Overkill

[french frank]

I've been dumbfounded to discover how many care about Bowie, including people whose opinions I respect. I really had no idea. It has shocked me to discover how far from the apparent norm I am - or has it all been cooked up by the media?

I think this is about 'news management' - though not in a negative sense. It's not that the media 'cook up' stories: it's that they are good at spotting which news stories are 'big', which ones will affect/pull in/interest large numbers of people and therefore, yes, sell newspapers. But the global emotions are there already. The media don't 'whip them up'.

My family has a missing generation - no one in their 40s, 50s and 60s now. As a generalisation, I suspect that missing generation is the heart of the 'Bowie generation'. And if what kb says about DB being a 'liberating' influence for men, then perhaps it's less surprising that the current generation of 'news managers' (the more senior ones who decide what will be in the news) will be men of that generation. They're not manipulating that public: they're part of it.

I don't think (or I desperately hope!) that doesn't belittle anyone's reasons for being overwhelmed by the news: it's an attempt (which may be totally wrong) to understand why the global reaction has been so astonishing to me.

[MrGongGong]

Why is it that so many people know about him, and so few know about Schubert, whose songs speak for all people and time? Is it just publicity, or are Schubert's songs genuinely harder to understand?

(Schubert's songs are wonderful)

To assume that the music one loves can "speak for all people and time" is understandable but mistaken.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I've been dumbfounded to discover how many care about Bowie, including people whose opinions I respect. I really had no idea. It has shocked me to discover how far from the apparent norm I am - or has it all been cooked up by the media?

It sounds as if you are suggesting that the "people whose opinions [you] respect" might have had their "care" for Bowie's Music "cooked up by the media" here, Mary - do you see that this might lead some of those people to "shout you down" for expressing such a suggestion? Perhaps especially as you talk about Bowie from a self-proclaimed ignorance of his work.

Why is it that so many people know about him, and so few know about Schubert, whose songs speak for all people and time? Is it just publicity, or are Schubert's songs genuinely harder to understand?

Many people know about both - and, whilst I know nothing by Bowie that matches Nacht und Traume or any album that meets Die Winterreise (but then, nor does anything by Schumann, Wolf, Mahler or Britten - that doesn't prevent anyone from knowing and loving the very fine achievements of those composers' lieder) it is also true that Life on Mars is a finer song by any disinterested criteria (including that of the lyrics) than Heldenroslein.

[doversoul1]

(Schuberts songs are wonderful)

To assume that the music one loves can "speak for all people and time" is understandable but mistaken.

That’s what I'd say to Bowie fans in the media

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

That’s what I'd say to Bowie fans in the media

Well, yes - I did bridle at Eddie Izzard's suggestion that "all Radio stations across the world should play nothing but Bowie for a day as a mark of respect"!

[Beef Oven!]

I've been dumbfounded to discover how many care about Bowie, including people whose opinions I respect. I really had no idea. It has shocked me to discover how far from the apparent norm I am - or has it all been cooked up by the media?

Why is it that so many people know about him, and so few know about Schubert, whose songs speak for all people and time? Is it just publicity, or are Schubert's songs genuinely harder to understand?

Mary, there's something wrong here, isn't there? Being shocked because you were unaware of the magnitude of feelings for Bowie is one thing, but to be surprised that it includes people whose opinions you respect is quite another.

[P. G. Tipps]

I think this is about 'news management' - though not in a negative sense. It's not that the media 'cook up' stories: it's that they are good at spotting which news stories are 'big', which ones will affect/pull in/interest large numbers of people and therefore, yes, sell newspapers. But the global emotions are there already. The media don't 'whip them up'

That's what we are led to believe ...

Nevertheless, I suggest that most people who regularly watch news channels simply wish to hear 'the news' not a whole day of people rabbiting on about a single event, the death of a pop-star, however idolised he/she may be by the more star-struck among us.

Talking about/paying tribute to a pop-star and playing his/her music all day on a pop-channel is just fine for those who wish to hear and participate in it. No problem with that whatsoever.

However, even the seemingly many ardent fans of the late Mr Bowie must still be a tiny minority of the total population of the UK. The almost single-subject 'news management' on Monday may not have been 'cooked up' but it was undoubtedly "lazy" and, as the title of this thread indicates, quite out of any reasonable proportion.

Surely that's the real point that some here are simply making?

[Lento]

One commentator, at least, said that Bowie showed us how to live, or words to that effect. That's quite a claim. I cannot comment on his music as I don't really know it.

[french frank]

However, even the seemingly many ardent fans of the late Mr Bowie must still be a tiny minority of the total population of the UK. The almost single-subject 'news management' on Monday may not have been 'cooked up' but it was undoubtedly "lazy" and, as the title of this thread indicates, quite out of any reasonable proportion.

Surely that's the real point that some here are simply making?

The point I was suggesting (just suggesting!) was that the people in the media are not themselves 'typical' of any 'population as a whole'. Any more than we (the 'unbelievers') are typical. We get what the media believe is important, dealt with in the way they think is appropriate.

Probably such phenomena will increase in the future.

[Anna]

Mary, there's something wrong here, isn't there? Being shocked because you were unaware of the magnitude of feelings for Bowie is one thing, but to be surprised that it includes people whose opinions you respect is quite another.

I think you're being very hard on Mary. There's no reason why she would know her friends' views on Bowie unless the conversation, at any point in time, had turned to the subject of him. His death obviously sparked such a conversation in which they expressed their liking for him which has dumbfounded her. (It would only be cause for concern if she then had a lower opinion of her friends' opinions on other subjects for their liking an aspect of popular culture)

Conversely I've no idea of my friends' views on Schubert's lieder - I imagine they're the same as mine (I cannot abide lieder of any sort) - but again I don't know as it's a subject that's never been aired. Perhaps I should do so, I may be shocked!

I think we've established above, particularly as expressed by kernelbogey, that Bowie was not a 'celebrity' or a mere 'pop idol', he was far more than that and that nobody is being manipulated by the media but I really don't feel I have the energy left to try and persuade the unconvinced. To many he was the man who changed the world, to others he wasn't.

[teamsaint]

simple point, but Bowie was a big star for a long time.Probably one of the top 5 british musicians(?) in terms of record sales, and he did plenty else besides sell records.
he affected people over a very long period of time.
even big fans on this board accept that he came in and out of their lives over his almost 50 years , but the fact that he was around so long means that he really has affected an awful lot of people, and in particular those in their 50's and early 60's who probably run the media.

the point that EA made, that maybe 50% of people weren't affected by Bowie's music isn't relevant. the vast majority of people weren't affected by recent flooding, but for a short time it was rightly a huge story.
So it goes.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

One commentator, at least, said that Bowie showed us how to live, or words to that effect. That's quite a claim.

I think it's unfair to blame Bowie for all the drug-taking and binge drinking. . .

[french frank]

he affected people over a very long period of time.
even big fans on this board accept that he came in and out of their lives over his almost 50 years , but the fact that he was around so long means that he really has affected an awful lot of people, and in particular those in their 50's and early 60's who probably run the media.

Exactly. In my estimation he influenced (profoundly) two generations, but certainly if you're outside those generations - particularly older, but I suspect younger too, as he doesn't seem to have been in the ordinary news for some time (???), he made little if no impression.

The impression he made on the enthusiasts is for them to understand. Otherwise you can only 'convince' people that he had a great impression on you: you cannot 'convince' that he should have made an impression on them, and that they are somehow at fault because he didn't.

[Anna]

you cannot 'convince' that he should have made an impression on them, and that they are somehow at fault because he didn't.

Trouble is some people wish to convince that he shouldn't have made an impression and that we are somehow at fault because he did!!

Anyway, ok, it was slight overkill but it was all over in 24 hours wasn't it and then everything got back to normal! And I don't think there's much else to say on the subject, some twains will never meet ....

[Beef Oven!]

I think you're being very hard on Mary. There's no reason why she would know her friends' views on Bowie unless the conversation, at any point in time, had turned to the subject of him. His death obviously sparked such a conversation in which they expressed their liking for him which has dumbfounded her. (It would only be cause for concern if she then had a lower opinion of her friends' opinions on other subjects for their liking an aspect of popular culture)

Neither Mary nor I have mentioned friends. Mary said that she was dumbfounded as to the number of people who care about Bowie and referred to the people whose opinions she respects (which may or may not include her friends), being among those people. There seems to be some kind of value judgement in there, rather than it just being an expression of surprise. I don't think I'm being hard on her, never mind very hard, to point out a possible further meaning in what she says.

Conversely I've no idea of my friends' views on Schubert's lieder - I imagine they're the same as mine (I cannot abide lieder of any sort) - but again I don't know as it's a subject that's never been aired. Perhaps I should do so, I may be shocked!

This 'friends' idea is a red herring, but I will say that I have no idea how many of my friends are into Schubert lieder, or even to an extent Bowie. I love Schubert lieder and I'm getting to know his works better and better. In fact Mary and I have both recommended Ian Bostridge's book on Winterreise, recently to people, on these very boards. Which is of course very irrelevant.

I think we've established above, particularly as expressed by kernelbogey, that Bowie was not a 'celebrity' or a mere 'pop idol', he was far more than that and that nobody is being manipulated by the media but I really don't feel I have the energy left to try and persuade the unconvinced. To many he was the man who changed the world, to others he wasn't.