Anyway there are so many I am hoping to see, and today I started with probably the number one movie on my must see list, D A Pennebaker's Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars. I'd seen it before many years ago on DVD, and it was before my insane David Bowie obsession truly formed, so I had not retained quite so much of it. As it stood, it was a striking documentary, simply capturing the last show of the Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars tour, and the 'last show we'll ever do' (everyone of course freaking out until realising that the character of Ziggy Stardust and his Spiders were disappearing, eventually making room for Bowie's next character). I sat there mesmerized and enchanted by the entire film, heart in throat as if I was actually an audience member with 70's hair and undying adulation for the glittered slenderman in front of me. I found it difficult not to clap at the end of each song and was relieved when audience members eventually relented and did so themselves.
Let's get real here though people, in many aspects it's not the best filmed documentary. Onstage the camera captures much of Bowie and the band's action, including wonderful detail... for example, the close up while he plays the last verses of "My Death", captures a tear forming and streaming slowly, adding extra depth and passion to the words of the song. However, any camera work directed at the audience is pretty shockingly done, so that there are great big spaces of darkness, amid bad resolution shots of ladies with massive glasses and screaming mouths. It's also weirdly put together, so that a few of Bowie's entrances are totally missed or delayed, with the camera choosing to focus on blurry audience members instead.
What makes it, is him, and the band. Mick Woodmansey, while mostly hidden from the camera, is dynamite on the drum kit, nailing every fill and driving the whole process. Trevor Bolder also doesn't share as much film time, but his presence on the bass is everywhere. Mick Ronson, god of guitar, is nothing short of fucking motherfucking amazing. He effortlessly fingers the electric like he could do it in his sleep and totally steals the show. Meanwhile, Bowie takes his place front and centre, gaunt and bony, with his electrified hair, awful teeth and multiple coloured eyes, no doubt in full throe of his cocaine addiction, and obviously so. Through what feels like 20 costume changes and androgynous makeup, his emotion filled vocals, theatrical stage moves, and his general Bowie charm, this plain and simply ugly man, turns into a sexual madman. Yes, had I been a teenager (or anyone really) in 1973, I would have been absolutely mad for it. David Bowie, and his Ziggy Stardust persona, is a perfect example of what a presentation of oneself can do for one's charisma and desirability. As well as a little mystery.
I honestly do NOT believe in this day and age that anything as amazing and anyone as talented and creative and dynamic as Bowie will ever take over music and life as much as he has. Granted, his 80's-90's catalogue is pretty lacking, but dammit, the 80's-90's was kind of a shitty era for consistently good music (thanks to marketing and the paint by numbers industry). But the humorous thing about that scene in 'Extras' with Andy Millman coming up to his idol to wonder if he'd sold out, was that, at least in the decade where he held the world in the palm of his hand, David Bowie could never say that he had sold out. He broke so many rules in the music world, through his personae, his imprint on the media, and most of all, his music. Half of 'Heroes' is rarely listenable to me. 'Low', is my parents worst nightmare. But Bowie wasn't interested in pleasing a body of people, he was interested in experimenting, trying different sounds, and as a result, "Low" was WAY ahead of its time. He has inspired more artists than people realise, even if they turn into horrible pop monsters like Lady Gaga.
After this film warmed my heart, I couldn't help but lament on the fact that I do not live in the 70's, and Pennebaker's film was the closest I was ever going to get to that amazing moment. David Bowie may (oh, PLEASE) tour here again, and it will be epic... I would be the happiest girl in the room would it happen. But of course, he is a much saner, and older person now (and I have to say, he's aged better than he should have). The magic of glam, groundbreaking live music is over, and in its place is a memento of what was. The what was, I never experienced nor ever will.
In the 60's and 70's, what was played on the radio, was actually pretty good. Have you ever wished you were born in another era or place, and you got stuck here when you were supposed to be somewhere else? Sometimes I feel mad that I'm in a world where Justin Bieber is a household name, and a The Books gig isn't even half sold out in a small room.
But I'll stop feeling mad, and instead grateful that I got to see a classic live performance on a big screen, and thank GOMA for making it happen, and see some more terrific shows at the same venue. AND SO WILL YOU.
one of the 'problems' (i guess it's both a blessing and a curse) with the contemporary popular music scene is that it's so fragmented it's unlikely we'll see an artist with as wide reaching appeal as elvis presley, the beatles or david bowie again.
ReplyDeleteyou're no doubt familiar with the often made argument that noone will ever be as big as the beetles, but why is this? is it because the beetles were just that good that noone will ever be able to trump them? i think the answer is no, not really. that is not to discount their appeal, creativity and influence, though.
when all these great artists of old were in their heyday, there was not as much fragmentation in popular music. what i mean here is, they were all just considered pop-music artists. there was no indie-lofi-rockabilly-surf-synthesizer-alternative-rockstep, there weren't really boundaries and containers for music to be stuffed into.
while there were different sounds and scenes in pop-music, especially towards the later period i'm thinking about, namely bowie's time, they tended to be fairly similar and had much more crossover appeal. for rock to mix with funk/soul wasn't as unusual as say, dubstep crossed with indie would be today.
if you like electronic dance music, you can't listen to rock music because all it is is angry dudes yelling and noisy guitars, if you like rock you can't listen to rap music, because they don't believe in shooting stars, they only believe in shoes and cars, and if you like country… well, you're probably too remote to even have access to what's trending right now anyway.
we do see some artists with crossover appeal today, arguably artists like waning flavour of the month lady gaga, or, for a better example, gorillaz, they're few and far between and generally regarded as a curiosity rather than a force to be reckoned with like their predecessors and influences.
apologies if this makes no sense; it's before 10am on a public holiday.
*Beatles (sorry, it's pedantic of me but necessary)
ReplyDeleteI see where you're coming from, and I think you're right... as pop music was still forming in those earli(er) years, and things weren't branching off as much as it does today, the music people liked was in a pretty similar vein. Although I do think that there were divisions and underground scenes similar to what we see today (rock vs disco vs folk etc.)(but what do I know, I was born a decade later).
I also think a lot of what becomes huge is things not to do with quality or type of music, but also management, marketing, production, and simply being in the right place at the right time.
However, I don't think music has to be that fragmented/divided, really. What is good about Gorillaz, what was good about Bowie, and the Beatles, what is good about Beck, and many artists that have come and gone through the years, is their ability to take bits of genres and add them to their own thing. I don't think if you like electronic dance music you necessary can't listen to rock music, etc. If that's how you feel though, I guess your taste is more narrowed than someone who can appreciate both/many genres and find something they like in both areas. And I don't think it's fair to lump a genre in with one particular set of beliefs or values.
Every recent genre or style is only an offshoot or evolution of a previous one anyway, wouldn't you say?
"If that's how you feel though, I guess your taste is more narrowed than someone who can appreciate both/many genres and find something they like in both areas."
ReplyDeletenot really how I feel, but I guess that's what the general perception is. there's two different camps really. there are people who are into music and can just appreciate stuff for what it is, and (for me. at least) cringe at the term guilty pleasure cause why would you be embarrassed about something you like? (unless you're a furry or something in which case shame is justified)
then there's ditzy girls who listen to justin bieber and dudes with 'unit' stickers on their utes who listen to parkway drive who i guess box themselves in. too often i see "i like all music except (c)rap and country" and so on. i guess it's partially an identity/social thing though and a whole different story.
buttles bortles beachtles
really, though, david bowie was a liar and a fraud. i mean, come on, an alien that speaks english AND plays in a rock band? unlikely, pal.
ReplyDelete