We saw a Bowie concert from 1973, on VH1 Classic, last night. This was the at peak of his Ziggy Stardust era - and I believe it was the last concert that particular band ever played; at least that's what he told the crowd, at the end of the show.
Now, I really only know Bowie as someone who made a lot of popular records back in the day, then faded a bit and made a big comeback when I was a teenager ("Let's Dance", etc.). I was three when this concert happened, and so I didn't have a clue about Bowie's position in the pantheon of music, as it was happening. And seeing this movie now, I was surprised by one thing: in the crowd shots, all the audience were screaming high school girls - young teenagers.
So, a question to those of you who were around back then: was Bowie simply a teenager bubblegum thing, back in the Ziggy Stardust era ? And, if so, does his status now as an indisputable Rock God seem odd ?
If not, what was filmmaker D.A. Pennebaker trying to do by making it seem as if all Bowie's fans were 16 year-old girls ?
Also, there were a couple of covers: Let's Spend The Night Together, White Light White Heat, (both sped-up, Vegas musical review style), and "All The Young Dudes" (which Bowie wrote but then gave to Mott The Hoople). That seemed strange, too. And then it struck me: with the costumes, the characters, the posing, the crowd-pleasing covers... he was simply doing a cabaret act, a lounge act, night-club theater with edgy makeup and clothes. Which is not quite as dangerous or revolutionary as the rockumentaries have tried to claim...
This is kinda obvious but have you checked out any concert videos of The Beatles from, say, any time in the 60’s? I don’t see any conflict between adolescent female fans and Rock God status — indeed they seem to kind of go together.
yeah, hmmm. well, i guess that didn’t occur to me because while i can see how teens would really like the Beatles (especially the early stuff), i never saw that same mainstream appeal in Ziggy-era Bowie – he seemed too out-there. maybe not?
and in that case, i suppose Pennebaker was trying for the Beatles comparison. ?
Why the dichotomy? Sixteen-year-old girls attend for the spectacle, for the mass-orgasm experience of shrieking at a certifiable Rock Star; some others, I suppose, were getting a look at a guy who, for 1973, was pretty damned outrageous (the sexual ambiguity thing, in an era when that really Wasn’t Done) and some because the music was really, really good, who appreciated the in-your-face theatricality. Cabaret? Maybe. But so was Brecht/Weill.
I’m just about exactly the right age to have been a Bowie fan since those Ziggy Stardust days. For me, he didn’t “fade for a bit”; he started making cerebral, challenging records and collaborating with the avant artists of the time (Eno, Byrne, etc.). Some of those records were utterly fantastic, and were on regular rotation among my age-cohort along with “Never Mind the Bollocks” and “London Calling” and the B-52s. “Let’s Dance” was really, for me and my friends, a culmination of sorts of all the stuff he’d been leading up to. Dance music for smart people.
Have you ever seen Todd Haynes’ “Velvet Goldmine”? Worth a peek. Not particularly (at all) accurate, but it captures the Glam Thing pretty well, making connections between Iggy Pop’s balls-out, desperate hard-rock and Bowie’s sexually-charged (I’ll concede) cabaret. With stops at Oscar Wilde and Lou Reed. What’s not to like?
Teenage girls generally do as they are told vis-a-vis pop culture.
BTW Bowie, Schmowie. Yer just rubbing our faces in how hot your wife is.
Did I say that!!!
Neddie, your take is basically what i had always thought – he was something different and odd, but still able to appeal to the mainstream, and not just the early-70s Lady Gaga. so then my question is more like: why would Pennebaker want to make it look like Bowie only appeals to teenage girls ? that’s the dichotomy. or maybe things were less segregated then?
also: Mick Ronson was much better on record than live.
Velvet Goldmine was very good, yeah.
Bobby. yeah, she’s all kindsa hot. :)
why would Pennebaker want to make it look like Bowie only appeals to teenage girls ?
Pure Beatle-ism.
I haven’t seen the concert footage in question, but I can imagine it from other, similar video evidence from the period. If it makes teh Girlies shriek, it must be POP. Lack of introspection on Pennebaker’s part signifies homophobia and general cluelessness; let’s face it, the Fabs themselves were also (in their own way) pretty sexually ambiguous (all that hair!). Freaked out the Guardians of the Day. Bowie was an aggressive extension of that ambiguity; and when the Press saw that, they thought, Oh! Next Beatles! and acted accordingly. Bowie was playing them, and that’s what the thirteen-year-old-me picked up on, and, well, I haven’t stopped for 35 years. The dude was a Media Ninja, from even before the term “media” was invented. D. A. Pennebaker never saw what was coming. Smacked right up by the face. Dylan’s one thing; Bowie was quite another.
ah. that makes sense.
thanks Neddie.
I don’t see much similarity to the Beatles, who hit almost immediately. Bowie had about six hard years, adopting and abandoning at least three distinct personas before getting over. The gimmick that finally worked for him was to pretend to be a superstar before he really was. Lots of nerve to travel across the Atlantic first class with a big entourage when he was broke. I saw him at Radio City that year. Lots of ambisexual boys in everything from leather to feathers and glitter. Not many teenaged girls at that show. He was definitely cutting edge from the start, and not all that popular until a couple years later when he worked with John Lennon on “Fame”. By the way, it was the character of Ziggy Stardust who announced his last show, not Bowie. The whole thing was a theater piece, Bowie as an actor playing the part of a rock star from outer space.