Bowie/Beatles comparisons

[naughty boy]

Is there anyone here who resists the idea that Bowie did for the 70s what the Fabs did for the 60s?

Although The Beatles were more universal, Bowie also put out more than his fair share of anthemic, flag-waving stuff for the masses. 'Heroes' might have been about an alcoholic (I think! he was never very forthcoming about it) but as usual the British public heard singalonga and they took it to their hearts in the way they did 'Hey Jude'. And 'Life On Mars' might be his 'A Day In The Life', if you want highly-regarded meaningless-profound examples.

I'm not sure DB thought of himself as much of a songwriter, but there are shitloads of hummable ditties. With 'Kooks', 'Starman' and 'The Prettiest Star' he might have taken on the guise of McCartney more than Lennon.

Right now, in the UK, I don't think there's a huge gap between the two artists as far as assessment goes.

HE might not have talked about THEM much, actually. If that matters.

[clive gash]

Nah.

[jimboo]

What do you mean the Beatles are more universal ?

[Goat Boy]

It's interesting that ian MacDonald apparently planned on doing a Revolution in the Head book for 70s Bowie.

[naughty boy]

Going well isn't it LADS?

[Goat Boy]

About as well as my threads, aye

[naughty boy]

[The Modernist]

Absolutely comparable.
No other artists take you on such an evolving journey and no others were so brilliant at combining a populist grasp of pop with outre blasts into the unknown.

[naughty boy]

G! Welcome back!

[jimboo]

:o

G! Welcome back!

I would normally agree with you if he wasn't talking shite.

[Goat Boy]

He's not talking shite though is he? Bowies combination of songs and experimentation is matched only by the Fabs.

His journey throughout the 70s is certainly the most thrilling of that decade.

[Goat Boy]

Also, welcome back, G!

[clive gash]

The Resurrection 2.0

[Moleskin]

Is there anyone here who resists the idea that Bowie did for the 70s what the Fabs did for the 60s

Except that Bowie was never the commercial colossus, was he? ...and that was part of the charm of discovering his music. It was like joining a secret society. Even if 'most people' didn't know any Beatles songs apart from the hits, they were publicly owned in a way Bowie never was.

[Darkness_Fish]

I'd have thought that Bowie was definitely a commercial colossus, but I'd like to think that the defining factor between Bowie and Beatles fans is that Bowie fans don't demand that everyone recognise that he was the greatest thing in the history of things.

[naughty boy]

Oh, they do HERE!

[jimboo]

I'd have thought that Bowie was definitely a commercial colossus, but I'd like to think that the defining factor between Bowie and Beatles fans is that Bowie fans don't demand that everyone recognise that he was the greatest thing in the history of things.

Just get with the fucking program .

[Darkness_Fish]

Sounds like my kind of program.

[clive gash]

You have to do it in Beatles wigs

[toomanyhatz]

Bowie fans don't demand that everyone recognise that he was the greatest thing in the history of things.

Oh, they do HERE!

They certainly do. We have Beatle naysayers here, but the quickest way to be an outcast is to be a Bowie naysayer. Before your day, we had polls where we pitted Bowie against all and sundry, and he pretty much beat all comers. It got comical.

A person that I work with who is transgender took part in a choral performance of Ziggy and it occurs to me that rather than anything Beatle-connected, that is a defining characteristic of Bowie - that he was was a representative for all the outcasts, rebels and misfits. The reason why he owned the 70s so thoroughly is that he was so apart from the mainstream, but so huge because he was relateable for everyone who felt like they didn't fit in. And after the 'everybody get together' 60s nobody realized just how huge a group that was.

The fact that he's largely to blame for the 80s is only forgivable in light of that.