koshergrl
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2011
- 81,133
- 14,041
- 2,190
He was glam prior to the eighties and is the reason glam existed. He didn't sell out, he crafted it.Guys, no offense but why is Flock of Seagulls even being mentioned in the same thread with this legendary artist? I mean... it's almost insulting. They were basically a one-hit wonder.
It is in reference to when Bowie went pop in the 80's. It happened, unfortunate, but it happened.
Bowie is a legend. No one could possibly argue that. But he is a legend because of music he made 30-40 years ago. You can't celebrate the music of Bowie without regretting his "going pop" in the 80's-2000's. You have to feel a loss for what might have been if he stayed true to his art.
I think he DID stay true to his art. MOST of the "glam rock" you witnessed in the 80s were inspired by him. His greatest commercial success came in the 80s, it was his era and he fucking owned it. Flock of Seagulls couldn't have shined his shoes.
Of course (Seaguls couldn't shine Bowies shoes)...but, like you say. "commercial success". It was the decade in which a LOT of musical genius's went GLAM to make the cash. He sold out. It is just true.
Think of Journey (not to compare with Bowie)...few even know that Journey was a pretty serious hard rock band before going glib...same with Van Halen. Van Halen was heavy metal before the 80's. REO Speedwagon was even harder. their early pre 80's albums were very heavy. Too many bands in that decade sold out for the commercial success. It was a lost decade as far as music goes for sure.