How exactly did David Bowie innovated in popular music? It seems to me that his overall contributions were focusing on the image rather than the music.
I never said his music is bad, learn to read.
I actually like Heroes and Low, I just think he's quite overhyped considering Lou Reed, Iggy Pop, and Nick were far better decadent artist yet never received as much praise as Bowie.
he managed to have a lot of really weird and artsy pop songs become huge hits. His influence is pretty obvious on modern musicians, his berlin trilogy especially has been mined for decades.
>It seems to me that his overall contributions were focusing on the image rather than the music.
the one written by the person who didn't like the music so is looking for confirmation from /mu/ that bowie is in fact, shit
he's popular because he's a great songwriter and made great use of styles which weren't widely used in popular music e.g. glam, electronic, krautrock, sci-fi. this idea that people are famous because they were innovative is just wrong. they're famous because they made good music
You mistake Bowie for an innovator.
He is a trendsetter, a pop chameleon, capable of naturally moving forward in style almost effortlessly with an intuitive understanding of fusion.
Bowie does not invent, he reinvents.
Earthling is a fun album but his most gimmick stricken one. Let's Dance was actually experimental at the time. The thought of blues rock and disco mixing was blasphemy. And really, how can you say scary monsters isn't something unique?
Bowie tried to break for many years. And after five albums, two of which are amongst the best ever, plus a hit single he still hadn't broken as a major star. So he did the ziggy thing but he dumped that zoon after and by the time his career peaked in the 80s there was no pretense of style over substance.
Regardless of how you look at it, Bowie's flawless streak of records in the 70s and his chart topping success proves that OP is a faggot.
>give your answer and explain your thinking
'this guy is well regarded/famous but i don't think he should be - discuss' isn't contributing anything and is usually shitposting anyway
Lou Reed and Iggy Pop were both saved by Bowie and would have otherwise vanished into a pit of heroin addiction never to return. In fact you probably would never have heard of them if it Bowie wasn't a fan of their music.
You're ignoring Station to Station (which is a fantastic fusion of krautrock with American soul and has some great songwriting in addition to impressive lyricism. Allusions to the occult, fascist imagery, and songs about losing control and barreling into self-destructive oblivion all make for a pretty potent, yet surprisingly groovy, album).
I don't think people get why Bowie is so GOAT. It isn't about innovation as much as it is about synthesis. Say what you want about his originality, but David Bowie incorporated the avant-garde into some really smart, well written pop music, and that's enough to warrant a lot of merit.
I never said that he disliked him, just that OP is a faggot. Regardless, saying Bowie wasn't innovative is ignorant at best. He was at the vanguard of glam and electro, basically invented the punk image, invented the new romantic scene. He was the first white boy to appear on Soul Train and that's saying something.
He fought off his record label and monied interests and released Low, which force-fed avant garde music to pop fans and was a commercial success. He defined the sound and image of the 80s with Scary Monsters and Let's Dance.
Bowie's songcraft and production is immaculate and deep, and has produced a huge swathe of timeless classic albums and songs. So stop being a pleb and get some Bowie into your playlist.
One just needs to listen to this retrospective of 50 years(!) of Bowie to know the truth. Anyone with this incredible body of work can never be accused of having no substance.
this is good shit though. metallica was a shit choice but tune out the shitty metal and the avant-lou lyrics and it's a fitting ending in a way. ecstasy is his real final abum anyway
This. Also at that point in time especially, no one (at least no one did it well) could jump from style to style making great, stylistically cohesive albums. The closest anyone had come were the Beatles but even then, most of their albums don't really feature a cohesive sound. This is especially impressive when you consider David Bowie is just one man (although he did always surround himself with the most talented people he could find, much like how modern musicians collaborate).
Also the frequent reinvention and theatricality of his image is noteworthy.
>one day Bowie will die and there will be no more records
Fucking hell, I think he made some good glam rock and two great krautrock/experimental rock albums (although you can give a lot of credit for Eno for that) but I don't think he is the innovative musician (he is indeed influential in the cult of personality though) many people claim.
Did anyone read that? NME doesn't even know what the Berlin trilogy is. Jesus christ.
> Laurie Anderson revealed Bowie considered the record his "masterpiece”, likening it to his 1973 album 'Berlin' as an ahead-of-its-time, misunderstood marvel.