In reply to:
Back in the days when I was an Iggy fan and hung around his Usenet newsgroup, it always struck me how incredibly homogenous it was. That makes it pretty easy to please.
Iggy's fanbase is not that homogenous, but, yeah, probably more so than Bowie's. But if you look closer, there are, you know, different fractions. There's been a hot debate on various boards on whether or not Iggy's a whore now for having recorded with Sum 41. The fanbase is equally divided into two camps. 50% say they've lost respect for him, while the rest say the song is great and that's all that matters. There's also a lot of hardcore fans that hate the last touring band he had, before the Stooges reunited. So they are another camp. There's also Iggy fans who can stand Bowie and those who can't. But, yeah, I'm not denying that for me to be as happy as a pig in shit, as you so elegantly put it, Iggy just has to, well, go on stage, basically. Topless or not, doesn't really matter. Drop his pants, doesn't really matter either. But jump around, pull a few faces, shout the songs, that's basically all I want, and then I'm a happy pig. And I'm not ashamed to admit it.
As Bowie put it, in the same interview (from July 2002): "I saw him only from the back as I was playing piano for him [...] I couldn't get over his energy and his commitment to savage realism."
Same here. The simplicity, the energy and the savage realism is what I love.
In reply to:
I presume that's what Bowie meant by his Iggy comment. Iggy is now a stage weirdo, the living stereotype of what a "wild man of rock" should be in the eyes of the mainstream. He couldn't play the role more perfectly if he had gotten Steven Spielberg in to write the script.
By contrast, there's Johnny Lydon (Rotten). He's getting boos from the usual "Sellout!" brigade of dullards for going on crappy reality TV programme "I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here" right now. Presumably they just want him to be Johnny Rotten '77 for the rest of his life.
So when Iggy goes mainstream, he's uninteresting, or whatever term you prefer, but when Jonny Rotten goes mainstream, you're applauding him? I don't see the difference, expect that it took Jonny Rotten 30 years to go mainstream. Iggy went mainstream a long time ago. The only thing that has changed is your percecption or appreciation of it, because he's been the "wild man of rock" since day one, as far as I'm concerned. It's just that now more people are appreciting what he's doing, and giving him credit for it, and that's why people like you and EJ walk out of him. It was okay to support him when nobody else did, except for Bowie, but now he's getting too big already. No offense, I'm just speculating. :)
I agree that the transformation Bowie went though around '82-'83 was probably the most surprising move of his career. Most Bowie experts say it was a conscious descision though, it was a strategy plan, to make up for all the bad contracts he'd been under. It was Bowie's way of earning back all the money he'd lost while experimenting in the 70s. Then when that mission was accomplished and he was a rich man, he went back to creating art in the late 80s. So the 80s was just an exception. You make it sound like it was Bowie getting old and wise, not wanting to be hip and happening, or caring about experimenting anymore. I don't think it was that he "matured", I just think he wanted to finance another decade of art experiments (the 90s). Throughout the 90s he was busy being '70s Bowie' again. How we should interpret these last few years (2000-2003), I'm not completely sure. Maybe Claude's right and it's again money that is dictating his descisions. At least I find that a more likely reason for what he's doing now than the reason you've put forward -- that Bowie has matured, he has "found himself" and have realized that he doesn't want to be a weirdo anymore, he just wants to be a family kind of guy, with no edge and no danger, he just wants to entertain American housewives by playing "Rebel Rebel" and "China Girl" over and over again, because that's the kind of guy he really is. Well, I don't buy it.
But, again, I'm not saying these shows he's giving nowadays, are terrible or even bad. I'm sure you, Dara, and EJ, are enjoying them, and I probably would enjoy them a bit as well, I'm just saying there's not a lot of "otherness" or vision or darkness in these shows. And "otherness", vision, and darkness, that's what Bowie's been about throughout his career, except for the periods where he felt he needed to make some money to help finance further artistic investigations.
"I speak what yah weak mind lacks" -Missy Elliott
Edited by eraserhead on 01/21/04 10:12 AM (server time).