WorkingAllTheTime

So I told my dad to get Hunky Dory, Ziggy Stardust, or Blackstar in light of David Bowie's death. I'm not sure if he's ordered one yet, so what I want to know is, for someone and his dad who have never had a Bowie album before, but have always known and liked many of the hits, would one of those three be a good place to start? (I've already heard and loved a couple tracks off Blackstar by the way). Should I have suggested something else? Let's Dance? Heroes? Space Oddity? A greatest hits? What do you think?

If you are looking for something that touches on the bulk his career in a pretty solid way, the Changesbowie compilation is worth it. I am generally not a fan of a greatest hits format as I think albums generally give you a better experience of an artist's time and place. But Changesbowie is a well done collection.

What was is it about him that has affected us so? I'm at a loss.

 

Ok Lorraine, if you need some pointers here ya go.

 

As we mourn for David Bowie, what keeps coming to mind is the huge impact he had on our times, anticipating and, often, helping to shape its twists and turns through the past few decades. He got to the "unknown" first.

 

Here are eight ways Bowie influenced popular culture:

 

1. As a gender bender: At a time when homosexuality was still, mostly, illegal, Bowie publicly embraced the idea of a fluid sexuality. As he came to public prominence in the 1970s, he'd wear dresses on stage, proclaim himself gay, flirt openly with guitarist Mick Ronson in a legendary British TV performance of the song "Starman." All of it helped pave the way for a culture that became ever more accepting of non-traditional sex roles. This can't be understated. It was a HUGE deal, to borrow from Donald Trump.

 

2. As a genre bender: Not only did Bowie make music in an astonishing range of styles, but he made compelling music in all of them. His catalog includes everything from singer-songwriter gems ("Changes," "Life on Mars") to grinding, guitar-led rock ("Suffragette City," "Rebel Rebel") to soul ("Young Americans") to funk ("Fame") to post-Cold War anthems ("Heroes," "Station to Station"). And when he needed to make hits, he turned out "Let's Dance" and helped shape the sound of the 1980s. "To me it seems so intentional and so well done that I don't think the word 'poser' fits," said Michael Darling, chief curator of Chicago's Museum of Contemporary Art, the only U.S. home for the "David Bowie Is" museum show. "It's so strategic and smart in a way that is very Warholian." In this way, one can see how Queen was heavily influenced by Bowie. They share that common thread.

 

3. As a crossover artist: Before settling into rock 'n' roll, Bowie tried his hand at, among other things, mime. And he would keep experimenting, playing a convincing space alien in Nicolas Roeg's "The Man Who Fell to Earth" and the title character in the Broadway play "The Elephant Man". He wasn't the first to move from popular music into film and theater, of course, but he was one of the most effective, even as he said he lacked the discipline to do more than dabble in acting. "It really kind of connects up to bigger ideas about a signature style and how that's maybe an old fashioned notion," Darling said. "This idea of multiple personalities, multiple ways of perception, really is one of the most defining radical aspects of late 20th century culture."

 

4. As a performance artist: There was always an aspect to Bowie's art that was beyond the music, from the theatricality of his costumes and the stage sets he designed to the way he tried on and shed personas. To see this in action, look up the clip of Bowie on "Saturday Night Live" in 1979. There are the songs, yes, stellar versions of "The Man Who Sold the World," "Boys Keep Swinging" and "TVC15," but there are also the remarkable performances, including cabaret artist Klaus Nomi as a backup singer, a pink toy poodle with an embedded TV screen, and Bowie in a giant puppet costume and another that necessitated him being lifted into place on the stage.

 

5. As a music video pioneer: Before there was even an outlet for them, Bowie was seeing that short films were made of his songs. MTV began life by playing the Buggles' "Video Killed the Radio Star," and that works, lyrically, but the better choice might have been, say, Bowie's film of his first hit, 1969's "Space Oddity." "From the very beginning he pushed it and took advantage of it in a way other artists didn't," Darling said.

 

6. As a fashion icon: He was more striking-looking than handsome, but Bowie's angularity, in facial structure and wire-thin body, helped him wear clothes well. And did he ever do so, taking stages in a cotton-candy-colored jumpsuit or in the iconic, wide-legged jumpsuit designed by Kansai Yamamoto, Bowie's partner in one of the 1970s most potent designer-model collaborations.

 

7. As an archivist: The "David Bowie Is" show smashed attendance records, drawing 193,000 visitors in just under four months to Chicago's Museum of Contemporary Art in 2014. (The show is now in Groninger, the Netherlands.) Beyond a compelling life story and great integration of music into the museum experience, what made that show work was that Bowie kept just about everything, from a cocaine spoon that was part of his mid-1970s drug troubles to apartment keys from the Berlin years later that decade that helped him find solid ground again. It included the letter in which David Jones formally takes the name David Bowie, as well as costume after outrageous costume. It brought to mind, I wrote at the time of the MCA show, "the hippest lost episode of 'Hoarders' you could ever experience."

 

8. As a planner of his own death: People were puzzling out the meaning of the album Bowie released Friday, "Blackstar," on his 69th birthday (a birthday he shares with Elvis Presley, by the way). But looking at the video now for its first song, "Lazarus," is a haunting experience, and one last coup by the master showman. He's on a hospital bed with bandages around his face and buttons for eyes; he's writing frenetically; he's singing "Look up here, I'm in heaven."

 

Dude was bigger than life. But to top it all off, he was incredible in the studio. His music was so deep, yet simple. He painted in the corners of our collective headphones.

Love this. Spot on. An icon in so many ways.

To me, he made the concepts of art and fashion approachable. He had a dignity and, obviously, an artistry about him that, at the same time, did not appear stuffy or entirely weird or pretentious. He always struck me as the type of man who would be comfortable visiting with pretty much any person, who would never make a person feel out of place or lacking in some way, yet who would draw you in with his own intelligence and creativity.

I think his music had the same qualities. It was definitely above the typical rock/pop fray in terms of content, but always still approachable in its style.

I would also suggest that he and Lemmy were, interestingly, two sides of the same coin. Both men lived their lives and careers their way, without worry of judgement, yet still found an adoring audience that appreciated them.

One day Adele will rule them all...and deservedly so. She is amazing.

 

When asked about her weight, she responded "I'd rather eat with my friends than go to the gym"...you go girl!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri7-vnrJD3k

Not gonna lie. I think Adele is hot. I'd rather take a girl out for a meal than a salad. And she's got some pipes.

The prior post about the questionable accuracy of said statistics is key here.

But, yeah, it does stand to be likely that Rush, after 40+ years in the industry, with a legion of scarily loyal fans, and a proven track record of touring success have sold a lot of albums.

Neil's explanation of the context of that song in Traveling Music is great. I sometimes wonder if that lady has any idea her ranting at her husband became a prog rock song. I seriously doubt she does.

PS Very cool watch.

I'm still trying to figure out exactly when this era of non-cheaters in sports was... I'm beginning to suspect it's a myth.

You mean sports are the purest example of idealism in society?

(bows head, walks away from the computer to cry, alone, holding his teddy bear wearing a St. Louis Cardinals jersey)

While I disagree with the concept we all want a faster game with more home runs or bigger players I agree with a lot of what you say regarding supporting the teams financially. There are different kinds of doping too. IF it is found that Peyton used what he has been accused of I believe it was to simply get back to where he was and get back on the field and was not meant to gain any advantage. It's still against the games rules but is different than the kind of doping used in track and field or cycling where it is specifically used in a targeted way to gain an advantage and give victory. I think the decision about what is and is not allowed can be arbitrary but the players agree to follow them.

Agreed. Using HGH for healing is a lot different than roiding up to smash baseballs or quarterbacks.

 

Completely agree.

 

But the leagues don't want to touch that. They don't want to open the door to any sort of justification for use. It's kind of like school systems that purposefully state they will not consider intent as a factor in the code of conduct. Truly, this happens, some districts specifically say they only look at what physically occurred and refuse to consider any issue leading up to it..... so a kid who accidentally brings a knife in his backpack after a weekend camping trip is treated just the same as the kid who purposefully brings the knife to threaten someone. The reason is the same, though, the powers that be do not want to have to answer questions in the court of public opinion.

Shakespeare had it right, "first we kill all the lawyers".

Yes, but I have met lawyers who argue Shakespeare's point wasn't intended for humor.

No, they argue it was a serious point because lawyers are *so* important.

With all due respect to the various JDs in this forum, only a lawyer would come up with that argument. :P

Maybe we oughta just kill them for sport?

Okay, okay.... I know.... :tsk:

On to New England. Anyone remember the last time they played?

http://www.pro-footb...=nwe&yr=all

 

41-14, Chiefs. :dweez:

Oh, that's right. ;)

Uh oh.

I had a bad thought last night. If the Royals and Chiefs win the title in the same year, surely Armageddon is near?

The Chiefs defense manhandled the Texans...

 

Actually, that's pretty impressive.

Must be a Jedi mind trick.

"You will drop the ball and leave the field."

Right on Lucas! The debut is killer.

 

I think its far better than anything post grace under pressure.

 

Working man imo is the most "important"

Rush song.

Not to be a schmuck.... but, yeah, of course Working Man was the most important song. It set all other things into motion!

We can talk all day long about 2112.... and it giving Rush the open forum in the industry to do what they want.

or The Spirit of Radio.... it being the a quintessential Rush song.

or Tom Sawyer.... it being *the* quintessential Rush song.

or Superconductor.... it being proof that even the greatest guys have a bad day.

But no Working Man... no Donna Halper on WMMS.... no breakthrough.... no nothing. Without Working Man, Neil never gets the gig and sells tractor parts the rest of his life (but still has a blog these days).... Alex is a plumber.... Geddy is probably the Prime Minister of Canada, but that's a whole other story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyGey5mKXic

 

:haz: :rush: :dweez: :Alex: :dweez: :geddy: :dweez: :rush: :haz:

 

I love that guitar solo! This is the only song on the debut, imo, that hinted at what was to come.

Agreed. Like BC, I set the debut apart a bit because it is so distinctly different in the history of the band, but I do think the album greatly hints at things to come.... particularly B&A.... I love the guitar progression at 1:13 and 2:20. Alex always seemed to have different gears he so easily moved in and out of.

I tend to listen to this album when I am going to put in a bike ride with climbs. The overall groove is the right mood.

Nice win Chiefs ;)

Dismantling an exceptional, talented-laden Houston Texans football team. A top-5 all-time NFL performance. :yes:

Top 5 playoff performance for KC in my life time.... not saying much, I know.

Well..... damn.... the Chiefs go ahead and kick the can down the road and shut out, basically thump, the Texans in the Wild Card.

 

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

 

Plus, I am convinced the Chiefs are doing this just to f*** with my head. That's right. It's all about me on this one. Damned Mandy Schottenreid and his head games.

I told you this a long time ago. They can definitely beat Denver or New England, in fact, I'm picking them right now.

Yeah, I know you did. Screw you LABT... the world is flat.... the moon is made of cheese.... Tupac is alive....

(sticking my fingers in my ear and yelling BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!)

Well..... damn.... the Chiefs go ahead and kick the can down the road and shut out, basically thump, the Texans in the Wild Card.

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

Plus, I am convinced the Chiefs are doing this just to f*** with my head. That's right. It's all about me on this one. Damned Mandy Schottenreid and his head games.

I find it interesting there is so much AFC West love among this group.

My favorite AFC West player of all time was Joe Delaney.

 

#2 is Christian Okoye.

37 Forever

Probably one of the most technically clean shows I have ever seen and heard. Ah Via Musicom is an album I often listen to straight through because it is just that enjoyable. I know some hate on him because of his voice, but I agree with the notion it matches his sound well.

I haven't personally seen him around some of the live venues in Austin, but I have a few friends who say they have occasionally seen him checking out a few shows in a low profile kind of way.

Way back in the day, I remember Geddy talking about Metallica on an episode of Rockline. In was the in the context of a fan asking what he listened to and he gave the standard answer about a variety of stuff and mentioned Metallica as being part of the newer, heavier stuff he sometimes enjoyed.

There's also the interesting bit about Welcome Home (Sanitarium) borrowing the guitar riff from TS part way through the song and the thank you to Rush in the Master liner notes...

Ok,

 

Life long Raiders fan here. But I will pick the Chiefs to win the AFC. Show me what you got!! :madra:

 

Here's what I have got....

 

Chiefs favored by 3.5 this Saturday in Houston.... and they will lose by 4.

 

If there was ever a set up for the typical Chiefs el-foldo-taco, it is this game. Favored by odds makers... 10 game win streak.... mediocre opponent in the first round... no real disadvantage with the crowd on the road.... KC has historically proven this is exactly their kind of game to lose.

 

Yeah,

 

I know the history. I am just breaking with tradition and thought I would go with a team within the division. :D

I can appreciate that. I am the same way. As much as I hate the other teams in the AFC West, I tend to pull for them in the playoffs once KC is out.... which is usually in Week 18. AFC West fans are quirky like that... there's a love-hate thing. Well, more like hate-love.

The Rams, Chargers, and Oakland all applied to move to Los Angeles yesterday.

 

The owners are apparently meeting soon to discuss (and there is talk of a $550M relocation fee - which Stan Kroenke can probably gather up collecting the change in his sofa cushions, while the ownership is SD and OAK are not as solvent).

 

My money is on the Rams going back to SoCal and the Chargers/Oakland filing some sort of suit when they are denied. I also think (I am not kidding here), the NFL has pondered taking the Raiders to.... get this.... St. Louis.

 

Here's why....

 

1) The owners know that Kroenke has the resources to move to LA

2) There are strong arguments for returning the Rams to their historic key market (ignoring their roots in Cleveland, etc.)

3) At the same time, St. Louis has foolishly put together a new stadium bid that is viable and the league will want to save face

4) Plus, St. Louis has shown to be a supportive fan base when the team is equally supportive of the community - the fans showed up even with bad teams and really only stopped when the move became a reality

5) The St. Louis Raiders has tremendous market appeal for the already existent natural rivalry between StL-KC

6) In the context of future expansion (it's going to happen, however foolish it may be), a team in St. Louis provides all sorts of flexibility for the league when redesigning divisions (the Broncos-Chiefs-Raiders rivalry is more important than keeping the Chargers in the same division and a Denver-KC-St. Louis tie is quite easy in any realignment, whereas San Diego is a geographic outlier that could be more easily paired with a five team West Coast division of, say SD-LA-SF-SEA-AZ.... ignoring current conference alignment)

7) On the other hand, San Diego's bid for a new stadium will take some time and Oakland's efforts for a new stadium are basically dead-on-arrival.

8) Keeping a team in San Diego still has market value for the NFL, so they will support that.

9) Losing a team out of the Bay Area is not as hard on the league, particularly given the fact the 49ers have the edge there and there is fierce support for the Raider brand among their fan base (it stands to reason a lot of Raider fans will be Raider fans no matter where the team plays).

10) Whenever given the chance, the NFL will gladly stick it to the legacy/ghost of Al Davis.

Move the Raiders and Chargers to LA and keep the Rams in St. Louis with a new stadium. Put the Rams in the same division as KC so you have a good regional matchup. Many of the divisions are a cluster and could use a good shakeup. You also gotta realize that the Chargers get a ton of support from the LA area.

 

Here's an idea that hasn't been discussed. Chargers and Rams in LA sharing a stadium. Leaves Oakland out in the wind with their shithole stadium. I don't think the Raiders would move to St. Louis.

 

 

You,

 

Make a good point about the stadium in Oakland. I was talking with one of the drivers about the situation last week. No investment in upgrades for how many years? Or planning for and building a new stadium in the area? If they move again I am done with them. I mean, it's in my blood and would still have great memories ect. But this is just complete BS all over again!

 

Unless the league somehow forces a deal, the Rams and Chargers sharing a stadium is not likely to happen. Kroenke has his own stadium project and is privately funding it as a real estate venture. The Chargers/Raiders stadium is a completely different funding model with some shared control. Plus, the fact there are a lot of Charger fans in LA actually hurts the chances of Kroenke wanting to share his venue with them. Kroenke won't join in the Chargers deal and he's likely not going to let anyone in on his deal.

 

As for the Raiders not going to St. Louis.... the Raiders fairly recently paid a visit to San Antonio to talk about the out-of-date Alamodome and potential upgrades in South Texas. If the Raiders would even flirt with the idea of moving into an older facility in a middle of the road non-NFL market that is dominated by Jerry Jones and the Cowboys, they would certainly ponder a move to a proven NFL market that is going to build them a shiny new stadium. I understand the idea of the Raiders in Missouri confounds many, but I think no one should be blind to the fact the Davis family is not loyal to Oakland, or any place for that matter. I am not saying that it will happen, but I am saying it likely has already been discussed as an option in NFL circles. The NFL does not care about fans or fan loyalty. They care about markets, TV shares, and merchandise sales. Moving TWO clubs this year would generate a fortune for the league.

 

Thats,

 

All fine and dandy. My point is simple. If they move again, fu** em!! :madra:

Well, it turns out old Silent Stan is trying to make certain no team ever relocates to St. Louis. His application for moving to LA was full of all sorts of slams and half truths (giving Stan even a half truth in his arguments, though, is being generous). He and his legal team used a variety of minimized data that ignored entire facets of the St. Louis regional community and economy to try to paint the area as lacking in viability for any NFL franchise. Keep in mind, St. Louis is quite statistically similar to Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Tampa - all cities with three major sports teams, including the NFL. Sure, I get his application is really a pitch to sell his desire to move the club and he went all-in for that purpose, but anyone with a brain and the ability to do some basic research will know his application is largely fiction. He did not just file for a move, he filed for divorce from the St. Louis community.

Alas, as much as I believe no city or state should ever build a stadium for any team, I do think St. Louis will, under the guise of "civic pride", move forward with a funding proposal for a facility and try to get a team to relocate. I still believe the Raiders are one of the two likely targets. The other target is the Jaguars. In truth, Jacksonville makes a lot of sense for a lot of reasons. Shad Kahn, the owner of the Jaguars, originally tried to buy the Rams before Kroenke exercised his right to take the team majority. Kahn has deep ties to central Illinois and knows the Midwest well. Kahn also has a no-win situation facing him in Jacksonville. Realistically, though, Kahn likely has his eyes on moving his club to London and the league will certainly be more in favor of that than Jacksonville to St. Louis.

There's really no other club in a position to move. San Diego has too many ties to Southern California and something will likely come out of that. Buffalo is no longer in relocation play. New Orleans will eventually have to figure out a venue resolution as the Super Dome does not live up to its name, but the fact of the matter is the post-Katrina near move of the Saints will likely keep that club in the region for the very long term. All the other franchises are more or less stable.

So, yeah, I see St. Louis making a play for the Raiders and I see the league listening to the argument. Whether or not it happens, though, is a whole other story. I totally admit that. As I said in my first post, I think the league has pondered it. Pondering and committing are two different things.

The Rams, Chargers, and Oakland all applied to move to Los Angeles yesterday.

 

The owners are apparently meeting soon to discuss (and there is talk of a $550M relocation fee - which Stan Kroenke can probably gather up collecting the change in his sofa cushions, while the ownership is SD and OAK are not as solvent).

 

My money is on the Rams going back to SoCal and the Chargers/Oakland filing some sort of suit when they are denied. I also think (I am not kidding here), the NFL has pondered taking the Raiders to.... get this.... St. Louis.

 

Here's why....

 

1) The owners know that Kroenke has the resources to move to LA

2) There are strong arguments for returning the Rams to their historic key market (ignoring their roots in Cleveland, etc.)

3) At the same time, St. Louis has foolishly put together a new stadium bid that is viable and the league will want to save face

4) Plus, St. Louis has shown to be a supportive fan base when the team is equally supportive of the community - the fans showed up even with bad teams and really only stopped when the move became a reality

5) The St. Louis Raiders has tremendous market appeal for the already existent natural rivalry between StL-KC

6) In the context of future expansion (it's going to happen, however foolish it may be), a team in St. Louis provides all sorts of flexibility for the league when redesigning divisions (the Broncos-Chiefs-Raiders rivalry is more important than keeping the Chargers in the same division and a Denver-KC-St. Louis tie is quite easy in any realignment, whereas San Diego is a geographic outlier that could be more easily paired with a five team West Coast division of, say SD-LA-SF-SEA-AZ.... ignoring current conference alignment)

7) On the other hand, San Diego's bid for a new stadium will take some time and Oakland's efforts for a new stadium are basically dead-on-arrival.

8) Keeping a team in San Diego still has market value for the NFL, so they will support that.

9) Losing a team out of the Bay Area is not as hard on the league, particularly given the fact the 49ers have the edge there and there is fierce support for the Raider brand among their fan base (it stands to reason a lot of Raider fans will be Raider fans no matter where the team plays).

10) Whenever given the chance, the NFL will gladly stick it to the legacy/ghost of Al Davis.

Move the Raiders and Chargers to LA and keep the Rams in St. Louis with a new stadium. Put the Rams in the same division as KC so you have a good regional matchup. Many of the divisions are a cluster and could use a good shakeup. You also gotta realize that the Chargers get a ton of support from the LA area.

 

Here's an idea that hasn't been discussed. Chargers and Rams in LA sharing a stadium. Leaves Oakland out in the wind with their shithole stadium. I don't think the Raiders would move to St. Louis.

 

 

You,

 

Make a good point about the stadium in Oakland. I was talking with one of the drivers about the situation last week. No investment in upgrades for how many years? Or planning for and building a new stadium in the area? If they move again I am done with them. I mean, it's in my blood and would still have great memories ect. But this is just complete BS all over again!

Unless the league somehow forces a deal, the Rams and Chargers sharing a stadium is not likely to happen. Kroenke has his own stadium project and is privately funding it as a real estate venture. The Chargers/Raiders stadium is a completely different funding model with some shared control. Plus, the fact there are a lot of Charger fans in LA actually hurts the chances of Kroenke wanting to share his venue with them. Kroenke won't join in the Chargers deal and he's likely not going to let anyone in on his deal.

As for the Raiders not going to St. Louis.... the Raiders fairly recently paid a visit to San Antonio to talk about the out-of-date Alamodome and potential upgrades in South Texas. If the Raiders would even flirt with the idea of moving into an older facility in a middle of the road non-NFL market that is dominated by Jerry Jones and the Cowboys, they would certainly ponder a move to a proven NFL market that is going to build them a shiny new stadium. I understand the idea of the Raiders in Missouri confounds many, but I think no one should be blind to the fact the Davis family is not loyal to Oakland, or any place for that matter. I am not saying that it will happen, but I am saying it likely has already been discussed as an option in NFL circles. The NFL does not care about fans or fan loyalty. They care about markets, TV shares, and merchandise sales. Moving TWO clubs this year would generate a fortune for the league.

The Rams, Chargers, and Oakland all applied to move to Los Angeles yesterday.

The owners are apparently meeting soon to discuss (and there is talk of a $550M relocation fee - which Stan Kroenke can probably gather up collecting the change in his sofa cushions, while the ownership is SD and OAK are not as solvent).

My money is on the Rams going back to SoCal and the Chargers/Oakland filing some sort of suit when they are denied. I also think (I am not kidding here), the NFL has pondered taking the Raiders to.... get this.... St. Louis.

Here's why....

1) The owners know that Kroenke has the resources to move to LA

2) There are strong arguments for returning the Rams to their historic key market (ignoring their roots in Cleveland, etc.)

3) At the same time, St. Louis has foolishly put together a new stadium bid that is viable and the league will want to save face

4) Plus, St. Louis has shown to be a supportive fan base when the team is equally supportive of the community - the fans showed up even with bad teams and really only stopped when the move became a reality

5) The St. Louis Raiders has tremendous market appeal for the already existent natural rivalry between StL-KC

6) In the context of future expansion (it's going to happen, however foolish it may be), a team in St. Louis provides all sorts of flexibility for the league when redesigning divisions (the Broncos-Chiefs-Raiders rivalry is more important than keeping the Chargers in the same division and a Denver-KC-St. Louis tie is quite easy in any realignment, whereas San Diego is a geographic outlier that could be more easily paired with a five team West Coast division of, say SD-LA-SF-SEA-AZ.... ignoring current conference alignment)

7) On the other hand, San Diego's bid for a new stadium will take some time and Oakland's efforts for a new stadium are basically dead-on-arrival.

8) Keeping a team in San Diego still has market value for the NFL, so they will support that.

9) Losing a team out of the Bay Area is not as hard on the league, particularly given the fact the 49ers have the edge there and there is fierce support for the Raider brand among their fan base (it stands to reason a lot of Raider fans will be Raider fans no matter where the team plays).

10) Whenever given the chance, the NFL will gladly stick it to the legacy/ghost of Al Davis.