Bowie - Genius or Borrower

damonjewel

David Bowie would easily be one of the Rocks Greatest artists for most, and he would have been the man that owned the seventies. By constantly churning out great tracks whilst also updating his image and sound radically, Bowie gave voice and direction to millions of fans.

I am a Bowie fan and have all his albums and love to play them time and time again. However I always cringe when people speak of his Genius because It is my opinion that Bowie is a canny guy and just managed to have one step ahead of the times musically and made the sound all his.

Album for album you can see this;

The Man who sold the world takes on heavy sabbath like influences, with Saviour Machine and Width of the Circle

Hunky Dory gives a big nod to the Velvet Underground with Queen Bitch. Also a softer sound, Piano is very prevalent which seems to borrow from Elton John, Harry Nilsson. However I think this is his most original piece of work and my personal favourite.

However lacking commercial success we get Ziggy! Ziggy stardust, Alladin Sane tap into both the glam rock of Bolan and the Art Rock of Roxy Music.

Young Americans, Station to Station takes on the Gamble and Huff Philedelphia soul sound and funk

Low, Heroes, Lodger are usually quoted as his most inventive and daring albums, but he has borrowed very heavily from the Krautrock scene. Using the Motorik sound of Neu!, Cluster, Harmonia, and La Dusseldorf as a template for his sound.

La Dusseldorf's 'silver cloud' is almost completely copied by bowie for A New Career in a New Town

Whilst Tangerine Dream, Kraftwerk and Popol Vuh are a major influence for the more esoteric traks

Then Scary Monsters borrows from the nascent new romantic scene in style

Now I know I'm probably going to get hammered by Bowie fans, but just to reiterate it I love the guy and love his music. Its the whole genius thing I dissaprove of.

Discuss

Blackhorse Slim

I don't see any reason why he can't be both. Just perhaps not an innovator.

Karl Hungus

Interesting topic, but I think genius is subjective. To give an example, Quentin Tarantino is heralded by many as a genius, but myself and many other who have seen some of the films that "Influenced" him, and it's not so much influence, as he pretty much stole entire plots sometimes. Reservoir Dogs is pretty much an uncredited remake of the Hong Kong thriller City on Fire, right down to the iconic Mexican standoff. Man of his fans are well aware of this fact, and still think he's a genius. I'd probably concede that Dogs is the better film, and Tarantino is a skilled director, so one man's plagiarist is still another man's genius.

Maybe it's a little left of field example, but I think you get what I mean. I'd agree with Blackhorse Slim, maybe he's a genius, but not an innovator. Maybe it takes a genius to stay ahead of the pack like he did? Either way, I've seen him live, and puts on an incredible live show, it was astonishingly good, so in that setting I think we can all agree that Bowie is a genius at what he does, he excels as an amazing live force, with many iconic songs.

big b

damonjewel wrote: »

It is my opinion that Bowie is a canny guy and just managed to have one step ahead of the times musically and made the sound all his.

Is constantly being ahead of the times not genius in itself?

You could argue forever over where to draw the line between influence and plagiarism. I feel Bowie was quick enough to spot what's coming next as to exclude him from any "borrower" jibes.

MoominPapa

Well I reckon a major factor in his success is his ability in forming collaborations which took his music to another plane. I had a demo version of Quicksand which, while interesting mainly for the lyrics which are some of his most evocative was so crude musically, it really showed Mark Ronsons huge contribution in arrangement/compostition and production(I've heard that when bowie/ronson produced Lou Reeds Transformer bowie did feck all and it was all Ronson). The piano on Hunky Dory was by Rick Wakeman which Bowies heartedly admitted was due to being crap himself. Of course his collaboration with Eno gave us some of his most diverse work, but at the same time it was Fripps, persuaded to return to rock at this point by bowie and eno, amazing playing on Heroes that really stands out.
Then of course Nils Rogers on Lets Dance his last listenable album before The Buddha of Suburbia Soundtrack(his last essential work imo - not that I'm all that familiar with much of his recent stuff)

This doesn't take away from what he brings to the table, including his lyrics some of which are some of the best in rock I would say, and hes an amazing vocalist.
Suppose it works the other way too, like where would Iggy Pop have ended up without Bowie

His work between 1970s MWSTW and 1983s Lets Dance is as accomplished a body of work in rock as any however he accomplished it.

I would say at times his music shows flashes of genius

But its in mime that his true genius lies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiKWEf2luMY

GhostInTheRuins

MoominPapa wrote: »

But its in mime that his true genius lies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiKWEf2luMY

That's some very weird stuff right there

Karl Hungus

MoominPapa wrote: »

Well I reckon a major factor in his success is his ability in forming collaborations which took his music to another plane. I had a demo version of Quicksand which, while interesting mainly for the lyrics which are some of his most evocative was so crude musically, it really showed Mark Ronsons huge contribution in arrangement/compostition and production(I've heard that when bowie/ronson produced Lou Reeds Transformer bowie did feck all and it was all Ronson). The piano on Hunky Dory was by Rick Wakeman which Bowies heartedly admitted was due to being crap himself. Of course his collaboration with Eno gave us some of his most diverse work, but at the same time it was Fripps, persuaded to return to rock at this point by bowie and eno, amazing playing on Heroes that really stands out.
Then of course Nils Rogers on Lets Dance his last listenable album before The Buddha of Suburbia Soundtrack(his last essential work imo - not that I'm all that familiar with much of his recent stuff)

I think you've probably hit the nail on the head right there, as there's no disagreemant that Rick Wakeman is an utter genius himself, whatever about anyone else Bowie's collaborated with.

And yes, that mime video is weird...

DublinWriter

MoominPapa wrote: »

but at the same time it was Fripps, persuaded to return to rock at this point by bowie and eno, amazing playing on Heroes that really stands out.

A guitarist I played with years ago knew Fripp really well and an interesting fact was that shortly after the sessions with Bowie, Eno contracted Fripp to play on his "My Life in the Bush of Ghosts" collaboration with David Byrne.

Fripp called the LP "My Life in the Gush of Boasts" after all his parts were taken out of the original sessions. On the later remixed CD version, you can just about hear some of his guitar parts.

Interesting, but useless factoid.

DublinWriter

Bowie was most definitely a borrower, but not in a bad way. All good art should involve theft of some kind.

As much as I hate using the 'Z' word, Bowie is a cultural-barometer that you can use to capture the Zeitgeist of any particular period.

For example, the twee psychodelia of the mid-60's ('Laughing Gnome'), the late 60's obsession with space and the Moon (Major Tom), the Glam-Rock period of the early 70's (Ziggy), the strung out hung-over vibe in mid 70's (Diamond Dogs, Station to Station), the nihilism of the late 70's (Low, Heros, Lodger), the New Romantic era of the early 80's (Ashes to Ashes), the corporate blandness of the mid 80's (Let's Dance and Tonight), the grunge of the late 80's (Tin Machine I and II) and the innovate spirit of the dot-com era (Bowie Bonds).

Bowie in a way is a perfect child of the 60's; all that matters to him artistically is the here and now. He has an uncanny knack of capturing what is going on at a particular period in time and distilling it via his work. He doesn't do 'retrospection'.

MoominPapa

DublinWriter wrote: »

Bowie in a way is a perfect child of the 60's; all that matters to him artistically is the here and now. He has an uncanny knack of capturing what is going on at a particular period in time and distilling it via his work. He doesn't do 'retrospection'.

Thats a great description of the man - basically he's the Richard Branson of Rock:D
What the hell lets start posting cool Bowie clips
Station to Station featuring one time King Crimson frontman Adrian Belew

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWGiitLomrc

Try watching the mime video again - its gets much worse with each viewing

DublinWriter

MoominPapa wrote: »

Station to Station featuring one time King Crimson frontman Adrian Belew

I wouldn't say Belew was a 'one-time' frontman, he's been KC's front man for the past 17 years!

damonjewel

Some interesting points

The comparison with Tarantino is only correct to a degree, That is because of the times. By that I mean Tarantino was easily found out because in these enlightened times knowledge of foreign cinema is pretty much widespread thanks to the web and all that. Bowie I think got away with his borrowing as that musical knowledge wasn't widespread, especially the German influences.

As for retrospection, thats a good point but I think there is a fair dollop of it in his work, lyrically if not musically. A good deal of his songs deal with his past (e.g. his mentally ill brothers suicide). Scary monsters basically bookends his 70's run lyrically. Then Buddha of Suburbia later uses old songs completely slowed down for added depth. He also keeps updating his back catalogue (Remixing, Bonus tracks, etc). And why not say us!

Collaborations is a very good point, he has worked with a lot of fine musicians which have made massive contributions to his work and sound but I guess he has made his enemies too. Thieving ideas dressing them up on his on, underpaying his band members (apparently the spiders from mars were paid a pittance even at the height of their fame), and cutting off band members and allies to move on.

I would agree that even with his borrowing of styles through the years he has still done some great stuff that could just give him Genius status. However I think its agreed that he is no innovator

Great at mime though

Karl Hungus

damonjewel wrote: »

The comparison with Tarantino is only correct to a degree, That is because of the times. By that I mean Tarantino was easily found out because in these enlightened times knowledge of foreign cinema is pretty much widespread thanks to the web and all that. Bowie I think got away with his borrowing as that musical knowledge wasn't widespread, especially the German influences.

Well, it's a fairly crude comparison, simply because I can't really think of any other musicial correlation, so it's probably not going to stand up to much scrutiny. I think it gets the point across that you don't particularly have to be an innovator to be considered a genius, but don't read into it all that much.

MoominPapa

DublinWriter wrote: »

I wouldn't say Belew was a 'one-time' frontman, he's been KC's front man for the past 17 years!

Actually he's been the front man for almost 27 years!

Geranium

I think that an artist could maybe have a few hits by simply copying someone else's sound, but not have decades of fantastic and interesting albums like Bowie has. Everyone has their influences, I think he's a true musician.

damonjewel

Geranium wrote: »

I think that an artist could maybe have a few hits by simply copying someone else's sound, but not have decades of fantastic and interesting albums like Bowie has. Everyone has their influences, I think he's a true musician.

But he copied not someone but everyone From mid 60s whimsy to Drum 'N' bass. I don't doubt his musicianship, I doubt his genius

Caveat

I'm surprised at how many people are resorting to the copying/borrowing aspect - almost every artist does this. Bowie does it better than anyone though. It's not that he merely jumps on bandwagons either - he nearly always adapts and improves upon the sounds/trends he investigates. E.g. Low: aruguably better than Kraftwerks output; Queen Bitch; probably one of the best pop songs VU never wrote; Hallo Spaceboy (album version); better than any of the 'industrial' stuff of it's day etc etc...

If he is a mere musical magpie, how is it that Bowie himself is one of the most influential artists ever?

Caveat

MoominPapa wrote: »

The piano on Hunky Dory was by Rick Wakeman which Bowies heartedly admitted was due to being crap himself.

Only some of the more complicated parts.

Of course his collaboration with Eno gave us some of his most diverse work

Eno himself regards Bowie as a bit of a genius.

This doesn't take away from what he brings to the table, including his lyrics some of which are some of the best in rock I would say, and hes an amazing vocalist.
Suppose it works the other way too, like where would Iggy Pop have ended up without Bowie

His work between 1970s MWSTW and 1983s Lets Dance is as accomplished a body of work in rock as any however he accomplished it.

...and of course I completely agree

damonjewel

Caveat wrote: »

If he is a mere musical magpie, how is it that Bowie himself is one of the most influential artists ever?

I suppose that it is because Bowie is as big as they come as superstars go, and it would be impossible to avoid his work and become influenced by it. I would say that Bowie has been a big influence on me but has also been a fantastic gateway to the artists that influenced him.

The quote from Moominpapa about Bowies lyrics is very good, as his lyrics are dazzling. and maybe so he is a genius after all for his lyrics alone!

BaZmO*

I think Bowie got found out when he tried to jump on the Drum and Bass bandwagon during the 90's.

As somebody has already mentioned, all art is a regurgitation of past ideas and some artists are more adept at doing it than others.

I know I shouldn't mention Madonna on a Rock & Metal forum but she's doing a similar thing with Pop Music down through the years by making sure she's worked with all the right "in Vogue" (no pun intended) producers.

Caveat

damonjewel wrote: »

I suppose that it is because Bowie is as big as they come as superstars go, and it would be impossible to avoid his work and become influenced by it. I would say that Bowie has been a big influence on me but has also been a fantastic gateway to the artists that influenced him.

I don't think it's as simple as that TBH.

As soon as enough time had passed for a new generation of bands to have been influenced by him (say by late 70s) they were all citing Bowie as a big influence. From punk through new romantics, goths, post punk, indie, experimnetal stuff in general...there were and are bigger acts than Bowie around (Beatles, Stones) but they don't seem to be name checked nearly as much.

What hasn't really been mentioned is what I think marks him out as so special in the first place - the quality of his songwriting.

As a songwriter myself, I think his 'genius' I think lies in his ability to craft music that is almost always accessible but with just the right amount of strangeness: Weird chord changes, mercurial/restless song structures, unusual sounds and textures - really, he's one of the few artists that consistently has created music that features sections/progressions/ideas -whatever - that literally give me a shiver down my spine or makes me think "YeSSS!!!"

From a composition point of view he's rarely lazy - it'a amazing how many artists rely on loads of tired old chord progressions and ideas and rehash compositional cliché after cliché. With Bowie's classic stuff, most of it doesn't follow any key at all. Not unususal in itself but it's pretty unusual for a mainstream artist.

I'm a huge fan so maybe I'm biased - but not blind enough to realise that he has made duff recordings, even in his heyday

damonjewel

Caveat wrote: »

I don't think it's as simple as that TBH.

As soon as enough time had passed for a new generation of bands to have been influenced by him (say by late 70s) they were all citing Bowie as a big influence. From punk through new romantics, goths, post punk, indie, experimnetal stuff in general...there were and are bigger acts than Bowie around (Beatles, Stones) but they don't seem to be name checked nearly as much.

I see your point but I think thats because a Major element of Bowie's act is Theatre, Style and Fashion which has had a major impact on the Genres you mention.

Caveat

damonjewel wrote: »

I see your point but I think thats because a Major element of Bowie's act is Theatre, Style and Fashion which has had a major impact on the Genres you mention.

I agree - but you can hear it in the music too!