mjp
Founding member
That's fine. But I don't happen to believe there is any such thing. Once the art enters, the rock leaves through the back door. There are very few words or descriptions you can tag in front of "rock" that don't kill it. "Art," "prog," "stadium," "light" - the list goes on. Each one not rock and roll, but some bastard spawn.Art and rock...
If glitter was subversive it sure took a long time to manifest that subversion. I think we're just starting to see it now in a giant, glittery explosion of all things queer and trans.
But "Ziggy Stardust" was absolutely and unquestionably his take on the Dolls. That isn't really arguable. There is no Velvet Underground or Warhol in Ziggy Stardust. Not to my ears or eyes. Bowie was at almost every show the Dolls did at the Mercer Arts Center in 1972, some people say, "taking notes." Make of that what you will.
It doesn't really matter. Like I also said, musicians all take from each other and they all flex and flow with the changing times. I'm just never going to credit someone with being a pioneer when I know they weren't. A lot of people mistakenly believe that being the most famous whatever means you invented whatever. No so, of course.
I like a lot of David Bowie's songs. I just think when people call him a genius they don't know what genius is. I can't point to a single song he ever recorded that carried the shock of the new when I heard it.
Very good? Yes!
Entertaining? Sometimes.
Inspiring? Very much so, to some.
Genius? Nope.