Fckn hell, the tabloidisation of the Today programme continues apace, interviewing some old trout who was Bowie's landlady/lover. They were just an ace away from asking her how good a shag he was.
Lol - I wonder what Bowie's view was on Indyref - oh wait no i don't.
You're a crass, wee creature, ain't you.
Nah - when it comes to petty vindictiveness the gnats have that one done and dusted.
But the world doesn't stop when one man dies. It's sad that Bowie's died, and I sympathise with his family, but this is not the most important event that has occurred in all the world and, even if it were, other things of importance are also happening.
Morris- on the death of a truly great Brit, probably our greatest cultural icon, someone who has influenced music, art, fashion, imagery across the globe for four decades- perhaps a bit of saturation coverage is due.
Bowie is to music and art what Churchill was for politics and literature.
Bowie IIRC came out as a closet heterosexual when he got married and wished he'd never said he was bisexual. He just enjoyed the counter culture of the time.
He can't even lament the death of an artist without Islingtoning it up.
That's correct - I was lucky enough to meet him after an 'alternative' film premiere about Jean Jenet with Lindsay Kemp in 1975/6 in London - twas a very gay affair all around but Bowie was always more into the dressing up rather than the acting out.
Richard- cultural relativity is impossible to measure across periods and genres. What you can say is that Bowie like Schubert excelled in his own era, and has transcended over the rest. However, whereas Schubert was competing in an elitist era, where music was the preserve of a rich and educated few, Bowie has transcended over the masses when music has become a much more democratic art form. And he has done this for four decades.
Bowie's songs (from the early 70s to the early 80s anyway) are immeasurably better than Schubert's, which are repetitive both internally and as a group. Schubert was a decent instrumental composer though.
Unfortunately I won't be around to collect, but if I were I'd be prepared to bet any amount of money that in 100 years time people will still be listening to and appreciating Schubert lieder all over the world, and that David Bowie (whoever he was) will have been completely forgotten.
"The highest paid public sector workers are demanding pay rises worth tens of thousands pounds to compensate them for new pension taxes, the Telegraph understands.
A group of 12 trade unions representing hundreds of thousands of workers including doctors, police officers, head teachers and civil servants have held private talks with David Gauke, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, demanding loopholes that would spare them the tax.
Staff most likely to be seeking this extra cash will already have pensions worth in excess of £1m - and their calls for "compensation" have been condemned as "displaying breathtaking gall"."
Indeed - totally unjustified. I've long felt that higher paid tax relief for pension contributions was a gross abuse of the system. High earners are perfectly capable of saving for their old age in the normal way if they need extra cash for their old age.
Bowie's songs (from the early 70s to the early 80s anyway) are immeasurably better than Schubert's, which are repetitive both internally and as a group. Schubert was a decent instrumental composer though.
Unfortunately I won't be around to collect, but if I were I'd be prepared to bet any amount of money that in 100 years time people will still be listening to and appreciating Schubert lieder all over the world, and that David Bowie (whoever he was) will have been completely forgotten.
My guess is that they will both be widely listened to and celebrated.
Tyson is right. It's hard to think of a more influential British musician and performer than David Bowie.
I agree about the sheer beauty of Bach but I have to slightly disagree again in that, when he wants to, Bach has more emotional intensity than anyone. Some of the cantatas and the passions bear this out. There's a reason why, when thinking about Tristan, many people find themselves instinctively comparing it with the St. Matthew Passion, which doesn't really make sense (imo) except on the level that they both have an almost stifling emotional tension.
It's a while since I've listened to the St Matthew and maybe I should again. It's not one I found easy to tune in to and it seemed quite linear. The B minor mass, by contrast, is, to me, exquisite. You're right that the emotion that is there is tightly bound but then that was surely a conscious choice.
As for "more emotional intensity than anyone": well, Tchaikovsky? I know he's looked down on at times - not least because of that intensity but also because of his populist loud stuff - but his arrangement, his gift for melody and his ability to manipulate emotion (though not his own) are the equal of anyone.
I think Tchaikovsky is interesting in this context. There is a lack of emotional restraint in all his music (that I know) but sometimes there is artistic restraint and the result is almost unbearably moving - I'm thinking of, for example, the Pathetique, which seems to convey almost infinite unhappiness yet is (by Russian romantic standards) quite dignified in manner.
His ear for melody was brilliant, as you say.
The populist stuff is fun. I love how, in Marche Slave, you keep thinking "OK, this is the ludicrously tasteless conclusion" then you find there's yet another gear.
Bowie's songs (from the early 70s to the early 80s anyway) are immeasurably better than Schubert's, which are repetitive both internally and as a group. Schubert was a decent instrumental composer though.
Unfortunately I won't be around to collect, but if I were I'd be prepared to bet any amount of money that in 100 years time people will still be listening to and appreciating Schubert lieder all over the world, and that David Bowie (whoever he was) will have been completely forgotten.
I think The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Queen, David Bowie, and some of the prog rock bands will be listened to for hundreds of years.
Bowie's songs (from the early 70s to the early 80s anyway) are immeasurably better than Schubert's, which are repetitive both internally and as a group. Schubert was a decent instrumental composer though.
Unfortunately I won't be around to collect, but if I were I'd be prepared to bet any amount of money that in 100 years time people will still be listening to and appreciating Schubert lieder all over the world, and that David Bowie (whoever he was) will have been completely forgotten.
Are you trying to sound like a snob, or does it just come naturally ?
I've watched Sky for an hour and there is no other news, none.
While that is quite a lot, I don't think it is too inaccurate to say that people who do not understand the importance of David Bowie to the sociocultural world of the last forty years, do not understand the sociocultural world of the last forty years.
Not to say they need to (lookin' at you, Rod), but he was a huge influence on many if not most musical developments during that time.
As much as anything, Bowie was one of the very few gold-plated AAA celebrities, no? And he was British.
On topic: Cameron has already said he'll go before GE2020, so I really don't see why there should be any unseemly or disruptive challenges by anyone - what would be the point? Instead, there be of course be jockeying for position, indeed there is already.
I do agree that the EU referendum, but not quite in the way some people seem to assume. It seems to me to be quite simple: if the result is Remain, it's continuity, so the dynamic will be 'don't rock the boat too much in mid-stream'. After all, the Conservative message over the next four years is going to be all about reassurance, stability and competence, which means the choice will be made from amongst existing Cabinet-level ministers. Obviously that favours Osborne or May, but I wouldn't rule out one of the others: Hammond, Hunt, Javid, or even one of the less well-know Cabinet ministers could easily emerge from the plotting, horse-trading, low calculation and back-stabbing which so entertainingly characterises Conservative leadership contests. It may well come down to Osborne vs some as yet unidentified non-Osborne candidate.
If the result is Leave, then it's a whole different ball-game. We'd now be in a situation where UK politics becomes completely dominated by negotiating the terms of our EU withdrawal. Realistically, that has to be led by someone who actually wanted us to leave. That's why I've take a few quid at very long odds on Owen Paterson. I think you can forget Liam Fox, though.
Bowie's songs (from the early 70s to the early 80s anyway) are immeasurably better than Schubert's, which are repetitive both internally and as a group. Schubert was a decent instrumental composer though.
Unfortunately I won't be around to collect, but if I were I'd be prepared to bet any amount of money that in 100 years time people will still be listening to and appreciating Schubert lieder all over the world, and that David Bowie (whoever he was) will have been completely forgotten.
Are you trying to sound like a snob, or does it just come naturally ?
I don't think any celebrity death ever touches me, apart from my incredulity at the hype a famous death produces. People die.
They are part of our identity and with their deaths, a little part of us is reminded of both our own lost past and our mortal future.
Maybe for you, I guess I'm just wired up differently. Bowie was hugely talented, no doubt, but as I say, people die all the time, most with barely a ripple apart from friends and family. I just can't get worked up by celebrity death.
Bowie turning down a knighthood wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. In fact I would have been shocked and disappointed with him if he had been knighted.
If we have to have an honours system at all I wish they would only award it to those people who deserve it, but you never know about.
Celebrities, politicians, and sports stars get their own awards- money, Oscars, Olympic medals- awards of the state should go to people who we don't know.
There was Bowie- and then there was the rest. Bowie joins the British pantheon of Kubrick, Hitchcock, Lennon, Alec Guiness, David Lean- that magical few of truly great postwar Brits that have transcended their art form.
I bought BlackStar last Friday, and have been listening to it virtually non stop over the weekend. It is a wonderful album. Tis a Pity She's a Whore- lyrically Bowie became even stronger.
I doubt that I have had a week in my life without intentionally flipping on a Bowie track or two. My great pity is never to have seen him live.
Very saddened to hear the news. Many of Bowie's tracks were sublime: 'Starman', 'Ashes', 'Space Oddity', 'Life on Mars'.
Bowie's songs (from the early 70s to the early 80s anyway) are immeasurably better than Schubert's, which are repetitive both internally and as a group. Schubert was a decent instrumental composer though.
Unfortunately I won't be around to collect, but if I were I'd be prepared to bet any amount of money that in 100 years time people will still be listening to and appreciating Schubert lieder all over the world, and that David Bowie (whoever he was) will have been completely forgotten.
Are you trying to sound like a snob, or does it just come naturally ?
Ooh a bit harsh. I do think Richard is exaggerating but he is entitled to his view. I suspect that the Bowie thing is a big deal for most of us who were young in the 70's especially and he has had a long and very interesting career. Enduring? Too soon to say.
Bowie's songs (from the early 70s to the early 80s anyway) are immeasurably better than Schubert's, which are repetitive both internally and as a group. Schubert was a decent instrumental composer though.
Unfortunately I won't be around to collect, but if I were I'd be prepared to bet any amount of money that in 100 years time people will still be listening to and appreciating Schubert lieder all over the world, and that David Bowie (whoever he was) will have been completely forgotten.
I think The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Queen, David Bowie, and some of the prog rock bands will be listened to for hundreds of years.
Radiohead, Blur will probably be listened to. As will the The National.
Miss Plato, annoys me when the media go overboard with saturation coverage. Remember when the Pope died. Nine days later the top story was "Pope remains dead". I can see that leading the news if it weren't the case...
Bowie's songs (from the early 70s to the early 80s anyway) are immeasurably better than Schubert's, which are repetitive both internally and as a group. Schubert was a decent instrumental composer though.
Unfortunately I won't be around to collect, but if I were I'd be prepared to bet any amount of money that in 100 years time people will still be listening to and appreciating Schubert lieder all over the world, and that David Bowie (whoever he was) will have been completely forgotten.
Are you trying to sound like a snob, or does it just come naturally ?
My guess is that they will both be widely listened to and celebrated.
No, I don't think so. It's cultural myopia: what you have to remember is that, in any age, the most famous performers and composers tend to be moderate talents (or even people without talent). Who now listens to Salieri or Meyerbeer?
I've watched Sky for an hour and there is no other news, none.
I 'big death' is a godsend for 24hr News. Are you seriously saying you have watched Sky News for 60 minutes solid? And this when its not actually giving any real news out?
Cameron is wise to try and disconnect his future with failure in the referendum. Otherwise some people might vote OUT to get him OUT. However it wouldn't happen in the event. If the vote is against then he is a goner.
Richard is correct. If the vote is in then Cameron will be replaced (quicker than many think) by a Cabinet Minister who has campaigned for IN. I personally think May rather than Osborne. The rest look pretty unlikely.
If the vote is OUT then Boris will be favourite and I can't really see Owen Paterson getting much traction. If it is to be an outsider then how about David Davies who seems much more intelligent than your average Euro sceptic?
Bowie's songs (from the early 70s to the early 80s anyway) are immeasurably better than Schubert's, which are repetitive both internally and as a group. Schubert was a decent instrumental composer though.
Unfortunately I won't be around to collect, but if I were I'd be prepared to bet any amount of money that in 100 years time people will still be listening to and appreciating Schubert lieder all over the world, and that David Bowie (whoever he was) will have been completely forgotten.
I think The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Queen, David Bowie, and some of the prog rock bands will be listened to for hundreds of years.
My grandparents probably thought the same of Al Jolson and Bing Crosby.
There was an article recently on one of the news bulletins about the Beatles. Most young people had no idea who they were, what they sang etc.
Mr. Chestnut, on the other hand, digital information makes it easier for their work to be preserved, and I'd wonder how much the same youths would know about Beethoven, Grieg and so on.
My guess is that they will both be widely listened to and celebrated.
No, I don't think so. It's cultural myopia: what you have to remember is that, in any age, the most famous performers and composers tend to be moderate talents (or even people without talent). Who now listens to Salieri or Meyerbeer?
Who listens to the stuff that Bowie did in the 70s and early 80s? Just about everyone who has any serious interest in pop/rock music. A song like Heroes - recorded over 40 year ago - is as fresh, relevant and innovative as it was back in the day. Bowie has already passed the test of time.
Bowie's songs (from the early 70s to the early 80s anyway) are immeasurably better than Schubert's, which are repetitive both internally and as a group. Schubert was a decent instrumental composer though.
Unfortunately I won't be around to collect, but if I were I'd be prepared to bet any amount of money that in 100 years time people will still be listening to and appreciating Schubert lieder all over the world, and that David Bowie (whoever he was) will have been completely forgotten.
I think The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Queen, David Bowie, and some of the prog rock bands will be listened to for hundreds of years.
My grandparents probably thought the same of Al Jolson and Bing Crosby.
There was an article recently on one of the news bulletins about the Beatles. Most young people had no idea who they were, what they sang etc.
And how many young people (or people of any age, come to that) have any idea who Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert are? Fewer, I'd have thought. But that does not dilute their genius or make them irrelevant, mediocre talents.
I don't think any celebrity death ever touches me, apart from my incredulity at the hype a famous death produces. People die.
Teenage dancing to Rebel Rebel and Jean Genie. Slow dancing when 15 with a 17 year old french girl to Life on Mars - played over and over again. As for Drive in Saturday... Thank you David Jones.
Who listens to the stuff that Bowie did in the 70s and early 80s? Just about everyone who has any serious interest in pop/rock music. A song like Heroes - recorded over 40 year ago - is as fresh, relevant and innovative as it was back in the day. Bowie has already passed the test of time.
No he hasn't. He's listened to by people who were young when this stuff came out, just as my mother's generation liked to listen to 1940s music, much of which was not actually very good. To stand the test of time you have to be listened to with pleasure by people born long after your death. Franz Schubert passes that one with flying colours, many other once-famous composers of his time - let alone popular songs of the time - fail the test.
Bowie's songs (from the early 70s to the early 80s anyway) are immeasurably better than Schubert's, which are repetitive both internally and as a group. Schubert was a decent instrumental composer though.
Unfortunately I won't be around to collect, but if I were I'd be prepared to bet any amount of money that in 100 years time people will still be listening to and appreciating Schubert lieder all over the world, and that David Bowie (whoever he was) will have been completely forgotten.
I think The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Queen, David Bowie, and some of the prog rock bands will be listened to for hundreds of years.
Radiohead, Blur will probably be listened to. As will the The National.
Fckn hell, the tabloidisation of the Today programme continues apace, interviewing some old trout who was Bowie's landlady/lover. They were just an ace away from asking her how good a shag he was.
Lol - I wonder what Bowie's view was on Indyref - oh wait no i don't.
You're a crass, wee creature, ain't you.
Nah - when it comes to petty vindictiveness the gnats have that one done and dusted.
Who listens to the stuff that Bowie did in the 70s and early 80s? Just about everyone who has any serious interest in pop/rock music. A song like Heroes - recorded over 40 year ago - is as fresh, relevant and innovative as it was back in the day. Bowie has already passed the test of time.
No he hasn't. He's listened to by people who were young when this stuff came out, just as my mother's generation liked to listen to 1940s music, much of which was not actually very good. To stand the test of time you have to be listened to with pleasure by people born long after your death. Franz Schubert passes that one with flying colours, many other once-famous composers of his time - let alone popular songs of the time - fail the test.
You genuinely don't know who David Bowie is, do you? :-)
Warren Beatty came out with a great quote for Marlon Brando- there is Brando, and then there is the rest (though Brando sullied his reputation in later years). I nicked it today for Bowie who never sold out, and if anything became more purest as he grew older.
So, after Bowie- we have Paul McCartney, Mick Jagger, Bono (OK Irish), Elton John perhaps vying for our greatest living figure in popular music. I think though Bowie, Lennon and possibly Freddie Mercury at a stretch were in their own elite, rarified group.
It is hard to see where the next Bowie is coming from. Noel Gallagher and Damion Albarn are the greatest Brit poppers, Paul Weller, the eighties, Annie Lennox too. Radiohead are quite remarkable, but seemingly unable to re-invent themselves to a new generation in the way that Bowie did.
Bowie's greatness is his ingenuity, and his ability to stay relevant for over forty years.
Someone like Richard Nabavi should learn something of the history of music before he foolishly displays his ignorance by saying that Bowie (whoever he is) will be forgotten. Any classical musical school would respect Bowie's contribution and talent- similarly the Beatles. Greatness comes in your ability to transcend and influence.
And Bowies songs are remarkable, memorable and part of our modern cultural identity.
Bowie's songs (from the early 70s to the early 80s anyway) are immeasurably better than Schubert's, which are repetitive both internally and as a group. Schubert was a decent instrumental composer though.
Unfortunately I won't be around to collect, but if I were I'd be prepared to bet any amount of money that in 100 years time people will still be listening to and appreciating Schubert lieder all over the world, and that David Bowie (whoever he was) will have been completely forgotten.
My guess is that they will both be widely listened to and celebrated.
Tyson is right. It's hard to think of a more influential British musician and performer than David Bowie.
Mr. Eagles, you struggle with clarity like Ed Miliband with a bacon sandwich.
Mr. Pulpstar, Bowie was also gracious to step in and stop legal nonsense getting in the way of that being played (I forget if it was on Youtube or elsewhere).
Miss Plato, quite. And the voice is irksome. Mind you, The Verve had a massive hit with The Drugs Don't Work, which sounds like an anthem for suicide to me.
Yes you would think that about Boris would you not. I think that people who would vote Boris would not be looking for consistancy or credibility just a bit of panache in what would be a time of great uncertainty for the Tories (after a Brexit vote).
As I indicated if I were a Tory (which is difficult for me to contemplate) then I would go for some sign of intelligence instead - hence David Davies rather than the other bizarre possibilities.
You genuinely don't know who David Bowie is, do you? :-)
We'll just have to agree to disagree
The news programmes have been playing some of his stuff. Presumably what they played is supposed to be the good bits. It doesn't seem to be of any particular merit.
We'll have to wait for a thread on Political Betting in 2116 to see who was right!
Mr. Tyson, never been fond of Lennon. Didn't he have a side line in domestic violence [but, like George Best, that tends not to get mentioned]?
Not to mention the preaching hypocrisy of singing Imagine There's No Money. Well, if there weren't, he wouldn't be singing that song, playing his piano in his mansion, would he?
RCS, neither will Oasis. Songs from Morning Glory are played in student unions across the country. John Lewis' Christmas advert used one of their songs and most of the country didn't even realise.
Bowie's songs (from the early 70s to the early 80s anyway) are immeasurably better than Schubert's, which are repetitive both internally and as a group. Schubert was a decent instrumental composer though.
Unfortunately I won't be around to collect, but if I were I'd be prepared to bet any amount of money that in 100 years time people will still be listening to and appreciating Schubert lieder all over the world, and that David Bowie (whoever he was) will have been completely forgotten.
I think The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Queen, David Bowie, and some of the prog rock bands will be listened to for hundreds of years.
Radiohead, Blur will probably be listened to. As will the The National.
Doubt Oasis or Coldplay will.
I have a theory. Bear with me on this.
Every band thinks they need to do a sad soulful ballard to be taken seriously.
And almost every band's sad soulful songs are shit. Coldplay with "Fix Me". God it's awful and mawkish and terrible.
Radiohead is pretty much the only band who can get away with making incredibly depressing music.
Warren Beatty came out with a great quote for Marlon Brando- there is Brando, and then there is the rest (though Brando sullied his reputation in later years). I nicked it today for Bowie who never sold out, and if anything became more purest as he grew older.
So, after Bowie- we have Paul McCartney, Mick Jagger, Bono (OK Irish), Elton John perhaps vying for our greatest living figure in popular music. I think though Bowie, Lennon and possibly Freddie Mercury at a stretch were in their own elite, rarified group.
It is hard to see where the next Bowie is coming from. Noel Gallagher and Damion Albarn are the greatest Brit poppers, Paul Weller, the eighties, Annie Lennox too. Radiohead are quite remarkable, but seemingly unable to re-invent themselves to a new generation in the way that Bowie did.
Bowie's greatness is his ingenuity, and his ability to stay relevant for over forty years.
Someone like Richard Nabavi should learn something of the history of music before he foolishly displays his ignorance by saying that Bowie (whoever he is) will be forgotten. Any classical musical school would respect Bowie's contribution and talent- similarly the Beatles. Greatness comes in your ability to transcend and influence.
And Bowies songs are remarkable, memorable and part of our modern cultural identity.
Bowie's songs (from the early 70s to the early 80s anyway) are immeasurably better than Schubert's, which are repetitive both internally and as a group. Schubert was a decent instrumental composer though.
Unfortunately I won't be around to collect, but if I were I'd be prepared to bet any amount of money that in 100 years time people will still be listening to and appreciating Schubert lieder all over the world, and that David Bowie (whoever he was) will have been completely forgotten.
My guess is that they will both be widely listened to and celebrated.
Tyson is right. It's hard to think of a more influential British musician and performer than David Bowie.
I agree, though I'd put Bowie on his own at the top. His influence on those who came after him was just immense. maybe the Beatles come close.
Pete Townsend is one you have forgotten. And Ray Davies. The one that will affect me most (if he goes before I do), though, will be Paul Weller. A very local genius.
Fckn hell, the tabloidisation of the Today programme continues apace, interviewing some old trout who was Bowie's landlady/lover. They were just an ace away from asking her how good a shag he was.
Lol - I wonder what Bowie's view was on Indyref - oh wait no i don't.
You're a crass, wee creature, ain't you.
Nah - when it comes to petty vindictiveness the gnats have that one done and dusted.
Uhuh.
My twitter timeline is full of 'Gnats' mourning the loss of a huge influence in their lives, meanwhile the Yoons be like 'Sod that, he saved the YOONION!'.
Of course that's neither here nor there in relation to your incontrovertible weeness & crassness.
RCS, neither will Oasis. Songs from Morning Glory are played in student unions across the country. John Lewis' Christmas advert used one of their songs and most of the country didn't even realise.
I relistened to Definitely Maybe recently, and I agree it's - as with (What's the Story) Morning Glory - a good album.
But is it good enough to stand the test of time? I don't know.
Considering we have Kippers and Nats posting on this site that may be the silliest comment in PB history.
How can anyone be unmoved by Queen?
Boring and derivative. The truth is that it's really very difficult to judge the true long-term impact of those we grew up with and much harder for this who've clearly yet to grow up.
Mr. Eagles, you struggle with clarity like Ed Miliband with a bacon sandwich.
Mr. Pulpstar, Bowie was also gracious to step in and stop legal nonsense getting in the way of that being played (I forget if it was on Youtube or elsewhere).
Miss Plato, quite. And the voice is irksome. Mind you, The Verve had a massive hit with The Drugs Don't Work, which sounds like an anthem for suicide to me.
Who listens to the stuff that Bowie did in the 70s and early 80s? Just about everyone who has any serious interest in pop/rock music. A song like Heroes - recorded over 40 year ago - is as fresh, relevant and innovative as it was back in the day. Bowie has already passed the test of time.
No he hasn't. He's listened to by people who were young when this stuff came out, just as my mother's generation liked to listen to 1940s music, much of which was not actually very good. To stand the test of time you have to be listened to with pleasure by people born long after your death. Franz Schubert passes that one with flying colours, many other once-famous composers of his time - let alone popular songs of the time - fail the test.
I listen to the early Bowie stuff now; music that was recorded either before I was born or when I was very young. In fact, the output he was producing when I did gain an interest in music (of many genres), was pretty dire. If I'd based my opinion of him on what I heard from the mid-80s onwards, it'd be very easy to write him off.
And Schubert's piano accompaniments still have too much thud-thud-thud in the bass.
Mr. Tyson, never been fond of Lennon. Didn't he have a side line in domestic violence [but, like George Best, that tends not to get mentioned]?
Not to mention the preaching hypocrisy of singing Imagine There's No Money. Well, if there weren't, he wouldn't be singing that song, playing his piano in his mansion, would he?
There was Bowie- and then there was the rest. Bowie joins the British pantheon of Kubrick, Hitchcock, Lennon, Alec Guiness, David Lean- that magical few of truly great postwar Brits that have transcended their art form...
Bowie turning down a knighthood wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. In fact I would have been shocked and disappointed with him if he had been knighted.
If we have to have an honours system at all I wish they would only award it to those people who deserve it, but you never know about.
Celebrities, politicians, and sports stars get their own awards- money, Oscars, Olympic medals- awards of the state should go to people who we don't know.
There was Bowie- and then there was the rest. Bowie joins the British pantheon of Kubrick, Hitchcock, Lennon, Alec Guiness, David Lean- that magical few of truly great postwar Brits that have transcended their art form.
I bought BlackStar last Friday, and have been listening to it virtually non stop over the weekend. It is a wonderful album. Tis a Pity She's a Whore- lyrically Bowie became even stronger.
I doubt that I have had a week in my life without intentionally flipping on a Bowie track or two. My great pity is never to have seen him live.
Very saddened to hear the news. Many of Bowie's tracks were sublime: 'Starman', 'Ashes', 'Space Oddity', 'Life on Mars'.
Apparently he turned down a knighthood.
How could Bowie be knighted? He was already the Duke of Thin White.....
Dr. Spyn, I'd be more tempted by 2017, to be honest, considering the time needed for a contest and the fact Cameron won't go six minutes after the referendum.
It's interesting how personally committed many people are to musical taste, to the point of insisting that the ones they like are the only decent ones and everyone's else taste is CRAP. You don't get it to the same extent for many other forms of media, even quite visceral things like opera (nobody says "Wagner is fantastic and if you like Puccini you're an idiot") or books. A lot of us simply like the music we grew up with (hormones and all that) plus maybe some classical music, and we see music from a different youth generation as a subtle challenge to our identities.
It gets tied up with national identity too - people assume that the world loves their music (I once shocked a Korean by not being familiar with the latest gangnam style hits).
Bowie's songs (from the early 70s to the early 80s anyway) are immeasurably better than Schubert's, which are repetitive both internally and as a group. Schubert was a decent instrumental composer though.
Unfortunately I won't be around to collect, but if I were I'd be prepared to bet any amount of money that in 100 years time people will still be listening to and appreciating Schubert lieder all over the world, and that David Bowie (whoever he was) will have been completely forgotten.
I think The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Queen, David Bowie, and some of the prog rock bands will be listened to for hundreds of years.
Radiohead, Blur will probably be listened to. As will the The National.
Doubt Oasis or Coldplay will.
I have a theory. Bear with me on this.
Every band thinks they need to do a sad soulful ballard to be taken seriously.
And almost every band's sad soulful songs are shit. Coldplay with "Fix Me". God it's awful and mawkish and terrible.
Radiohead is pretty much the only band who can get away with making incredibly depressing music.
...nobody says "Wagner is fantastic and if you like Puccini you're an idiot"...
Actually they do, quite a lot!
Incidentally, there seems to be some suggestion in this thread that I might not be entirely up to speed with modern culture. This is false. As it happens, I'm in the process of writing a rap version of Erik Satie's Vexations.
Fckn hell, the tabloidisation of the Today programme continues apace, interviewing some old trout who was Bowie's landlady/lover. They were just an ace away from asking her how good a shag he was.
Lol - I wonder what Bowie's view was on Indyref - oh wait no i don't.
You're a crass, wee creature, ain't you.
Nah - when it comes to petty vindictiveness the gnats have that one done and dusted.
Uhuh.
My twitter timeline is full of 'Gnats' mourning the loss of a huge influence in their lives, meanwhile the Yoons be like 'Sod that, he saved the YOONION!'.
Of course that's neither here nor there in relation to your incontrovertible weeness & crassness.
Why am I unsurprised that you have a writer timeline?
It's interesting how personally committed many people are to musical taste, to the point of insisting that the ones they like are the only decent ones and everyone's else taste is CRAP. You don't get it to the same extent for many other forms of media, even quite visceral things like opera (nobody says "Wagner is fantastic and if you like Puccini you're an idiot") or books. A lot of us simply like the music we grew up with (hormones and all that) plus maybe some classical music, and we see music from a different youth generation as a subtle challenge to our identities.
It gets tied up with national identity too - people assume that the world loves their music (I once shocked a Korean by not being familiar with the latest gangnam style hits).
Don't know your vintage, but a long time ago the BBC had a great series called The Rock & Roll Years - a compilation of news events with tunes of the day.
RCS, neither will Oasis. Songs from Morning Glory are played in student unions across the country. John Lewis' Christmas advert used one of their songs and most of the country didn't even realise.
Anyway, on-topic, I think the Conservative Party is not ready to self-destruct and therefore won't act in a way that is incomprehensible to the public. The public expects a Cameron resignation and a contested but orderly succession resulting in a cabinet big-hitter as PM. They are absolutely not expecting votes of no confidence followed by Liam Fox. Doing that is saying to the public, "We're having a massive internal crisis." Why do that when Fox or the alternative non-cabinet Outers are mediocre candidates anyway?
tldr, we should expect Conservative MPs to display an instinct for self-preservation and some intelligence. I think that points to a front-rank mild-sceptic/reluctant-remainist - May or Hammond - to go up against Osborne and win.
Boris is the wildcard to me. I find it very hard to assess his chances.
@Plato - Never seen the appeal of miserable tunes. Leonard Cohen??? ]]
Or Morrissey – every time I hear him I think ‘stop whining about it you miserable git and jump’
Leonard Cohen is marvellous. If you think all his work is miserable, you haven't been listening to it closely enough. He's also a rare example of an artist who has generally got better the longer he's gone on.
@Plato - Never seen the appeal of miserable tunes. Leonard Cohen??? ]]
Or Morrissey – every time I hear him I think ‘stop whining about it you miserable git and jump’
Leonard Cohen is marvellous. If you think all his work is miserable, you haven't been listening to it closely enough. He's also a rare example of an artist who has generally got better the longer he's gone on.
@Plato - Never seen the appeal of miserable tunes. Leonard Cohen??? ]]
Or Morrissey – every time I hear him I think ‘stop whining about it you miserable git and jump’
Leonard Cohen is marvellous. If you think all his work is miserable, you haven't been listening to it closely enough. He's also a rare example of an artist who has generally got better the longer he's gone on.
Don't know your vintage, but a long time ago the BBC had a great series called The Rock & Roll Years - a compilation of news events with tunes of the day.
RCS, neither will Oasis. Songs from Morning Glory are played in student unions across the country. John Lewis' Christmas advert used one of their songs and most of the country didn't even realise.
I am surprised that they have never renewed or re-made that.
Queen were deeply unfashionable and pretentious until Live Aid. Freddie stole the show and it transformed their image. That he died from AIDS cemented it.
Considering we have Kippers and Nats posting on this site that may be the silliest comment in PB history.
How can anyone be unmoved by Queen?
Boring and derivative. The truth is that it's really very difficult to judge the true long-term impact of those we grew up with and much harder for this who've clearly yet to grow up.
Don't know your vintage, but a long time ago the BBC had a great series called The Rock & Roll Years - a compilation of news events with tunes of the day.
RCS, neither will Oasis. Songs from Morning Glory are played in student unions across the country. John Lewis' Christmas advert used one of their songs and most of the country didn't even realise.
I am surprised that they have never renewed or re-made that.
The BBC and 'pop' programmes have had some err .. history.
@Plato - Never seen the appeal of miserable tunes. Leonard Cohen??? ]]
Or Morrissey – every time I hear him I think ‘stop whining about it you miserable git and jump’
Leonard Cohen is marvellous. If you think all his work is miserable, you haven't been listening to it closely enough. He's also a rare example of an artist who has generally got better the longer he's gone on.
Suzanne is pure poetry.
Indeed - as is That's No Way To Say Goodbye.
My favourite album of his is I'm Your Man, with The Future a close second. Popular Problems is pretty amazing work for a man who's the wrong side of 80 as well.
I've been saying on here for ages that Cameron has made this all about him, im convinced there's plenty of Labour voters ambivalent about the EU that will give him a kicking.
On the doctors' dispute, I'm surprised that Carlotta and Sandpit think working at 6am or late evening or weekends is the new normal. Sure, restaurants do to some extent (though American friends think it's weird how most shut down at 1030-11 even in London), but that's always been seen as a snag of working in that industry. I'll do it myself for my NGO as required, but I see that as a director's duty rather than something routine. The supposition that the public will back politicians vs doctors and Hunt is a therefore a good bet for Leader seems quite a leap to me.
Nick, in IT it's perfectly normal. My support team work 6am-midnight 7 days, plus scheduled and unscheduled nightshifts, on call nights expected to respond to alerts - to fit around the needs of the business. The only thing we notice at weekends is that there's a few directors not there (but they still phone up!), and the finance and admin teams.
It's normal in IT, in banking, in the law, in lots of professional firms. Most service industries work at the hours the customer demands. This weekend I was working on a Turkish-related matter and had to be up at 6 to deal with the issue, given the time difference and the urgency. I have worked all nighters, sometimes 2 nights in a row. Last week I was working at 1 am all week. I appreciate that there are different considerations when you have tired doctors having to make critical decisions so I would rather my doctor was rested than not.
I don't know enough about the dispute to know who is right/wrong or what the appropriate compromise is.
But working hours long ago ceased being 9 -5 for most people.
You couldn't have written this stuff worse to boost the Neo Nazi Pegada lot. Add in the cover up and you have just handed them load of massive propaganda coup.
There was Bowie- and then there was the rest. Bowie joins the British pantheon of Kubrick, Hitchcock, Lennon, Alec Guiness, David Lean- that magical few of truly great postwar Brits that have transcended their art form...
I never liked the Beatles as a kid, and always opted for the Stones. Kind of cooler and rockier for us 80's somethings.
So, I had to discover the White Album in my thirties to realise what a foolish, ignorant, immature idiot I had been. The White Album is outstanding on every level- and the synergy between Lennon and McCartney was arguably the single most influential cultural contribution (outside Shakespeare- but maybe in the fullness of time including Shakespeare too) ever made by any Brit in the history of our country. Time will tell. But over fifty years later and the Beatles are still by far and away, head and shoulders, the most influential pop group ever. 5 albums of theirs are included in the the Rolling Stone top ten albums of all time- and that includes the likes of Marvin Gaye, Miles Davis, John Coltrane. Outside Shakespeare, I cannot quite think of any other Brit who has quite had that impact on any art form.
So, Mr Morris- by dismissing John Lennon- the creative dynamo of the Beatles who flourished after the band split, you are simply betraying your own ignorance comrade.
Mr. Tyson, never been fond of Lennon. Didn't he have a side line in domestic violence [but, like George Best, that tends not to get mentioned]?
Not to mention the preaching hypocrisy of singing Imagine There's No Money. Well, if there weren't, he wouldn't be singing that song, playing his piano in his mansion, would he?
Comments
But the world doesn't stop when one man dies. It's sad that Bowie's died, and I sympathise with his family, but this is not the most important event that has occurred in all the world and, even if it were, other things of importance are also happening.
Tyson is right. It's hard to think of a more influential British musician and performer than David Bowie.
His ear for melody was brilliant, as you say.
The populist stuff is fun. I love how, in Marche Slave, you keep thinking "OK, this is the ludicrously tasteless conclusion" then you find there's yet another gear.
I do agree that the EU referendum, but not quite in the way some people seem to assume. It seems to me to be quite simple: if the result is Remain, it's continuity, so the dynamic will be 'don't rock the boat too much in mid-stream'. After all, the Conservative message over the next four years is going to be all about reassurance, stability and competence, which means the choice will be made from amongst existing Cabinet-level ministers. Obviously that favours Osborne or May, but I wouldn't rule out one of the others: Hammond, Hunt, Javid, or even one of the less well-know Cabinet ministers could easily emerge from the plotting, horse-trading, low calculation and back-stabbing which so entertainingly characterises Conservative leadership contests. It may well come down to Osborne vs some as yet unidentified non-Osborne candidate.
If the result is Leave, then it's a whole different ball-game. We'd now be in a situation where UK politics becomes completely dominated by negotiating the terms of our EU withdrawal. Realistically, that has to be led by someone who actually wanted us to leave. That's why I've take a few quid at very long odds on Owen Paterson. I think you can forget Liam Fox, though.
If we have to have an honours system at all I wish they would only award it to those people who deserve it, but you never know about.
Celebrities, politicians, and sports stars get their own awards- money, Oscars, Olympic medals- awards of the state should go to people who we don't know.
Doubt Oasis or Coldplay will.
It's on in the background.
Cameron is wise to try and disconnect his future with failure in the referendum. Otherwise some people might vote OUT to get him OUT. However it wouldn't happen in the event. If the vote is against then he is a goner.
Richard is correct. If the vote is in then Cameron will be replaced (quicker than many think) by a Cabinet Minister who has campaigned for IN. I personally think May rather than Osborne. The rest look pretty unlikely.
If the vote is OUT then Boris will be favourite and I can't really see Owen Paterson getting much traction. If it is to be an outsider then how about David Davies who seems much more intelligent than your average Euro sceptic?
Boris' has holed his credibility below the waterline with the suggestion some months ago we should vote Out, get concessions, then stay in.
Imagine if a Scot had claimed you should've voted Out, gotten concessions, then stayed in the union.
There was an article recently on one of the news bulletins about the Beatles. Most young people had no idea who they were, what they sang etc.
Man killed in Paris police station attack last week had been arrested in Cologne in 2014 - for sexual assault.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3393516/Syrian-ISIS-supporter-shot-dead-outside-Paris-police-station-arrested-sexually-assaulting-women-Cologne-taken-New-Year-s-Eve-attacks.html
How can anyone be unmoved by Queen?
Mr. Eagles, think you may have accidentally said the opposite of what you meant.
Tom Newton Dunn
Amid all the fug, Corbyn did not rule out authorising a drone strike to kill Jihadi Sid. Changed his mind, or just cuter at PR? #BBCR4today
Slow dancing when 15 with a 17 year old french girl to Life on Mars - played over and over again. As for Drive in Saturday...
Thank you David Jones.
I know we all have our own tastes, but their stuff is so samey miserable. Yet huge hits.
We'll just have to agree to disagree
So, after Bowie- we have Paul McCartney, Mick Jagger, Bono (OK Irish), Elton John perhaps vying for our greatest living figure in popular music. I think though Bowie, Lennon and possibly Freddie Mercury at a stretch were in their own elite, rarified group.
It is hard to see where the next Bowie is coming from. Noel Gallagher and Damion Albarn are the greatest Brit poppers, Paul Weller, the eighties, Annie Lennox too. Radiohead are quite remarkable, but seemingly unable to re-invent themselves to a new generation in the way that Bowie did.
Bowie's greatness is his ingenuity, and his ability to stay relevant for over forty years.
Someone like Richard Nabavi should learn something of the history of music before he foolishly displays his ignorance by saying that Bowie (whoever he is) will be forgotten. Any classical musical school would respect Bowie's contribution and talent- similarly the Beatles. Greatness comes in your ability to transcend and influence.
And Bowies songs are remarkable, memorable and part of our modern cultural identity.
Mr. Pulpstar, Bowie was also gracious to step in and stop legal nonsense getting in the way of that being played (I forget if it was on Youtube or elsewhere).
Miss Plato, quite. And the voice is irksome. Mind you, The Verve had a massive hit with The Drugs Don't Work, which sounds like an anthem for suicide to me.
Yes you would think that about Boris would you not. I think that people who would vote Boris would not be looking for consistancy or credibility just a bit of panache in what would be a time of great uncertainty for the Tories (after a Brexit vote).
As I indicated if I were a Tory (which is difficult for me to contemplate) then I would go for some sign of intelligence instead - hence David Davies rather than the other bizarre possibilities.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/damn-sb-with-faint-praise
We'll have to wait for a thread on Political Betting in 2116 to see who was right!
Not to mention the preaching hypocrisy of singing Imagine There's No Money. Well, if there weren't, he wouldn't be singing that song, playing his piano in his mansion, would he?
RCS, neither will Oasis. Songs from Morning Glory are played in student unions across the country. John Lewis' Christmas advert used one of their songs and most of the country didn't even realise.
Every band thinks they need to do a sad soulful ballard to be taken seriously.
And almost every band's sad soulful songs are shit. Coldplay with "Fix Me". God it's awful and mawkish and terrible.
Radiohead is pretty much the only band who can get away with making incredibly depressing music.
Pete Townsend is one you have forgotten. And Ray Davies. The one that will affect me most (if he goes before I do), though, will be Paul Weller. A very local genius.
Judging by the comments on here some of you need educating on the awesomeness of music.
Some of Bowie's music could move me like when I hear Ode To Joy.
My twitter timeline is full of 'Gnats' mourning the loss of a huge influence in their lives, meanwhile the Yoons be like 'Sod that, he saved the YOONION!'.
Of course that's neither here nor there in relation to your incontrovertible weeness & crassness.
But is it good enough to stand the test of time? I don't know.
And Schubert's piano accompaniments still have too much thud-thud-thud in the bass.
I don't own a single Beatles track. They're fine as a cultural placeholder and harmless tunes, but nothing more to me.
I detest the worthy stuff like Imagine.
https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/686497156954492929
It gets tied up with national identity too - people assume that the world loves their music (I once shocked a Korean by not being familiar with the latest gangnam style hits).
I'm just not on the same wavelength here. Never seen the appeal of miserable tunes. Leonard Cohen???
Incidentally, there seems to be some suggestion in this thread that I might not be entirely up to speed with modern culture. This is false. As it happens, I'm in the process of writing a rap version of Erik Satie's Vexations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16noW1H0yq8
Or Morrissey – every time I hear him I think ‘stop whining about it you miserable git and jump’
"No, but I once trod in some."
A great thumbnail for contemporary culture.
tldr, we should expect Conservative MPs to display an instinct for self-preservation and some intelligence. I think that points to a front-rank mild-sceptic/reluctant-remainist - May or Hammond - to go up against Osborne and win.
Boris is the wildcard to me. I find it very hard to assess his chances.
https://twitter.com/MediaGuido/status/686502092530401280
Also available here.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3393204/The-bitterness-Mrs-Bowie-claims-forced-debauched-open-marriage-poisoned-son-against-Angie-Bowie-s-hitting-viciously-indiscreet-style.html
My favourite album of his is I'm Your Man, with The Future a close second. Popular Problems is pretty amazing work for a man who's the wrong side of 80 as well.
This is from their official Foreign Office Twitter feed
@GermanyDiplo: Good-bye, David Bowie. You are now among #Heroes. Thank you for helping to bring down the #wall.
youtu.be/YYjBQKIOb-w #RIPDavidBowie
I don't know enough about the dispute to know who is right/wrong or what the appropriate compromise is.
But working hours long ago ceased being 9 -5 for most people.
He did choose where he lived
So, I had to discover the White Album in my thirties to realise what a foolish, ignorant, immature idiot I had been. The White Album is outstanding on every level- and the synergy between Lennon and McCartney was arguably the single most influential cultural contribution (outside Shakespeare- but maybe in the fullness of time including Shakespeare too) ever made by any Brit in the history of our country. Time will tell. But over fifty years later and the Beatles are still by far and away, head and shoulders, the most influential pop group ever. 5 albums of theirs are included in the the Rolling Stone top ten albums of all time- and that includes the likes of Marvin Gaye, Miles Davis, John Coltrane. Outside Shakespeare, I cannot quite think of any other Brit who has quite had that impact on any art form.
So, Mr Morris- by dismissing John Lennon- the creative dynamo of the Beatles who flourished after the band split, you are simply betraying your own ignorance comrade.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixKEC7xB2YY