Quote:
Originally Posted by lucifer_sam
David Bowie is counted among rock's great musicians because of his albums, not his singles. If you want to contest that fact, be my guest.
|
I was not contesting it. I was merely stating that I don't rate his early material much. By early I'm talking late 60s and early 70s. My view is that in that particular period his main strength as a songwriter were his singles. I'm not going to say that the album tracks are absolute suck - that would be going too far - but there was a great deal of better album music being made over the same period, both in mainstream and more niche markets.
Quote:
The Man Who Sold The World
Hunky Dory
Ziggy Stardust And The Spiders From Mars
Aladdin Sane
Young Americans
Low
"Heroes"
|
I think "The Man Who Sold The World" is a good album for reasons already stated. Young Americans is TERRIBLE! I've even come across Bowiephiles who are only too quick to call that album a mis-step. Low and Heroes don't come into what I'm talking about, because they were later-period Bowie albums. I like both, particularly Low.
Quote:
|
Writing it off as "tripe" is immature and clearly shows a lack of appreciation for his unique songwriting.
|
Why is it immature? It merely reflects my opinion that on the whole it's not a good album. I don't see why disliking a record and using harsh language to describe it would qualify as immature. Please explain yourself further.
Quote:
|
If you want to base your experiences with Bowie on a greatest hits CD, I don't see much reason arguing with you.
|
Presumably you did not understand. I simply said that I came to know Bowie through his singles, and had always been a fan. I was merely establishing that I was not a hater of Bowie, if anything quite the contrary. I'm not a hater now, either. Just, his early work disappoints me and cannot live up to the standards of some of the truly terrific stuff that was being churned out in the early 70s, in all genres.