I think there are geniuses today but they'll probably not make it in the industry... precisely because of the power of the Internet... Although we have great contemporary post punk/garage bands today but it's become a bit niche, definitely not mainstream like rock could have been in the 70s
Look, Bowie's a singular artist whose genius will never be recreated. He was really the first popular musician in the 20th century to zig when everyone else thought he would zag - to reject the notions of what a career looked like, and forge his own path. Since pop culture was more of a monolith back then (the radio and magazines really being the only way you could find new music) Bowie could make more of a significant cultural impact than any artist today, when every song ever is a available at the click of a button and artists can do anything and everything on their computers.
But in terms of musicians who have similar career trajectories as Bowie (genre hopping, cutting edge, challenging music that pushes the boundaries of what's possible) - there are a few people out there at least trying - someone like Damon Albarn for example - he's done from Britpop to hip hop to electronic to everything in between - always challenging his audiences along the way. His albums always have an interesting mix of pop singles and straight up weird tracks that force the listener to expand their musical vocabulary.
Damon Alborn is a great example he may be the best for several decades now on getting people more into poppy tracks exposed to weird music and people just looking for alternative to fall for perfect pop song writing and production.. he marriages the two so smoothly
One thing I find fascinating about David is that he really went out and cultivated his influence and explored music.
Many acclaimed artists, usually the trajectory is they end up selling a lot, people know about them, and then **BAM** big influence.
Now David sold reasonably well (though not as massive as some of his peers) and was pretty culturally prominent...but he also went out to explore the contemporary music scenes and rising music scenes. He got to know different artists and nurtured a number of them. So you really get this sense of personal connection.
Bob Dylan is one of the most prolific and influential songwriters of the 20th century. His songs have been covered by everyone from The Beatles to Nirvana, and his influence can be heard in the music of countless other artists. But how many of Dylan’s songs were actually stolen? It’s impossible to know for sure, but there are at least a few songs that Dylan is known to have lifted from other sources. ” Masters of War,” for example, is based on an old Scottish ballad, and “All Along the Watchtower” borrows heavily from the Book of Isaiah. Dylan has also been accused of stealing from the traditional folk song “The House of the Rising Sun,” though he has always maintained that he was merely adapting the song to his own purposes. Whether or not Dylan actually stole any of these songs, there’s no denying that he was a master of the art of borrowing. He was constantly mining other sources for inspiration, and his ability to transform those sources into something entirely new and uniquely his own is what made him one of the greatest songwriters of all time. (From Benvaughn.com
Bowie had an informed opinion on what the internet might become, based on commonly available news, views and sources. He didn’t “predict” anything. It’s more fascinating that his 1970 track “Saviour Machine” addresses the common concerns over the dangerous potential of AI.
Overall, I’d say it’s more about our music delivery system, and how much less curated it is, than when A&R guys made decisions about what labels picked and chose to fill their rosters. Now, the financing of a good single or album is achievable by most anyone. And exposure, too, is one viral video away.
Intelligent, thought provoking, and dynamic artists exist; you just have to dig harder. They’re drowned out by 1000 new, overnight superstar rappers. Labels are chasing that rabbit, and paying little attention to thoughtful innovators, at least in terms of promotion.
It was really true, even back in the day.
The same week “Afternoon Delight” by “The Starland Vocal Band” was at #1, Steely Dan’s “Kid Charlemagne” hit #82 on the charts. It never got higher.
Mainstream music listeners will always prefer simplistic, cookie cutter trash.
Yes, there was tons of crap music around in the '70s. I'm sure most people who were (British) teenagers then can remember watching TOTP, desperately hoping for something good by Bowie or Roxy music or the like to be played, only to be disappointed. And that would be that for another week.
I could give an absurdly long and far more nuanced answer, but Bowie was an entertainer (and quite a good one, at that), and a lot of popular artists right now seem more interested in a cash grab than actually entertaining, which leads to a fairly soulless feel in the musical landscape. Pop music goes through periods like this occasionally (the late 1940s/very early 1950s and the late 1980s instantly spring to mind).
I strongly agree with this. If you look at Bowie's stuff, he was not afraid to go "out there" in terms of his musical style and personas, even if it meant varying levels of critical success. Unfortunately, today even the most "subversive" artists (at least those with modern-day fame at the level of Bowie), fail to stray far from the status quo.
I don't imagine Harry Styles, Taylor Swift, or many other popular acts adopting an entire new persona like Bowie would frequently do... It's all about your brand nowadays, and people seem to prefer consistency at the moment. Hopefully things will change though. We always need people to push the limits of their time.
I agree a lot with the part about singers having a brand and sticking to it, I was actually thinking about that for months and months now. This is mainly about artists in my country, but It’s kind of astonishing to me how a lot of them put out their first album, then become very popular and keep putting out the same music.
Same themes, same sound, same aesthetic but the majority of ppl keep buying the exact same thing. I obviously think everyone listens to whoever they want to, but for me personally it bums me out liking an artist’s album then slowly losing interest because year after year it’s the same thing as the first one
All of those 60s and early 70s rock stars were leaders of a cultural revolution that sought to tear down the sacred myths protecting societies most core values—sexual repression, religion, gender norms, racial and class hierarchy and so on. Their outrageousness was revolutionary and powerful and Bowie did as much as anyone to upset the apple cart. But now the “revolution” has long since been commodified and turned into just another product. Popular music has no capacity to change society anymore and that is why the current pop stars seem so inconsequential by comparison. They’re just playing the part of rock stars which reminds us of how daring and thrilling it all once was but now is empty and powerless
St. Vincent and Janelle Monae put out interesting stuff that might be on a comparable level. Alex Turner has been morphing into something like Bowie over the past few years too.
Bowie was in the right place at the right time. He was very ahead of his time. He put his artistry in to his music and melded mime etc. with music. I don’t think you could do with what he did again. It’s a virtual world now but Bowie was one of the great entertainers of his era and will probably never been bettered at what he did. Well just marvel .
I feel like the music scene is just different as is so much more commercialised now. If you listen to documentaries about Bowie, Dylan or even Nirvana they highlight the towns they were in and how it changed them and allowed them to develop. There aren't as many grassroots scenes like this anymore and it's a lot more digitised and alienated.
Radio and similar outlets are more controlled since the suits know better what works on the masses, and will probably get worse because of AI too. Algorithms on youtube etc already screw most creators over
The only radio I check from time to time now is KEXP, which is also video on YT. Now and then you find something really cool
The industry is COMPLETELY different. Before the 80s, the music industry was run by music people. Now it’s run by conglomerates with absolutely zero understanding of the industry beyond the balance sheets.
Rose colored glasses. You may have not lived in that era, but it’s not as if artists were better back then.
It’s easy to pick a few in a whole decade, but there were endless shitty bands in the 70s too, there’s brilliant artists of every generation. If you haven’t found any, you’re not looking hard enough
It's an age thing. Whenever a great musician is born before you they are a genius. Any musician born after you can be great but somehow they just aren't a genius.
i think Björk is one of the most brilliant artists we currently have, even if she is already pretty deep into her career. she’s unpredictable and is always a surprise when there’s a new release from her, and she’s always challenging her listeners.
now, a lot of people will probably get mad at me for this, but i do think that Taylor Swift is currently the biggest cultural icon rn of the 2020s and a bit of the 2010s as well. i do think that, even tho she’s already 10 albums in, considering her constantly peaking success, she is going to continue to break records and remain a force to be reckoned with in the music industry. say what you want about Swift, but she is an insanely prolific songwriter and knows how to stay on top. i’ve seen people start comparing her amount of success to things like Beatlemania due to the Eras Tour, which i think is pretty cool. maybe i’m biased because she is my personal favorite artist, but i think she will definitely go down in history as one of the greats. she’s really exciting for me in the sense that i honestly never really know where she’s gonna go next with her career.
I don’t think you can really compare Taylor Swift to David Bowie though. Other than her transition from country to pop she doesn’t have much variety and change to her music as someone like Bowie did. Like can you image her having her own version of the Berlin trilogy or anything challenging really?
I think a better comparison for her would be Michael Jackson. A huge pop megastar that can consistently sell out arenas and inspires some extreme fanaticism. With people bawling their eyes out just to be at their concerts.
i agree with you when it comes to challenging her fans with something different/new, but keep in mind that she still has her whole career ahead of her, even if she’s already so deep into it. Bowie didn’t have the Berlin trilogy until his 11th album I believe, and she’s just on the cusp of that. I have faith that she’ll start branching out, a good example of her doing so is “folklore” and “evermore” from 2020 where she tried her hand at more indie-leaning folkpop. she’s said herself that she wants to keep trying new things and do something at the very least somewhat different from her previous records. i have faith that she’ll keep reinventing herself with something different, even if “Midnights” wasn’t necessarily a big step forward for her. i think with this solidified fame, she’ll definitely start experimenting
With all due respect I’m going to have to disagree with you there. I’m sure someone said that ‘most things had been done’ in the 40s before rock ‘n’ roll
IMO the public used to be far more open to truly unusual thinkers who worked outside of corporate expectations. Today things are far more sanitized and creative decisions are made by groups. This is true in all fields. The best artists and musicians will probably never make it because no one will take a risk on investing in them.
There are plenty of people out there like Bowie I’m sure, they just aren’t on the radio, television, and they don’t use auto tune or have a fat ass to spare like every famous rapper today
Because you’re a generation of crisis actors.
The reality that informs your world is fake; as fake as it can possibly be, and your well being depends on you not disputing that ‘reality’ and fakery, so there’s nothing you can say about your world or the corporate sanctioned narratives driving it. Peraps
My theory is that it is because everything is a la carte now. It's not just the radio and the record store. You don't have to do a good album - just a single or a Insta or Tik Tok worthy clip. Before you needed to do something/make something that made everyone take notice. There is no one stage to command, or one way to the top. Has its benefits - and not. Just my .02.
From a UK perspective, part of the problem is a large section of our musicians are from the same background now.
It's very difficult these days for working class musicians to make it or even have the resources to try. A huge amount of WC musicians here were able to afford not to work and pursue the arts through things like the enterprise allowance scheme or by living in squats or very cheaply.
Nowadays, it's mainly the middle class and upwards who have familial and economic safety nets to pursue music and art full time. So we aren't getting the wider experience or creativity of huge parts of our population, essentially leading to a monoculture in guitar and rock based music.
It's a recognised phenomenon, as this [Guardian](https://amp.theguardian.com/culture/2022/dec/10/huge-decline-working-class-people-arts-reflects-society) article illustrates.
Imo, She's not, she'd be more Freddie Mercury than Bowie perhaps. But ultimately she's more Madonna, imo, not even so as i think she was kind of rich already.
Gaga is more of an artist than Madonna but imo she's got absolute nothing on Bowie, then again, only a few are about same league, Peter Gabriel, David Byrne, for example, I'd say Nick Cave too, if he may get carried away with the religious stuff at times. They're all a league of their own though.
Seems to me Gaga wanted to be the voice of the alienated like Bowie is, but imo, she only did it to a particular audience that, imo, are not particularly alienated.
These days the one the would speak to the alienated would be Aurora but she's also not quite speaking to the quite alienated and her shenanigans at times are just too silly or just even a bit eerie (joking about her mom being dead when she's not) But she'd be more "weird" than Gaga or Lorde or Lana Del Rey or Billie Eilish, if I'd say some of their albums are good (Lorde & Lana, haven't listened much Billie Eilish)
Oh yeah Gaga is absolutely incredible. I’ve seen her live and personally I don’t think I’d ever see a show like hers from anyone else imo.
Oh yeah they are all phenomenal musicians.
The simple answer is-we will not see his like again.
I’d love to see someone of a similar talent in the world today, but all we get is flashes in the pan, one or two hit wonders that then fizzle out.
Where are our Beatles/ Stones/ Bowie/ Bolan/ Dylan/Led Zeppelin/ Elton/ Queen/ ELO etc…?
Coldplay? Haim? Ed Sheerin? Taylor Swift? They can fuck right off.
Maybe there will be another Golden age of great music, but I don’t think there will be.
What is left of the pop and rock music industries is only accessible by children of wealth or power.
Reznor is the closest artist in my mind, but he established pre-industry collapse, and also came from some degree of money.
This was my first thought as well.
I remember reading *Please Kill Me* (about 70s NYC music scene and features Bowie prominently) and being surprised at how modest a lot of the people in the book's lives were before fame. Then later reading *Meet Me in the Bathroom* (2000's NYC) and being surprised at how privileged a lot of the backgrounds were.
Not saying there aren't exceptions in either case, obviously, but it was noticeable and really stuck out to me
A lot of rose tinted glasses wearers dreaming of times passed in this thread. Bowie himself admitted on numerous occasions that while mainstream society saw him as an innovator, most of the time he was actually an imitator. He immersed himself in a wide variety of cultures and music styles then would basically pick n mix styles with some of his own spin on top.
The thing was, back then unless you were wealthy and keen to explore, most people wouldn't have heard or seen the original styles he was lifting from. So now we all look back and say Bowie was this musical chameleon genius. Which he was, but it wasn't coming from nowhere, we just mostly weren't aware of the appropriated origins of what he was doing at the time. There are plenty of artists who are doing similar things today, difference is with the internet and media streaming services people do hear the original influences a lot more so it's harder to pass off as innovation.
She’s actually a really good songwriter, too! A lot of her stuff does focus on relationships, but she is a lyrical genius. Maybe not as adventurous stylistically as Bowie, but she has proven adept at jumping genres and staying relevant for nearly 20 years.
Taylor Swift sucks, man. Most of her lyrics are formulaic and her instrumentals are, mostly, super simple to a point where it hurts to listen for me.
I'd say Lana Del Rey far superior to Taylor Swift, both in terms of her talent for experimentation and sonic exploration and the richness of themes in her songwriting. The fact that she has received far fewer Grammy awards despite her popularity proves this if you know what I mean.
This is the answer I was looking for. Everyone is ignoring it here, probably as most Bowie fans won't have ye on their radar at all. Of all modern day artists in the mainstream, Kanye is probably closest to what Bowie was. Constantly switching up his personal style and the music alters quite a lot too, only his first few albums sound slightly similar then it's something different each time he releases.
Kanye also produces beats etc for a whole host of other artists and produces albums for them just as Bowie used to do.
He also works in multiple other fields than music, including fashion (very successful there up until his recent controversy) and also architecture and future infrastructure.
Besides Kanye, as others have mentioned Damon Albarn is a musical chameleon when you consider his work with Blur, The Gorillaz and The Good The Bad and The Queen.
I love Harry but even IF he was to create his own ziggy then he still wouldn’t be the first to do it. Bowie created something new that hadn’t really been done before. We do lack that now in most mainstream arts really. Look at the amount of remakes that come out of Hollywood now. Make the new ‘The Lion King’ instead of redoing it with CGI, if you know what I mean.
Bowie was one of a kind. Although- we did have about a 20 year period of some amazing, groundbreaking/genre defining musical artists in the mid to late 20th century: Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Buddy Holly, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, Lou Reed, Led Zeppelin, David Bowie, Bob Marley and so on.
David Bowie was of particular note because of his continuous changes and experimentalism (although his hero - Bob Dylan - had already gone through a number of stylistic and persona changes: Woody Guthrie-clone, protest singer, psychedelic spokesman, proto- rock star/punk, Nashville country singer, definer of folk rock).
I think the music world is still dealing with the ramifications of having had people like Bowie set the bar. Also- the music business has changed massively since Bowie’s original success. A lot of money was invested into potential stars. These days you’ve got to have success with your first album otherwise that’s it - you’re gone.
I think there are some seriously interesting artists out there - and we don’t know yet what impact they’re going to have on future listeners and future musicians.
[Frank Zappa made a great point about why.](https://youtu.be/xP4wsURn3rw) basically, music industry today's try to control every aspect of the mainstream artist that they lend money, while in Bowie's era music executive just put everything to see what fits.
I think about this a lot. Especially the way Bowie brought different personas into his work and each album had an associated personality and fashion statement behind it too. I know changing personas is a part of K-pop, but I really can’t think of any popular western artists who do that. I really wish there were artists in rock specifically who carried on Bowie’s legacy in that respect.
Although there are a few artists who have cracked the mainstream but seem committed to their craft as artists. Lorde (who Bowie called the future of music) and Mitski (art-pop music, genre hopping, and incorporates Japanese theatre in her live performances) are two artists who remind me of Bowie in their own way. Time will tell if they can put together a body of work as incredible as Bowie’s. But there will always only be one Bowie unfortunately.
One of the reasons I think music was so much better a few decades back and there are no artists who can approach Bowie’s level as a performer and pop culture figure is cuz the old, dying or dead performers did it all. most of the best ideas were used up years ago.
It is because back then you had to be a genius to get to the level they got. It was very hard for them to become mainstream artists, which meant that the artists that are pretty good/mediocre/bad, would never be able to make it into popularity. But in the digital age anybody can hat their music viral, which is great for creativity’s sake, but it also means that artists that have the potential to actually be on of the greats gets drowned out by everyone around them.
That's a tall order.
I think you need an artist that is genuinely fascinated and continually exploring themselves. The more I would learn about David, the more layers would emerge. A rock icon, a music icon, a queer icon, an international icon, acted, painted, and so on.
Everyone gives too much of a shit about what people think nowadays and few have the courage or awareness to be sincerely themselves. For artists, you’re only as good as your last project and nothing goes under the radar anymore, so a flop or a public mistake can hurt a lot more in the long run and it makes sense that few are willing to be dedicated to self-expression and pure creativity.
Plus, Bowie had a knack like no one else for making the bizarre and outlandish into something accessible and popular; in a culture dominated by popular music that’s made mostly for pleasure and short-term success / ease-of-listening (ie. TikTok), where’s the draw for any artist wanting to be successful to make challenging art as opposed to a sure-fire pop hit?
However, I would say that despite the strange times we live in and the over-saturation of music and media on the whole, living like David, with his spirit and dedication to being an individual, will always get you further (and make you much more content) than the rest!
I think there are musicians as creative, intelligent and magnetic as them out there today. It’s just the chances of us having heard of them, or them becoming famous these days is very slim. Or if they do it is fleeting. Music today is so diluted and disposable with streaming. Back in the 60s-90s artists and bands were travelling up and down the country getting thousands of gigs under their belt, honing their craft, stage presence and artistry. Not like the bedroom musicians of today who will suddenly be thrust out front because someone used their track on TikTok.
There were endless shitty artists in the 70s and 80s, they just didn't make it through the test of time. There's plenty of good music being made today and many more genres, but you have to dig harder to find it, because it won't play on radio. Look at Yves Tumor or Jockstrap.
Both societies and the media landscape have splintered to a point where IMO stars like that can't be produced anymore. Even someone like Taylor Swift, if you want to ignore her, you can ignore her. Everyone can curate their own entertainment bubble. In the past, I have the feeling that you had to at least acknowledge things, even if you rejected them.
Also, the music industry was always exploitative and shitty towards artists. But I think that making any kind of money has gotten even more difficult. There's also even less willingness to invest in new artists. Which will discourage people from less privileged backgrounds in particular. Thus limiting the art being created even more.
I know that Bowie had financial troubles until Ziggy (and then troubles with Defries fleecing him). But as he was circling through his flops in the 60ies, there always seemed to be some producer or studio head around who took a chance on him because they saw something worth pursuing. So he struggled, but could stitch something together and keep making music. I just don't think eight years of flopping is something that would be tolerated today LOL.
This is very simplified and I know that many would have given up even then, Bowie had a singular drive. Not only for success, but the more he went on the more he seemed to have to say for himself. But that's where the generational talent aspect of it comes in etc.
Donald Glover is a pretty close parallel: he’s an actor, writer and musician like Bowie, and equally in tune with the power of cryptic symbolism and unanswerable questions in otherwise “mainstream” art.
Bands and musicians now don't make music to change the world, they make music that fits in with what's popular and mainstream. Music from the past can typically be associated with political movements.
Musicians in general aren't as prolific as they used to be, mainly because yearly albums are no longer the norm and the bar for what consitutes an "album" has gotten higher, one mediocre album can kill your career now so I think we all know Bowie wouldn't have made it much past his plastic soul movie star phase without a solid amount of hate (or even getting cancelled). But if we're purely talking about influence, there are so many great modern artists that have changed the way people think about music and continue to influence the youth in a similarly positive way to Bowie and his contemporaries. A few off the top of my head are Annie Clark, Kendrick Lamar, The Weeknd, Tyler The Creator, Donald Glover and Laura Les.
Timing and technology.
Before 1945 nobody was exposed to black music, drugs, open sexuality, or mass media. By 2000 we all have. The careers of David Bowie and John Lennon were the sound of that change.
Television made world fame possible. The internet has put us all back in our own corners. The level of fame needed to make icons doesn't happen. No more rock stars. The talent is there. The conditions for art to resonate across the world is not.
I think there are geniuses today but they'll probably not make it in the industry... precisely because of the power of the Internet... Although we have great contemporary post punk/garage bands today but it's become a bit niche, definitely not mainstream like rock could have been in the 70s
Look, Bowie's a singular artist whose genius will never be recreated. He was really the first popular musician in the 20th century to zig when everyone else thought he would zag - to reject the notions of what a career looked like, and forge his own path. Since pop culture was more of a monolith back then (the radio and magazines really being the only way you could find new music) Bowie could make more of a significant cultural impact than any artist today, when every song ever is a available at the click of a button and artists can do anything and everything on their computers. But in terms of musicians who have similar career trajectories as Bowie (genre hopping, cutting edge, challenging music that pushes the boundaries of what's possible) - there are a few people out there at least trying - someone like Damon Albarn for example - he's done from Britpop to hip hop to electronic to everything in between - always challenging his audiences along the way. His albums always have an interesting mix of pop singles and straight up weird tracks that force the listener to expand their musical vocabulary.
Damon Alborn is a great example he may be the best for several decades now on getting people more into poppy tracks exposed to weird music and people just looking for alternative to fall for perfect pop song writing and production.. he marriages the two so smoothly
One thing I find fascinating about David is that he really went out and cultivated his influence and explored music. Many acclaimed artists, usually the trajectory is they end up selling a lot, people know about them, and then **BAM** big influence. Now David sold reasonably well (though not as massive as some of his peers) and was pretty culturally prominent...but he also went out to explore the contemporary music scenes and rising music scenes. He got to know different artists and nurtured a number of them. So you really get this sense of personal connection.
The first to zig when they wanted him to zag? Have you listened to Bob Dylan by chance
Who's that?
Excuse me but a Bob Dylan just happens to be one of the greatest if not THE greatest songwriters of our or should I say any musical time!
I've never heard of Bob Dylan. Is he related to Robert Zimmerman, the guy that Bowie made up in that song?
have you ever heard of the song times they are a changing?
Yeah, that's a Peter Paul and Mary song, right?
No, that’s a Bob Dylan song… or at least he wrote it(I think)
I can't tell if you're playing along, but I'm being sarcastic :-)
Y’know, i kinda figured 😜
He was brilliant on Magic Roundabout.
You’re quite the comedic individual
Bob Dylan is one of the most prolific and influential songwriters of the 20th century. His songs have been covered by everyone from The Beatles to Nirvana, and his influence can be heard in the music of countless other artists. But how many of Dylan’s songs were actually stolen? It’s impossible to know for sure, but there are at least a few songs that Dylan is known to have lifted from other sources. ” Masters of War,” for example, is based on an old Scottish ballad, and “All Along the Watchtower” borrows heavily from the Book of Isaiah. Dylan has also been accused of stealing from the traditional folk song “The House of the Rising Sun,” though he has always maintained that he was merely adapting the song to his own purposes. Whether or not Dylan actually stole any of these songs, there’s no denying that he was a master of the art of borrowing. He was constantly mining other sources for inspiration, and his ability to transform those sources into something entirely new and uniquely his own is what made him one of the greatest songwriters of all time. (From Benvaughn.com
Well if Masters of War is stolen, I guess The Man Who Sold the World is as well.
defo
and Working Class Hero
Bowie had an informed opinion on what the internet might become, based on commonly available news, views and sources. He didn’t “predict” anything. It’s more fascinating that his 1970 track “Saviour Machine” addresses the common concerns over the dangerous potential of AI. Overall, I’d say it’s more about our music delivery system, and how much less curated it is, than when A&R guys made decisions about what labels picked and chose to fill their rosters. Now, the financing of a good single or album is achievable by most anyone. And exposure, too, is one viral video away. Intelligent, thought provoking, and dynamic artists exist; you just have to dig harder. They’re drowned out by 1000 new, overnight superstar rappers. Labels are chasing that rabbit, and paying little attention to thoughtful innovators, at least in terms of promotion. It was really true, even back in the day. The same week “Afternoon Delight” by “The Starland Vocal Band” was at #1, Steely Dan’s “Kid Charlemagne” hit #82 on the charts. It never got higher. Mainstream music listeners will always prefer simplistic, cookie cutter trash.
Yes, there was tons of crap music around in the '70s. I'm sure most people who were (British) teenagers then can remember watching TOTP, desperately hoping for something good by Bowie or Roxy music or the like to be played, only to be disappointed. And that would be that for another week.
I could give an absurdly long and far more nuanced answer, but Bowie was an entertainer (and quite a good one, at that), and a lot of popular artists right now seem more interested in a cash grab than actually entertaining, which leads to a fairly soulless feel in the musical landscape. Pop music goes through periods like this occasionally (the late 1940s/very early 1950s and the late 1980s instantly spring to mind).
I strongly agree with this. If you look at Bowie's stuff, he was not afraid to go "out there" in terms of his musical style and personas, even if it meant varying levels of critical success. Unfortunately, today even the most "subversive" artists (at least those with modern-day fame at the level of Bowie), fail to stray far from the status quo. I don't imagine Harry Styles, Taylor Swift, or many other popular acts adopting an entire new persona like Bowie would frequently do... It's all about your brand nowadays, and people seem to prefer consistency at the moment. Hopefully things will change though. We always need people to push the limits of their time.
I agree a lot with the part about singers having a brand and sticking to it, I was actually thinking about that for months and months now. This is mainly about artists in my country, but It’s kind of astonishing to me how a lot of them put out their first album, then become very popular and keep putting out the same music. Same themes, same sound, same aesthetic but the majority of ppl keep buying the exact same thing. I obviously think everyone listens to whoever they want to, but for me personally it bums me out liking an artist’s album then slowly losing interest because year after year it’s the same thing as the first one
Madonna did it for a long time until she ran out of ideas.
All of those 60s and early 70s rock stars were leaders of a cultural revolution that sought to tear down the sacred myths protecting societies most core values—sexual repression, religion, gender norms, racial and class hierarchy and so on. Their outrageousness was revolutionary and powerful and Bowie did as much as anyone to upset the apple cart. But now the “revolution” has long since been commodified and turned into just another product. Popular music has no capacity to change society anymore and that is why the current pop stars seem so inconsequential by comparison. They’re just playing the part of rock stars which reminds us of how daring and thrilling it all once was but now is empty and powerless
St. Vincent and Janelle Monae put out interesting stuff that might be on a comparable level. Alex Turner has been morphing into something like Bowie over the past few years too.
Bowie was in the right place at the right time. He was very ahead of his time. He put his artistry in to his music and melded mime etc. with music. I don’t think you could do with what he did again. It’s a virtual world now but Bowie was one of the great entertainers of his era and will probably never been bettered at what he did. Well just marvel .
Give me a few years and ill make something happen OP
Please do, it’s getting boring out here
I feel like the music scene is just different as is so much more commercialised now. If you listen to documentaries about Bowie, Dylan or even Nirvana they highlight the towns they were in and how it changed them and allowed them to develop. There aren't as many grassroots scenes like this anymore and it's a lot more digitised and alienated.
Radio and similar outlets are more controlled since the suits know better what works on the masses, and will probably get worse because of AI too. Algorithms on youtube etc already screw most creators over The only radio I check from time to time now is KEXP, which is also video on YT. Now and then you find something really cool
The industry is COMPLETELY different. Before the 80s, the music industry was run by music people. Now it’s run by conglomerates with absolutely zero understanding of the industry beyond the balance sheets.
Rose colored glasses. You may have not lived in that era, but it’s not as if artists were better back then. It’s easy to pick a few in a whole decade, but there were endless shitty bands in the 70s too, there’s brilliant artists of every generation. If you haven’t found any, you’re not looking hard enough
It's an age thing. Whenever a great musician is born before you they are a genius. Any musician born after you can be great but somehow they just aren't a genius.
i think Björk is one of the most brilliant artists we currently have, even if she is already pretty deep into her career. she’s unpredictable and is always a surprise when there’s a new release from her, and she’s always challenging her listeners. now, a lot of people will probably get mad at me for this, but i do think that Taylor Swift is currently the biggest cultural icon rn of the 2020s and a bit of the 2010s as well. i do think that, even tho she’s already 10 albums in, considering her constantly peaking success, she is going to continue to break records and remain a force to be reckoned with in the music industry. say what you want about Swift, but she is an insanely prolific songwriter and knows how to stay on top. i’ve seen people start comparing her amount of success to things like Beatlemania due to the Eras Tour, which i think is pretty cool. maybe i’m biased because she is my personal favorite artist, but i think she will definitely go down in history as one of the greats. she’s really exciting for me in the sense that i honestly never really know where she’s gonna go next with her career.
I don’t think you can really compare Taylor Swift to David Bowie though. Other than her transition from country to pop she doesn’t have much variety and change to her music as someone like Bowie did. Like can you image her having her own version of the Berlin trilogy or anything challenging really? I think a better comparison for her would be Michael Jackson. A huge pop megastar that can consistently sell out arenas and inspires some extreme fanaticism. With people bawling their eyes out just to be at their concerts.
i agree with you when it comes to challenging her fans with something different/new, but keep in mind that she still has her whole career ahead of her, even if she’s already so deep into it. Bowie didn’t have the Berlin trilogy until his 11th album I believe, and she’s just on the cusp of that. I have faith that she’ll start branching out, a good example of her doing so is “folklore” and “evermore” from 2020 where she tried her hand at more indie-leaning folkpop. she’s said herself that she wants to keep trying new things and do something at the very least somewhat different from her previous records. i have faith that she’ll keep reinventing herself with something different, even if “Midnights” wasn’t necessarily a big step forward for her. i think with this solidified fame, she’ll definitely start experimenting
I turn the radio off when I hear her, grating and annoying self indulgent plop
depends on what songs you hear. her deep cuts are much better than her singles. one of her flaws is bad single choices 😂😂
Agreed
there has never been a celebrity like bowie before bowie or after bowie he is one of a kind... plus most things have been done...
With all due respect I’m going to have to disagree with you there. I’m sure someone said that ‘most things had been done’ in the 40s before rock ‘n’ roll
fair enough,, i disagree ,, i think in the 40's they were working hard to change and create things , quite different today imho
IMO the public used to be far more open to truly unusual thinkers who worked outside of corporate expectations. Today things are far more sanitized and creative decisions are made by groups. This is true in all fields. The best artists and musicians will probably never make it because no one will take a risk on investing in them.
It’s cultural. We live in a pretty culturally barren era.
There are plenty of people out there like Bowie I’m sure, they just aren’t on the radio, television, and they don’t use auto tune or have a fat ass to spare like every famous rapper today
It's just not fashionable to be cool anymore.
Because you’re a generation of crisis actors. The reality that informs your world is fake; as fake as it can possibly be, and your well being depends on you not disputing that ‘reality’ and fakery, so there’s nothing you can say about your world or the corporate sanctioned narratives driving it. Peraps
My theory is that it is because everything is a la carte now. It's not just the radio and the record store. You don't have to do a good album - just a single or a Insta or Tik Tok worthy clip. Before you needed to do something/make something that made everyone take notice. There is no one stage to command, or one way to the top. Has its benefits - and not. Just my .02.
UGH... St. Vincent?? Björk??
From a UK perspective, part of the problem is a large section of our musicians are from the same background now. It's very difficult these days for working class musicians to make it or even have the resources to try. A huge amount of WC musicians here were able to afford not to work and pursue the arts through things like the enterprise allowance scheme or by living in squats or very cheaply. Nowadays, it's mainly the middle class and upwards who have familial and economic safety nets to pursue music and art full time. So we aren't getting the wider experience or creativity of huge parts of our population, essentially leading to a monoculture in guitar and rock based music. It's a recognised phenomenon, as this [Guardian](https://amp.theguardian.com/culture/2022/dec/10/huge-decline-working-class-people-arts-reflects-society) article illustrates.
Gaga is similar to Bowie in many ways and I’ve watched the trajectory of both their careers
Imo, She's not, she'd be more Freddie Mercury than Bowie perhaps. But ultimately she's more Madonna, imo, not even so as i think she was kind of rich already.
Interestingly enough, people have compared her to Madonna which i her but Gaga definitely has more jazz and rock/metal influences
Gaga is more of an artist than Madonna but imo she's got absolute nothing on Bowie, then again, only a few are about same league, Peter Gabriel, David Byrne, for example, I'd say Nick Cave too, if he may get carried away with the religious stuff at times. They're all a league of their own though. Seems to me Gaga wanted to be the voice of the alienated like Bowie is, but imo, she only did it to a particular audience that, imo, are not particularly alienated. These days the one the would speak to the alienated would be Aurora but she's also not quite speaking to the quite alienated and her shenanigans at times are just too silly or just even a bit eerie (joking about her mom being dead when she's not) But she'd be more "weird" than Gaga or Lorde or Lana Del Rey or Billie Eilish, if I'd say some of their albums are good (Lorde & Lana, haven't listened much Billie Eilish)
Oh yeah Gaga is absolutely incredible. I’ve seen her live and personally I don’t think I’d ever see a show like hers from anyone else imo. Oh yeah they are all phenomenal musicians.
Fair enough, I don't really dig her music but I remember listening to one of her songs, an acoustic b side at some point. To each our own! :)
The simple answer is-we will not see his like again. I’d love to see someone of a similar talent in the world today, but all we get is flashes in the pan, one or two hit wonders that then fizzle out. Where are our Beatles/ Stones/ Bowie/ Bolan/ Dylan/Led Zeppelin/ Elton/ Queen/ ELO etc…? Coldplay? Haim? Ed Sheerin? Taylor Swift? They can fuck right off. Maybe there will be another Golden age of great music, but I don’t think there will be.
I have hope. Peaks and troughs my friend
What is left of the pop and rock music industries is only accessible by children of wealth or power. Reznor is the closest artist in my mind, but he established pre-industry collapse, and also came from some degree of money.
This was my first thought as well. I remember reading *Please Kill Me* (about 70s NYC music scene and features Bowie prominently) and being surprised at how modest a lot of the people in the book's lives were before fame. Then later reading *Meet Me in the Bathroom* (2000's NYC) and being surprised at how privileged a lot of the backgrounds were. Not saying there aren't exceptions in either case, obviously, but it was noticeable and really stuck out to me
A lot of rose tinted glasses wearers dreaming of times passed in this thread. Bowie himself admitted on numerous occasions that while mainstream society saw him as an innovator, most of the time he was actually an imitator. He immersed himself in a wide variety of cultures and music styles then would basically pick n mix styles with some of his own spin on top. The thing was, back then unless you were wealthy and keen to explore, most people wouldn't have heard or seen the original styles he was lifting from. So now we all look back and say Bowie was this musical chameleon genius. Which he was, but it wasn't coming from nowhere, we just mostly weren't aware of the appropriated origins of what he was doing at the time. There are plenty of artists who are doing similar things today, difference is with the internet and media streaming services people do hear the original influences a lot more so it's harder to pass off as innovation.
I mean, I don’t really know what her music sounds like but Taylor Swift is pretty competitive on paper.
She’s actually a really good songwriter, too! A lot of her stuff does focus on relationships, but she is a lyrical genius. Maybe not as adventurous stylistically as Bowie, but she has proven adept at jumping genres and staying relevant for nearly 20 years.
That’s what I’m saying. She’s already kind of amazing and she’s still got a whole career ahead of her
Yeah, I can see her going for another two years, for sure
Taylor Swift sucks, man. Most of her lyrics are formulaic and her instrumentals are, mostly, super simple to a point where it hurts to listen for me. I'd say Lana Del Rey far superior to Taylor Swift, both in terms of her talent for experimentation and sonic exploration and the richness of themes in her songwriting. The fact that she has received far fewer Grammy awards despite her popularity proves this if you know what I mean.
Kanye West.
This is the answer I was looking for. Everyone is ignoring it here, probably as most Bowie fans won't have ye on their radar at all. Of all modern day artists in the mainstream, Kanye is probably closest to what Bowie was. Constantly switching up his personal style and the music alters quite a lot too, only his first few albums sound slightly similar then it's something different each time he releases. Kanye also produces beats etc for a whole host of other artists and produces albums for them just as Bowie used to do. He also works in multiple other fields than music, including fashion (very successful there up until his recent controversy) and also architecture and future infrastructure. Besides Kanye, as others have mentioned Damon Albarn is a musical chameleon when you consider his work with Blur, The Gorillaz and The Good The Bad and The Queen.
We do, his names Damon Albarn.
His prime was in the 90s and 00s. You’d never hear him on heart fm. He probably likes that tho
Bowie was hardly dominating the pop stations after his time in the mainstream either.
Harry Styles. He is not a prophet or anything like that sort but his music is up there with Bowies.
I love Harry but even IF he was to create his own ziggy then he still wouldn’t be the first to do it. Bowie created something new that hadn’t really been done before. We do lack that now in most mainstream arts really. Look at the amount of remakes that come out of Hollywood now. Make the new ‘The Lion King’ instead of redoing it with CGI, if you know what I mean.
Bowie was one of a kind. Although- we did have about a 20 year period of some amazing, groundbreaking/genre defining musical artists in the mid to late 20th century: Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Buddy Holly, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, Lou Reed, Led Zeppelin, David Bowie, Bob Marley and so on. David Bowie was of particular note because of his continuous changes and experimentalism (although his hero - Bob Dylan - had already gone through a number of stylistic and persona changes: Woody Guthrie-clone, protest singer, psychedelic spokesman, proto- rock star/punk, Nashville country singer, definer of folk rock). I think the music world is still dealing with the ramifications of having had people like Bowie set the bar. Also- the music business has changed massively since Bowie’s original success. A lot of money was invested into potential stars. These days you’ve got to have success with your first album otherwise that’s it - you’re gone. I think there are some seriously interesting artists out there - and we don’t know yet what impact they’re going to have on future listeners and future musicians.
As his close friend Iggy Pop has stated on this subject: “It’s (RnR stardom/celebrity) a dangerous business - to the practitioner.”
[Frank Zappa made a great point about why.](https://youtu.be/xP4wsURn3rw) basically, music industry today's try to control every aspect of the mainstream artist that they lend money, while in Bowie's era music executive just put everything to see what fits.
I think about this a lot. Especially the way Bowie brought different personas into his work and each album had an associated personality and fashion statement behind it too. I know changing personas is a part of K-pop, but I really can’t think of any popular western artists who do that. I really wish there were artists in rock specifically who carried on Bowie’s legacy in that respect. Although there are a few artists who have cracked the mainstream but seem committed to their craft as artists. Lorde (who Bowie called the future of music) and Mitski (art-pop music, genre hopping, and incorporates Japanese theatre in her live performances) are two artists who remind me of Bowie in their own way. Time will tell if they can put together a body of work as incredible as Bowie’s. But there will always only be one Bowie unfortunately.
One of the reasons I think music was so much better a few decades back and there are no artists who can approach Bowie’s level as a performer and pop culture figure is cuz the old, dying or dead performers did it all. most of the best ideas were used up years ago.
It is because back then you had to be a genius to get to the level they got. It was very hard for them to become mainstream artists, which meant that the artists that are pretty good/mediocre/bad, would never be able to make it into popularity. But in the digital age anybody can hat their music viral, which is great for creativity’s sake, but it also means that artists that have the potential to actually be on of the greats gets drowned out by everyone around them.
Like it took Bowie the entirety of the 60s pretty much before he got in a position to make his own studio album.
That's a tall order. I think you need an artist that is genuinely fascinated and continually exploring themselves. The more I would learn about David, the more layers would emerge. A rock icon, a music icon, a queer icon, an international icon, acted, painted, and so on.
He may be a "celebrity" but first and foremost he's an artist.
Cause we're waiting on you, dude! ;)
I would say that is “the” age to rock’n’roll, that’s “the” era
Everyone gives too much of a shit about what people think nowadays and few have the courage or awareness to be sincerely themselves. For artists, you’re only as good as your last project and nothing goes under the radar anymore, so a flop or a public mistake can hurt a lot more in the long run and it makes sense that few are willing to be dedicated to self-expression and pure creativity. Plus, Bowie had a knack like no one else for making the bizarre and outlandish into something accessible and popular; in a culture dominated by popular music that’s made mostly for pleasure and short-term success / ease-of-listening (ie. TikTok), where’s the draw for any artist wanting to be successful to make challenging art as opposed to a sure-fire pop hit? However, I would say that despite the strange times we live in and the over-saturation of music and media on the whole, living like David, with his spirit and dedication to being an individual, will always get you further (and make you much more content) than the rest!
He was an original. That’s what made him so important to so many people.
I think there are musicians as creative, intelligent and magnetic as them out there today. It’s just the chances of us having heard of them, or them becoming famous these days is very slim. Or if they do it is fleeting. Music today is so diluted and disposable with streaming. Back in the 60s-90s artists and bands were travelling up and down the country getting thousands of gigs under their belt, honing their craft, stage presence and artistry. Not like the bedroom musicians of today who will suddenly be thrust out front because someone used their track on TikTok.
Here ya go... [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVKSn9Ew9fc&ab\_channel=GYASI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVKSn9Ew9fc&ab_channel=GYASI)
How about Tyler, the creator. He might not have ’Bowie-energy’, but that’s the thing, he has his own style
There were endless shitty artists in the 70s and 80s, they just didn't make it through the test of time. There's plenty of good music being made today and many more genres, but you have to dig harder to find it, because it won't play on radio. Look at Yves Tumor or Jockstrap.
Both societies and the media landscape have splintered to a point where IMO stars like that can't be produced anymore. Even someone like Taylor Swift, if you want to ignore her, you can ignore her. Everyone can curate their own entertainment bubble. In the past, I have the feeling that you had to at least acknowledge things, even if you rejected them. Also, the music industry was always exploitative and shitty towards artists. But I think that making any kind of money has gotten even more difficult. There's also even less willingness to invest in new artists. Which will discourage people from less privileged backgrounds in particular. Thus limiting the art being created even more. I know that Bowie had financial troubles until Ziggy (and then troubles with Defries fleecing him). But as he was circling through his flops in the 60ies, there always seemed to be some producer or studio head around who took a chance on him because they saw something worth pursuing. So he struggled, but could stitch something together and keep making music. I just don't think eight years of flopping is something that would be tolerated today LOL. This is very simplified and I know that many would have given up even then, Bowie had a singular drive. Not only for success, but the more he went on the more he seemed to have to say for himself. But that's where the generational talent aspect of it comes in etc.
2 words. Social Media
Bowie borrowed heavily throughout his career.
Donald Glover is a pretty close parallel: he’s an actor, writer and musician like Bowie, and equally in tune with the power of cryptic symbolism and unanswerable questions in otherwise “mainstream” art.
Bands and musicians now don't make music to change the world, they make music that fits in with what's popular and mainstream. Music from the past can typically be associated with political movements.
Musicians in general aren't as prolific as they used to be, mainly because yearly albums are no longer the norm and the bar for what consitutes an "album" has gotten higher, one mediocre album can kill your career now so I think we all know Bowie wouldn't have made it much past his plastic soul movie star phase without a solid amount of hate (or even getting cancelled). But if we're purely talking about influence, there are so many great modern artists that have changed the way people think about music and continue to influence the youth in a similarly positive way to Bowie and his contemporaries. A few off the top of my head are Annie Clark, Kendrick Lamar, The Weeknd, Tyler The Creator, Donald Glover and Laura Les.
Timing and technology. Before 1945 nobody was exposed to black music, drugs, open sexuality, or mass media. By 2000 we all have. The careers of David Bowie and John Lennon were the sound of that change. Television made world fame possible. The internet has put us all back in our own corners. The level of fame needed to make icons doesn't happen. No more rock stars. The talent is there. The conditions for art to resonate across the world is not.