why is 'david live' regarded as being so poor?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

sticking with all the bowie posts, im not actually saying i think david live is completely shit, but im curious to know why its generally regarded so shabbily. i cant say its anywhere near the spiders live album, or even stage for that matter, nor the 1976 STS tour bootleg ive heard (maybe i need to be even more of a fan), but i dont quite get why this is so prized in the complete turd canon.

― dickvandyke (dickvandyke), Thursday, 17 June 2004 19:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Dude, you missed this thread by about three days.

― DykeVanDick (Naive Teen Idol), Thursday, 17 June 2004 19:37 (twenty-two years ago)

dude, i saw that thread, but noone really offered an answer.

― dickvandyke (dickvandyke), Friday, 18 June 2004 09:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Given that David Live is always described as "slick," my hunch is that it came at a time when he hadn't established his plastic soul credentials and was seen as some kind of commercial sell-out. It's not.

― Naive Teen Idol (Naive Teen Idol), Friday, 18 June 2004 13:08 (twenty-two years ago)

The concept alone (David forsakes post-glam/proto-punky goth sleaze in fravor of pre-fab Philly Soul, rife with polyester leisure suit shenanigans) was blasphemous, to say nothing of its dubious execution. Skip it.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:00 (twenty-two years ago)

David forsakes post-glam/proto-punky goth sleaze in fravor of pre-fab Philly Soul

aka everything most of the New Romantics ever did, but years beforehand! Woo!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:01 (twenty-two years ago)

For that reason (among others), Young Americans was Lester Bangs' favorite...

― Naive Teen Idol (Naive Teen Idol), Friday, 18 June 2004 15:05 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.