Musical blind spots

[interpol52]

In an attempt to do something about my lack of David Bowie knowledge I have just purchased the Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust album.

Lets see how it goes!

[RhysP]

[quote name='interpol52' timestamp='1452946604' post='2954924']
In an attempt to do something about my lack of David Bowie knowledge I have just purchased the Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust album.

Lets see how it goes!
[/quote]

It's rubbish, you should have gone for Station to Station, Low, Heroes or Lodger......

[BassTractor]

[quote name='RhysP' timestamp='1452949371' post='2954962']
It's rubbish, you should have gone for Station to Station, Low, Heroes or Lodger......
[/quote]


In the early eighties, just after "Let Us Dance" (sic!) was released, I received the following simple recipe from a Bowie aficionado:
If the title of a David Bowie album is not "Low", "Heroes" or "Lodger", then it is rubbish unless the title consists of two (2) words, in which case it is great, except when those two words are "David" and "Bowie", as evidenced on a whopping two (2) early albums.

Worked for me back then, but in all seriousness I'd have to revisit to check if it still holds for me.

BTW, for young readers: "Space Oddity" = "David Bowie".

[ras52]

[quote name='BassTractor' timestamp='1452951663' post='2954994']

In the early eighties, just after "Let Us Dance" (sic!) was released, I received the following simple recipe from a Bowie aficionado:
If the title of a David Bowie album is not "Low", "Heroes" or "Lodger", then it is rubbish unless the title consists of two (2) words, in which case it is great, except when those two words are "David" and "Bowie", as evidenced on a whopping two (2) early albums.

Worked for me back then, but in all seriousness I'd have to revisit to check if it still holds for me.

BTW, for young readers: "Space Oddity" = "David Bowie".

[/quote]

Hm, what about the albums colloquial two-word titles - "Ziggy Stardust" and "Scary Monsters" - which are rather good but whose correct titles are somewhat longer? And is "Pin-ups" one word or two? This recipe seems fraught with hazards...

(And why didn't Bowie just make all of his albums great by giving them two-word titles?)

[RhysP]

[quote name='BassTractor' timestamp='1452951663' post='2954994']

In the early eighties, just after "Let Us Dance" (sic!) was released, I received the following simple recipe from a Bowie aficionado:
If the title of a David Bowie album is not "Low", "Heroes" or "Lodger", then it is rubbish unless the title consists of two (2) words, in which case it is great, except when those two words are "David" and "Bowie", as evidenced on a whopping two (2) early albums.

Worked for me back then, but in all seriousness I'd have to revisit to check if it still holds for me.

BTW, for young readers: "Space Oddity" = "David Bowie".

[/quote]

I'd have to say that an exception to this rule would be "Stage", which is a superb album, but maybe live albums don't count.

[BassTractor]

[quote name='ras52' timestamp='1452953507' post='2955015']
Hm, what about the albums colloquial two-word titles - "Ziggy Stardust" and "Scary Monsters" - which are rather good but whose correct titles are somewhat longer? And is "Pin-ups" one word or two? This recipe seems fraught with hazards...

(And why didn't Bowie just make all of his albums great by giving them two-word titles?)
[/quote]


[quote name='RhysP' timestamp='1452956534' post='2955059']
I'd have to say that an exception to this rule would be "Stage", which is a superb album, but maybe live albums don't count.
[/quote]


Fraught with hazards? I couldn't imagine why!

Of course, instead, it's fraught with security, as we can now safely adopt the human capacity of [b][i]flexibility[/i][/b].
E.G.:
- "Ziggy Stardust", as you can see clearly, when counted correctly, is 12 words. Bad album.
- "Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps)", as evidenced here (parentheses fer cryin' out loud!), is two words. Good album.
- "Pin Ups" may of course seem like one word to most people, but actually it depends on whether you like the album or not. Also, the flexible human brain may in case of doubt elect to adopt the stance that as a covers album it doesn't count.
- "Stage" can simply be added to the Low Lodger Heroes line if live albums may indeed count.


See?
The recipe always works!

Edited January 16, 2016 by BassTractor

[ras52]

[quote name='RhysP' timestamp='1452956534' post='2955059']
I'd have to say that an exception to this rule would be "Stage", which is a superb album, but maybe live albums don't count.
[/quote]

They do for me... David Live would be my desert-island Bowie album (and it's got two words in the title!)

[ras52]

[quote name='BassTractor' timestamp='1452961943' post='2955141']
- "Ziggy Stardust", as you can see clearly, when counted correctly, is 12 words. Bad album.
[/quote]

Veering into Random Thoughts territory here, but when I were a lad, Rick Wakeman's "The Myths and Legends of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table" was known as "Myths and Legends". So why wasn't "The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars" known as "Rise and Fall"?

[BassTractor]

[quote name='ras52' timestamp='1452962174' post='2955145']
known as "Rise and Fall"?
[/quote]



Yes, it was.
I asked the MD who came with my medicines. She should know.

[Old Man Riva]

[quote name='ras52' timestamp='1452961996' post='2955142']


They do for me... David Live would be my desert-island Bowie album (and it's got two words in the title!)
[/quote]
As an aside if I had to recommend one (just one) album for budding bass players to listen to as part of their learning then David Live would be it.

Herbie Flowers is funky, groovy, driving, laid back, supportive and musical throughout.

One of those albums where there's not one note out of place.

A masterclass in how to support the artist and their songs..

[kusee pee]

Good thread. Particularly the bit where Blue lost the plot for a while 😉
The more music I find the more I realise how much more there is still to find. I have big blindspots with a few major acts and particularly the big bands of the 70s. BC has helped me find a few new acts and genres and I always enjoy finding new bands. Some stick, some are fads for me and some I discard. We are lucky we now live in an age where it's much easier to explore new music.
In relation to Bowie, he's one of the few artists where the back catalogue is so diverse that it takes real time to get to know and understand. Dipping in to one album won't really tell you much about his musical output.

[Leonard Smalls]

I've found that mos of my musical blind spots are based on the rejection of an artist, or sometimes an entire genre because of 1 (or occasionally more) bad experience.
Frinstance, I rejected all of Bob Dylan because of appalling harmonica playing and terrible singing. However, I've enjoyed many of his songs if done by someone else...
Similarly, I've rejected folk music due to being traumatised by poor acoustic guitar playing and lyrics involving prettye maydes. And immho, I've been proved right. Though I have discovered exceptions such as the Unthanks or some Richard Thompson.
No doubt there's more to be discovered, but there's so much music and so little time!
I'm still working my way through The Funk and avant jazz!

[colgraff]

Re Bowie recipe: This works for me as Tin Machine has two words and I consider it a fabulous album. I am in a rather small minority, though.

[RhysP]

[quote name='colgraff' timestamp='1452966702' post='2955212']
Re Bowie recipe: This works for me as Tin Machine has two words and I consider it a fabulous album. I am in a rather small minority, though.
[/quote]

I thought the first Tin Machine album was brilliant.

[colgraff]

[quote name='RhysP' timestamp='1452968187' post='2955231']
I thought the first Tin Machine album was brilliant.
[/quote]
Good man. That's two of us. Any others?

[blue]

[quote name='kusee pee' timestamp='1452964892' post='2955182']
Good thread. Particularly the bit where Blue lost the plot for a while 😉[/quote]

I wasn't the only one.

Blue

[blue]

[quote name='cameltoe' timestamp='1452878482' post='2954412']


Why do you keep bringing up Megadeth? I mentioned Zeppelin, the stones, velvet underground etc.

Look, no offence meant, I understand how influenced you are by The Beatles and I totally get that. But your view on more recent bands such as Nirvana echoes exactly the view some people expressed in this thread of 'the greats' of the 60's, which is a view you took exception to.

I've listened to hundreds of Beatles songs. My mum used to play her Beatles LP's to me when I was a kid. I grew up listening to these songs. But, when I got to about the age of 11, I discovered my Dad's Black Sabbath LP's and found it much more exciting. The Beatles I find 'ok'. I understand their influence and I respect them as songwriters but I'm not greatly moved by their music.

But all the 'greats' , yours, mine, and everyone else's in this thread would have been nothing without the blues musicians from the early 1900's, we should recognise that at least.
[/quote]

I don't have any views on Nirvana, other than I'm not familiar enough with their work to have an opinion one way or the other.

I never bad mouthed Nirvana, that's the difference.

Blue

[FinnDave]

[quote name='Roland Rock' timestamp='1452895332' post='2954629']
I think it's more about big bands that have totally gone under your radar (ie you don't know the first thing about their music), rather than bands you've checked out and not liked.
[/quote]

I don't know anything about the bands I don't know anything about.

[cameltoe]

[quote name='blue' timestamp='1452980535' post='2955353']


I don't have any views on Nirvana, other than I'm not familiar enough with their work to have an opinion one way or the other.

I never bad mouthed Nirvana, that's the difference.

Blue
[/quote]

You already replied to this one Blue, on the previous page.

Anywaaaay.... I don't think anybody did bad mouth The Beatles did they? Unless I'm missing something. I think mostly it was just expressing whether they liked them or not. Which people are entitled to do.

Edited January 16, 2016 by cameltoe

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='ras52' timestamp='1452962174' post='2955145']
Veering into Random Thoughts territory here, but when I were a lad, Rick Wakeman's "The Myths and Legends of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table" was known as "Myths and Legends". So why wasn't "The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars" known as "Rise and Fall"?
[/quote]

Surely the Wakeman album was known as King Arthur?

[rushbo]

[quote name='colgraff' timestamp='1452973771' post='2955288']
Good man. That's two of us. Any others?
[/quote]

+1

[blue]

[quote name='cameltoe' timestamp='1452983310' post='2955378']


You already replied to this one Blue, on the previous page.

Anywaaaay.... I don't think anybody did bad mouth The Beatles did they? [/quote]

Yes, but to me, even when a young person says " I don't get what all the fuss was about" I consider that bad mouthing.

If you weren't there how could you possibly understand what the fuss was about.

I'm also wondering since being on bass chat if The Beatles were more important to us Yanks than they were to the English,

Blue

Edited January 17, 2016 by blue

[ras52]

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1452983591' post='2955382']
Surely the Wakeman album was known as King Arthur?
[/quote]

Not among my circle of prog-hungry north-eastern adolescents...

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='ras52' timestamp='1453019833' post='2955473']
Not among my circle of prog-hungry north-eastern adolescents...
[/quote]
Ah, north-east versus west midlands, it's a different world.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='blue' timestamp='1453018537' post='2955462']
Yes, but to me, even when a young person says " I don't get what all the fuss was about" I consider that bad mouthing.

If you weren't there how could you possibly understand what the fuss was about.

I'm also wondering since being on bass chat if The Beatles were more important to us Yanks than they were to the English,

Blue
[/quote]

Then I would suggest that it's your consideration that needs reviewing, as that is certainly not the spirit in which expressions of the like are commonly used. I wasn't 'there' during the American War of Independence, and have, as a consequence, much less of a notion as to what 'the fuss' was all about. I'm not (totally...) ignorant of the event(s...), nor their consequences, but the importance, at the time, to the belligerents was doubtless much more striking. Was it worth the effort..? Was it a Good Thing..? Possibly, but still up for debate. No, it's not insulting, nor 'bad-mouthing'; merely the expression of a personal opinion, more or less well informed. There are many other examples, far too many to be cited, but there's no umbrage to be taken by such frank statements (and even if there were, it's never a good idea to get worked up solely over someone's view on t'web..!).
As for the importance to the Yanks of the Beatles, I'd say that it's an individual thing, rather than national. Some folks reacted, others less so. Same in Britain, Europe and elsewhere, I'd guess. Me..? I'm playing Sgt. Pepper's right now to our grandson; he's clapping his hands (18 months old...). I listen more, and more closely, to the Grateful Dead, though, in general. Real life-changing music, for me.
Respect.