Question for the Guys That Saw the Rise of Guys Like Bowie, Iggy, KISS etc.

[GuitarToneFreak]

I was watching this video which was linked through another thread on here

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p79JKclG-oc&feature=youtube]YouTube - Moonage Daydream[/ame]

And I got to thinking, "man, what the hell did people think when this guy first came out?" So for those that were around for the rise of dudes like Cooper, Bowie, Iggy Pop, KISS, etc. etc. How did people react to them? Is it comparable to the way people react to Lady GaGa now (she's a freak, attention whore etc.)? I know they're all respected today and for good reason, but what did people think when they were brand new?

 

[redcoats1976]

they were freaky but talented...

 

[teame1]

Crossdressing has always been quite fashionable in good old Blighty.

 

[Skintaster]

I was a kid at the time, but I've asked my Aunt what the perception was, because she was a teenager at the time, and a huge fan of Alice Cooper and Bowie. She said that the glam stuff was looked down upon by a lot of people that were into "serious rock music", and was dismissed as a fad.

I think that performers like Lady Gaga are looked at the same way, and I personally think she may be around for awhile.

 

[bscenefilms]

I think there are those that put on a massive show in lieu of talent. I heard Bowie long before I saw what he looked like. The music was great. That's all I needed. Kiss was hugely popular with my friends in High School. I was the only holdout on that - I thought they were absolute crap. Pure flash over substance. Still do. Flame me as you see fit. I DO think Gaga has talent to match her show... She will be around for quite a while I suspect.

 

[Skintaster]

I think there are those that put on a massive show in lieu of talent. I heard Bowie long before I saw what he looked like. The music was great. That's all I needed. Kiss was hugely popular with my friends in High School. I was the only holdout on that - I thought they were absolute crap. Pure flash over substance. Still do. Flame me as you see fit. I DO think Gaga has talent to match her show... She will be around for quite a while I suspect.

I actually watched Lady Gaga's HBO special last weekend, just to see what her live show is like. Frankly, the "show" aspect was pretty amazing and entertaining... A huge leap above what most pop "Divas" are doing. And you could tell she's pretty talented. She can actually sing, and some of the songs were pretty well written.

I can't say that I like her style of pop music much, but I'm beginning to like her, if that makes sense. She's pretty talented, and I think she'll be around for awhile... Like some of the original glam stars that are now superstars.

 

[EasyAce]

Kiss was hugely popular with my friends in High School. I was the only holdout on that - I thought they were absolute crap. Pure flash over substance. Still do.

They always were and always will be, alas. And they weren't exactly that original to begin with. (Alice Cooper, Arthur Brown, Dr. John, and the Stooges had wilder stage acts than theirs for quite a few years before anyone ever heard of Kiss.) Or that creative. (I mean, how creative do you have to be to write songs about chasing your hormones?)

Gene Simmons wasn't the first to try the firebreathing bit on stage, to name just one example. Believe it or not, Mike Bloomfield was---he learned the trick during his Butterfield days and often did it during live performances of "East West" in passages when he wasn't required to solo . . . that was almost a decade before anyone had ever heard of Gene Simmons.

 

[River]

I didn't pay much mind to the marketing ploys. If I liked the music, I'd snicker about them, but I'd still pay money to hear and see them. Proof:

 

[KSG_Standard]

When I'd watch them on shows like Don Kirshner's Rock Concert or bring home an album, my Dad would snicker and laugh about it...but I didn't care, I dug the music.

 

[Skintaster]

I think then, as is now, a lot of people will dismiss bands with that level of "image" or stage show as being without talent, or as a fad. That's often the case... But not always. A good song is a good song regardless of the costumes the performers are wearing.

 

[KSG_Standard]

I was a big fan of Genesis back when Peter Gabriel was the front man. I liked the music so Gabriel's stage antics didn't make that much difference to me.

 

['59_Standard]

I was watching this video which was linked through another thread on here


And I got to thinking, "man, what the hell did people think when this guy first came out?" So for those that were around for the rise of dudes like Cooper, Bowie, Iggy Pop, KISS, etc. etc. How did people react to them? Is it comparable to the way people react to Lady GaGa now (she's a freak, attention whore etc.)? I know they're all respected today and for good reason, but what did people think when they were brand new?

Well, some people thought they were cool. Some people thought they were ****in' warped, and others didn't care either way. Not much has changed there...

 

[sonar1]

I was so stuck on Paul Butterfield, Roy Buchanan, and anything Blues based during the rise of Glam I scarcley noticed.

Never been big on Pop radio. If it ain't Bluesy or have a good funk groove or Soul vibe I never listened to it if I could avoid it.

To each their due, but I never bought their records.

 

[Username1]

i don't care about glam as long as theirs talent to back it up-- i LOVE Bowie, he's amazing i especially love Hunky Dory which was pre Ziggy Stardust. However I didn't grow up with it-- and as for Lady GaGa, she is a talented musician, but other than her three hit singles her music is boring as all hell and i saw parts of that HBO show where she kept talking about her life and would spend like 10 minutes in between songs talking about how no one thought she would make it-- i wanted to tell her to shut the hell up and play, my favorite acts talk as little as possible, even Paul McCartney only talks a little during his sets-- you get three hours of music with him, Lady GaGa you get a choreographed therapy session

 

[EasyAce]

I was so stuck on Paul Butterfield, Roy Buchanan, and anything Blues based during the rise of Glam I scarcley noticed.

Never been big on Pop radio. If it ain't Bluesy or have a good funk groove or Soul vibe I never listened to it if I could avoid it.

To each their due, but I never bought their records.

I had my flirtations with a lot of stuff other than the blues in the years going along. I liked some of David Bowie's early stuff, pre-Diamond Dogs; I liked some of the prog stuff, a smattering of earlier metal (Blue Oyster Cult and the like), but I outgrew it.

Since the outgrowing, I have a three-part rule for music: No blues? No groove? No way, Jose. And only too much that's come down the pipe since has about as much legitimate groove as a slab of sandpaper.

 

[Roberteaux]

The entertainment industry can only be profitable if it produces acts that are... well... entertaining!

@GTF: I was around to witness the rise of Bowie and the others you named. I suppose that the first true "shock rock" act I followed would have been Alice Cooper, although there were a lot of other performers whom I had previously enjoyed who were well over the top when judged by the diarymen and muck farmers I grew up around... Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention are a perfect example of what I am talking about here.

River's comment summed up my attitude of the time (and even today) in a nutshell. I thought that AC's stage show and such were amusing, but wouldn't have gotten so far as pay attention to that had I not been attracted to the music to begin with. And as was the case with bscenefilms and Bowie, I was listening to Cooper songs such as I'm Eighteen and Ballad of Dwight Fry before I ever got a look at the group itself. And when I *did* finally see 'em, I just smiled, nodded, and shrugged.

@skintaster: I was a bit like your aunt in a way. When KISS came out in full Kabuki regalia, I sort of looked down on 'em as being less "serious" than Jethro Tull, whose stage show was about twenty times as piquant in its weirdness (albeit less inflammable). But in retrospect, I see it was mere hubris on my part, as I liked rock 'n' roll, had seen KISS before the advent of their makeup, and thought that they were great rockers. The problem was mainly was that KISS fans were a few grades behind me in school and I wasn't *about* to allow myself to be identified as one of 'em!

These days, I sing praises for both KISS and Jethro Tull. And hey: if you like Lady Gaga some, then more power to ya and I do believe you when you say she has talent! I simply haven't gotten around to hearing her yet!

I liked Madonna when she first came out, but kind of lost interest with her about the same time she released Papa Don't Preach. I liked Michael Jackson all along as I grew up, even though I found Donny Osmond to be insufferably sappy. I took my step-kids to see the J5 Victory Tour when it appeared in Jacksonville in 1984, and we all enjoyed the show very much. Later on, when the kids asked me if I didn't think MJ looked bananas for the way he dressed, all I could do was flash onto Jimi Hendrix... who didn't even wear some kind of uniform, as MJ did!

I liked Boy George for his voice, and never mind the androgyny. After Bowie and the earlier, post-Nazz Rundgren, even Freddie Mercury was less than shocking to me and most of my friends. And the fact that Queen put out so many truly excellent songs was waaaay more important to us than any consideration of what-all Freddie might be up to in his spare time...

But whaddya want? My parents felt the same way about Van Cliburn and Liberace!

--R

 

[Tim Fezziwig]

I grew up with Kiss. They appealed to me because I liked monsters. Great hormone-Rock. Bowie Changes One was my first record. Greatest hits comp., immediately fell in love with the sound. I love all his stuff up until Scary Monsters. I like image+music. I love bare-bones blues ,but I like my Rock hard and theatrical. Iggy I got into in the 90's. I love IGGy,his music inspires me daily. People are parrots, if critics say it is bad they repeat that. I love Cooper and all those guys. I listen to them and I picture the stage show. Sound+vision!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVxr63WaRrs]YouTube - Alice Cooper - The Ballad Of Dwight Fry[/ame]

 

[kjwolfer]

I remember growing up with Kiss and everytime I wore a t-shirt to school or something, a teacher would make some sort of horrible comment to me. I remember the music teacher telling me one day that Kiss would never make it and heavy metal would fade away. Well jokes on him ain't it? Then there was the whole satanist thing, they eat babies, they're all on drugs and whatever. Jeez no wonder why I'm a well adjusted adult......just kidding.

 

[sonar1]

...I have a three-part rule for music: No blues? No groove? No way...

I think that developed for me about the same time Disco hit.

I had been collecting styles as they passed through. But when Disco hit I just bailed outa trying to stay current, and I've been regressed ever since.

Even Country music, which I never gave 2 cents about learning, became
appealing enough to explore.

 

[Skintaster]

Well, back to the OP's original question. All the performers mentioned are still around and going strong. They're all considered important and "groundbreaking". It doesn't matter if some people didn't like them or still don't... All bands have people that don't dig them.

History is on the side of all of those early "shock rock" and "glam" guys.

I bet in another 30 or 40 years some of today's over the top "shock" rockers are considered "classic". It's just the way things work.