It appears the video has already been yanked from Youtube, but I saw it circulating widely on Tuesday. Very good interview. My favorite parts:
1) Talking about having to shed all the characters and theatrical contrivances for the sake of getting down to writing songs. Striking to hear him admit that, because I've long felt the concept-album years -- what made him famous, of course -- is the part of his 70s output that I'm kinda so-so about (despite its share of great tunes). And his own admission pretty much nails the reason I'd always felt that way.
2) Quite a fascinating, and surprisingly sharp, breakdown of where music was heading at the time -- the bit about rave culture, and music becoming more about about niche audiences in the '90s & whatnot. Incredibly observant.
3) Some of his comments about the internet are deeply McLuhan-esque. But watching the perplexed looks that cross Jeremy Paxman's face while Bowie launches into his analysis are hilarious.
4) Q: What do you make of 'Cool Britiannia'? A: Ohh, lumpen! It's so cliche'd and silly. ...I think [the idea's] helped the media get a handle on these times, but I don't think anybody anywhere else believes it."
Will definitely back most of what you've said here. Shame it got taken down so fast. I do have a soft spot for Ziggy Stardust, though its rendition of glam does seem to fall along the splits of the "heavy metal" of MWSTW and the vaudevillian pop of Hunky Dory so not such a radical proposition after all. Aladdin Sane and Diamond Dogs are fun, but it is those conceptual parts that are the most skipworthy now.
Weird to place this in a specific timeframe. I was around 18 when this came out and recall the idea of internet revolutionizing culture to be not so radical by then, even on dial up modems in Upstate NY so Paxman's flustered looks are bizarre. Plus- my take on this may not be so keen since I didn't really live through it- wasn't Cool Britannia pretty over by '99/2000 or so? It's like someone from the not too distant future being interviewed by someone from the recent past. Delightfully incongruous.
It appears the video has already been yanked from Youtube, but I saw it circulating widely on Tuesday. Very good interview. My favorite parts:
ReplyDelete1) Talking about having to shed all the characters and theatrical contrivances for the sake of getting down to writing songs. Striking to hear him admit that, because I've long felt the concept-album years -- what made him famous, of course -- is the part of his 70s output that I'm kinda so-so about (despite its share of great tunes). And his own admission pretty much nails the reason I'd always felt that way.
2) Quite a fascinating, and surprisingly sharp, breakdown of where music was heading at the time -- the bit about rave culture, and music becoming more about about niche audiences in the '90s & whatnot. Incredibly observant.
3) Some of his comments about the internet are deeply McLuhan-esque. But watching the perplexed looks that cross Jeremy Paxman's face while Bowie launches into his analysis are hilarious.
4)
Q: What do you make of 'Cool Britiannia'?
A: Ohh, lumpen! It's so cliche'd and silly. ...I think [the idea's] helped the media get a handle on these times, but I don't think anybody anywhere else believes it."
Priceless bit of "bah", that.
Will definitely back most of what you've said here. Shame it got taken down so fast. I do have a soft spot for Ziggy Stardust, though its rendition of glam does seem to fall along the splits of the "heavy metal" of MWSTW and the vaudevillian pop of Hunky Dory so not such a radical proposition after all. Aladdin Sane and Diamond Dogs are fun, but it is those conceptual parts that are the most skipworthy now.
DeleteWeird to place this in a specific timeframe. I was around 18 when this came out and recall the idea of internet revolutionizing culture to be not so radical by then, even on dial up modems in Upstate NY so Paxman's flustered looks are bizarre. Plus- my take on this may not be so keen since I didn't really live through it- wasn't Cool Britannia pretty over by '99/2000 or so? It's like someone from the not too distant future being interviewed by someone from the recent past. Delightfully incongruous.