Ok ok so your ears don't lie but Bowie lies. You know what he talks about in the songs HE wrote, but himself doesn't, of course. What a bloody liar he is, what a bastard he is to try to make us believing that are wrong. Fortunately you're here to give us the truth.
Of course there's a train noise as the start of the song, I've even read in Pegg's book that he had very fun making it, no one denied that! You can even be right on the fact that there was an idea of a train journey in the song, it's very likely that indeed, he thought of that. But what he only said was that MAINLY, BEFORE ALL if you prefer, it was a reference to the Stations of the cross. But if you don't want to believe it, if you prefer thinking that he's a fucking liar, that it was only about train, believe it! John Lennon laughed his ass off when he used to read some interpretations of his own songs, I suppose those who wrote them didn't give a shit about what himself had to say about them, thinking he lied for the pleasure of lying. Good God, why would have he lied about that? Would it have been embarrassing, or dangerous for him to admit that the "Station to station" was a reference to the railway system?! Or has he said that just with in mind: "I'll prevent this Laughing Gnoome from giving the truth to Bowie fans"? Naughty Bowie, really.
En réponse à:
Not if this is any indication.
My God. I know this interview. If you had read it well (so better than you read my messages, for instance), you would have understood that he was speaking about "Heroes" and Low, not all his albums. So your citation proves absolutely nothing, nice try though.
En réponse à:
Yes, note the difference between before and after, which you very neatly chose to ignore. The Bowie of 2000 speaking about a song being drug-inspired is not the same as the Bowie of 1976 doing it, sorry, but ive read a lot of his interviews from 76/75 and how much he discusses drugs and sex. And ive read his stuff post nineties, and how much he doesnt discuss them
LOL! Of course I ignored this difference, because my dear, this difference is non-existent. Tell me, how many interview of the nineties have you read? not the good ones it seems. He talks now about drugs thousands more than he did in 1975-76 where he was just rambling about them, being 100% stone. Some examples:
"Starting the drugs, then, in that way, when I was virtually on top of the world. I was having a ball, y'know? I cant say it wasn't fun: it was fun. The whole of that time was terrific. But then after late '73 I really got into... stuff. (...) No, no ... it was just ... self-abuse. It was. Drugs were not helpful in my life"
"I remember being over a dealer's one night when Sly Stone walked in. I looked like this ultra mid America person, but with (laughs) blond and red hair that was all stuck to my scalp with "product", they call it these days, hairspray in those days. And he walked in and looked at me and he said, (ironic Sly Stone voice) "Huh! Bet he takes a lot of drugs." I was angry, because I did take a lot of drugs! "How dare you! I'm David Bowie! I do more drugs than you've fucking looked at!" It was so funny, it was hysterical."
Q Magazine. 1999 again
"At the time, I had this insatiable appetite for magic, mysticism, alchemy-fired by my ever-increasing use of drugs. I think that I'd replaced a real existence with a parallel mystical one in my mind. I was slipping into the fantastical all the time. I was delusional. I was exceptionally lucky that it took a positive turn. If I had taken another path, I am quite certain I would have not seen the '80s."
Beat Magazine 99
Very interesting one: they were talking all the way about smoking, and Bowie said something about drugs, showing you how shy he was about it
"Yeah, and I do understand, but there again have you ever tried to conduct a relationship on cocaine? I mean, what you do to the person is absolutely foul. It really is beyond tolerance, it's dreadful. So few drugs don't have an effect on the other person. Coffee so far seems to be OK.(...)I think you can get a bit irritable if you've had too much, but I think the sort of by-product of it isn't ruined lives. I've not heard of many couples that were split apart by one's addiction to coffee. "
The big issue, 1997
"It was a nightmare time because cocaine is a very spiteful bedfellow. And it really takes it out of you. If you really want to lose all your friends and all of the relationships that you ever held dear, that's the drug to do it with. Cocaine severs any link you have with another human being. "
Arena Spring 1993 (Thanks to Zigbot who reminded me this one)
These are just a very few examples, but I'll stop here because you'll accuse me of using too much space once again. There are tons of interviews from the '70s, '80s, '90s and '00s on Bassman's articles page, and you can be sure that you'll find that any time Bowie is given the opportunity to talk about drugs, he does, without any shame. BUT it's obvious that he won't talk about drugs as he did in 75-76, in fact, because this experience is now behind him, and he can now watch his life with a different eye. He nearly died because of cocaine, so of course he doesn't say today: "oh yes drugs are a lot of fun, I love them, and you know what? I still use them every day! *sniffing*". And about sex, being married: "oh yes I fuck every groupie that I meet, I'm having a ball with it!"?! obviously the Bowie of 2000 wasn't the same Bowie than in 1976, even in 1977 he was already very different. That doesn't prevent him from talking about sex and drugs very honestly. And in a much deeper and clever way than he did in 1975-1976. But it's still Bowie, and he knows perfectly how he was and what he had in head back then. And between believing Bowie, and you, no doubt, I will believe Bowie. If you wonder why, see below.
Oh, and by the way, between the '70s and the '90s, you know that there were the '80s. He used to talk about drugs, even there. He was still using them a bit, ok, but much less than in the '70s. An example and I let your curiosity doing the rest, if you have any:
"I guess, for my own absolution I would edit out me starting to take drugs - again it comes back to that, because so many bad things happened because of it (...)My problem was cocaine, and then I went from cocaine to alcohol, which is a natural course of events." (and what follows is very interesting as well!)
Of course he didn't speak about cocaine in every interview he did. He didn't either in 75-76. If you expect him to talk about drugs while the interviewer doesn't ask anything that has a link with this subject, surely you'll be disappointed, but who would do that? In interviews, you have to answer the questions, not to ramble about something totally out of subject.
En réponse à:
You'll find that if you accept without question, everything someone says, you will eventually find inconsistancies, contradictions.
hehe now I finally understand how you interpret Bowie's songs. You do as with people's words: you take them in the sense you wish they were. So here I quote Bowie's words, because they can help us understanding his songs, if not explaining them completely. I said HELP. And here, you, Mr I-know-what's-in-your-mind-better-than-you-do, you conclude that I believe everything that Bowie says. Now let me give the real version of the facts:
Bowie has written the songs, ok? so the rare times he gives us a bit of explanation, we can believe without being too naive that he knows what the fuck he's talking about, can't we? if we can't, then tell us why please, I'm very curious to hear that. (but I assume I won't have any answer, as there's actually nothing to answer, except the proud "I am not a fanatic, and I prove it in not believing what Bowie says. Very clever indeed).It is a plain, logical assumption that has nothing to do with blind fanatasim: an artist, whover he is, no matter if he's a writer, a songwriter, or a painter, is in a better place than anyone else to tell what's the subject of his work. As well as we, as any individual, are in a better place than anyone else for saying what's in our mind. And no one on earth, I say no one, appreciates when another person claims they know better than them what happens in their own head, simply because they "feel it that way" or "hear it that way", or any other stupid reason that pop up in their head. Some guy would try that on you, I bet you would say that this guy is an arrogant twat and tell him to screw himself. Am I wrong? Well here, if Bowie denied that he had taken drugs, denied that he had been addicted to coke, denied that he almost became an alcoholic, dclaimed that the "I am gay" thing was just a youth mistake like he did in the '80s, and other things like that... so of course I would be very, very sceptical about whatever he would say. But here, the only reason why I should doubt about his words, is a Mr Laughing Gnoome on Teenage Wildlife, so you, who claim that Bowie is a liar just because he denies that a song called STS is a reference to the railway system. Frankly, I doubt you will convince anyone with such a poor argument.
By the way, I wonder why you made such a fuss about drugs and things. I never denied, and Bowie even less, than Station to station had many references to cocaine.
Don't feel obliged to answer this message if you don't want, because as I feel you'll be unpleasant once again, I can live without such an answer. Just go, if you're really interested, on the site I advised you to go to (Bassman, for a reminder), and make up your mind.
P.S: By the way, look what I've just found, looking for some excerpts where he talked about coke!
"Don't forget the text is written by Jim (Iggy Pop). I just wrote the music. And Jim had a Chinese girlfriend at the moment he wrote the text, so six or seven years before I met my China Girl."
Humo Magazine, 1995
P.S 2: don't think I lost time searching for all these interviews just make a point. It was a pleasure for me to read them again, I had not for a long time . Bowie doesn't always talk about drugs, but as a very interesting person he is, he has many other things to say, so it's worth spending time reading these things. For words about drugs, I advise you the '78 and maybe '80 interviews too.
En réponse à:
Really????.....The Postman....The Manager..... The girl etc are not people?
Uh? "postman" is the name of a job, not of a particular person. "girl" is a general name that can qualify any female human being. These are general terms. But oh well, I let down explaining anything, you don't care anyways.
The advantage of being clever is that you can play the fool, while the contrary is impossible (Woody Allen)