know however, that this all originated as part of an advertising campaign
thought up in a boardroom meeting at MainMan, and advertising campaigns are
not regarded as being overly reliable sources when it comes to the truth,
especially when they are the handywork of one named Tony Defries. Yet, the
question about Bowie's identity remains, "Was this David Bowie, or a string
of ficticious characters? The answer to that depends on where youlook for
it. If you believe what is said by Tony Defries, David Bowie,the media and
advertising campaigns, then it is true. Halloween Jack, The Thin White Duke,
Ziggy Stardust, Aladinsane, and the others, were all ficticious characters.
Looking for answers there however, is the last place anyone should look,
because the truth is that Bowie was not hiding behind any characters. No
doubt many of you have just concluded that was the most idiotic statement
you have ever heard. To say that Bowie did not adopt a series of characters
throught the seventies probably seems so ludicrious to you, that nobody who
knows anything at all about Bowie would even think such a thing, let alone
say it. Now look, I am certainly not about to insult your intelligence by
even suggesting that David Bowie did not create these characters. He did,
and I know that. It's plain and simple. These "characters" however were not
masks, instead, they were doors, and when these doors are opened they lead
to some very remarkable places. Yet it goes on, a seemingly eternity it has
been so far. The media has wrestled with it for decades, there have been
thousands of pages written, millions of discussions among Bowie listeners,
countless interviews conducted, and all for one purpose, to solve the
puzzle. Yes, the GREAT PUZZLE, and should you somehow collect all of the
pieces, and then by some miracle you make them fit, you will then have the
complete picture of who David Bowie really is. This, most believe, offers
the path to a solution. So, they go about collecting these pieces of the
puzzle, in the form of information, and what they can learn from it.
Biographies, articles, interviews, anything they can lay their hands on,
because somewhere in those scraps they may find one of those pieces,
something that may contain a hint of truth, and put them one step closer
towards solving that which seems unsolveable.

Do you remember that I said that, "you must KNOW WHERE TO LOOK?" Well,
therein lies the problem. People are look in the wrong places. You are never
going to find the "real" David Bowie from reading what is reported by the
media. Why? The reason is that seventy five percent of what is written about
David Bowie in the press isn't worth the ink it's written with. In addition,
it can take absolute years before you discover if what Bowie said to
journalists, is indeed the truth or not. How many times has "Contamination,"
the follow up to Outside going to be released? He says he will release it,
and you wait a year or so only to discover it was all bullshit. How many of
you waited in anticipation for Toy to be released? How was it? I don't have
a copy yet. Biographies? Again, you take your chances. Some I find quite
reliable, and some are written by those who "bought" all of the "hype" as
well. These individuals have also been manipulated to the point that they
too were led down the garden path, and therefore what they have written in
many instances is far removed from the truth. Oh, and don't look to Bowie
personally for any answers, unless you know what is the truth is beforehand,
which means you got it from other source. This is for the simple fact that
he starts the bullshit, or at least fuels most of it himself. Now you are
thinking that if these sources are ruled out, then there isn't anywhere
really left to turn, but there is. The solution to the puzzle is right in
front of you, and this is the only place where you will ever find it. There
IS NO PUZZLE TO BOWIE'S IDENTITY. Halloween Jack, The Thin White Duke, Ziggy
Stardust, Aladinsane, and the other so called "characters" were not
disguises. There were no masks, and the "REAL" Bowie is not "hidden." In
fact, it is quite the opposite, it's all there. The truth is that David
Bowie is not a mystery at all, he is really an "OPEN BOOK." Just listen,
that's all. Did you hear me? I said, "Listen." This is where people forget
to look. The answer to who David Bowie is lies in the music he creates as an
artist, not in words. Take care to note that I said "music," which is not to
be confused with anything else. Every aspect of David Bowie is revealed
through his work. I must stress however, that one must proceed with caution
when searching through his work in an effort to discover his identity, and
once again, you have to "know where to look." I say this because like the
things which he says, and that which is written, there is much of his work
that will lead you in completely the opposite direction. There is one thing
that must be made clear however before one can understand WHO David Bowie
is. It is first necessary to understand WHAT he is.

So, what is David Bowie? He is an artist, and NOT A POP STAR. Therefore, to
understand him through his work, it is essential to look at his most
recognized work, as an artist that is. If you look to Bowie's more
commercial work in an effort to understand his true nature, then you are
barking up the wrong tree. Now, I know that many are going to vehementley
deny this, saying Bowie is Bowie. That statement also arouses many to start
scolding me personally, saying that I am "personally determining" who is
worthy enough to claim that they understand Bowie. This is topped off with
their belief that I, or anyone else for that matter, do not understand
anymore about the true nature of Bowie than anyone else. That is fine by me,
whatever they believe, it's a free world, and people are entitled to be as
wrong as they want. Their opinions however have little to do with reality
however, so I am telling you that to understand Bowie, you must turn to his
more "adventerous" work. To those who care to argue this point, let me put
the issue to bed right now. Take Bowie's more commercial work, Hours,
Tonight, Never Let Me Down, Let's Dance and the others. Now, do you think
for one minute that Bowie would have earned his reputation and been awarded
with the distinction of being voted "The Most Prolific Artist In History,"
based on these albums I just mentioned, or his other commercial work? The
answer is "no." I agree that the quality of Bowie's commercial work is
normally far superior than most of what was out there at the time it was
released, but that is NOT the point. You see, other than being of much
higher quality, there is NOTHING that sets Bowie's commercial work apart
from anything else in terms of music. To argue this is foolish, and if I am
wrong, then please name one of his commercial albums which has been
creditited with having any impact whatsoever in defining the shape of music.
Producing a lot of work that is controversial is the definition of
"prolific" according to the dictionary. Bowie's commercial work, although
worthy of recognition, accomplishes nothing in it's own right when it comes
to music in general. In other words, it adds little, because there IS
NOTHING TO BE FOUND IN HIS COMMERCIAL WORK that goes progressively beyond
the scope of what has already been done, and a thousand times over if the
truth be known. Had David Bowie produced commercial work such as Hours,
Let's Dance and the others, over the length of his career, he deserves the
distinction that is credited to any artist who can attain his degree of
longevity by producing material which sells. Longevity however, and
producing work which will sell, have nothing to do whatsoever with "artistic
creativity," therefore, to try and recognize Bowie through his commercial
endeavours, leads a person to miss the "artist" all together. It is his non
commercial work that reveals the artist. David Bowie can't be understood
through his work which is impersonal. By that I am referring to his work
conceived for reasons apart from that of being his own person expressions.
If you do not know the pre 83 David Bowie, then you know a completely
different Bowie than those who do. Is the post 83 Bowie a true reflection of
who Bowie really is? No, it isn't, and I truly feel sorry for anyone who
maintains that it is. Unlike his previous work, there is not much Bowie has
produced since 1983 that falls into the category of innovative, let alone
being ahead of it's time, and there is also little he has done which could
be said to have had a substantial impact on the direction of modern music.
Bowie's work, for the most part, is no longer recognized as
"groundbreaking." You can hate me all you want for saying that, but it's the
truth, and if not, then please correct me by showing me where I have made an
error. Not with your opinion either. Show me the articles by those who are
knowledge about Bowie's career which will define any of his later work as
having anywhere near the relevance, and impact, that his earlier work had.
How much of his later work has been dubbed the work of a "genius.?" How much
of it is hailed as "classic?" How much of it "brilliant?" David Bowie is a
very talented artist. He is not just brilliant, his work has substance.
Bowie does not redefine that which has already been created by other
artists, instead, it is he that creates. Although others may have explored
certain areas of music first, Bowie applied those styles to completely
original ideas. Traditional Japanese music itself is not something new. It
was on side two of Heroes however. Eno is renowned for personally creating
an entire genre of music, yet Bowie took it to a different level, and with
his creative vision he created something which was unique. It was all
"UNIQUE."

He's "The Chamillion." Ask anyone. They will tell you that David Bowie is
synonomous with the word "change," and so much so that his whole reputation
is built on it. Oh, please excuse me, synonomous is a really bad choice of
words in this case. What an understatement? I should have said that David
Bowie is the "EPITOME" of change, as a matter of fact, I should say that the
definition of the word "change," is David Bowie. Okay, now here's a shocker
for you, and it comes in the form of advice. I say this to say to all of
you who believe that Bowie was constantly changing in the seventies, and
hiding behind ficticious characters such as The Thin White Duke, Ziggy
Stardust, Aladinsane, and the others. What I am telling you is this, "DON'T
FALL FOR IT. Don't. Any of it, because it is all nonsense. There is no
truth to it whatsoever. The reality is that in the seventies, David Bowie
DID NOT CHANGE ONE BIT. You say, "What about all of his characters,
Halloween Jack, The Thin White Duke, Ziggy Stardust, Aladinsane, and the
others? Each of those personalities were radically different. Plus, if you
listen to his work, you can see that his style of music completely changed
quite often from album to album." Well, do you know what I say to that? I
say,"So what?" Those characters have NOTHING TO DO WITH BOWIE AT ALL. Do you
remember what I told you? I told you to FORGET all of the "TALK." I said
that you have to "LISTEN." HIS WORK IS ONLY THING THAT IS IMPORTANT WHEN IT
COMES TO UNDERSTANDING WHO BOWIE IS, and beside that, it is also the ONLY
THING YOU CAN TRUST. It has been proven a zillion times that EVERYTHING THAT
IS WRITTEN ABOUT BOWIE IN THE MEDIA IS SUSPECT in terms of credibility. and
unlike everything else, his work is the only thing that does remain
CREDIBLE, because his work IS HIM. Art seldom lies, because art comes from
the soul of the artist. True art is an emotional expression that comes from
within, and therefore it is mostly free from the worldly corruption which is
found outside. One of the greatest rewards that one can find when looking at
what an artist produces, is that most often the work itself reveals the
artists motivation for what they have created in the first place.
Personally, I find that this is especially true when it comes to Bowie's
work, and in most instances it speaks volumes. At the risk of pissing off a
few million Bowie fans, I am going to say this. David Bowie is an open book,
and there is no barriers whatsoever when it comes to who he "REALLY" is. I
say this because David Bowie is an artist in the purest form, and by this I
mean one whose personal standards demand perfection, requireing that he put
everything he has into his work. Let me put it this way. Take a look at all
of those innovative ideas that Bowie not only conceived, but also had the
integrity and courage to use. Bowie would not sacrifice his work by having
it controlled by others, even though many of his concepts were so
unconventional that they guaranteed his work would not be embraced by most,
and this resulted in him having a history of albums which sold poorly. Many
times throught his career David Bowie was able to approach music in ways
that had never before been attempted. His ingenuity produced ideas which
are best summed up as brilliant, and most important, they were fresh.
Bowie's ideas had an impact on music that will still be prevelent in the
future, and still felt for decades, centuries, and quite possibly the next
thousand millenium. It is my personal opinion that most bands today owe him
a token of gratitude. I say this because he had a part in shaping almost
every style of sound we now have, and when these brands are all put
together, they become our definition of "Modern Music." It is important to
understand out of all of this that there is only ONE REASON, and ONE REASON
ONLY, that David Bowie's work became such a defining point in the shaping of
music. It is a result of his committment to artistic value, over commercial
success. Bowie had artistic freedom, and he made full use of it, thus giving
him the opportunity to use his ideas. This freedom was obtained as a result
of his ability and willingness not to succumb to personal financial
temptations, and outside pressures, which would have caused him to abandon
his more radical ideas. I should add that he had the courage to do this as
well. Now, here comes the obvious, and, as always, it's the first thing
missed by those who can't figure Bowie out.

The more unconvential something is, the more unconvential the ideas were
behind it. In other words, it would require far more from an artist if they
were working with ideas and methods which are completely original, than
having to work with ideas and methods which had been used many times
previously. What I am trying to illustrate, and probably failing miserably
as in most cases, is simply this. Working with ideas and methods that have
become a proven formula require a lot less input from an artist than working
with methods which are original. This is simply for the reason that there is
no previous stand which an artist can draw from when working with original
ideas, therefore everything which goes into the work must be first created,
and then refined by trial and error until it is either usable, or it has to
be discarded, because the idea was unworkable. Now, please do not
misunderstand me here, writing songs takes talent. It may seem to most of
you who have followed this series that I literally despise music in the
traditional format of "songs," but this is not true at all. I do not, and
never have, discredited the talent it takes to create decent songs. The fact
is however, that I make a distinction between "songs" and "music," and this
is not intentended to place the value of one above another. In terms of
artistic endeavours they each have their own unique place, but you will have
to admit though, that some art is certainly much better than others. I know
that there are many people who do not believe that there is any difference
at all between "songs" and "music," and I have been severely reprimanded on
many occasions for stating that there is, being told that this is all my
personal opinion, and nothing more. Personally, I give no regard to those
assertions, because the reality is that it is the other way around. I am not
the one who is voicing a personal opinion in this case, they are, because
anyone who knows and understands the fundamentals of writing music knows
that there is a difference. I will go one step further with this also and
say that not only are they just different from one another, they are so
radically different that they have little in common with each other in terms
of how they are created. Many people simply do not realize that there are
fundamental differences between songs and music, and the fact is that songs
and music are created by an artist using processes which are completely
seperate and unique from one another.

I said earlier that an artist will create work that is "conventional" when
using ideas and methods that have been used many times before, as they have
become a proven formula which leads to predictable results. How "good" the
end result is however depends on the talent and ability of each individual
artist, how they use this formula, and the quality of their ideas. An artist
writing a song uses conventional methods, as all songs are composed using a
set formula which seldom changes. Once again, what I just said is not
intended to place a lesser value on "songs," or the artists who write them.
As, I said a minute ago, songs are only as good as the artist's talents,
abilities and ideas, and therefore, to create worthwhile songs, and artist
is required to have a Hell of a lot of talent, a lot of ability, and some
very creative ideas. Oh, and guess what? Creating decent music requires an
artist to also have a Hell of a lot of talent, a lot of ability, and some
very creative ideas. I believe that artistically speaking, there is
absolutely no difference between the worth of an artist who creates music,
and one who creates songs, they just work with different mediums, that's
all. Now, when it comes to enjoying art there is no right and wrong. This is
because all art is interpretive, and since this is the case, it is only
common sense that we will each have our own personal preferences of what we
like, and what we dislike. In my case, I prefer music, but that is up to me
as an individual.

One verse, two at the most, is about as far as you go before a two to six
line chorus is inserted. A four line chorus is standard in most songs, and
although short, in many cases they will be the determining factor by which a
song is either accepted or regected, and therefore writing them sucessfully
presents a signifigant challenge for any artist. People usually identify
and remember songs by their chorus, and so they are written especially to
fufill that purpose. They key is to get the listener's attention, and there
is no better way possible than to write a chorus that will cause the
listener to physically interact with a song. This interaction is created by
the artist's ability to write several lines that are simple, yet have a
decidedly unique and original twist to them which will grab the attention of
a listener, and when set to a melody will cause them to sing, hum, or tap
their feet. The alternating pattern of verse, chorus, verse, chorus in a
song is broken usually about half way through by an instrumental interlude,
before the sequence is repeated until the sound fades out at the end. The
duration of a song is usually in the five minute range, give or take a few
minutes either way. Well, there it is in a few paragraphs. That is the basic
format which is followed by an artist when writing songs, and it seldom
varies to any major degree. Again though, following this format has nothing
at all to do with the quality of the finished product whatsoever. That is
always completely dependent on the talent of the artist, and like any thing
else, it takes a tremendous amount of ability to be able to produce quality
work as a songwriter. Please understand that by quality, I mean quality in
the artistic sense, because I do not measure the quality or any artists work
in terms of how "popular" it becomes, or comercially sucessful. Popularity
and commercial sucess are extremely poor indicators to use when evaluating
what an artist produces, because in most cases you can usually measure
artistic inferiority by popularity, meaning that the more popular something
is, the more the quality diminishes. True? I think so. Songs are usually
written with one purpose in mind, and that is to reach a certain audience,
and to do so they must be written well enough that they are able to perform
the miracle of getting airplay. It is no small feat for an artist to be able
to make their work stand out enough that it is noticed, especially since it
is one in a sea of millions. Artistic ability is the key, even though songs
are written using a conventional set of rules, contained within well defined
boundaries. However, when writing songs the artist always has a format to
begin with.

Writing music begins with nothing more than an idea, and usually an idea
that is far from what you could describe as being convential. These ideas
are usually abstract, unconventional at best. Unique. Music seeks to find a
direction to places where other artists have not yet ventured. There is no
set path that an artist can travel to find that place however, so they must
make their own. When an artist works in this fashion the entire process
literally becomes a journey, and a test of an artist's abilities. What they
produce by the end is a combination of skill, intellect, talent and an
ability to be able to navigate a complex maze of trial and error. Songs are
crafted using fundamental principles, they have a foundation, and it is
possible for an artist to envision what they wish to accomplish from the
beginning. It is predictable. The foundations of music are ideas and
innovation, there are no fundamentals. There is a beginning, but what is
arrived at by the end is something which is completely unpredictable.
Artists must avoid errors with songs, yet music provides them an invitation,
they are a means to discover, another door to be opened. Rules become
something to abandon, the boundaries are encroached upon, and then
compromised. Music is the place where sound is born, and the familiar is
forgotton. The realm of music has no time, it's creation knows no past, only
the future. The purpose of a song is to get airplay and reach as many
listeners as possible, and they are written with that purpose in mind. Songs
beg for an audience. Music seeks no audience, save one, the composer, and no
importance falls on it being accepted by others. It's mere existence is
sufficient. Songs tell a story with words, and using sounds which are
familiar, distinguishable, and well known. Music knows no spoken language,
it speaks with sound. Music never relies on words, as the written language
is never a part of music, it is an addition. Music is not reliant on words,
they are seperate, and music has long survived without them. Lanuage
changes over time, and songs become old. Music is special, for it has the
capability to trangresses time, and even though the centuries pass by great
music does not age. It is forever. Music speaks to emotion with sounds which
may be familiar or unfamiliar, the known and the unknown, and it is a place
where the convential becomes something to be ignored. There are Hit Parade
Charts for songs, and an artist writes hoping his work will appear on these
charts at the highest position possible. The "charts" are "Popularity
Meters," and measure a song's success or its failure by showing how much
attention an artist's work received. The "value" of a song is determined by
its position on the charts. The charts are money, and what an artist is
payed is dependent on them. Likewise, an artist writing music is also
financially dependent on the popularity of their work, yet even so, it is
far removed from being a consideration, or a motivation for working. A great
majority of artists are of the belief that money is a corrupter of art, a
pollutant. "Selling Out" is a label given to artists by their peers when
they produce work simply for they sake of monetary gain, and foregoing
expression. Artists who retain the purity of expression in their work are
often condemned to poverty. Many are unknown in life, and are only made rich
long after they have died. Many have now learned to "balance" art with
commercialism, producing work which is both, and therefore never having to
sacrifice artistic puritywhile starving in the process. Unfortunately, too
many have fallen victim to the corrupter and are beseiged by the temptation
of personal gain, and these artists write for the sake of others, leaving
themselves far removed from their work.

I want to repeat that, because I want to make sure you heard me. Some
artists write for the sake of others, and this leaves them far removed from
their work. There is a danger involved in this, and that is unless you know
the complete history of an artist, there is no way of knowing what the
motivation is behind their work. Are you hearing what is inside of "THE
ARTIST," or are you hearing work written based on the desires of "OTHERS?"
Phil Collins. I am sure that you all know who he is. Yes? Okay, then tell
me, "Who is Phil Collins?" Did you know that there is more than one way to
answer that question? The correct answer depends on how well a person knows
the scope of Collin's work. To those fans who started listening to his work
in the early eighties, Phil Collins is a "Pop Star," and he is known for
the fact of having produced quite a number of number of songs which did
well on the charts internationally. Collins is a very successful songwriter,
and he writes "Top Forty" material. Most of the fans which enjoy him now
either became aware of him initially in the early eighties when his work
started to receive a lot of airplay, or after, because of his long string of
hits. These fans however, know only a small part of who Phil Collins is, and
therefore most of them do not understand him. Let me ask you this. Artists
can be "known" through their work. Since this is true, then it stands to
reason that an artist is more visible in the work they created for
themselves personally, than work they created with other intentions in mind.
Therefore, because music is the result of an artist's ideas, and driven by
emotion, one is able to ascertain what the true essence of an artist is
through their music, as opposed to songs. Phil Collins has a talent for
writing hits, but this is not where the real value lies in terms as his
worth as an artist. I will be honest, I personally dislike Phil Collins, but
I will not give any reason for this now. I have spoken to many of his fans,
yet even though they claim to be fans, it has been my experience that most
of them know quite little about him. The truth is that the crowd Phil
Collins attracted by way of his ability to write hits, will NEVER UNDERSTAND
HIM as an artist the way those will who are familiar with ALL OF HIS WORK. I
never seem to see anything in the media, or hear anything said among his
"fans" for that matter, which pertains to his ability as a musician, and I
find this quite disturbing. I feel this way because of WHAT IT IS, that they
have all seemed to have ignored. They have ignored his music. Why? In the
case of the media all they care about is what is "HOT" at the moment, the
flavour of the week. Where his "fans" are concerned, the reason is one of
"personal" taste.

It may not be nice to say, but it is the truth. People clash because the
style of music they listen to, is often not compatable with what style
others listen to. It seems that there is little room for compromise either
in these cases. Those who listen to music that is extremely unconventional,
experimental, or progressive in nature, usually dislike mainstream pop. Many
who listen to pop refer to progressive music as a bunch of random "noise"
which anyone could make. What is labeled as "country music" has a completely
seperate following, and many completely ostricize it for the reason that it
conflicts so heavily with such a wide number other of styles. Country is not
compatible with industrial, techno, the Hip Hop crowd, Rap, heavy metal, and
several others. Punk is not something which easily relates to those who like
folk music, or easy listening. Phil Collin's "music" is not something which
most of his newer fans would find compatible to their personal taste, and
therefore most do not know anything about it. The fact is that Phil Collins
is a "MUSICIAN," and he was one long before he started to write "Top Forty"
material for AM radio. He is a drummer, but not just "any" drummer. Phil
Collins is not just "capable" on a set of drums, he rates among the very
best there are. None, including Carl Palmer, Bill Bruford, Keith Moon,
Chester Thompson, Gerry Marotta, Paul Thompson, Neil Pert, and all of the
others great ones who are so gifted with talent that they "stand alone," can
claim that Phil Collins is anything less. He does not fall short. There is
indeed a circle which exists of artists who are incredibly talented, and
they collaborate with each other on many projects. Their work is not well
known because it falls well outside of anything you could call mainstream,
and therefore it is shunned by the majority of record buyers, and "unfit"
for most radio stations to play due to their listening audiences. Just as a
player will never make it to a professional team without having the talent
to compete at the highest level possible, is the same as the reason only few
are admitted to this circle of exceptional musicians. David Bowie is one of
these people. Robert Fripp, Brian Eno, and Adrian Belew are three of these
people also, and Bowie has worked with each of them. Fripp and Eno have
worked together, and so has Fripp and Belew. Peter Gabriel was the original
front man for one of the most innovative and progressive bands in history.
The band was called Genesis, and like Bowie and other artists at the time,
Genesis went in directions with music and stage performances that were
unheard of. They opened up doors that were previously unopened by any other
artists, and the result was a whole new style of music being crafted that
was uniquely Genesis. Later, other bands followed in heir footsteps and
built on what they had started. It was because of what Genesis had done,
that other great bands went on to produce some of the finest work to be
found in the area of progressive music, and it stands as such to this very
day. Genesis had a drummer by the name of Phil Collins, and it was Collins
who stepped in and filled the vacancy left by the departure of Peter
Gabriel, and the band continued on to reach even greater heights. Peter
Gabriel is another musician who is a part of the circle. He has worked with
Fripp, Gerry Marotta, Tony Levin and Collins. Levin has worked with both
Fripp and Belew. It is there if you look, an intricate web of talent, and
Collins was a part of its design.

I get the same lecture from the post Genesis Phil Collins fans as I get from
post 83 Bowie fans when I say that they do NOT UNDERSTAND Phil Collins.
However, it is true. Listen to me. Do you want me to believe that the
essence of Phil Collins is NOT THAT OF AN EXCEPTIONALLY TALENTED MUSICIAN,
and instead his worth as an artist is writing top forty songs for AM radio?
It is not a coincidence that newer Phil Collins fans seem to mirror newer
Bowie fans, as both will tell you that they have an equal understanding of
the two artists by listening to their COMMERCIAL WORK, as opposed to their
previous work which was not written with the intention of reaching the mass
of mainstream record buyers, in order to sell as many copies of their work
as they possibly can. They would have me believe that the "REAL" Phil
Collins is the one whose creative ability, and his talent as a musician, led
him to record a former top forty hit that was originally done by Diana Ross
and The Supremes, and then to go on to write his own maerial which was all
aimed at a mainstream audience. The "REAL" Phil Collins is an artist who
writes songs that do not vary from the conventional format. His work does
nothing in the way of effecting the course of music, as it contains nothing
innovative, and therefore it does not separate itself from any other top
forty material. In addition it lacks any staying power once it falls off of
the charts. Collin's proficiency as an exceptional drummer are not utilized
anywhere near to his capabilities on his later work. His talent as a drummer
goes unused. Well, there you have it, spelled out in black and white, to
his "new" fans, this is the "REAL" Phil Collins. Why don't I like Phil
Collins? It is because I dislike seeing a brilliant and talented artist
waste his talent. Phil Collins sold out. Unlike what many people beleive
about me, the truth is that I don't care in the fact that he produced some
work which was commercially viable. I do not have a problem with anyone
using whatever abilities they have in order to scratch out a decent living.
More power to them. Whether it be writing songs, or writing music, each
requires an amazing amount of talent. However, my major concern comes when
an artist decides not to balance the work they produce, and to completely
focus on writing only that which will sell. You see, when it reaches this
point the artist is producing work which is written in accordance with the
expectations of others, it lacks PERSONAL EXPRESSION. A songwriter, or an
artist a man who was an original thinker, an inventor, a pioneer, and one
who makes us remember how fortunate we truly are that we were given such a
gift. Which one is it then? Who is "THE REAL PHIL COLLINS?" The songwriter,
or the man who forever altered the course of music? Unfortunately his "new"
fans will never know the "other" side, because those who prefer pop music
are not likely to be the same people who would embrace the work of Genesis,
Gabriel, or any other artist's work where Collin's is likely to appear.
Gabriel, Fripp and Collins, together. WOW! This is what his "new" fans will
never experience. You take anything Phil Collins wrote that is commercial,
and then give one listen to Dance On A Volcano, Ripples, or Los Endos, from
the Genesis album Trick Of The Tail, and then tell me who Phil Collins is. I
have seen his "new" fans " actually become rather surprised when I informed
them that he was an amazingly talented drummer. This is something that they
were unaware of. His commercial work had no great impact, it is no better
than any one of the other million songs written by other artists. In my own
personal opinion it is nothing shy of degrading should the "REAL" Phil
Collins be known simply as a talented songwriter, and an artist who wrote a
number of songs which became successful top forty hits. You will not find
ANYONE, EVER, who has been listening to Collin's work from the early days,
who WILL NOT AGREE WITH ME. He is much more than that. A lot more. This same
situation parellels the career of another artist as well. David Bowie.
Speaking of Bowie, this whole thing is supposed to be about him, isn't it? I
thought so. I wandered again, didn't I? Sorry. Okay, then, back we go.

It is a fact that David Bowie did not change one bit in the seventies. I
know, "How can I be so foolish as to say this?" Easy. But first, you tell
me, "What changed? I want to know exactly how David Bowie changed in the
seventies, because I can't see it." This is what I see. From the late
sixties it is easy to see that David Bowie's work was different from that of
most other writers in the sense that it was far more adventerous. There was
nothing you could take to compare it with, it stood in a league of it's own.
Apart from adventerous, it is also unique in the fact that his work was
completely free from being shaped by anything other than Bowie himself. His
work was not influenced by anything, or anyone, other than him. This gave it
an artistic purity that is rarely found, and something that to find in this
day and age is next to impossible. What David Bowie produced WAS ALL BOWIE.
The beauty is that Bowie was completely careless with his work. I mean this
in the sense that he didn't give a fuck about what his record label wanted,
his manager, or his audience. He also didn't give a fuck about the "Charts"
either, or sales figures, much to the dismay of RCA. Bowie wrote what BOWIE
WANTED TO WRITE, and if you didn't like it then FUCK OFF. Too bad for you.
This careless attitude, and the inability of anyone to control him, brought
him a freedom which few artists will ever enjoy. There were NO BOUNDARIES,
and not just that, NOBODY OTHER THAN BOWIE had ANY SAY WHATSOEVER IN WHAT HE
PRODUCED, he had COMPLETE CONTROL. Be forever thankfull my friends that this
DID NOT GO TO WASTE either. What separates the work of an artist who writes
based on their own personal standards, and are motivated by personal
satifaction, as opposed to artists who write based on standards that are set
by others, and who must satisfy not just themselves, but others as well, can
be clearly seen by listening to Bowie's work. Many times you can detect the
uneasiness when an artist loses all, or part of the control they have over
their own work, or were motivated to produce something in a way that they
did not agree with. This is something you will NEVER DETECT IN BOWIE'S WORK.
Instead, you get the opposite feeling, his work is UNINHIBITED, it is FREE
FLOWING, UNOBSTRUCTED, and PURE. Bowie was motivated by his own crative
ideas. His ideas were not corrupted in any way by a need to impress anyone
other than himself. He did not concern himself with trying to write work
that would attract attention, he did not care if his work was accepted or
rejected, and the "CHARTS" were of no value as an inspiration, they were in
fact something to avoid at all cost. There is one thing to consider here. A
question must be answered, and then it all falls into place.

Did Bowie know at the time when he wrote much of his work in the seventies
that it would not sell? Well, did he? If you are stuck for an answer to
this, then allow me please to give you some advise on finding one. Do a
search on the Net and get a list of the "HIT CHARTS" for the seventies,
broken down by the week and the year. If you need help then email me, as I
know a few excellent sites where you can view them. Now, take the release
dates for every Bowie album in the seventies, and pull up the chart which is
appropriate for the same time period. The chart indicates what was popular
at the time, remember that WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT IS WHAT PEOPLE WERE
BUYING. Pay close attention to what the majority of people spent their money
on when Low and Heroes were released. Hunky Dory, Diamond Dogs, Lodger,
Scary Monsters, Hunky Dory and a few others, Aladinsane, fare only slightly
better. Well? Your answer then is what? There is after all only one
possible answer to this question, and that is that Mr. David Bowie knew
fucking well at the time he wrote some of his work that there was little
chance that it would ever be accepted by a mainstream audience. With Heroes,
Low and Lodger, he knew fucking well at the time they were composed that
there was NO CHANCE IN HELL ANY OF THEM WOULD SELL. People were listening to
Disco for fuck sake, and I can guarantee you having been there at the time,
that no one was about to trade in Dancing Queen, Love To Love You Baby,
Staying Alive or YMCA. for Blackout, Subterraneans, Move On, or A New Career
In A New Town, and that was it. Period! End of story. So, where does that
leave us now? It leaves us with this. If you look at Bowie's work in the
seventies, almost ALL OF IT DEFIED THE POPULAR TRENDS AT THE TIME. It was
CLEARLY NOT WRITTEN TO CONFORM with anything which would help it become
acceptable to the average consumer. Rather, MUCH OF BOWIE'S WORK DID NOT
CONFORM TO ANYTHING. Save the Roxy, Eno, Fripp and the likes crowd, what
Bowie was producing HAD NEVER BEEN HEARD BY ANYONE ELSE BEFORE, therefore it
was labeled "bizarre" before being completely disguarded. Now, you tell me
where the change is. All through his early career, and through the
seventies, David Bowie wrote work solely based on his creative ideas, and
having no restrictions he exceeded the accepted "limits" of music, and
ventured into areas that no artist before him had gone. All that mattered is
what was acceptable to HIM, and no one else, and, armed with his wonderfully
creative mind, full of new ideas, he wrote. Nothing was sacred anymore, and
so Bowie tried anything he wanted try, no matter how unconventional. You
see, to him there was nothing which was "unconventional," and this fact
alone is a testament to him as being one of the few great "innovators,"
because it shows vision. Here is the point, it is his attitude. Bowie saw
what others proclaimed as being "unconventional," not as something to be
avoided, but as an "opportunity" instead. The majority of people in society
tend to be closed minded, they like to feel "safe," and therefore things
that are out of the ordinary become a "threat" to their security. What is
not convential becomes "bizarre," or "weird" to them, and therefore
unacceptable because it has an effect. This effect could easily compromise
their safety by upsetting the careful balance of conformity that their world
depends on to survive. When Bowie looked at ideas that were "unconventional"
to others, he did not perceive them to be a threat, instead they were an
open door, and behind each one there was a wealth of possibilities, and who
knows what wonders could come from a million possibilities. Let me explain
it this way, to Bowie, unconventional ideas were not strange in the least,
they were simply ideas that had never been tried in the past, and having
never been tried before they would certainly be a useful way for any artist
seeking a "NEW APPROACH" to work with, instead of following the same
pattern that thousands of others have done. What was the result of this? The
result was INVENTION. Bowie did not follow other artists, he made his own
path, and one which was far removed from most. Bowie did no manipulate, or
reshape the work of others, by using what previously existed as a platform
to build his own work from. It stemmed from his integrity as an artist, and
that was fortitude, and enough that he not only refused to work from these
established platforms, but he TORE THEM DOWN TO RUBBLE IN FRONT OF ANYONE
WHO DARED TO LOOK, and he did it without any apologies. So, again, where is
the change?

There was NO CHANGE! All through the seventies THE WORK PRODUCED BY DAVID
BOWIE WAS THAT OF AN ESPECIALLY CREATIVE AND TALENTED ARTIST, AND IT WAS
CRAFTED WITH HIS OWN UNIQUE IDEAS, THAT WHERE NOT ONLY ORIGINAL, BUT HIGHLY
INNOVATIVE AS WELL. David Bowie was his own artist, and therefore much of
what he accomplished is his alone. While many artist's work is similar to
what other artists produce, or it all follows a conventional format, Bowie's
work does not, as most of it can't be compared to any previously known
style. David Bowie created work that had never been done in the past, and
what he created places him as one among the greatest artists in human
history. So, what was different about David Bowie's music in the seventies?
Was it not mostly all original? Was it not all written by Bowie using his
own ideas? Did he experiment, or produce work that he knew would not be
popular? Did he limit himself by writing work that was all the same style?
Was his work motivated by PERSONAL ARTISTIC EXPRESSION, COMMERCIAL SUCCESS,
or a combination of both? What period did Bowie write what is considered his
finest work? What work of Bowie's is credited with changing the shape of
music? The music that he is credited with as a being a forerunner to, or the
styles he is credited for actually inventing were written when? So? The
change is where exactly? Yes, Halloween Jack, The Thin White Duke, Ziggy
Stardust, Aladinsane, and the others were characters he played, and yes, his
style of music changed. What most people fail to get though, is the fact
that THIS WORK WAS ALL CREATED BY A PERSON, WHO AS AN ARTIST DID NOT CHANGE
THEIR STYLE OF WRITING, OR THEIR APPROACH TO MUSIC ONE BIT. These characters
have NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH HOW BOWIE WORKED AS AN ARTIST, do they?
Right! NOT ONE FUCKING BIT. Let me ask you this. Oh, all of you who know the
post 83 David Bowie, you better get some ice, as you may get a bit hot in a
minute because of me, or even boil for that matter.

All through the seventies, David Bowie, an innovative artist, and he did not
change from working as such. Now, since most of Bowie's work during this
period was created by him, and therefore is original, unique, innovative,
and experimental, I must ask where the ideas first originated in order to
write this work? The ideas were Bowie's, correct? Now, since this work is
original, and a result of ideas and concepts which came from Bowie, wouldn't
you say that it was Bowie who created this work? Yes. What were the reasons
behind his writing? Debatable? Not a chance in Hell. Commercial success? If
you think so, then you prove it. If you have nothing that is concrete to
support your belief, then I regret to inform you that all you have is what
you care to believe. I am sorry, but beliefs that have no roots in reality
will go absolutely nowhere with me, because I know that imagination, rather
that information, is the father of most personal beliefs and opinions.
Music was not confining, and therefore provided Bowie with the perfect
medium to express himself, and an artist such as Bowie needs a lot of room.
Bowie currently writes, paints, acts, directs, dabbles in sculpture,
photography, and several other mediums. Music gave him a realm where he was
not required to separate artistic mediums, instead, he BLENDED THEM IN. The
word he always used was MULTIMEDIA, and his accomplishments in sucessfully
introducing new, or other existing artforms into the realm of modern music
are for the most part severely neglected, or overlooked at best. The two
most prominent are The Rise And Fall Of Ziggy Stardust And The Spiders From
Mars and Diamond Dogs. Why are they prominent? They have a concept behind
them, that is why. The tracks on an album each have a theme, a story to
tell. One track is about love, another about a car, one pertains to a dream,
there's one about money, and then there's one about the dope fairy who
comes in through the window every morning with a free kilo for all nice
little boys who write hundreds of pages about David Bowie that no one reads.
Listen to the tracks, and none of them relate to each other. Bowie had an
idea which he used to create a central theme for an album, like a book, or a
play, and wrote each track in a way that told a story from beginning to end.
If not a story, he would take a topic he wanted to address, and use each
track to express his different points of view. Ziggy Stardust, and Diamond
Dogs, each had an entirely new dimension to them, as they went far beyond
what was considered your average album. There was a completely new
experience which awaited the listener. Bowie wrote them as a play, based on
a central theme, and this allowed a listener to close their eyes only to
actually see this play performed, the story unfolding more and more as each
track went by, and it was told with a brilliantly written lyrical narrative,
delivered with stunning clarity by the music which accompanied it. May I ask
who else happened to be doing this in the early seventies? Scary Monsters
was written around a central topic, that being society. The album looked at
society as a whole, but rather than being a story from beginning to end,
each track was used to make an individual statement about some aspect of it.
What Bowie brought to the stage is a topic worthy of a book in itself. I
will alleviate any fears that you may have, thinking that I am about to
write that book starting now, by saying only this. Consider its size, and
the twenty thousand moving pieces that made it work, and it is no wonder
that the stage for the 1974 Diamond Dogs tour set a record as the most
elabourate theatrical presentation to ever tour. The stage alone cost
$400,000.00, and please remember, that was $400,000.00 in 1974. Bowie took
the art of mime, and acting, and thrust them on to the concert stage. The
ideas he got from watching 16th century traditional Japanese theatre, later
became the basic designs that were incorporated into many of his costumes,
and it is also where some of the make up schemes originated. Bowie was the
one who had the idea originally to use only white light on the 76 tour, and
unless you have seen video that captures a good percentage of the stage,
there is no way that you could ever appreciate the full effect of the
lighting. Sadly, none of this is visible on the 76 rehearsal video because
of the lighting that was used when it was shot.

All through the seventies, David Bowie, was an innovative artist, and he did
not change from working as such. Now, since most of Bowie's work during this
period was created by him, and therefore is original, unique, innovative,
and experimental, I must ask where the ideas first originated in order to
write this work? The ideas were Bowie's, correct? Now, since this work is
original, and a result of ideas and concepts which came from Bowie, wouldn't
you say that it was Bowie who created this work? Yes. What were the reasons
behind his writing? Debatable? Not a chance in Hell. Commercial success? If
you think so, then you prove it. If you have nothing that is concrete to
support your belief, then I regret to inform you that all you have is what
you care to believe. I am sorry, but beliefs that have no roots in reality
will go absolutely nowhere with me, because I know that imagination, rather
that information, is the father of most personal beliefs and opinions.
Music was not confining, and therefore provided Bowie with the perfect
medium to express himself, and an artist such as Bowie needs a lot of room.
Bowie currently writes, paints, acts, directs, dabbles in sculpture,
photography, and several other mediums. Music gave him a realm where he was
not required to separate artistic mediums, instead, he BLENDED THEM IN.
The word he always used was MULTIMEDIA, and his accomplishments in
sucessfully introducing new, or other existing artforms into the realm of
modern music are for the most part severely neglected, or overlooked at
best. The two most prominent are The Rise And Fall Of Ziggy Stardust And The
Spiders From Mars and Diamond Dogs. Why are they prominent? They have a
concept behind them, that is why. On most albums the tracks each have a
theme, a story to tell. One track is about love, another about a car, one
pertains to a dream, there's one about money, and then there's one about
the dope fairy who comes in through the window every morning with a free
kilo for all nice little boys who write hundreds of pages about David Bowie
that no one reads. Listen to the tracks, and none of them relate to each
other. Bowie had an idea which he used to create a central theme for an
album, like a book, or a play, and wrote each track in a way that told a
story from beginning to end. If not a story, he would take a topic he wanted
to address, and use each track to express his different points of view.
Ziggy Stardust, and Diamond Dogs, each had an entirely new dimension to
them, as they went far beyond what was considered your average album. There
was a completely new experience which awaited the listener. Bowie wrote them
as a play, based on a central theme, and this allowed a listener to close
their eyes only to actually see this play performed, the story unfolding
more and more as each track went by, and it was told with a brilliantly
written lyrical narrative, delivered in stunning clarity by the music which
accompanied it. May I ask who else happened to be doing this in the early
seventies? Scary Monsters was written around a central topic, that being
society. The album looked at society as a whole, but rather than being a
story from beginning to end, each track was used to make an individual
statement about some aspect of it. What Bowie brought to the stage is a
topic worthy of a book in itself. I will alleviate any fears that you may
have, thinking that I am about to write that book starting now, by saying
only this. Consider its size, and the twenty thousand moving pieces that
made it work, and it is no wonder that the stage for the 1974 Diamond Dogs
tour set a record as the most elabourate theatrical presentation to ever
tour. The stage alone cost $400,000.00, and please remember, that was
$400,000.00 in 1974. Bowie took the art of mime, and acting, and thrust them
on to the concert stage. The ideas he got from watching 16th century
traditional Japanese theatre, later became the basic designs that were
incorporated into many of his costumes, and it is also where some of the
make up schemes originated. Bowie was the one who had the idea originally
to use only white light on the 76 tour, and unless you have seen video that
captures a good percentage of the stage, there is no way that you could
ever appreciate the full effect of the lighting. Sadly, none of this is
visible on the 76 rehearsal video because the lighting effects were not used
when it was recorded. All of this barely scratches the surface, and if you
have noticed, I haven't even touched on what he accomplised through his
writing. Music could have easily done it alone, but when combined with other
mediums, the creative possibilities for an artist become infinite.

It was called "Multimedia," and it had been done before in other areas, but
never with modern music. Rock N' Roll, after all, was Rock N' Roll. IT WAS
AN INSTITUTION! That's all there was to it. The music, the culture, the
audience, and everything else that made up the entire Rock N' Roll thing was
clearly defined, so defined as a matter of fact that what made up Rock N'
Roll was clearly entrenched in everyone's mind. It took decades, but by 1970
everyone knew what Rock N' Roll, and there was nothing further to add. Sure,
bands would come, bands would go, the music would differ somewhat at
times probably, but the essence of Rock N' Roll, and the elements that
defined it, were something which had long been cast in stone. The idea to
alt er the basic fundamentals of modern music really did not occur to most
artists, and this is qu ite understandable, I mean why even consider
changing something that works. Besides, if you fuck with it, then it isn't
Rock N' Roll anymore, it was pointless to even think of it. One can now
understand why Bowie was considered a "FREAK." As I stated earlier, the
majority of people in society tend to be closed minded, and they like to
feel "safe." Therefore, things that are out of the ordinary become a
"threat" to their security, and they are unwilling to accept anything
unconvential, calling it "bizarre," or "weird." David Bowie was seen more
as a threat, so it was best just to dismiss him, and his ideas. The whole
idea was to pin him with such a bad reputation, that nobody will take him
seriously, and that is exactly what they did. Queer, fag, transvestite,
alien, the weird one with the orange hair who wears the make up, and, oh,
you mean that freak. Artist? David Bowie? NEVER! Yet, it was David Bowie,
and a few others who refused to be confined as artists by the FUNDAMENTALS
THAT WERE THE CORNERSTONES UPON WHICH THEY BUILT THE INSTITUTION OF ROCK N'
ROLL. Save for a few who admired their brilliance at the time, their ideas
were disregarded by most, and quite often they were the subject
of ridicule, and them, along with their work, were dismissed as being
anything even remotely worthwhile. However, that changes nothing. Many of
David Bowie's original ideas which were scorned at the time, are not only
accepted now, they are a standard. What bands now do not use a whole
assortment of Bowie's original ideas on stage, theatrics, costumes, make up?
The Diamond Dogs tour permanently altered how live performances were
presented. It was responsible for bands to start adding a "big stage" with
"special effects" to their tours. Bowie's performances were far more than a
Rock N' Roll concert, they were an event, and other artists had to play
catch up. Little did any of them realize at the time that this was just the
beginning, and eventually it would be everyone and everything involved in
music that would be sucked into the game, either that, or they would be
completely washed away in Bowie's wake.

It is NOT NEGOTIABLE, there will not be a vote, and there will be no debate
on the matter. A fact is a fact, and whether YOU personally disagree with it
or not, your opinion is never going to change it. Call me right, call me
wrong, whatever, we are dealing with reality here. Not one bit of David
Bowie's work received the acclaim which was lavished on it in the seventies.
Furthermore, David Bowie as an artist has not been credited with having any
signifigant impact on music since 1983, and his name is only associated with
the word "innovative" when someone is speaking of his earlier work. What
work Bowie produces no longer pushes the barriers, it does not open any
doors, or carve out any new direction where music is concerned. This has
resulted in the fact that David Bowie no longer "creates," but works instead
with "conventional" methods, and this can be proven by the fact that there
has been little to find in his work that has not been done COUNTLESS TIMES
BEFORE. Now, DON'T YOU DARE INTERPRET THAT TO MEAN ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT
IT SAYS. If you read, I DID NOT SAY that Bowie's work was not good, some of
it is excellent, and in my opinion AS GOOD AS HIS EARLIER WORK, I merely
said that THE STYLE OF WORK HE PRODUCES HAS CHANGED DRAMATICALLY SINCE 1983.
I defy anyone to draw this statement into contention, I dare you, go ahead,
try me! I hope nobody out there is that fucking stupid, but, you never know.
So, according to BOWIE, what he wrote in the seventies, was motivated by his
desire to express himself through his work, and this is evident by his
unwillingness to submit to anyone else's wishes, and alter his work in any
way because of them. He did this at a time when HIS WORK DID NOT SELL, and
yet he kept producing work that was not commercially viable anyway. Why did
Bowie write Let's Dance? How about many of his albums subsequent to it?
Well? Don't you lie, because WE ALL KNOW WHY, even if WE DON'T ADMIT IT!
You do not go from a Lodger, to a Scary Monsters, to a Let's Dance with no
particular reason in mind, and to say you do, means that you believe Bowie
put not thought into the complete change in style between albums, it was
random, it was something which just happened. Bowie? Random? I pity you.
What an insult to a great mind. Really. Bowie creates everything he does,
nothing is left to chance. HE IS THE EPITOMY OF PERFECTION WHEN IT COMES TO
HIS WORK, and NEVER ANYTHING LESS. Let's Dance is POP PERFECTION, it is
BRILLIANT, CREATIVE, UNIQUE IN SOUND, an ENGINEERING MARVEL, an it has the
BRILLIANCE OF DAVID BOWIE WRITTEN ALL OVER IT! It also represented a
complete change in the way Bowie writes, and the work he produced after.

Why? Why am I attacked for stating the truth? Huh? Can anyone tell me? It
appears that it is some unforgivable sin to state the truth, Bowie changed
the way he worked drastically in 83, and no longer wrote using the same
methods as he did in the seventies. In addition, Bowie wanted his completed
work to achieve different results than before. So? So, what? It's true. I
fail to see where the problem is, other than some people do not want to
admit it. Listen, Bowie wrote his earlier work for far different reasons
than his later work, and like any other artist, his desire was to accomplish
something with it. There was a goal to achieve, his work was written for a
desired result. He achieved those results. Likewise, his later work was also
written for a desired result, and once more, he achieved those results.
Success in both cases, and I get in trouble for saying it. Wow? Bowie has
FUCKING ADMITTED MANY TIMES that the motivation behind his work in 83, 84,
and 87 was ACCEPTANCE. He conceived it, wrote it, and recorded it, using
every means and method he had, and all with one specific goal in mind. He
hoped that his efforts would result in a finished product that was
COMMERCIALLY SUCESSFUL. Now, here it is, straight, and after, you can add
it all up. They were his ideas, however, he had severe restrictions.
Producing art which is comercially viable means writing with the goal of
having your work accepted by a mainstream audience, and this alone leaves
you no other option than to produce work that is according to the standards
of others. There is no other choice. When you are dealing with an audience
this massive you are in no position to dictate what they like, or dislike,
and therefore you do not decide what they choose to buy, or not buy. These
decisions are made by THE MARKET, not you. Unfortunately, a market this size
is bombarded constantly from a million different sources all telling them
buy this, these are hot, this is the trend, eat these, watch this, read
this, wear these, go here, weigh this much, dye you hair, drive this car,
shop here, listen to this, hate these people, you must have this stuff or
you're not worth anything, do this, don't do that, and on, and on, and on,
and on it goes. The real problem is though, is that all of the stuff you're
being told is contradictory, they are all telling you to do different
things. One car manufacturer tells you that you will look really cool if you
buy their car, while the other car manufacturer tells you you will look like
a geek if you do. There are so many factors that account for what eventually
becomes public opinion that one artist alone is powerless to control it. It
is true that some artists, Bowie included, have an ability to greatly
influence the publc, they are still only able to effect a small percentage
of it. If the mainstream audience has decided that Disco is what they like,
then you must write Disco oriented songs, or they simply will refuse to buy
it. Radio stations cater to the whims of their listeners, and if they like
Disco your work better be Disco, otherwise your chances of getting any
airplay are zero, and without any airplay, you are sunk. That's just the way
it is. The rules do not change, even if your name is David Bowie, because if
you do not cater to what the mainstream audience wants there are a thousand
others who will, and being David Bowie means just that, you are David Bowie.
So what? They still buy what they want.

Yes, you can write good stuff, as long as it is in accordance with what is
acceptable to a mainstream audience. So, with that in mind, was Let's Dance
written to satisfy Bowie's own personal standards, of someone else's? He had
a limited licence concerning artistic freedom when he wrote that album, as
it had to be created based on what the PUBLIC WOULD ACCEPT. Try this one on
for size. In 83, if Bowie did not change and start producing work that was
solely based on the standards dictated by others, you must believe that had
he kept right on writing for his own personal reasons, his work would still
have gone on to sell five and a half million copies. Give your head a shake,
that's bullshit, and you know it. Sucess meant that he had to make a
sacrifice, therefore he did. What Bowie wanted to achieve with his work in
the seventies did not change, even once. What is Bowie's most "personal"
album? It is Low, and he fought the battle of his life when RCA refused to
release it, because to him it meant that much. "It speaks for itself" is the
reason he gave for disappearing for eight months, when instead he should
have been promoting it as most artists do in order to sell their work.
Sell? Low was not created to sell, it was not created for an audience, it
was created for himself as a means of personal expression. If any others
happened to hear it and understand it that was all the better. He fought for
Low's release for that very reason, it was to give others at least an
opportunity to hear what he refers to as "his greatest personal
achievement." Who, or how many would accept his work was of little concern,
and acceptance never became a factor when he worked. That is not my opinion
either, side two of Heroes says so, and so do his sales figures.
So, who is the "REAL DAVID BOWIE?" Who is the "REAL PHIL COLLINS?" Bowie's
writing changed completely from what it was beginning at the end of 1982.
There is no damn fucking way that anyone is going to convince a me , or
anyone else who lives in reality, and this is especially true concerning
anyone who is only slightly familiar with the entire scope of Bowie's
career. Yet, as astounding as it is, and senseless, people still do. Yep,
and not a few people either, there are a lot. A whole lot. The physical
evidence is overwhelming which supports a reversal in Bowie's working
methods, and for creating work which was intended to achieve results that
were different than before. Changing, reshaping, redefining, and altering
modern music with ideas that were completely new. Even though these ideas
were almost all completely rejected, ridiculed and scorned at the time, it
did nothing to lessen their impact, or the subsequent effect they had. The
hand of this one artist changed the entire world of music, and music itself,
forever. David Bowie's work had an influence on music that will never be
forgotten, because in many ways modern music is David Bowie. His influence
did not stop there either, as David Bowie permanenty altered the stage that
music it is presented on, and even so far as to change the way it is
presented. The contributions that David Bowie made to this world go far
beyond music. Looking at the magnitude and the scope of his achievements as
an artist quickly cause one to realize that there is only one way possible
to sum up his career, and that is by the statement, "DAVID BOWIE REDEFINED
THE WORLD OF ART." There is a revelation in the answer to this question, and
a lesson to be learned. To those who believe that Bowie is Bowie, no matter
what he produces as an artist, tell me this, and then explain it. I want to
know how much of his post 83 work had any substantial effect on music? I
will tell you right now that well written songs do not count, and neither
does your PERSONAL TASTE. You may like his later work more, but that has no
relevance whatsoever, we are not discussing what a person believes is good
or not, we are discussing the effect that Bowie has as an artist. So, other
than writing material which is good, what other valuable contributions would
you attribute to his work, and his relevance as an artist? Go ahead, start
listing them. No? Well then, let me try. Okay, number one, insignifigant,
number two, insignifigant, three, insignifigant, four, insignifigant. The
amount of work that Bowie has produced since 1983 is of little artistic
importance, it may be good, but it is not important. This is not an OPINION
based on what I THINK, his work is unimportant because it has no effect on
music, none. I am aware that I anger many so called "fans" when I say things
like that, and for the life in me I will never understand why. The anger
comes because these people believe that I am demeaning Bowie. Why? Am I the
reason that his work no longer has any impact? Did you ever consider the
fact that THIS WORK WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE ANY SIGNIFIGANT IMPACT ON
MUSIC? Did you ever think that THIS WORK WAS NOT INTENTENDED TO BE
ARTISTICALLY INNOVATIVE? Gee, maybe BOWIE'S GOAL WASN'T TO WRITE SOMETHING
NEW, OR TO VENTURE INTO AREAS OF MUSIC WHICH REMAIN UNEXPLORED? If Bowie was
not trying to acheive these objectives with his work, then he SUCCEEDED,
didn't he? Well, if he suceeded how can I possibly be demeaning him by
saying so? Good one, eh? Oh, and not only is it good, it's also true.

If it is possible to understand an artist through their work, which work
would you consider to be more beneficial for this purpose? There are two
possibilities. First, there is the work that is created in a fashion where
nothing is really pre determined. In other words, you begin, and after that
it could go anywhere. Those who have read this series know that this is
exactly the way Bowie worked. This method was used by Bowie because the
work was created as a means of artistic self expression, an avenue to take
ideas and let them develop, experiment with them, and just go along and
follow what unfolds. Try anything, see where it goes, see what happens. The
point was to USE ORIGINAL IDEAS, and TO SEE WHERE THEY LEAD. By realizing
Bowie used this sort of an approach to his work makes it easy to understand
how he managed to accomplish what he did. The second possibility is that it
is through work written for a specific purpose. It is the intention of the
artist to have the finished product accepted by the largest audience
possible. Therefore, the artist must conform to the standards set by others,
and they dictate the look of the finished product. The answer is obvious. Do
not look for THE REAL DAVID BOWIE in his work which was created to please
others, because you will not find him. To those of you who believe that you
know Bowie through his later work, well, believe what you will, but you are
deceiving yourself. Tell me, what did this Bowie you claim to know and
understand actually achieve with his work? Please, and to prove your point,
send me some articles, reviews, or anything at all which gives artistic
acclaim to his work. Would you mind telling me which albums you listen to
that have earned the distinction of being commonly referred to as "classic?"
Which post 1983 albums do you consider to be the most innovative? What are
the albums you consider unique, and his most creative after 1983? I am
looking for those that best illustrate Bowie's originality, having things on
them that have never been done before by any other artist. How much of this
work can be credited with the development of completely new styles of music?
What are Bowie's greatest achievements as an artist after 83? You can feel
free to squalk until you are blue in the face, or red, or green, for all I
care. The REAL DAVID BOWIE is an ARTIST. The REAL DAVID BOWIE changed the
face of music, and the performing arts. The REAL DAVID BOWIE was an
innovator, The REAL DAVID BOWIE created, and The REAL DAVID BOWIE gave us
music which did not previously exist, and it exists now only because of him.
The REAL DAVID BOWIE is one of the few artists that appear at times during
the course of history, that can't be compared to any other. He is unique.
The REAL DAVID BOWIE did not have a "temporary" effect on music and the
performing arts, his ideas, and the changes that came as a result of them,
are permanent, eternal, music is not the same because of him. That is "THE
REAL DAVID BOWIE." Unfortunately, many disagree, believing the value of
Bowie's work is a matter of opinion. Well then, to those I say,"YOUR DAVID
BOWIE" writes songs that you personally prefer, and other than that his
accomplishments are not worthy of much discussion. This stands no matter
what you care to believe, or what your opinion is. It stands until such a
time as you are able to demonstrate, and prove, the creative relevence of
Bowie's later work. Show what original ideas it contains, the innovative
aspects of it, and state what he accomplished overall, and do so by giving
examples as evidence which demonstrate how relevent this work was. The final
nail in the coffin of your argument is in the fact that His Majesty admits
to the "MONEY GRAB." The worst part is, that he has little regard for the
"new" fans he aquired as a result of becoming a commercially accepted
artist. Is this my opinion? No, but I bet you wish it was. It came right
from David Bowie, and I have the quote handy, as well as a few more little
"gems" that I found in a few places over the years. I know, I'm quite the
"character," aren't I.

THE REAL DAVID BOWIE that walked out on stage in Brussels that night was a
CHARACTER. You may remember that seven hundred or so paragraphs back, when I
wrote about the reviews that appeared after the opening night performance, I
made a notation and told you that they were all taken from "COMPARABLE"
publications. What did I mean? Well, I meant that each publication is
considered to be quite CONSERVATIVE. These publications were middle of the
road, and they were never flattering when it concerned Bowie in the past.
Normally only things such as his drug use, sexuality, Nazism, or some off
hand comment he made that they believed to be unacceptable. Now, many do
not even have the slighest idea whatsoever about how important this moment
in history is. This is the one moment that changed the entire course of
David Bowie's career, and as it looks at the moment, the change is a
permanent one. Forever. Acceptance. Yes, acceptance. Having a hit album is
one thing, but as you well know quite often that is all there is, and
oblivion comes next. I don't remember how many kazillion copies it sold, but
the numbers were incredible, and there was nothing previous to it that had
sold anywhere close to the number it did. It was a double album called
"Frampton Comes Alive." Yes, the same Frampton who toured with Bowie in 87,
Peter, and he made his name in the band Camel. Frampton, and Camel, were for
the most part unknown, and although they may have had some success in
certain markets it was limited. As musicians they were nothing out of the
ordinary. Peter finally went solo, yet nothing much changed, he was just
"another" guitar player, in the same barrel as all the "other" guitar
players. There was nothing exceptional about him at all. Then Frampton Comes
Alive was released. Now, please do not quote me here because this is off
the top of my head and I may be wrong, but I think fifty two million copies
world wide is about right. I am willing to bet that anyone who was breathing
at the time it was released has a copy. Remember, this is from obscurity
we're talking about here. Airplay? I have never to this day seen anything
receive the airplay that record did, it was unreal. After, he toured. I saw
him on that tour, and nothing at all varied from what was on the record, the
order of the songs, or the way they sounded. I could have stayed home, put
the album on, and closed my eyes cheaper. I would have got the same thing.
To take full advantage of the situation you try to keep riding the wave, and
so a second album quickly followed after the tour. The album, like most,
went nowhere, and it took Peter Frampton with it. This seems to be the
familiar story when it comes to artists who have been struggling along for
an eternity with no measurable success, and suddenly they have this major
hit on their hands that sells incredibly well. Nobody paid any attention to
them at all, and almost overnight they become the hottest commodity on the
planet. What usually happens to them, and it is quite sad, is that they
start believing that this is their big break, and they finally made it,
only to discover upon the release their next album that nobody is interested
anymore. Although much more sucessful over the years than Frampton,
essentially David Bowie was in the same boat.

Brussels was the one shot he had. It's what motivated Let's Dance, the
image consultants, the publicity agents, the clothes, the videos, the tour,
all the planning, all the money, and everything else that went into it was
all to achieve one thing, ACCEPTANCE. He wanted to appeal to the largest
audience he possibly could. Mom, dad, the kids, grandma, grandpa, aunts,
uncles, cousins, neices, nephews, the dog, the cat, and the goldfish. Not
only a few moms, dads and other relatives either, he wanted ALL OF THEM,
every last one on the planet, and that was just to begin with, he'd see what
happens after that. This was of course starting with a reputation as being
an Orange Hair Dress Wearing Faggot Alien Transvestite Vampire Drug Fiend.
If that wasn't enough, there was always the minor issue concerning his
popularity to be dealt with. I mean his records didn't sell, and on previous
tours he couldn't even manage to conjour up an audience large enough to
fill up a sixteen thousand seat hockey arena. Oh, and nobody had heard
anything much from him in the past five years or so. He would soon know,
the reveiws would tell him, based on that one performance. This night the
world would decide.

The decision was made before the show even ended, and in a few hours the
rest of the world would know that the world had changed. There was a new
trend to follow, nothing was "HOT" anymore, except David Bowie. Yes they
did. They bought the whole fucking thing. Anyone who had been following
Bowie's career beforehand knew damn well what it was, but then there's the
media, the ones who we trust to uphold the truth. They believe what they
see, and they print what they're told, and rarely do they bother to second
guess anything. Oh, and forget checking the facts, not is it only a waste of
time, but who cares. It isn't like we're dealing with anything important
here, such as the TV Schedule, or the immediate whereabouts of Jennifer
Lopez. What did they write? This, "For the first time in his thirteen year
career, Bowie played straight." That is what they wrote. The most grossly
fabricated persona imaginable."

TwO Bee KonTinUEEd.
AlaDinSAnE


""I don't begrudge any artist for finding an audience"
- David Bowie abt. 1987
Report This Post Go to the top of the page
 

<< Prev  1   Next >>

Locked
You are not permitted to post in this forum.

Latest Forum Posts
Latest Topic TitleRepliesViewsAuthorLast Post
Images Vol. 58011homebrewby homebrew
2026-01-24 17:30:27
Images Vol. 57 (The Last One?)2284homebrewby dag97
2026-01-18 07:53:51
Final act documentary121003Ballhausby surfling
2026-01-17 10:40:01
Clear out of all me uploads and down loads from 2006 onwards12943Quicksandby Quicksand
2026-01-12 08:08:35
Images Vol. 561351homebrewby Moony
2026-01-11 15:29:59
BBC Radio 6 Music celebrates the eternal legacy of David Bowie0395surflingby surfling
2026-01-06 18:11:16
DONATIONS [Bump]20153899Steveboyby Steveboy
2026-01-06 04:41:58
Images Vol. 550463homebrewby homebrew
2026-01-04 14:57:27
Savage Jaw background info204051homebrewby dragpeace
2025-12-31 17:55:03
Bowie talks to Robert Smith of The Cure in 199524237MossGardenby MossGarden
2025-12-27 21:44:25
Images Vol. 541471homebrewby dag97
2025-12-27 15:34:55


Online Users

Newest Members
Modified by JanErik |- Page Generated In 0.057411 secs.
-|- RSS Feed -|- Feed Info
Theme Base By: Nikkbu | Modified by: paperdragon | Graphics by: MossGarden
Email: bowiestation(AT)bowiestation.com