Bullshit. If you're gonna blame Bowie for the early '80s New Romantics, you have to blame your (and admittedly, my) beloved Roxy Music as well. Again, you're just projecting your dislike of Bowie while ignoring the equally dubious (at least if you dislike that period of music; I'm somewhere in the middle between you and say, thegreat48, on the New Romantics) influence that Roxy had on that genre of music since I know you're such a big fan of theirs.

With all that said, I think Bowie was one of the best recording artists of the '70s in terms of making great, creative music for the entire decade. I can't think of any other artists except for Bob Marley, Stevie Wonder, Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath (and Steely Dan but please no more debates on them) who were able to do this. I'm only including artists who recorded throughout the entire decade (otherwise there are many artists who only recorded in the latter half of that decade who I like much more), though Stevie is a tough one to add there since there was a big gap between 1976 and 1979 and no one considers The Secret Life of Plants a masterpiece.

"Bullshit" to what? My long-ago, partially dealt with hangup with Bowie? I'm asking you to speak from your heart, your heart of darkness, if the case be, and you want to challenge my feelings on Bowie? As a friend, I'll ignore this lapse in concentration and allow you to answer the specific questions I've asked. Thanks.

"Bullshit" to what?

The notion that Bowie was SOLELY responsible for the New Romantics' look, image and sound, not to mention all the bad fashion trends of the '80s as well.

I thought I made it clear that I'm NOT challenging your feelings on Bowie (unless you wanna go there) nor am I denying his massive influence on all that stuff, but I think it's only fair to ask how you can forgive Roxy Music and their (in my mind, at least) equally great and obvious influence on all of the above. I'm really curious about your thoughts on this subject. Seriously.

As for your questions, I haven't really thought of any yet. OK I got one. How about The Descendents (or if you wanna go back further, Buzzcocks, Generation X, etc.) and their influence on Green Day (whose 1st 2 albums I actually like) and the subsequent Blink-182 (and all of their ilk) takeover of what was once a great thing (pop-punk). And no, I wouldn't feel justified taking it out on any of these artists (you can also include the SoCal punk family tree here, too; I mean Agent Orange, Adolescents, Bad Religion, Social Distortion, etc.) though it doesn't make me like the music of these artists' any less) since it's not their fault that their influence produced so much shitty music.

1. Have you ever felt this way about an artist? (Specify.)

I guess I'll never embrace Pearl Jam because they helped popularize yarling.

2. Is there actually the slightest bit of justification for having felt this way?

Would it matter? The blame game gets me down. David Bowie has possibly written more of my favorite songs than anyone else, but I wasn't a witness to the destruction of rock 'n' roll by a Yamaha DX7, so maybe I can't comment here. I do think Berylant raises an interesting point WRT Roxy Music.

Approaching the question rationally – that is, leaving any specific examples out that might color opinion – it seems that it’s only “justifiable” if you truly believe the original artist is responsible for the crimes of their followers. If they helped launch the offenders, worked with them later or publicly supported or approved of them, that’s probably enough guilt by association to merit a Rock Tribunal investigating the alleged Rock Crimes.

Otherwise, anyone of a certain level of fame or talent is going to have a sizable group of people who want to try to replicate their success, and since most of them are bound to fail and/or annoy (because most people are failures and/or annoying), you’re going to get a high level of lesser lights making inferior music no matter what.

Obviously, there’s a difference if you didn’t like the original band in the first place and their equally loathsome knock-offs make you dislike them even more. That’s where the rational approach drops out of things, and at that point, you’ve probably ammo got enough for your own Rock Star Chamber.

Now, let’s see those 30 Bowie songs.

Alex raises some good points. I only really take points off of bands I don't especially like already (like Led Zeppelin ... is that a stupid name or what?) for the sucky bands they enabled.

There was a lot of generic jangle pop in REM's wake, but it didn't make me like REM less. In a way the pale reflections make one appreciate the original more.

Hey, anyone notice Sony is releasing 'The Bowie Box' just in time for Christmas? 'Outside', 'Earthling', 'Hours' and 'Heathen' in expanded 2cd versions for those people who apparantly need four remixes of 'Hallo Spaceboy' in their lives, or are dying to hear Bowie's cover Sigue Sigue Sputnik's 'Love Missile F1-11'.

Hey, anyone notice Sony is releasing 'The Bowie Box' just in time for Christmas? 'Outside', 'Earthling', 'Hours' and 'Heathen' in expanded 2cd versions for those people who apparantly need four remixes of 'Hallo Spaceboy' in their lives, or are dying to hear Bowie's cover Sigue Sigue Sputnik's 'Love Missile F1-11'.

Yep, I read this review of it earlier:
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/47250-david-bowie-box

I actually know a few people who either have already ordered it or for whom it would make a great gift, but both of them are awesome, so I wouldn't nominate Bowie in the current poll!

The issue is, I think, whether the band receives the blame for an annoying part of their own sound that others copy. If their own sound is good, the poor copies aren't their fault.

Thus, yes, I do blame Bowie's "new wave" mannerisms for a lot of the mannerisms that followed, and I do blame Pearl Jam for the melodramatic yarling that followed, and Nirvana for a decade of self-absorbed alt whining, and Robert Plant does have to take the blame for a lot of hard rock screeching. That doesn't necessarily amount to wholesale condemnations of those bands, necessarily. I like Nirvana and Zeppelin a lot, despite reservations about some aspects of their music.

But I don't blame Roxy Music for new wave mannerisms because I don't find them annoying in that way. They do lose some points for ushering in a new era of art rock with an overly silvery sheen.

Oh, and I sure as hell blame Bono for the tradition of pompous Irish political posturing in rock, and that includes the yodel.

As with the yodel, I'm missing something. Who are these hordes of Irish bands guilty of political posturing (the terms of which I'd like to see defined) that followed in Bono's wake?

Sorry ... I forgot ... pompous political posturing.

I blame Fats Domino for Chubby Checker.

I appreciate your willingness to self-correct, Steve. I claimed no "hordes." Either you see how the Cranberries "Zombie" is a distillation of everything that's annoying about U2's "Sunday Bloody Sunday" or you don't. And let me say again that I don't purely hate either song. But if you can't see the pomposity there, then I really can't help you understand any further.

Who are these hordes of Irish bands guilty of political posturing (the terms of which I'd like to see defined) that followed in Bono's wake?

Well, Black 47 for one, who weren't even fucking Irish. The Dropkick Murphys ditto.

Wow that's some tradition -- two and a half bands.

Steve, no one said the pompous Irish political rock song dominated the rest of the history of rock. All I said was it sucked and Bono started it. But I agree that he's to blame for much more profoundly annoying problems, and I thank you for returning us to them.

What I don't get is how you can worship the ground Bono walks on and not see that he's a Robert Plant wanna-be. Seriously: Robert Plant is to blame for Bono and Eddie Vedder. That's a big black mark, Zeppelin fans. Not that Plant isn't a better singer than either of them, but still.

when will hvb chime in to blame the Velvets for opening the floodgates for countless indie noise / shoegaze / outsider artist type acts?

mod, and anyone else, my head just doesn't work this way...so i have to ask:

once you've identified blame, does it affect your ability to enjoy the music of the act you've accused?

for instance, above, BigSteve considers Plant's role as Bono / Vedder prototype a "black mark" for Zep fans. But I don't think Zep fans would care. So is it really a "black mark"? What are the consequences of the "blame"?

me no understand...

it's almost as if blame = influence + hatred

Alexmagic wrote:

Approaching the question rationally – that is, leaving any specific examples out that might color opinion – it seems that it’s only “justifiable” if you truly believe the original artist is responsible for the crimes of their followers. If they helped launch the offenders, worked with them later or publicly supported or approved of them, that’s probably enough guilt by association to merit a Rock Tribunal investigating the alleged Rock Crimes.

Thanks for framing it this way. I DO feel justified in holding Bowie largely responsible for the '80s. So much of his work was consciously structured around the style and facade of rock that I can feel justified in a rational way in bringing Rock Crimes charges against him for his influence. It's not like any of those '80s bands so much copied his music - any shifting version of it. They copied his pose - the overdone singing, Ziggy, the Thin White Duke, the studio gadgetry. He put that stuff out there as much as any of his great musical stages, and that's what lesser lights ran with. The best example is what he did to Iggy: he made him sing like Bowie and made his band sound like whatever period Bowie was in. He robbed Iggy of his soul. Bowie was a conscious Soul Invader!

Bryan Ferry sings in a similar manner and later-day Roxy Music would tread similar ground as the New Romantics, but Roxy Music was a rock 'n roll band at heart. Bowie aimed for something beyond the medium, which would be his blessing and my curse.

Mwall wrote:

The issue is, I think, whether the band receives the blame for an annoying part of their own sound that others copy. If their own sound is good, the poor copies aren't their fault.

Right. Bowie barely gets away with the squashed studio gimmickry of Low, for instance. It's not his fault that Duran Duran sucked using a similar production technique, but he set the trap for them.

Saturismine, Man of Peace, Love, and Understanding, wrote:

once you've identified blame, does it affect your ability to enjoy the music of the act you've accused?

It just annoys me and makes me wish the artist would have had the foresight to stop short of crossing that fine line in my mind. Why do you think I moderate Rock Town Hall?

for instance, above, BigSteve considers Plant's role as Bono / Vedder prototype a "black mark" for Zep fans. But I don't think Zep fans would care. So is it really a "black mark"? What are the consequences of the "blame"?

That was me, Saturn, not BigSteve. And I am a Zep fan, a big one. And I do care. And it is a black mark. And the consequences are, every time I hear Vedder or Bono on the radio, I have to say, "Robert, I love ya, baby, but goddamnit."

That was me, Saturn, not BigSteve. And I am a Zep fan, a big one. And I do care. And it is a black mark. And the consequences are, every time I hear Vedder or Bono on the radio, I have to say, "Robert, I love ya, baby, but goddamnit."

I don't hear it WRT Bono, but I'm intrigued by how you all seem to think so. I hear much more Jim Morrison influence here. As for Vedder, he tries for Robert Plant but ends up like Simon Rodgers, at least to my ears.

Well, Black 47 for one, who weren't even fucking Irish. The Dropkick Murphys ditto.

Not so fast. Larry Kirwan, the leader of Black 47, is an Irish immigrant (originally from Wexford, I think) and many of their other members are of Irish ancestry, though they did form in The Bronx.

With that said, I tend to like their more personal songs more than some of the heavier-handed political songs like "Free Joe Now", though some of those are quite good, too. With that said, they owe way more to Springsteen, RUN-DMC and The Pogues than they do to U2, who I don't hear a note of in their music.

The same goes for The Dropkick Murphys, who sound like an Irish-American Rancid (i.e. if Rancid had spent their youth listening to The Pogues instead of The Clash) to my ears, though not as enjoyable as that description sounds on paper.

when will hvb chime in to blame the Velvets for opening the floodgates for countless indie noise / shoegaze / outsider artist type acts?

when will hvb chime in to blame the Velvets for opening the floodgates for countless indie noise / shoegaze / outsider artist type acts?


I already did that in this post below:
http://tinyurl.com/22ba75

And I say that both of you are full of it and you don't even realize it. Sure the Velvets influenced The Dandy Warhols (who actually have their moments IMO), but they also influenced Yo La Tengo, Galaxie 500, Luna as well as The Clean (and consequently the entire New Zealand indie-pop scene; i.e. the Flying Nun scene). All of these artists, not to mention the Jesus and Mary Chain and consequently anything that can labelled "noise pop" or "shoegaze" does not equate to "poseur". You're just blindly dissing entire sub-genres of music here, but if that's your trip, then be my guest.
Permalink 11/28/07 @ 09:44

Then again, it's obvious from my tone that I don't think it's a bad thing since I like all of these genres.

What I'd like to know is when I started worshipping the ground Bono walks on. I said I was a fan of U2's music, and I don't get why people get so exercised about Bono's sins against .... whatever it is.

And I don't get the Plant influence at all. Bono comes much more out of the Bowie Eurocroon tradition vocally, with almost no blues/R&B inflections.

I don't get why people get so exercised about Bono's sins against .... whatever it is.

I'm neither here nor there regarding U2, but I'm beginning to think Bono deserves some sort of props as a Target of Substance.

Hey, the point of the Last Man Standing on Bono was to cleanse our souls of all petty thoughts on the man and move forward, giving him the appropriate amount of appreciation he deserves. Let's not lose sight of the opportunity we had.

The lineage of Most Overblown Majorly Successful Rock Singers: Plant-Bono-Vedder.

You can look it up.

Although I'm sure there are other offenders in this Most Overblown Rock Singers category. I'd love to hear more about it, actually.

I don't see a lineage here. You could say Vedder combines the ridiculous earnestness of Bono with the ridiculous machismo of Plant, but I don't think Plant and Bono have much to do with each other. Show me a U2 song that has Plant-style vocalizing, particularly the showboating "Black Dog"/"Immigrant Song" kind of stuff.

Let me amend my statement some: I don't see a direct lineage.

Oats, you're not really asking me to find a showboating Bono lyric, are you? I remain convinced that Bono understood the power of the over-the-top melodramatic Plant vocal. It's the aura of overkill that's at stake.

I remain convinced that Bono understood the power of the over-the-top melodramatic Plant vocal. It's the aura of overkill that's at stake.

Okay, I see what you mean now.

Mwall, I foolishly thought you were talking about the music instead of the image.

Vedder, especially now and especially live, seems to blend much more in with the band. If it's the frontman + guitar/bass/drums paradigm we're talking about, Morissey and the Smiths probably qualify.

For some reason this popped into my head regarding the traditions of Irish rock bands. Does anyone remember an Irish band from the 80s called Cactus World News? They sounded so much like U2 that the joke was people called them U3.

Steve, I do think the sound here is part of the image; you have to sing with a wildly intense, passionate sincerity about "subjects of great importance." Of course, the subject doesn't really have to be important, it just has to give the appearance of importance through the way in which it is sung. You have to quiver and sweat with deep emotion as you belt your whole soul across the stadium.

Of course I'm just busting your bawls, mwall. And I am shocked that you would suggest that the squeezing of lemons might not in fact be a subject of great importance.

But seriously singing with all your heart as if what you're singing is important ought to be an option for a rock singer. As should irony. As should not caring. (Did anyone see House this week? They had an aging punk rocker who didn't care if he lived or died, except it turned out that he did care. Or maybe he didn't and House did. I forget ....)

Anyway, I might want to turn this issue around. Obviously what you're calling the Plant/Bono approach doesn't work if it's bullshit. Are there acts you can get behind where the over-the-top, sincere vocal approach is successful?

Steve, my point has never been that I hate these over-the-top approaches entirely. I like a lot of rock that also annoys me in some ways.

I think I like Plant better than Bono because he sings about more or less nothing in that over-the-top way, while Bono believes himself more deeply to be singing about something. If you have genuine subject matter, why put yourself so much at the center of it all? I think this would be why I prefer The Clash to U2. They often take on similar subjects, but The Clash don't try to absorb it all in some individual's star power persona.

What I'd like to know is when I started worshipping the ground Bono walks on. I said I was a fan of U2's music, and I don't get why people get so exercised about Bono's sins against .... whatever it is.

And I don't get the Plant influence at all. Bono comes much more out of the Bowie Eurocroon tradition vocally, with almost no blues/R&B inflections.

This also leads to another charge against Bono and U2 in general. The obsession with the U.S. and in particular old blues men like BB King (see "When Love Comes to Town") when clearly, they come from a place that's much more Bowie/Euro-croon/UK post-punk.