Poll: Is David Bowie an alien or just a god?
>>61097833
He's a Starman. Duhh
>>61097833
He used to live in a tin can far above the world
>>61097885
*used to shit
Is he the greatest popular musician of the later half of the twentieth century?
he's a black star
I'M AN ALLIGATOR
I'M A MAMA PAPA COMING FOR YOU
>>61097930
Nah. He's a great composer and arranger, but he's a terrible frontman.
>>61098019
>terrible frontman
>>61098019
Wat.
>>61097833
>David Bowie turned marketing into the essence of his art. All great phenomena of popular music, from Elvis Presley to the Beatles, had been, first and foremost, marketing phenomena (just like Coca Cola and Barbie before them); however, Bowie turned that into an art of its own. With Bowie the science of marketing becomes art; art and marketing become one. There were intellectuals who had proclaimed this theory in rebellious terms. Bowie was, in many ways, the heir, no matter how perverted, of Andy Warhol's pop art and of the underground culture of the 1960s. He adopted some of the most blaspheme issues and turned them upside down to make them precisely what they had been designed to fight: a commodity.
Bowie was a protagonist of his times, although a poor musician: to say that Bowie is a musician is like saying that Nero was a harp player (a fact that is technically true, but misleading). Bowie embodies the quintessence of artificial art, raises futulity to paradigm, focuses on the phenomenon rather than the content, makes irrelevant the relevant, and, thus, is the epitome of everything that went wrong with rock music.
Each element of his art is the emblem of a true artistic movement; however, the ensemble of those emblems constitutes no more than a puzzle, no matter how intriguing, of symbols, a roll of incoherent images projected against the wall at twice the speed, a dictionary of terms rather than a poem, and, in the best of hypotheses, a documentary of the cultural fads of his era.
Reading the chronicles of his times, it is clear that what caused sensation was the show, not the music. The show that Bowie set up was undoubtedly in sync with the avantgarde, as it fused theater, mime, cinema, visual art, literature and music. However, Bowie merely recycled what had been going on for years in the British underground, in particular what had been popularized by the psychedelic bands of 1967.
>>61098048
He has zero charisma when he decides to drop down to his baritone that's woefully obvious he can barely maintain any body on. And after The Man Who Sold The World he uses it on almost ever single song.
>>61098070
Scaruffi was spot on with this one
>mfw God is aliens
>>61098073
>zero charisma
aight
>>61098070
>Reading the chronicles of his times, it is clear that what caused sensation was the show, not the music.
That has always been clear, while he liked all the different things he mixed in his shows, Bowie did all that shit to get attention and be famous. He also made good music, but most people came to see him do "his thing", which obviously wasn't just singing his songs.
And the fact that Bowie isn't a good musician isn't something new neither, he's the one that proves that you don't really have to be a good musician to make good songs, you just have to be a decent composer and have attitude.
(i know it's a pasta).
>>61098276
What i'm trying to say is that what Scaruffi says is something of public knowledge, Bowie was one of the originators of that strategy (getting attention based in stuff that doesn't have anything to do with music), but the reason why people still listen to him is that his music was good.
