4 ms·

I think Bowie was the antithesis of this. If you'll forgive the hyperbole, he is the archetypal outsider, the patron saint of the dispossessed. So for all thos

I think Bowie was the antithesis of this. If you'll forgive the hyperbole, he is the archetypal outsider, the patron saint of the dispossessed. So for all those who don't feel that they belong, Bowie's activities provided a message - 'It's OK to be an outsider', and, curiously, through that message provided a sense of belonging - I'm going to get all metaphysical and say that that is alchemical / transformative in a very profound way for many people.

braythwayt 11y ago
Bowie may have been an outsider, but consider that your exact feelings are social, those feelings of belonging and connection to an icon. The music industry is just as adept at monetizing those feelings as they are of monetizing teen-age angst or adolescent her-worship of boy bands. My point being, that while Bowie and many others can stand outside of the industry, I don’t believe the basic dynamics are going to change. Radio may go away. Physical media may go away. Apple may disrupt the labels. Bt I believe that massive marketing machines will continue to slice and dice the market for music and continue to dominate people’s choices. Remember, you only heard of Bowie because he played the game.
- sjclemmy 11y ago
  I totally agree with your points - the market economy finds ways to monetise and that's its job. I'm not actually a big fan of Bowie, I'm a bit too young, but it's something I'm observing. I'm also aware that those feelings of alienation are keenest for teenagers and that the music industry exploits that. However, whilst the music machine exploits the latest pop star - if you were to compare and contrast say, Justin Bieber or Taylor Swift with Bowie, then there is a difference in what they symbolise for the fan, and, whilst the outcome of a sense of belonging is effected in both instances, Bieber / Swift do not represent the outsider, they are just more grist for the mill.
- webjprgm 11y ago
  I only heard of Bowie because of The Labyrinth. :-)
drb311 11y ago
"for all those who don't feel that they belong" < and the curious irony of Bowie's popularity: that's everyone.
mootothemax 11y ago
>he is the archetypal outsider While that may have been one of his target markets, make no mistake: Bowie worked his socks off to find a market that worked for him - in addition to quite an incredible musical talent - and it took years and years of hard, often unrecognised work, for his success to come. I mean - his first hit was a novelty song about garden gnomes, his second was (admittedly, possibly slightly unfair to argue it) cashing in on the space race, and it took a further couple of years for him to figure out his marketing and reach consistent success.
stinkytaco 11y ago
I'm afraid I don't buy that. Music follows rules, rules that we all grew up internalizing. There's no "universal music", just music who's rules you are familiar with. Tweak those rules just enough and in the right way and you are innovative (see: The Beatles). Tweak them too much and you are simply avant garde (see: Captain Beefheart). That means that music is without question a social construction. Simply look at how non-western music is so radically different from popular western music, yet still appealing within those cultures. It's very possible Bowie could have been too avant garde or too much of an outsider, but what he excelled at was tweaking the establishment just enough (both musically and performance-wise) to find a huge audience whilst still being "outside" the mainstream.
- sjclemmy 11y ago
  What don't you buy? >Music follows rules, rules that we all grew up internalizing. There's no "universal music", just music who's rules you are familiar with. Tweak those rules just enough and in the right way and you are innovative (see: The Beatles). Tweak them too much and you are simply avant garde (see: Captain Beefheart). I can enjoy music who's rules I am not familiar with. I don't need to know the rules to enjoy tonal and rythmic arrangements. > That means that music is without question a social construction That means it's culturally specific, NOT a social construction. > It's very possible Bowie could have been too avant garde or too much of an outsider, but what he excelled at was tweaking the establishment just enough (both musically and performance-wise) to find a huge audience whilst still being "outside" the mainstream. Which is perhaps the point I am trying to make. Within a specific culture, his work (not just his music) had a broad appeal that helped people deal with the human condition. However it was achieved, the world is a better place for it.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    > I can enjoy music who's rules I am not familiar with. I don't need to know the rules to enjoy tonal and rythmic arrangements. Most people don't, hence western harmony is what sounds like music to most westerners and anything else sounds weird or like noise. > That means it's culturally specific, NOT a social construction. It actually means both. All culturally specific tastes are also social constructs.

braythwayt 11y ago

Bowie may have been an outsider, but consider that your exact feelings are social, those feelings of belonging and connection to an icon. The music industry is just as adept at monetizing those feelings as they are of monetizing teen-age angst or adolescent her-worship of boy bands. My point being, that while Bowie and many others can stand outside of the industry, I don’t believe the basic dynamics are going to change. Radio may go away. Physical media may go away. Apple may disrupt the labels. Bt I believe that massive marketing machines will continue to slice and dice the market for music and continue to dominate people’s choices. Remember, you only heard of Bowie because he played the game.

sjclemmy 11y ago
I totally agree with your points - the market economy finds ways to monetise and that's its job. I'm not actually a big fan of Bowie, I'm a bit too young, but it's something I'm observing. I'm also aware that those feelings of alienation are keenest for teenagers and that the music industry exploits that. However, whilst the music machine exploits the latest pop star - if you were to compare and contrast say, Justin Bieber or Taylor Swift with Bowie, then there is a difference in what they symbolise for the fan, and, whilst the outcome of a sense of belonging is effected in both instances, Bieber / Swift do not represent the outsider, they are just more grist for the mill.
webjprgm 11y ago
I only heard of Bowie because of The Labyrinth. :-)

drb311 11y ago

"for all those who don't feel that they belong" < and the curious irony of Bowie's popularity: that's everyone.

mootothemax 11y ago

>he is the archetypal outsider While that may have been one of his target markets, make no mistake: Bowie worked his socks off to find a market that worked for him - in addition to quite an incredible musical talent - and it took years and years of hard, often unrecognised work, for his success to come. I mean - his first hit was a novelty song about garden gnomes, his second was (admittedly, possibly slightly unfair to argue it) cashing in on the space race, and it took a further couple of years for him to figure out his marketing and reach consistent success.

stinkytaco 11y ago

I'm afraid I don't buy that. Music follows rules, rules that we all grew up internalizing. There's no "universal music", just music who's rules you are familiar with. Tweak those rules just enough and in the right way and you are innovative (see: The Beatles). Tweak them too much and you are simply avant garde (see: Captain Beefheart). That means that music is without question a social construction. Simply look at how non-western music is so radically different from popular western music, yet still appealing within those cultures. It's very possible Bowie could have been too avant garde or too much of an outsider, but what he excelled at was tweaking the establishment just enough (both musically and performance-wise) to find a huge audience whilst still being "outside" the mainstream.

sjclemmy 11y ago
What don't you buy? >Music follows rules, rules that we all grew up internalizing. There's no "universal music", just music who's rules you are familiar with. Tweak those rules just enough and in the right way and you are innovative (see: The Beatles). Tweak them too much and you are simply avant garde (see: Captain Beefheart). I can enjoy music who's rules I am not familiar with. I don't need to know the rules to enjoy tonal and rythmic arrangements. > That means that music is without question a social construction That means it's culturally specific, NOT a social construction. > It's very possible Bowie could have been too avant garde or too much of an outsider, but what he excelled at was tweaking the establishment just enough (both musically and performance-wise) to find a huge audience whilst still being "outside" the mainstream. Which is perhaps the point I am trying to make. Within a specific culture, his work (not just his music) had a broad appeal that helped people deal with the human condition. However it was achieved, the world is a better place for it.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  > I can enjoy music who's rules I am not familiar with. I don't need to know the rules to enjoy tonal and rythmic arrangements. Most people don't, hence western harmony is what sounds like music to most westerners and anything else sounds weird or like noise. > That means it's culturally specific, NOT a social construction. It actually means both. All culturally specific tastes are also social constructs.