New Bowie Album in 2006?

[pablopicasso]

I can just about understand, although not agree totally with some of the critisisms regarding the 80s, but how people can put down the 90s I just don't know. Some of the greatest live shows ever and a great run of albums.

I can concede that some albums are too long, but that is an industry thing, especially in the 90s when there was a tendency to fill cds to their full capacity.

There is not a single Bowie album in my collection I don't play and not one I wish had not been released.

[weesam]

I only ever saw Bowie in the 90s and 00s. I am too young to have caught the earlier tours in the 70s & 80s. I was 14 when Glass Spider came around, and weirdly, it was Never Let Me Down that was the first Bowie album I bought, because his back catalogue at the time was deleted. I had heard his old songs on the video jukebox on BBC2 and thought, "this guy is unreal!". Went down the local library, borrowed NLMD and thought it was okay at first, then played it less and less. I don't think I've played it since 1987.

So, anyway, I can't really judge how good or bad his previous shows were to the tours I saw. I thought he was amazingly good at Wembley during the Outside tour (even though the crowd thought otherwise, they were leaving in droves). I also enjoyed Sound+Vision at Milton Keynes, and the FM broadcast of the show remains my favourite Bowie boot, and possibly (and I fear I am contradicting myself here!) one of my favourite Bowie recordings. BUT, when I watch the Ziggy shows on DVD, or the Stage recordings, there seems to me to be an otherworldly quality to Bowie, his voice and the presentation of the music (just compare Ziggy Stardust on The Motion Picture and the latest Reality video). His bands were, without fail, always amazing then. Brilliant young musicians with energy and style. Not jobbing session musicians, practised and honed to perfection, and lacking any real charisma. Maybe because I wasn't there during the 70s (well I was there, but just a child!), the time, the atmosphere and the music has taken on a mythological quality. And, apart from the childish 60's music, he hadn't released ANY bad music whatsoever! It was all, brilliant.

I will agree totally that over-long albums are an industry plague. But this is Bowie we are talking about. If HE can't stick two fingers up to convention, then who can?

I suppose I am just angry with him. He does remain my favourite artist by miles, and he remains the only artist I get excited about seeing live. I just wish he'd start making real David Bowie records again.

[pablopicasso]

I posted a long post about this over on BWW a few weeks ago, I'll see if I can find it...

[pablopicasso]

"If you look at a lot of groups, you find they make one groundbreaking album, repeat the formula for the next couple and then stagnate and whither and die. Or they will keep rehashing the material throughout their career, appeasing their fans, but that fanbase year on year will get lower and lower, the fans are die-hard, always going to their gigs and buying their records but not really gathering new fans.

Bowie had 8 years of struggling before Ziggy exploded onto the scene, he was lauded by the press and had a strong but small fanbase. He thought in 1969 that he had made it, but the success was short lived, and was perceived as a one-hit wonder. In the years before success came there were times he almost starved, living off others' charity. Dossing in people's houses, searching through the bins behind Carnaby street for seconds to fuel his passion for clothes. Then in 1972 the success came and came fast, he lived the life of a superstar, before he even was one, but that was part of the act. The Bowie machine took on a life of its' own, becoming a all consuming monster, eating up all the money it produced and a lot that was just promised.

In 1973 the warning bells rang, when RCA stopped funding the tours, leading to the cancellation of the American 2nd leg of the Aladdin Sane tour and the retirement of Ziggy. Ziggy in one form or another went onto make Pin ups and Diamond dogs, but by 1974 and the expensive Diamond dogs American tour, the money ran out and the party was well and truly over. All the success brought little money in the end, yet Bowie was still at the top of his tree.

He broke with Mainman, and needed to regain the money he lost, so he could have taken the easy path of resurrecting Ziggy or he could furrow a new path, he needed the American dollar to really recoup the losses from the Mainman years, so he embraced American soul music, combined with a collaboration with John Lennon and had his first American number one, America now loved him and the money poured in. Yet again his manager, this time Michael Lippman, mismanaged his affairs and he lost a lot of money. Bowie was still hungry, so he "had to keep searching", continued to change with the times, a little ahead, to the public he was creating new trends, in reality he was a mirror for the times and gave the public his vision of what they wanted.
He kept doing this right up 1980 when yet again things hit a wall. He encountered writers block for one of the first times in his life, he got divorced, which cost him and he had trouble with his record label. In 1983 he did what he did in 1974, he listened to what was going on in the land of the dollar and gave them exactly what they wanted, but with his unique slant on it. For the first time really had the money to make sure he was safe, he was not hungry anymore. As soon as they hunger went, things really went wrong, he listened to the public and instead of giving them what he thought they wanted, he just gave them rehashes of what had gone before. He no longer had the hunger for change he once had.

He has since regained his desire for change, but it is no longer to fuel his need for success, it is now to satisfy his artistic leanings. If his fanbase enjoys it to then that is a bonus, but for now he is an artist who can afford to do what he wants."

[dodo]

weesam said:

BUT, when I watch the Ziggy shows on DVD, or the Stage recordings, there seems to me to be an otherworldly quality to Bowie, his voice and the presentation of the music (just compare Ziggy Stardust on The Motion Picture and the latest Reality video). His bands were, without fail, always amazing then. Brilliant young musicians with energy and style. Not jobbing session musicians, practised and honed to perfection, and lacking any real charisma.

These are two other true points, to my point of view: the otherwordly quality is gone from a long time (it came back in the Outside tour period though, went on in the earthling tour, then disappeared), and it is true that in the seventies it was there, I too am a fan since the seventies and I can see the thrill when it comes back...now it's dead and buried.
And the bands, wow, this is incredibly important, the band now is totally insignificant, no energy, no charisma, and, since gabrel's departure, not too good either, no decent guitar players, no fabulous rythmic session (especially bass and rythmic guitars), no solos, but especially no style and certainly not amazing.
This counts a lot, especially in a rock oriented show, it would be different if he did a show based on songs, ballads, but Bowie wants rock shows, and yet doesn't have a band to support them with energy, instead it's a band that sits on a couch, in a quiet, professional way, with no character...how can anything thrilling come out of that?
My hope is that maybe he decided to change, haven't seen anyone of the old band with him recently, except Garson in the Fashion Rocks.
Of course I too criticise because I love the artist, and I too would like to see him do areal Bowie record again.

[weesam]

I agree with you Dodo. Three words. Gail Anne Dorsey. What IS Bowie thinking?

[dopazo]

Why you don't like Gail Ann Dorsey?

[goblinking]

Yea, I think she's great, and sexy to boot. :yum: (we need a new smiley)

Cheers,
Goblin.

[dodo]

Since Weesam practically wrote exactly the three words I had in mind, I will try give you MY point of view regarding Gail Anne Dorsey:I already had a long and heated argument with other bowie fans on Dorsey, I was misunderstood, for of course there was no personal dislike for the girl, I find her very nice, pleasant looking (I remember that the first time i saw her I found her incredibly attractive and interesting, she was awsome with those little diabolic horns on her bald head!)a good singer (more for chorus though) and certainly a decent bass guitar player, but here comes the problem: to my point of view, she's only a decent bass guitar player, not a good one, I think she was called by Bowie, who is no nuts, because of her incredible looks, a mephistophelic like look that he needed in the Outside period, plus she had a pleasant voice, and moreover she was also a WOMAN bass guitar player, which is no insignificant detail, for there are not many around, and this was an attraction to younger generations and not only...but we must remember that in that period, in his group there was a certain Gabrels, and afterwords even a certain Plati...so Dorsey's technical deficiencies, especially concerning the rythmic side, were covered by their incredible abilities, Gabrels played both solo and rythmic guitar, for he filled every single bit of bowie's music with his omnipresent sound, filling Dorsey's really scarce ability of dialogue with the drums, and later Plati did the same (with only the rythmic guitar), so noone then noticed the problem. After Gabrel's and especially Plati's departure, when all of Dorsey's scarcity became an evidence, no bass-drums dialogue, a total rythmic fiasco, a really low energy band that just didn't rock and roll...that's what happens when there is a problem in the rythmic session, that's what happened in the Reality tour...anyone remembers ashes to ashes played with Plati on bass guitar? Then go listen to the Reality version with Dorsey! And Heroes? And more and more...well, in ashes to ashes especially, she was even substituted during the Hours tour, by Plati, for she couldn't slap well, and for other technical problems (ashes to ashes has a very particular rythm, if not well done it becomes a plain song, and that's what it sounded like in the reality tour). She was perfect for ballads, for she has a very soft and warm sound, a good touch, or for plain bass scales, but totally zero when in a rock oriented rythmic session or when a bit of inventive capacity was needed. No wonder Queen didn't want her! What I say is, if Dorsey had been a man, with no particular interesting look, and played bass guitar like she does, would Bowie have called her? My answer is NO, certainly not, he would have preferred another good bass guitar player. Now, with Leonard and Slick, who certainly cannot do what Gabrels or Plati did (fill all the empty holes Dorsey leaves...), she simply doesn't work...and of course also Leonard and partly Slick don't work...I'm sure Bowie knows this, and that may be the reason why he now doesn't have a band...and doesn't call his old folks back. Maybe the only survivor will be Garson. I may be wrong of course, but in my life I had much to do with musicians and rock groups, even my husband is a blues guitar player, and anyone I know who plays from 20 and more years and knows what a good rythmic section sounds like tells me that Dorsey has big problems on bass guitar, and I must say I agree totally with them. But it's even simpler...watch for five minutes the STS Stage rehearsal dvd, or the 50th birthday concert, and then watch for five minutes the Reality Dublin Dvd...the difference in the band's sound (and I'm not judging Bowie, only the band!) is so outstanding that one really asks oneself...what IS Bowie thinking?

[ziggy2000]

Mnnnnnn.

I guess the fact that Gail has been Bowie's bassist for the last 10 years explains HIS opinion of Gail. That's 25% of his musical career, give or take a few percent.

Each to their own, but I think if Bowie thought there was a problem.....ummmm....he might just have done something about it.

As for Reality, the majority of the musical press thought the ryhthm section produced about the best R'n'R around during 03/04.

Zigs

[bubo]

Some good points, well made, which might go some way toward explaining why Gail rarely plays bass in a studio environment with Bowie's bands.

If we are talking about the live events though, Gail does bring something else to the party. A live show does need to have an extra visual dimension which Gail does add to, very well indeed. Take into account her capacity as an excellent backing vocalist and it might be easier to understand her long term involvement in the live shows. A tour without Gail would certainly need to scratch Under Pressure, for a start. Not necessarily a bad thing but something to consider. A touring band must take into account the different character traits of it's members as well as their musical abilities or limitations.

[dodo]

ziggy2000 said:

Mnnnnnn.

Each to their own, but I think if Bowie thought there was a problem.....ummmm....he might just have done something about it.
Zigs

He DID do something about it...after Plati's departure (I wrote that as long as Gabrels or Plati were present, certain gaps were filled in an excellent way and not noticed), there was only the Reality Tour...and after that, the band was dismissed, due in primis to the health problems, I know, but they were never called back...even when he needed one for live8 (he said he had no band...). And now?
As to musical press...they said so many things about Bowie, since 1971, so much trash was written, that I don't give them much credit. They even wrote that Outside is not worth much...it really depends on the promotion impulse there is behind, especially nowadays...Reality was very well promoted, in fact it was almost sickening, never seen so much promotion in all of Bowie's career. And press supported it.
I agree with Bubo's points about live shows, of course, the visual part has a certain importance. But to me, if the musical part suffers because of visual priorities, then I prefer no visual dimension...play well and sing along, who cares about the vision...I can be happy enough with the sound only. But of course this is what I like, I guess not many will agree with my point...

[weesam]

"Take into account her capacity as an excellent backing vocalist"

Sorry, but I don't buy that at all. Sure, she can sing, but so can Celine Dion, and I wouldn't want her anywhere NEAR a Bowie record. Her voice (Dorsey's) is just not suited to Bowie's music. And if that means losing Under Pressure from a set-list, who cares?

[ziggy2000]

As I said, each to his own, but I suspect bowie did..... and still does...know what he's doing.

Zigs

[dopazo]

wow Dodo, good post.

I'm going to compare the tracks you mentioned specially ashes to ashes. I always wonder why she didn't play bass in that song.