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

Navigation

Poll


You must be logged in to view polls
Bowie General > Images Vol. 59B

You are in:  Forums / Bowie General / Images Vol. 59B
Locked
homebrewPosted at 2026-02-07 16:11:21(6 hrs ago) (Bowie General / Images Vol. 59B)


Uploaded: 152.57 GB
Downloaded: 376.37 GB
Posts: 183

Ratio: 0.41
Location: United States of America


Here is where even the author began to lose track of the installments. And they are getting much longer. I believe Jamie was getting a bit fatigued by it all at this point and that he was ready to just dump what he had left and be done with it. There are two articles in my archives titled "Vol. 59".  I have posted the first as Vol. 59A and this is Vol. 59B.

As always 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: 59

IMAGES
Well?
I warned you?
Oh, and there's a fuck of a lot more where this came from too.
Just thought you should all be aware of that.
Now, that being said, here we go.
If you ever told me it would happen I would have laughed at you. The reason
behind it would be your foolishness, and a ridiculous display it would be
as I marvelled at your continuing attempts to convince me that the
impossible was going to occur, that being I would one day praise a music
journalist for having insight, or what is far more absurd, one who wrote
something accurate in an article which contained the name David Bowie. Had
you told me this would happen not once, but twice, I would have told you to
take a smaller dose next time, you're having a "Bad Trip." I will say that
what I am about to tell you is the work of two brilliant writers, and ones
who truly "understood" what Bowie was doing. Not surprisingly, the reveiws
apperared in Melody Maker, the magazine who saved his career by printing the
"bisexual" story, and New Musical Express, the magazine that carried the
highlights of an unimaginable three hour one on one interview with Bowie in
1980. This interview is a gem, for the simple fact that it is completely
free from any of Bowie's usual bullshit. That is a miracle in itself, but
there is more, the impossible also occurs. The person conducting the
interview asks amazingly intelligent questions which are concerned with
Bowie's work. As one who appreciates depth, it is obvious that Bowie deeply
respects the fact that he is being dealt with by someone who knows his work,
and has an understanding of art. Bowie's appreciation for this is shown by
the fact he spent the time he did, not only the three hours sitting and
talking, but doing so over a TWO DAY period. Bowie also rewarded the
journalist by returning the favour and giving intelligent and truthful
responses to the questions he was asked. What you see here is not a
coincidence. The truth is that the conservative media were ignorant, they
knew nothing about Bowie, or his work. Although it is not surprising to me
when I come across articles about Bowie which are brilliant examples of how
a journalist can properly display the fact that their minds are completely
void of any knowledge pertaining to the topic that they are writing about,
because over all of these years I have grown used to it. I have even become
comfortable with the fact that they do this while at the same time
pretending that they are extremely well educated, and all of this is done in
a vain attempt to present themselves as having some sort of authority, and
therefore we are apparently expected to place an extremely high value on the
these articles they believe are informative, which are in reality a waste of
the alphabet. What is surprising though, is not just how poorly informed the
writers are that wrote the reviews found in these well respected newspapers.
What is really disturbing is that NOT ONE OF THEM cared enough about what
they were writing to bother and dig up some information in an effort to
protect the integrity of what they wrote, and what is assumed by their
readers as being credible. Isn't it interesting that in the mainstream
newspapers that used to criticize Bowie's worth as an artist, gave the
performance in Brussels glowing reviews, and many were absolutely
spectacular. Even more interesting is that the people who wrote them
displayed an obvious lack of knowledge about David Bowie. The fact that
these papers are so well respected, and yet so easily fooled, should be
enough to cause anyone concern. Now, as it so happens, reviews of the
Brussels performance also appeared in Melody Maker and New Musical Express,
just at the time when it appeard that there was absolutely no worth to be
found in any of the articles appearing in the media about Bowie. Unlike the
mainstream publications, Melody Maker and New Musical Express have closely
followed Bowie's career from the beginning. The quality of the articles
which have appeared in them over the years have not always been the best,
but overall they are certainly far more valuable than most, and I personally
have not come across one that wasn't well worth the read. If nothing else,
they have both been around Bowie and his work long enough to at least have
some idea of what they are writing about. The background knowledge, and the
understanding that these two writers display about Bowie in these reviews is
breathtaking. Ready? Okay.
"This new, very visible Bowie says much to us about the rewards of
mediocrity that maintain rock's motion.. Fighting hard against the growing
myopic trend, I soak in the juices of the snobberies of art and consider
such spectacles as Bowie being nausiatingly protective and taking the "good
feeeling" they apparently impart about as seriously as Matt Monro's
moonlight. The rock right and Bowie's use of it is simply about The Place
and keeping people in it." That was what New Musical Express had to say.
Now, Melody Maker. This is what they had to say. "The concerts confirmed
what those singles with Queen and Bing Cosby should already have told us.
The man who sold the world can now safely be filed away under family
entertainment. And all the family is buying." These sentiments were not
confined to just those two periodicals either. The London music press had
been around Bowie far too long. Furthermore, unlike the mainstream press
they were not ignorant, They each took enough interest in David Bowie that
they had devoted hundreds of pages over the years to articles documenting
his career and commenting on his work. Sounds magazine referred to the whole
thing as "Musical fish and chips." Yep, they had been around far too long,
and in that time they had learned far too much to fall victim to any charade
professing to be "THE REAL DAVID BOWIE." Now, let's backtrack here for a
second and look carefully at a few things which are stated in these reviews
This, as I just mentioned a second ago, was written in New Musical Express,
"Bowie being nausiatingly protective and taking the "good feeling" they
apparently impart about as seriously as Matt Monro's moonlight." There is
something in here that I recently discovered which is quite remarkable, and
it has to do with the writers choice of words. I am specifically referring
to the "good feeling" remark. Awhile back I quoted David Bowie when he was
asked about what he was hoping to convey to his audiences on the Serious
Moonlight tour. His answer was this. He was going to "put on a damn good
show that had a nice feeling to it. A happy show." That is what the Serious
Moonlight tour was about, a "happy show" with a "nice feeling." Do it
yourself if you don't believe me. Go and get a bunch of the reviews that
were written about the tour, it doesn't matter where they're from, because
as you too will notice quite quickly, they are mostly the same. Oh, and
there is a reason for that as well, which I will get into a bit later. The
reviews may not use the exact words, "happy" or "nice," but the choice of
words really isn't that important. You can describe it any way you want, the
important thing is what they are trying to tell you, and so what exactly do
the reviews have to say about the shows on the tour? They are mostly all
described as having the exact same ambience that Bowie said he wanted to
convey, and not only did he want them to be "happy" and "nice," but he
went on to state a bit later that he wanted them to be "nothing that
serious." Hmmm? Now, what's wrong with this picture? Better yet, where do
you start is more like it?
I think I'll start right here. The usual occurance is once again quite
evident here, and I am talking about the one sparked between Bowie and the
media. I don't get it, and I gave up hope about twenty years ago that I ever
will. How can the media be stupid enough to take Bowie at face value? I mean
really. He says it, and they print it. How is this possible? To attempt to
add up the amount of nonsense I have seen reported in the media about Bowie
over the years would be futile. It is impossible due to the fact that no
human mind could conceive a number so large. Counting the grains of sand in
the Gobi Desert would be much easier, and a whole lot faster. You see, how
much sand the Gobi Desert contains is finite, and therefore possible to
calculate. On the other hand, the nonsense written about Bowie however is
not, it keeps on growing every day, and the last time I heard it was rather
difficult to add up infinity. They don't look, period, and reading the stuff
they write is absolutely splendid, as it serves as a showcase to display the
idiotic fools for what they are, idiotic fools. What did they write about
the 83 tour? They wrote what they were told to write. This is THE REAL DAVID
BOWIE, NO CHARACTERS, DAVID BOWIE WITHOUT THE MASK. What did they write
about the 78 tour? They wrote what they were told to write. This is THE REAL
DAVID BOWIE, NO CHARACTERS, DAVID BOWIE WITHOUT THE MASK. Now, does the 78
Bowie resemble the 83 Bowie? I was wondering how a person who knows anything
about Bowie, ESPECIALLY A JOURNALIST, happened to miss something like this?
How many times has Bowie retired, I lost count? Notice that every time Bowie
retires they announce he has retired? Do you think maybe it might be wise to
find out if it is true before declaring it news, considering that fact there
are a couple of people who for some bizarre reason seem to think the media
has some sort of a responsibility to report the truth. Had they bothered to
follow Bowie after the gig at The Hammersmith Odeon the first time he
retired, they would have noticed he went directly to a recording studio with
half his band in tow. They probably only had to sit in the parking lot for a
few minutes in order to get a preview of Pin Ups. Unlike selling drugs, you
need a license in order to get married in most countries on planet Earth,
and unlike those fucking studio outakes for Station To Station, the public
may view these licences. You are however not allowed to crack the person
over the head with a baseball bat and steal the copy of the marriage
license, as you would do to the person who had those fucking studio outakes
for Station To Station. An IQ test is not required to enter a government
building. This is obvious because government employees go in and out of them
all the time. Therefore, even a journalist could have gone in the
appropriate building and asked to see the official records to verify if it
was indeed true that David Bowie married Melissa Hurley, before going ahead
and announcing the happy news. Hmmm? You would think perhaps that since
David Bowie has an extremely lengthy history of saying things to the media
that did not originate in any known reality that they might exercise a bit
of caution before firing up their presses. I'm starting to think that the
media has not yet discovered that Bowie has a credibility problem. To be
fair, maybe I am rushing things a bit, I mean its only been three or four
decades that this has been going on. I guess it doesn't really matter
though, it's "nothing that serious, and we wouldn't want to cause any
disruption, because then things would not be all "happy" and "nice, and I
certainly would not want to be responsible for that.
Do you know what I heard once? I heard that works of art make a statement,
and artists make a statement through their work. Huh? When I heard this I
thought it was a really cool concept. I couldn't help wondering if there was
anything behind it, and so, using David Bowie's work I decided to go and
have a look. Well, guess what I found? I discovered that not only is this a
cool theory, it's also true. I am not going to go album by album because it
is entirely pointless, and that is not my responsibility to do your
homework. I will do all your dope though. All a person needs to understand
this an amazingly vast amount of knowledge about Bowie, so to follow along
with this may not be possible for many. For those who are able however, this
is what you will require. You are going to have to be vaguely familiar with
two David Bowie albums, one recorded previous to1980, and one after. It is
best if you use two albums that are not very well known, so I suggest that
you pick from use his more obscure work. I can give you a few suggestions
on the ones that work best. From his earlier work you can choose any one of
these, Ziggy Stardust, Diamond Dogs, Young Americans, Space Oddity, Low,
Heroes, Hunky Dory, Aladinsane, Scary Monsters, The Man Who Sold The World,
Station To Station, or Lodger. They all work well. I would avoid Pin Ups,
CHANGESONE, CHANGESTWO, and the K-Tel greatest hits package. While I would
not even dare to suggest that anyone should have to know every track on an
entire album, some knowledge about two of them at least is required. If this
isn't possible, then some sort of a rough idea of what the album is about
will suffice. If it so happens that you are unfamiliar with this as well,
you can try asking someone for assistance, and I highly recommend that you
do ask for the eighty six seconds worth of help from another Bowie listener,
as opposed to enrolling in Cambridge University for seven years. I know this
is really pushing it, but any bit of knowledge you can gain about one of his
tours during this period is extremelly beneficial. This information can be
found on numerous David Bowie related web sites. I regret to inform you that
a barrier exists which is going that to prevent most of you from being able
to utilize these resources. The reason is that the information on the sites
that are worthwhile, is in a foreign language, and unfortunately you are
going to have to speak English to access it. Please do not ask me for any
help with this either. I am not trying to be rude, but please understand
something. I struggle enough with this language as it is, so, as far as
anything foreign goes, I do not have the time or the patience to start
learning now, especially when it comes to one as challenging as English.
This is true, believe me, I have enough trouble now as it is, and I
certainly don't need any more. There, the earlier stuff is handled, so now
on to Bowie's later work.
Now, you are going to need a sample of Bowie's work that was recorded in the
eighties. Now, for what we are doing you can use almost anything Bowie
recorded during this period, save Tin Machine and a couple of others.
However, rather than the others, I want to tell you straight up that there
are a few albums that I strongly suggest you use, and I will guarantee
these ones will yeild a far better result. One of them is okay, but the
other two are going to give you a real problem if you decide to use them
instead. Let's Dance, the first one, is not only quite adaquate, but it is
also extremely easy to obtain. Every retailer and Bowie listener either has
a copy, or can find one without any difficulty whatsoever. The other two,
one recorded in 84, the other in 87, are the best choices, and far superior
to Let's Dance. The problem is that both of these happen to be the rarest
Bowie albums there are. Oddly, millions of them were pressed, and there was
an abundance of them on the shelves in every record, yet today there are
only a few left in existence. I know, strange. You are faced with an
enormous challenge if you want to try an locate any copies. I know what you
are thinking, you'll start with Bowie listeners and you are sure to come
across them eventually. That is rational thinking, but it will not work, so
don't waste your. I tried, and so have other I know, it's a dead end, so
please, if you're smart, take my word and forget it. There is not one person
I know of who has ever seen one, let alone own one, and for this reason many
believe they are only a legend, and will deny that they exist outside of
somebody's nightmare. A retailers shelf space is valuable so don't look
there. The last time I was in a store a looked at the space where there used
to be hundreds of copies of these albums, I didn't see one. Instead I saw a
some free brochues on the prevention of rabies, a special holder for 78 RPM
records with a lot of dust on it, and some information on a contest where
you could win tickets to see The Doors, Janis Joplin, The Who, and
afterwards have dinner with Elvis Presley. I entered my name too. Gee, I
hope I win. Oh, and there was a crumpled up bus schedule from 1989 and a gum
wrapper. The gum wrapper was undated. I phoned around, no luck there either.
The only thing that I can suggest to you which may work is this. If you
happen to know any archeologists you can maybe try excavating land fills,
garbage dumps, or the yards of companies who recycle plastic and useless
vinyl. Sorry, I know it's a long shot, but it's the best one you have. Good
luck if you decide to try. This next one is going overboard and the demands
are far too extreme to ever expect someone to actually do this, or even be
foolish enough to give it any real consideration. The only reason I am
bringing it up is because I like to be thorough, so it's only a matter of
information. Now, as sadistic as it sounds it is true, you can get a rather
lengthy video of Bowie's 87 "INSECT TOUR." By "rather lengthy" I mean it is
well over three minutes. I used to have a copy. I bought one when it came
out and then I accidentally threw it against a brick wall as hard as I could
six times, after that I accidentally dropped it off my friends balcony and
it hit the sidewalk sixteen stories below, then the darn thing got hit by a
train when I accidentally taped to the tracks. It was fine until I
accidentally pulled every last bit of tape out of the cartridge with my own
fingers, mutilated it, and then after cutting it all to shreds with a pair
of scissors that I had razor sharpened I accidentally dropped every piece
into my fireplace where I had deliberately spent two weeks building a raging
inferno.

I have been meaning to replace the INSECT TOUR video for the past sixteen
years, three weeks, four days, three hours, seven minutes, and six seconds,
but I haven't so far. I do see copies of it sometimes, unfortunately it's
always when I'm out jogging as fast as I fucking can, and for some strange
reason, every time I aways seem to be heading in the opposite direction. I
can't figure that out. I guess it's just bad luck. Oh, and I want to say
something if you are thinking of making me a copy. Thank you for the offer,
but don't bother, because I can't tell anyone where I live. Now, go over to
your stereo. Play them. Go. Put them both on, the stuff we just talked
about, the early recordings and the later ones. Tell me when you're done
listening to both. I'll be back in a minute, I have to go chop some wood
because I found the sleeve with Bowie's picture on it that held the INSECT
video. It was in the cat's litter box. There's another "accident" coming.
"Works of art make a statement, and artists make a statement with their
work." Now you're finished, you tell me, and the statements are. Warszawa on
Low was written with simplistic tones on the lower scale which are
beautifully melodic. The music is wonderfully alive, it has clarity, yet it
paints a picture of haze. Most ambient music induces a separation between
states of consciousness. The pieces, or "fragments" as Bowie calls them on
Low, are unstructured, in that they seem to be unrestricted and free from
the confines of having any prescribed format to follow. Instrumental music
must rely on creating a "state" to communicate ideas, and the artist is
foced to rely entirely on sound as a method of communication. Ideas must be
felt by a listener through emotional stimulation reaction, rather than
lyrically narrated. This then requires an artist to work entirely with
methods that will excite certain emotional responses, but first the
listener must be "reached." "Reaching" the listener presents a unique
challenge for the composer because is difficult for music to compete against
the distractions of a zillion sights and sounds coming from the "outside"
world, and therefore they must be blocked out as much as possible. To
accompish this the artist must make the listener "let go," and so the
music is designed to induce a "dreamlike" state which invites the
consciouness to become "detatched" and less focused on the the current
suroundings, and more focused on what is occurring inside a listener, and
with their own thoughs. The mind "drifts." Warszawa is special. The same
methods are used by Bowie to cause the listener to become "separated" from
the "outside" world, but he has somehow written the piece in such a way that
it avoids inducing a "dreamlike" state when it is listened to. The listener
does not "drift," instead they are literally "seized" by the sound, it is
gripping, and it causes the senses to become sharp and focused on every
note. The importance of Warzsawa lies in the fact it is a testament to
Bowie's creativity in a way few of his other works are, because it
accomplishes several things which have never been done before with music, or
even thought of for that matter. I am certainly not diminishing the creative
value in any of his other work when I say this, I am only saying that
Warzsawa is "special." Apart from what I just described, Warzsawa contains
one particular idea Bowie had that is so absolutely brilliant that it defies
words., however what is truly amazing is the fact that somehow he managed to
pull it off. There is life to the music in Warzsawa, it resonates a beauty
which imparts energy, it has a spark which makes the listener feel joyfully
alive. It is not sombre. Now, even though the music is full of life in
itself, there is an underlying feeling of drearyness, and a tension to it as
well. The drearyness come through the use of a deliberate set of repetions,
and the tension by utilizing a lengthy sustain on the deeper notes which are
played slower as a background. In doing so Bowie has shown that even though
things may be alive, full of energy, and joyful, life becomes bland if
nothing changes, when we experience the same thing over, and over, and over
again. Living in such a state would cause feelings of hopelessness.
Are the feelings of "drearyness" and "hopelessness" I experiece when I
listen to Warzsawa MY PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of the music? No, and let me
make this PERFECTLY CLEAR so there is no misunderstanding. THIS IS NOT MY
PERSONAL OPINION OF WARSZAWA, and I HAVE NOT GIVEN YOU ANY SORT OF AN
"INTERPRETATION" ABOUT THE PIECE BASED ON WHAT I "THINK" IT MEANS. Again,
this is not MY OPINION. Truthfully, it is not even an interpretation. These
rather, are the exact feelings and emotions which David Bowie wished to
convey in Warszawa. He stated that Warsaw was a lovely city, but at the time
he stayed there he continually experienced a certain underlying tension in
the city, a tension that was so prevelant he could not ignore it. In
addition he experienced feelings of hopelessness when looking at the
residents of the city, as though they simply existed for the reason of
simply existing, nothing more. It was only after knowing this that I sat
down and gave the track a few good listens through headphones that I could
hear exactly the sort of feelings that Bowie was trying to convey. Knowing
this gave me a better perspective, and through that came something wonderful
in the form of an entirely new experience, and now I no longer hear Warszawa
the same way as before. Since I knew exactly what emotions Bowie wanted the
listener to experience, I can now LOOK FOR THEM WHEN LISTENING TO THE MUSIC.
I advise you all to try this out now by going and listening to Warszawa on
headphones. Listen to the music in an attempt to hear how Bowie uses the
sound in an attempt to convey these feelings that he wanted you to
experience.
As a sidenote here. I was recently condemned in an attack by several self
professed Bowie fans on the news group I frequent for daring to imply that
a person who knows more about Bowie's work, will not only gain a far better
understanding of the work, but also a better understanding of David Bowie
himself. Apparentley, according to them, "understanding" Bowie is achieved
by listening to the stuff you like personally, no matter what it is, and
then forming your own opinion. I therefore had no right to claim that I had
a better of an "understanding" of David Bowie than anyone else. Several
people attempted to really rake me over the coals for sayiny what I did,
accusing me of thinking I was in some way "superior" to others who also
listen to Bowie's work. I seems to them that "understanding" leads to
"superiority" over others. To me personally however an "understanding" is an
"understanding," and the degree of "understanding" that people have about
certain things is not always equal, because "understanding" comes as a
result of knowledge which comes as a result of the things you learn. We all
know more about some things, and less about others. I have never considered
anyone as being "superior" to me because they happen to know some things
which I don't know, and I hope you are the same. These people simply have a
better understanding" than I do about certain things because they have more
information than I do not. Knowledge and "understanding" does not make
people "superior," it makes them better educated. I know for a fact that my
knowledge about David Bowie is unusually extensive, and more than what most
people have. However, most people have not been studying Bowie and his work
for three decades. I have. Over three decades I have put a in a great deal
of effort, devoted lot of time, and spent several billion dollars in an
attempt to learn what I have, and it has not all come easy. Any person who
seriously has a desire to gain an "understanding" of David Bowie, and spends
thirty years learning everthing they can in order to do so, is going to come
away knowing a bit. It is NOT just me either, I said ANY PERSON. On the
other hand, there are those who believe that spending thirty years studying
in an attempt to become as educated as possible,will not yield any dividends
in the form of a person gaining a "understanding" of Bowie than anyone
else. It is their opinion that having more knowledge will do nothing to
further a person's appreciation of Bowie's work, as an equal
"understanding" can be gained by just listening to Bowie's work. These
people were especially careful to point out to me that although it may be
interesting as "trivia," information and facts about recording tecniques,
the history behind Bowie's lyrics, the musicians who have collaborated with
him, which instruments were used, or any information about Bowie personally
will not give you a greater appreciation or a better "understanding" of his
work. I have been writing Images for over a year now, and in that year out
of my life a lot of time has been devoted to it. Surprisingly, the writing
is often the least time consuming as quite often I had to go and find the
information on things which I personally did not know, and you would not
believe how much I did not know. That has been where the real time has been
spent. Images has given me as much of an education as it has anyone else,
considering the wealth of information I had to learn in order to write it.
If you started from the first installment of Images, then you have read just
over three hundred pages I believe, and for what? I certainly hope you did
not expect to obtain a deeper "understanding" of Bowie by reading this
series, or foolishly believe that you could gain more of an appreciation of
his work. This not only goes for you, but for me as well. You see, according
to them you have wasted your time reading this if you hoped that knowledge
would give you a deeper "understanding" that would allow you to enhance
your listening experience by getting as much out of his work as you can. If
you did, then you have deceived yourself, and I hope that you are not too
disappointed to discover that all you have gained by reading Images is an
increase in your knowledge of "Bowie Trivia," and you got a bit of
entertainment. Nothing else. I deceived myself also in foolishly thinking
that by writing Images it would help other dedicated Bowie listeners to get
more of an"understanding" of his work, therefore a deeper appreciation of
it, and enhance their listening experience. I had hoped that the information
in Images would allow people get as much as they could out of Bowie's work.
That was the entire purpose. If these peple are indeed correct, it means
that I have failed miserably. Now, maybe you disagree, but I have a bit of
difficulty believing that these people are correct, and that is because
there seems to be a few things that are missing in what they are saying.
What I couldn't help notice missing was intelligence, logic, reasoning,
common sense and reality. I know, these things are nothing important, but
even so, they severily effect the validity of what they believe to be the
truth. I will leave that part for you to decide of course, after you hear
what I have to say about this. Actually, it is not what I have to say, it's
what you have to say, because my response to this comes in the form of a
question
The point is what? The point is they didn't fall for it, not one little bit,
and that impressed me tremendously at at time when I had pretty well lost my
faith. Redemption. The line was now drawn
between the media, fans, and the record buying public.There were THOSE WHO
KNEW BOWIE, and THOSE WHO KNEW A CHARACTER NAMED "THE REAL DAVID BOWIE."
Notice where the wonderful reviews came from? They used to discredit Bowie,
he was not recognized as a relevent artist. Low, Heroes, Aladinsane, Diamond
Dogs, Station To Station, all worthless. Ziggy? Worthless. Young Americans?
Worthless. Hunky Dory? Worthless. The Bewlay Brothers, Sweet Thing,
Quicksand, Station To Station, Right, The Prettiest Star, Moonage Daydream,
Speed Of Life, Blackout, DJ, All The Madmen, Teenage Wildlife, An Occasional
Dream, and everything else Bowie wrote before 1982 was not worthy of any
recognition whatsoever by these publications. Bowie personally was however,
not as an artist though, as some FREAK. His hair, sex life, clothes, drugs,
make up, and his comings and goings were much more news worthy, but only if
it was scandelous enough to make people wince. Now, David Bowie was
everybody's darling according to them. Why this sudden change? The ignorant
are easily led, and they believed every bit of the fucking bullshit they
were handed. They actually thought it was all real.
But they weren't fooled, not one bit, they deserve an enormous amount of
credit for that. They REALLY UNDERSTOOD, it seems, WHO BOWIE WAS, and so
they saw right through the whole charade. They realized right away that the
whole thing was an act, a complete fabrication, and for only one reason too.
THE MONEY! This wasn't an artist, this was an entertainer. Bowie said,"It's
nothing that serious." Really? Don't take it seriously? Huh? An artist who
tells his audience to not take his work seriously. Nothing wrong there, eh?
It's all "happy" and "nice," not like the Ziggy in the early seventies, or
74, 76 and 78. They were incredible, THEY HAD A MEANING. I saw most of them
so I know. What exactly is the relevance of "happy" and "nice?" Ziggy, 74,
76 and 78 SAID SOMETHING. Happy and nice? Entertainment? My, how original.
His audience prior to 83 were trying to ESCAPE all of "THE REAL DAVID
BOWIES." SUBSTANCE IS WHAT THEY SOUGHT. SUBSTANCE . DEPTH. MEANING. What it
really came down to was that they WANTED SOMETHING THAT YOU GOT SOMETHING
OUT OF, not ENTERTAINMENT. Yes, MUSIC WAS NOT CONSIDERED ENTERTAINMENT! Gee,
now isn't that an interesting concept. MUSIC IS NOT ENTERTAINMENT! Wow! Then
what is it? How about something that ENRICHES YOUR MIND? Yeah, ENRICHES
YOUR MIND. Hmmm? Who would ever think of that? I know it isn't common
knowledge, you can tell by the music charts, but it is quite possible to
actually LEARN SOMETHING by listening to music. Shhhh, quiet, don't spread
it around. This is why Bowie had the audience he did. He was a refuge from
the mindless stuff everyone else was listening to. Look, I put up with
Disco. I had to, there was no escape, it was everywhere. The eighties
brought in the era of vinyl that was intellectually damaging. I know who
Michael Jackson is. I remember Culture Club, The Bay City Rollers, Hall And
Oates, The Carpenters, George Michael, Donny Osmond, and the rest of his
wicked evil family. I remember the first time I PULLED A SHOTGUN ON MY
DAUGHTER FOR PLAYING PUFF DADDY ON MY STEREO. Yes, MY stereo. I threw it out
after, it was contaminated. What value is there in these artists? There is
entertainment value, for some anyway.
I, like a Hell of a lot of others, have better ways to "entertain" myself,
other than listening to Pop. Truthfully, it is unoriginal, and it's all
about the relationships between boys and girls. I am not entertained by the
repetion of the same thing for an hour, let alone years. Bowie's listeners
were extremely "PICKY," in the sense that anything which was unfufilling
because there was no substance to it, so it was shunned like the Bubonic
Plague, Typhoid Fever, and Rap. "THE REAL DAVID BOWIE" represented
everything that made us listen to David Bowie. Where I live, on Neptune,
Bowie got little airplay, the same in North America. Consider this, becauase
it is a real eye opener, and it tells you volumes. If Bowie's listener's in
the seventies were satisfied by the the stuff everyone else was listening
to, they would have probably NEVER DISCOVERED BOWIE. There would have been
NO NEED TO EVEN LOOK if everything else satisfied them as being worthwhile
music. Had Let's Dance come out in 1977 and Low in 78, they would know Bowie
for China Girl, Modern Love, Cat People and Let's Dance, and Low would have
been certainly overlooked because it is not something which would have
appealed to them. It is not a coincidence that MOST BOWIE OF BOWIE'S EARLIER
AUDIENCE LISTENED TO THE SAME BANDS. Now, it might be easy for you to say,
"Sure, because that's what people were listening to at the time." No, you
are dead wrong, that is not the case. Like nowaday's, were a multitude of
various styles for people to choose from. Disco, mainstream Pop, Punk, New
Wave, Progressive, Folk, Teeny Bopper, Rock, Heavy Metal, Acid Rock,
Ambient, and there were also the "FAD BANDS" that came at the same time.
Bowie's crowd were the ones who were into the "way out" stuff. As I said, no
coincidence here, proof instead that his audience were not interested in the
"other" stuff. There were a MILLION LET'S DANCES before Let's Dance was
released, and although it is a superb Pop album, it is still a POP ALBUM.
Other than the fact that the writing is brilliant, and the sound quality can
be defined as the definition of excellent, but it is not something one could
classify as unique. It has value in the fact that it is a remarkable example
of Bowie's capability to create work that will accomplish what it's supposed
to do. His work does what it sets out to do, and that alone is more than
most can claim, and it does it more than adaquatley. Tell me another who
says, " I am going to become a Pop Star, and the hottest one on the planet."
Then, bang, he uses his creative talent and becomes a Pop Star, and the
hottest one on the planet. Nevertheless, this is not why we were Bowie
fans, we were Bowie fans to avoid "THINGS" like "THE REAL DAVID BOWIE. If
it's "nothing serious," then it has no value other than entertainment. The
Serious Moonlight tour was truly "nothing serious," as Bowie said in his own
words.
Just before a performance it is Alomar's responsibility to check out fifty
to eighty thousand things. The first two are the sound and the lighting. The
other tens of thousands are the people in the crowd. This is important
because a crowd can turn ugly really fast, and then you start having
problems which can be serious enough to cost lives. The weather is a factor
for many reasons, and so Alomar notes if it is raining, too hot, the
direction and strength of the wind and if there is any dust blowing around.
Adjustments can then be made based on what the conditions are. The rain and
heat are mainly factors which have to do with the condition of the crowd,
while the other have to do directly with the performance. The wind can have
severe effects on the quality of the show because it carries sound. If it
is blowing from the direction of the stage, or at the stage there is no
problem. If it is at the stage you turn the volume up. Strong crosswinds are
the problem when you have to make sure that the sound reaches the back of
the venue, and that can be a substantial distance in an outdoor football
stadium. Bad sound at at concert is the worst, as most of you know from
experience. It has ruined many gigs for me. It really leaves a bad taste in
your mouth, and I find I lose a lot of respect for the band itself, because
in my opinion, if I paid, and they are professional, they should make sure
above all else that the sound is as good as it can be. We are paying to HEAR
them. This is ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT in the HELL OF STADIUMS, where sound
echoes, bounces, reverberates, and can generally be described as obscene. I
saw Queen, The Bohemium Rhapsody tour, in seventy something, I can't
remember. It was at the Forum in Montreal, a hockey arena. It was horrid,
the sound was beyond awful, and that was the last time I would ever go to
see them. I walked out of there feeling disappointed and ripped off. Same
with New Order, but that was in a CLUB, and the WORST SHOW I HAVE EVER SEEN.
I walked, I mean I ran out. The largest stadium we have in Vancouver has
sixty thousand seats, and it's one of those with an inflated dome. I have to
really want to see a band before I will go to a concert there because the
sound in the place is about as bad as it gets. Bowie in 83, 87 and ninety
were all good examples. At least I saw 83 and ninety in other venues as well
that were decent. Eighty seven was beyond salvation no matter where it was,
except in Hell, or on a nuclear testing range at test time. It wasn't only
Bowie either, it's all of them, the stadium is fucked. Pink Floyd always
plays that venue, and I see them on every tour. Nothing, even our stadium
can defeat that band where sound is concerned. You would think you had a set
of headphones on seeing that band, and every time is the same. The Who as
well, and toss Roxy Music, King Crimson, Bryan Ferry, Cat Stevens, Genesis,
and Tupac in there as well. Just kidding about Roxy Music. The "sound board"
has to adjust the balance, and the volume, to compensate for the effects of
a cross wind. The dust is a real problem for Bowie, it is murder on the
throat,and he can't sing for the usual duration. Performances in this case
are shortened. Bowie used several different setlists on the tour, and a
setlist made up of songs in the lower range would be used if the weather
conditions were not favourable.
Sometimes there is a curfew in effect, and Alomar is responsible for
ensuring that all are aware of it. The Australian leg of the tour serves as
a perfect example, and illustrates the problems that can appear when you are
not overly welcome in the first place. This, I want to make clear before I
continue. I mean no disrespect to ANYONE who lives in Australia, and this
DOES NOT REFLECT the attitude of the average person, rather it reflects a
problem that exists in every country. The problem is those civil servants
who throw their weight around just to demonstrate that they can. They have
no authority really, that is why they cause headaches, it's so they feel
"important." All the simple minds are doing reall though, is taking the law
and enforcing it by the book. No compromising, the petty "I'll show you
who's in charge here" attitude. We have an abundance of them in Canada.
Assholes. Unfortunately this is about the last thing Bowie listeners in
Australia need. First of all, Australian fans gets ripped off when it comes
to Bowie tours, as Bowie has a habit of forgetting the place exists, and
therefore it has been left out of tour schedules with a seemingly unending
regularity. The "OFFICIAL" reason is that it is left out due to the
"location" and the population density. The whole continent is considered
"out of the way" apparently, and therefore "cost prohibited in the first
place when there is so much equipment and people to move, and because of its
population not enough revenue would be generated by ticket sales to make the
venture worthwhile. In my opinion the response to this is, "So what?" I mean
really, so what? There may not be the same numbers of Bowie listeners in
Australia as in other countries, but I have met several on the Internet and
every one of them is just as impassioned as the others, and a couple, Vickie
was one, who are more so. They spend as much as anybody else, and probably
more if what I have heard is true. Again, nothing against the country, but
some people who live there have told me that the availability, and the
selection of music in the stores is on the level of "pathetic," and they
quite often are forced to shop in other countries. As I said, I was told
this, and therefore I do not know if this is "overstated." Whether it is, or
isn't though is not the point, the point is that fans "Down Under" have been
given the "short end of the stick" on Bowie tours. Not profitable? And? I
fail to see the reasoning there. Bowie owes me NOTHING, or you, or anyone
else. That was the scolding I received by suggesting he did. I was told that
Bowie can do WHAT HE WANTS, and if I don't like it then I SHOULDN'T BUY IT,
or STOP LISTENING TO HIM PERIOD. Hmmm? Thirty years of loyalty and financial
support mean nothing I guess. Forget thirty years, how about one year. Where
does Bowie get his income from, and a reletively good one it is too? If it
wasn't for his audience, his career as an artist would be over. Oh, one
thing here. People have short memories and fail to remember that early on he
had little more than a "cult" following for an audience, not even a quarter
of what he has today, but although it was small, it was a loyal. How do you
think HE SURVIVED? Had it NOT BEEN FOR THEM, what do you think would have
happened? If it wasn't for his audience and the pockets of Tony Defries,
Hunky Dory would have been the last Bowie album any of us would have ever
seen. A business survives on customer loyalty, and it is ridiculous to
suggest that a business does not owe anything to its customers. Not only is
it ridiculous, but you try and survive in business by placing no worth on
your customers and see what happens. Where is the difference here? Well?
Bowie is a BUSINESS like any other, and he could have retired from the
royalties he got from the number of copies of Station To Station I HAVE
BOUGHT ALONE. Fans in Australia have financially supported his efforts, and
therefore DESERVE THE SAME CONSIDERATION as any others. So what if Australia
is not as profitable as Japan, or Holland, it all has to do with respect for
your loyalty, and that comes before money. You spent yours without any
hesitation, didn't you? On top of the profit margin concerns Bowie had, it
doesn't help your cause one bit when bureaucratic assholes start causing
problems too. I'm ahead of myself here, but I'll go back to Brussels in a
minute. There was no mention of the tour coming to Oz at the press
conference in March, however, Bowie had said personally that he would return
in an interview during the making of the video for Let's Dance. It had to be
difficult for fans to watch the tour zoom through Europe, England and
America, with no word on any local dates planned. They sat in limbo until
July, when an announcement was FINALLY made that confirmed the tour would
arrive in November. Now, the tickets, and in the past they presented a real
problem, one that nobody wanted repeated.
Do you ever think about your tickets? No, why would you, I mean it's only a
ticket. Well, we think it's only a ticket, but it's not, as there are a lot
of concerns that have to be dealt with before they just start running them
off on a press. When it is ripped apart as you go in the door a good ticket
taker will be able to recognize immediately if your ticket is a valid one,
or a counterfeit. How? Paper, that's how. A special paper, as in money, is
used in the manufacturing of tickets, and it is not commercially available
for any purpose other than printing tickets. Therefore tickets, like money,
have a distinct feel to them that is easily recognized by those who collect
them at at the enterance. There are additional security features also added
when they are printed, such as "minor" flaws in the printing itself that are
known only to security personnel. Backstage passes are the same, and if you
ever see one they are quite often made reflective so they can't be
photocopied. This was done for the ones in 83, and they also had "minor"
flaws in them that were known only to security. If you took all of the
tickets sold for the Serious Moonlight tour and piled them up, they would
weigh 5224 pounds. The distribution of the tickets for the 78 tour in
Australia was a disaster, many people were left scrambling, and some were
left out. If that wasn't enough forged tickets started hitting the streets
in Sydney resulting in fans being turned away at the gate. Can you imagine?
What a nightmare, especially if it was a sold out show. Looking at those
tickets every day for months, waiting and waiting. All of a sudded, "Sorry,
we can't let you in. Then. Sorry, it's sold out, there are no more tickets
on sale." A scalper is the only option you have left. Expensive to say the
least. The lessons thankfully were learned from the last tour and this time
tickets were sold by telephone, mail, and over the counter. Perth was the
first stop on the Austrailian leg of the tour and tickets sold out
immediately. This date was the only one scheduled for an indoor venue and
ticket demands far exceed the seating capacity. Some of those who missed out
placed advertisements in the newspaper the next day offers up $100.00 for
tickets with a face value of $19.00. Luckily, the promoters managed somehow
to get a second show added, and this solved the availability problem so
nobody was left out in the cold. The telephone system in Melboure went down
for several hours due to being overloaded the day the tickets went on sale.
Next, Brisbane and Sydney, and this is when it all started. You see, a
problem arose, and a big one as well, one so serious in fact that it looked
these dates would have to be cancelled, and if so, the tour along with it.
The problem in both places was THE POWER TRIP THAT WAS BEING PERFORMED BY
THE GOVERNMENT ASSHOLES which made up the CITY COUNCIL, USING THEIR LITTLE
BOOK OF RULES. In Brisbane the council blamed it on the promoter's neglect.
The crime the promoter apparentley committed was far more serious than rape
or murder, in fact, it was as heinous, cold blooded, and callous, as a
parking violation. There couldn't be any concert because the promoter DID
NOT FILL OUT THE PROPER LITTLE APPLICATION FORM FOR USE OF THE VENUE. Of
course we couldn't have it filled out now because it takes time to get these
things approved. You know how long it takes to read a form and get it
approved. Then they have to fill out all those ten spaces on a permit. Gee,
reading a form, saying yes, and writing a permit? Oh, I'd guess around six
months to a year at least. That wasn't all. This will shock you. Now, the
city council in Brisbane is made up of rocket scientists, I mean it has to
be. These people are beyond brilliant, and as a result they don't miss a
thing. Do you have ANY IDEA what these people figured out among themselves?
Live concerts make NOISE. Yep, can you believe it? What a fucking
revelation, concerts make noise. They had the thought that maybe there was a
reason that these people were going to a concert. If that was the case they
would have quickly figured out that at a music concert there were probably
going to be musicians present, and that means instruments, and instruments
make noise. Now, this meant that IF THERE WAS NOISE, PEOPLE WERE GOING TO
HEAR IT! Imagine noise in a city, my God, how barbaric, we couldn't possibly
allow that. I personally agree with the council because the way I see it,
the law is there for our own good. We have to be saved from ourselves, and
who would look after us without government. The little application form that
must be filled out to use the venue is there for a reason. Can you imagine
what would happen without it? Anarchy, I say. The total collapse of the
government. Austrailia would become lawless, and surely fall into a
complete state of anarchy without the proper forms, and do you know how much
noise anarchy makes?
Same thing in Perth. Noise. This time however it wasn't the council who
first raised the complaint, it was the residents. It would be difficult to
imagine at first the disbelief, and then the shock, when the people who live
in the area surrounding the stadium in Perth heard the news that it was
going to actually be used for a concert. How could anyone in their right
mind have thought of a stadium being used for a concert? No one I know would
have thought of that. I guess they all bought their houses from shady real
estate salesman who never bothered to tell them that living close to a
stadium can be a bit noisy. The other complaint they brought to council was
a fear that the large crowd attending the concert could cause a disturbance.
I guess when they chose to live there they never figured out that there is a
chance that FIFTY THOUSAND PEOPLE would go to a stadium where there are
FIFTY THOUSAND SEATS.Hoping, Bowie fans waited for what must have seemed
like eternity on news that that the tour would come their way. Finally, they
got their wish, but that was before the decision came. CANCELLED. The city
council in Perth sided with the residents, citing noise levels and crowd
concerns, they cancelled the show. In Brisbane the fight continued but it
wasn't looking very good. When Bowie's tour co ordinators found this out
from the local promoters they said that without a quick solution, and FIRM
GUARANTEES IN PLACE that there would be no further incidents, they were
cancelling the Australian leg of the tour. Oh, one more thing, the concerts
had been advertised, the promoters were already in deep financially when the
problems arose.
The fight was not over, forget the fans, there was far too much at stake
here financially. As long as there's talk there is hope, and in Brisbane
they were still talking. However, a solution in Brisbane would not solve
the real problem, the Perth date was needed also if the tour was to be
profitable. No Perth, no tour. In Brisbane a Trust operated the venue, and
revenue from it, and donations, kept it operating. It was an issue of which
survival prompted the chairman of the Trust to approach the city council to
explain that concerts must be allowed to continue, if the Trust was to
continue operating. The Trust needed revenue badly and the Bowie performance
alone would be a $10,000.00 windfall. The council, probably on LSD at the
time, came to their senses regarding their little application form not being
filled out to their liking, and agreed to "make a one time exception" by
allowing the venue to be used. This did not mean the concert was on however,
as that was only half the problem, there was still all that noise which
would bother the people who bought homes near the stadium so they could
enjoy peace and quiet. It was no use trying to tell them, "We'll keep the
volume down," because they weren't about to take anyones word for it. Paul
Dainty was the promoter handling the Brisbane performance which had been
scheduled for Lang Park, and he had an idea to solve the noise concerns, so
he approached city council with a proposal. He was willing to PERSONALLY
GUARANTEE the noise levels would not be a problem by posting a bond, and
council accepted it, with conditions. Paul Dainty put up FIFTY THOUSAND
DOLLARS OF HIS OWN MONEY as a guarantee that the decible levels of the
concert were in an acceptable range, and if they weren't, he had to forfeit
the entire amount. The other conditions were that there were to be no
rehearsals at the venue, and the concert was not to go on past 10:15. One
down, one to go. We all know how accomodating bureaucrats are, so it is no
surprise that the city council in Perth agreed to allow the concert to
happen, as long as it was moved to a different venue, and that venue had to
be the Entertainment Centre, which of course was useless, because it was far
too small. This might have worked if shows could have been added, but that
was not possible due to the tour schedule. The promoter started sourcing
venues outside of the council's jurisdiction, but again, all of them were
far too small. It was futile, there was no point attempting to reason with
the council any further. Negotiating, offering concessions, or making
guarantees were completely ineffective, they would not budge one inch. It
was now September and Bowie was supposed to arrive in Perth on November 4th.
Things were now critical, and with no end to the problem in sight, the
promoters had become frantic. There was little time, but they had one
chance, hopefully someone in the legal system had brains. The Law Courts
were the last remaining hope, and so the promoter sued the city council. It
was not an easy battle, and it was lengthy one, it came right down to wire,
but in the end, the promoter won. With this victory in hand, and the legally
posted bond in Brisbane, they had the guarantees they needed to satisfy
Bowie's booking agents. Finally. What a fucking nightmare, and for what? A
concert. Yeah, all that over a concert. I really feel sorry for those fans
who had to put up with the stress of having to watch their concerts
cancelled because of a few narrow minded idiots who decided to go on a power
trip and cause an enormous hassel, and they did it simply because they
could. What confounds me is why anyone in their right mind would bother to
listen to the residents. I mean, how retarded can a person get. If you
CHOOSE TO LIVE NEAR A FIFTY THOUSAND SEAT STADIUM, then YOU PUT UP WITH
LIVING NEAR A FIFTY THOUSAND SEAT STADIUM! They complain about noise? The
city listens to them. Duh! Now, get this. In Brisbane, on the night of the
concert, residents in the vicinity of the stadium gathered in groups to see
if they were able to hear the performance or not It was done in hopes that
they could hear the concert, and that would have meant it violated the noise
restrictions. It was simply an attempt to cause the promoter to lose the
FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS OF HIS OWN MONEY he had posted as a bond. Paul Dainty
does everything he possibly can, even if it meant risking $50,000.00 of his
own money, in order to save the tour. Had he not done this, it wasn't only
Brisbane, fans in Melbourne, Adelaide, Sydney, or anywhere else in Australia
for that matter, WOULD HAVE NEVER HAVE SEEN THE SERIOUS MOONLIGHT TOUR. He
does this, and look at what a few idiots try to do to him, they try their
best to make him to lose his money. These people certainly DO NOT ACCURATELY
REFLECT THE AVERAGE PERSON living in Oz, their numbers are not worth even
considering, yet, how pathetic that there are a few who live such
miserable lives that they have to try and fuck things up for others.
Unfortunately however, although small in numbers they are capable of
creating massive problems. The sad part is though, they happen to be
everywhere.
Brussels was a coupe for Bowie. He did it, THEY BELIEVED. Did his older
audience matter at all now, they weren't fooled, they knew that, and he knew
that? No, they did not matter any more. Why should they? His FORMER AUDIENCE
bought an average of three to five hundred THOUSAND copies of every record
he produced, while his NEW AUDIENCE bought five and a half MILLION copies of
Let's Dance. One more thing, his former fans did not fill up stadiums with
tens of thousands of seats. Twenty thousand would have been more than enough
to accomodate them. This was not about art being used to create an
interpretive response, this was about THEATRE. This was an artist who wrote
a PLAY. The play was about a performer, a Pop Star, who became an
international sensation, hugely popular, a darling, the media loved him,
they loved his music, his face, his clothes. His shows sold out everywhere
he went, they lined up, they loved him, they "worshipped" him. David Bowie
wrote the play, and he wrote the music for it. He helped design the stage,
the props, and the costumes. He played the lead role. Bowie created it all,
and creatively speaking it was beyond brilliant. There is no other artist
who has ever dreamed of creating ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE to this magnitude, let
alone attempt it thinking that they could actually pull it off. David Bowie
did. He created it, starred in it, and he took it on the road. The entire
thing, defies logic, there was no point in even thinking about it because
conceivably it is IMPOSSIBLE, there was no chance at all it would succeed.
It was doomed to fail for several reasons, one, to stage something this
elaborate is impossible, and even if you did, NOBODY IS GOING TO BELIEVE IT.
However, even if you plan it all out, you need a hit record first. You can't
play the part of an International Pop Sensation without a WORLD WIDE HIT
RECORD. There is one thing Bowie listeners seem to KEEP FORGETTING, and that
is the fact that DAVID BOWIE HAD NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE! EVER! Think about
it. Bowie had never written a "Pop Album" in the past, he had NEVER WRITTEN
HITS, all of this WAS A FIRST! Now, you tell me, exactly how brilliant is
this man? He is how talented? As an artist you can compare him to who? Yeah.
His first fucking attempt, and look. Tell me that this isn't the most
amazing Godamn thing he ever did. Now, I am NOT talking music wise, I am
talking about the whole fucking charade. He wrote the thing, and there WERE
NO GUARANTEES Let's Dance would become a world wide hit and top most of the
charts, but it did. Bowie did it. Not only did he conceive "THE REAL DAVID
BOWIE," he went and created "THE ENTERTAINER, the POP SENSATION," he took
on THE CHARACTER, and he went on the road. Well? Well, what? Did you happen
to notice something? IT WORKED, IT ACTUALLY FUCKING WORKED! Not only was he
crazy enough to dream the thing up, but IT FUCKING WORKED! They actually
believed him, I still to this day don't know how, but they did, they
actually believed the whole thing. They were convinced that this "REAL DAVID
BOWIE," was in fact the REAL DAVID BOWIE. What did they believe he was? A
"POP STAR," a "PERFORMER," a "SINGER," the "REAL DAVID BOWIE was NOW SIMPLY
AN "ENTERTAINER."
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. 59B015homebrewby homebrew
2026-02-07 16:11:21
"This reminds me of Cher."4321professormouseby professormouse
2026-02-04 20:19:11
another obscure bowie mix4308professormouseby professormouse
2026-02-02 21:15:42
*****CLEAR OUT*****I CAN'T GIVE EVERYTHING AWAY3472Steveboyby Steveboy
2026-02-02 14:37:59
Images Vol. 59A1258homebrewby homebrew
2026-01-31 20:10:51
DONATIONS [Bump]21157423Steveboyby Steveboy
2026-01-29 18:21:34
Montreux 2002 (again)1375Ballhausby Moony
2026-01-27 20:17:18
ISO Long-lost Tin Machine II era radio interview — Bowie & Tony Sales via satellite from Paris (Rocksat / Melbourne)0322redsails1by redsails1
2026-01-27 01:58:07
Images Vol. 580309homebrewby homebrew
2026-01-24 17:30:27
Images Vol. 57 (The Last One?)2583homebrewby dag97
2026-01-18 07:53:51


Online Users

Newest Members
Modified by JanErik |- Page Generated In 0.051319 secs.
-|- RSS Feed -|- Feed Info
Theme Base By: Nikkbu | Modified by: paperdragon | Graphics by: MossGarden
Email: bowiestation(AT)bowiestation.com