If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
The criticism here is not of Bowie's fans (however silly their reaction might seem to some) but the completely OTT coverage by the media and press.
Ignoring the tautology for the moment, the response to such "criticism" by others has been that it presumes that the media coverage has been disproportionate, just as it presumes that "Bowie's fans"' reactions have been "silly" and as "hysterical" as indulging in mourning for a "dead duck". With such prejudice (I nearly indulged in a tautology of my own and put "prejudice and ignorance") it is small wonder that some of those making such criticisms miss the main point.
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]
A primary school in Hackney has held a memorial assembly for Bowie. I feel I am living in a society I simply don't understand at all.
That is what I would call manipulation (in the same way as some regard religious teaching in primary schools as manipulation). I wonder how old the teacher is …
Brought up the question with friend over lunch (very nice, ferney, thank you - I had a starter as main: Pheasant pithiviers with caramelised apple and blackcurrant jus, with haricots verts, followed by a selection of French cheeses). She said none of her offspring, roughly 35-42, I think) had made any mention of Bowie.
As far as 'relative merits' go (cf ferney), are the merits in fact relative to people d'un certain age? Did Bowie have any influence on the narcissistic young exhibitionists of today whom one sees in the street with their faces painted in weird make-up and wearing outlandish clothes?
It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
To me, the overkill was that massive headline on the BBC News site. You’d have thought it was someone whose death would rock the world politics; a person whose death would have practical implication to the world or at least to Britain. Somebody somewhere must have lost his/her sense.
I have no problems with Bowie fans’ grief no matter how over the top it may appear but the ‘outpouring of grief’ in the media seems to me all about ME; people are queuing up to tell the world how Bowie’s music meant to ME. And then there is this incessant reminder that ‘we are all sharing the grief’ and this WE seems to be the vital ‘attraction’.
Sharing the personal sense of loss on a forum like this is perfectly natural but something like this makes me feel deeply suspicious about the sincerity of the grief expressed publicly. Even worse, I doubt if the teachers at this school are aware of their own motivation for this event.
Posted by Mary #175
A primary school in Hackney has held a memorial assembly for Bowie. I feel I am living in a society I simply don't understand at all.
Who is David Bowie? (sorry, it's now far too late to get me coat)...
To fhg's remarks about Beethoven, Pierre Boulez attracted a fair amount of attention in news bulletins and elsewhere in UK of which some would not usually have been expected to communicate with their current listeners/viewers/readerships on such a subject yet, when Dutilleux died less than three years ago, such coverage was considerably less; I'm uncertain as to what if anything this fact might tell any of us, but I thought that I'd drop it in to the discussion nevertheless.
To me, the overkill was that massive headline on the BBC News site. You’d have thought it was someone whose death would rock the world politics; a person whose death would have practical implication to the world or at least to Britain. Somebody somewhere must have lost his/her sense.
Yes, as I mentioned - I've never before seen a white-on-black headline on the BBC news website marking anyone's death. I suspect that there may have been a certain knee-jerk reaction of shock because it was so unexpected.
There's a difference between a death that WILL probably influence lives in some way (possibly Obama or Putin assassinated, or even Corbyn). That would surely be much more important than the death of someone who WAS influential, in many ways, to certain generations, as individuals.
It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
There's a difference between a death that WILL probably influence lives in some way (possibly Obama or Putin assassinated, or even Corbyn). That would surely be much more important than the death of someone who WAS influential, in many ways, to certain generations, as individuals.
But that didn't happen - I could understand the word "overkill" (which is surely a little distasteful in the circumstances) if Bowie's death had taken precedence over the assassination of the Head of State of one of the world powers; but it didn't. I have heard nothing on the news about Bowie's death, nor have I seen references to it on newspaper covers, since it happened. It did not alter the schedules that I noticed - no programme that I wished to watch or listen to was postponed or cancelled; was anybody else's viewing/listening/reading disrupted on the day or since because of the coverage of Bowie's death?
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]
But that didn't happen - I could understand the word "overkill" (which is surely a little distasteful in the circumstances) if Bowie's death had taken precedence over the assassination of the Head of State of one of the world powers; but it didn't. I have heard nothing on the news about Bowie's death, nor have I seen references to it on newspaper covers, since it happened. It did not alter the schedules that I noticed - no programme that I wished to watch or listen to was postponed or cancelled; was anybody else's viewing/listening/reading disrupted on the day or since because of the coverage of Bowie's death?
Not I and not to my knowledge, although some might consider their listening/viewing to have been disrupted to some degree by the sheer amount of coverage time allotted to the subject in news or similar programmes that would otherwise have concentrated more on other topics. The taking of precedence of a musician's death over that of the demise of a Head of State reminded me of Prokofiev whose death was not reported in Russia for two or three days after it occurred, solely as a consequence of the death of Stalin on the same day; the other side of the coin, one might say...
I didn't realise that this person is a gentleman, regardless of to whom he might be referring in the link that you post here, so I am obliged to you for confirming that point.
But that didn't happen - I could understand the word "overkill" (which is surely a little distasteful in the circumstances) if Bowie's death had taken precedence over the assassination of the Head of State of one of the world powers; but it didn't. I have heard nothing on the news about Bowie's death, nor have I seen references to it on newspaper covers, since it happened. It did not alter the schedules that I noticed - no programme that I wished to watch or listen to was postponed or cancelled; was anybody else's viewing/listening/reading disrupted on the day or since because of the coverage of Bowie's death?
Well put. I haven't read a single article, either in the newspapers or online. It's hardly invasive. I haven't even seen anything on TV (although I rarely watch more than Match Of The Day, University Challenge and the various Gordon Ramsey programmes). I didn't come down with the last shower of rain, so it's obvious to me that there is a high level of dislike and disapproval sitting behind the innocent protests of innocent surprise.
Comment