Paul McCartney - The REAL King of Pop?

Howard the Duck · 07-12-2011, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

Did Bowie have an image? Yes, but so did The Beatles. Look after your Beatles broke up, David Bowie was the man. He was one of the best of Glam Rockers and influential to many bands after that genre fizzled out. If you looked at The Beatles throughout their history they wore faux leather jacket like "Gene Vincent" wannabees, then they don French fashion to appear like the boys next door, then they were wearing Naru Jackets, they start dressing down, then dressing up, then dressing down, wearing silk jackets, they were always into some kind of fashion conscience image. How can you make it appear like Bowie has his popularity point pushed by his image and not The Beatles?

i seem to think people just assumes Bowie is better because he's "cooler" than Paul, i seem to think musical meritoriously, they're about the same and Paul had the slight edge of being in the Beatles

all the good albums of Bowie's I can count on one hand:-

Ziggy Stardust
Station to Station
Low
Heroes
1. Outside

(and maybe Let's Dance)

the rest are mediocre to abysmal

starrynight · 07-13-2011, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Il Duce

i seem to think people just assumes Bowie is better because he's "cooler" than Paul

That was part of what I was thinking. Rock is as much about image as pop, in some ways maybe much more so. Bowie was seen to epitomise the glam scene and established himself as much because of his image as because of the music. There is plenty of good music in the 70s but most of them never had the image and fame Bowie had.

I don't think The Beatles were as much about image. That's shown in that they changed quite a bit through the 60s, they are not remembered specifically for certain costumes, makeup or a kind of attitude like Bowie is. He even made up names for himself like Ziggy Stardust and became them in concert.

djchameleon · 07-13-2011, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynight

I don't think The Beatles were as much about image. That's shown in that they changed quite a bit through the 60s, they are not remembered specifically for certain costumes, makeup or a kind of attitude like Bowie is. He even made up names for himself like Ziggy Stardust and became them in concert.

that's so not true!

yes Bowie was a bit more flamboyant but The Beatles were just as much about image as he was. They are specifically remember for those matching bowl hair cuts they had

Unknown Soldier · 07-13-2011, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon

that's so not true!

yes Bowie was a bit more flamboyant but The Beatles were just as much about image as he was. They are specifically remember for those matching bowl hair cuts they had

I`d hardly put the funny haircuts that the Beatles had, in the same type of image category that Bowie was projecting. Also the comparison is not great, as the Beatles look was quite some time before Bowie kicked in.

djchameleon · 07-13-2011, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

I`d hardly put the funny haircuts that the Beatles had, in the same type of image category that Bowie was projecting. Also the comparison is not great, as the Beatles look was quite some time before Bowie kicked in.

My point is they still had an image with that haircut, an image that was even replicated by other bands.

Unknown Soldier · 07-13-2011, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon

My point is they still had an image with that haircut, an image that was even replicated by other bands.

I see your point but there is still a big difference in the images being projected here. The Beatles image was seen as being trendy and generally accepted as being a popular fad. Whereas, Bowie`s image was decadent and and androgynous, and parents didn`t want their kids coming home looking like that

djchameleon · 07-13-2011, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

I see your point but there is still a big difference in the images being projected here. The Beatles image was seen as being trendy and generally accepted as being a popular fad. Whereas, Bowie`s image was decadent and and androgynous, and parents didn`t want their kids coming home looking like that

that's why I used the word flamboyant to describe that whole part of what you said :P

IMO, Starrynight was saying The Beatles had no image whatsoever or that's what I got from what he was saying.

Howard the Duck · 07-13-2011, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon

that's so not true!

yes Bowie was a bit more flamboyant but The Beatles were just as much about image as he was. They are specifically remember for those matching bowl hair cuts they had

i'm having one now, actually ha ha ha