<<It was pretty lame, if you ask me, aside from him spilling the beans on the new song to be added.>>
Yeah, about that new song being added: Does it strike anyone else that the journal announcement is pretty lame too? I mean, it'll be great to hear it, assuming we do.
But he's been playing however many shows with the exact same universe of songs, since Blue Jean got in, what, in January? And now with his own official fanfare he's going to add just one song? And we're supposed to think it's cool?
Doesn't that strike anyone as sorta lame, sorta old, sorta Broadway? Sorta like the traveling jukebox just got serviced?
Is it possible that he really thinks this is a big deal? Isn't this what musicians do? For all the talk in the Seattle paper this week, isn't his changeups just standard business and a big so what? Changing the setlist is a given, isn't it? Or does he really want to compare himself to pop stars who don't bother or can't?
Or is it possible this journal is Bowie shilling the rubes, and maybe he looked at, say, the Stones' tour variety--a universe of 130 songs--and that it's the beginning of the premiere of several new tunes, which would be much more in keeping with an artist of his catalog, and stature, if not his specific practice?
For the record, I'd much rather have the surprise of seeing The Supermen in due course than via an official press release that says a two-generation old song will debut several shows down the road, but what the hell, that's Bowie, he never plays by the book. So ultimately while this IMHO isn't bad, you know, perspective and all that, it's just odd. It is one new song. Big deal. Just get it ready and play it. Everyone will be thrilled to hear him play it. Work it in. Then repeat the process frequently. And spare us the weird attempts at publicity or the strange communications.
What's really going on with this pronouncement? Is he earnest and ultimately clueless? Is he pulling our legs? Is he testing the waters? Is he bored?
Edited by rubleem on 04/13/04 07:12 PM (server time).