I'm reading through select entries on a blog detailing circumstances, etc. of the creation of
every single song David Bowie ever did. (I applaud the blog's owner. I would never have the patience to keep that up). Anyway, I'm currently reading through the entries about Outside, since duh favourite album, Strangers When We Meet being my gateway drug, etc. (This is confirmed by having listened to the album right through three (or more) times in the past week, which I haven't done since I was 23 or 24. A lot of it is better than I remember, and that includes the segues, and I'm Deranged is my new favourite song).
At the moment, I'm reading the comments on The Hearts Filthy Lesson. It was the first single released off Outside. Some people think it was a bad move, some people don't. Me, I don't know, because I don't ever remember hearing it before 2004. I only remember Strangers and Hallo Spaceboy. And then nothing else (apparently this is down, I have learnt, to making radio unfriendly songs. Like no-one else ever did that in their entire musical career. /sarcasm).
I digressed a little. A lot of the commenters mention how outright ignored Bowie was in the nineties (because everyone wrote him off in the eighties). They also say about how a lot of places ignore everything past Lodger (and/or Scary Monsters; see also the "best album since Scary Monsters", which is an actual thing said by Serious Music Critics, Repeatedly, and which Mr B rightfully complained about).
This is a thing that I find frustrating. Another commenter said how mid-nineties Bowie is, to some people, their Ziggy. This is it for me. Well, maybe not my
Ziggy, but certainly Outside/its singles have a special place for me, and they're my touchstone and, tellingly, what I fall back on when anguished.
(I was disgustingly anguished as a fourteen year old, hearing Strangers. As mentioned elsewhere (and partially documented on the internet), I had a shit year in 2004/5, and Outside was probably on repeat a lot. I'm having a wobble right now, though it's nowhere near as bad as the previous twice).
I picked up two special edition magazines in the wake of Mr B's death. One details everything, up to, wait for it...
Wait for it...
Wait
for
it
...
Yeah, you guessed it: Scary Monsters
Then the rest of the mag is album reviews up to Blackstar.
The other one's much better, since there's interviews covering all of his career (and it cost me less!)
You know, like the seventies were the
important part of his career, and everything else after that was just farting about.
OK THEN.
But it's not just this magazine that's guilty of it. I have an issue of Uncut from 2007, specially released for his sixtieth. It's weighted in favour of his early career. I listened to a lot of music archives from the BBC. Aside from the Mark Radcliffe show, which covered things past Scary Monsters, everything stopped in the same place.
I tweeted a bit about this (yeah, I was trying to be cryptic, because I honestly don't know if y'all are sick of me talking about him yet):
When you like a musician or band and anything discussing them only concentrates on a fraction of their career(s) you didn't experience.
And you want hear about the bit that meant the most to you, and you hear/see next to nothing about it.
(For reference: I didn't experience Ziggy because I wasn't
alive. I wasn't even a twinkle in my dad's eye, as they say. I don't think my parents had even met when Ziggy was scandalising the neighbourhood. Hey! Guess what album was out the year I was born!
Yeah. That one.
Scary Monsters. The single of the same name (but not same punctuation) came out just over a month before I was born. It's me. It's my fault. I single-handedly killed Mr B's career by simply existing).
In this case, I'm glad Youtube exists, because it is providing me with all the mid to late-nineties Bowie I want. Unlike the other outlets.
(Talking of which, the two visual biogs I have start skimping on things around the mid-eighties. Everything from, say 1987 to 2004 is conflated into a
handful of pages in the one (literally less than fifteen). But it's the less good one of the two, so I suppose that's sort of to be expected??)
But I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed this...thing happening. It really seems unfair, especially when people talk about what a varied career he had.
"Oh, you can't pin him down to one genre, he covered so many!"
Yes, but you can't really say that when you think nothing of his work past the seventies is any good. (Don't get me started on this whole "Ooooh, this sounds like his
old stuff!", meaning therefore "we like it!" Yeah, only till the next thing came along, and then we were back to the whole "best album since Scary Monsters" shtick).
I guess I am just very protective? I want his work to be considered as a whole, not as separate parts, because I don't think it's fair to do that, especially when you're ignoring the majority of his career.
I feel like I'm talking myself into circles already, so I'll quit here.
You can read the entry I mentioned and comments
here. I cannot be held responsible for you getting as lost in that blog as I have in the past week (it is, indirectly, all Brian Eno's fault. But maybe I'll explain why another time).