Overkill

[Anna]

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?

Exactly - it was all over and done with in 24 hours.
TV programmes here were slightly disrupted - Iolo Williams' new one half-hour episode about the Beacons was postponed for a tribute and an excellent documentary, David Bowie: 5 Years, was slipped in after News Night at 11.15 (cannot recall what it replaced) So nothing major. And there is an Off switch. (BBC4 schedules will be rejigged in a few weeks though to devote time to Bowie)

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.

Not to mention a slight whiff of moral superiority and cultural snobbism.

[Bryn]

Well put. I haven't read a single article, either in the newspapers or online. ...

I which case, you might like to try this from today's Grauniad (front page, and rightly so, I feel).

[Bryn]

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.

Certainly came as a shock to me.

[teamsaint]

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.

Plenty of things get undue attention in the media.

The footise 100 for a start.

Anyway, Gordon Ramsey you were saying........

Never watched him.
Heard about him, obviously.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

dovers - I haven't been ignoring your #186: a mushroom-chopping commitment prevented me from extending my reply to frenchie. I think that there is grounds for criticism of wider media coverage of the Arts - and this applies to references to Solti and Dutilleux, too: I don't think that the coverage of Bowie was overdone, but that other important figures are ignored is something I do feel annoyed about. In other words, my own criticism would be of "underkill" for other figures rather than suggesting that Bowie was given undue treatment. As for the "ME" aspect - again, whilst I quite agree that there was too much "personal reminiscence" and too little serious discussion of the work itself, I would point out that this is how "obits" are treated - and have been treated for many years: people who knew him are asked for their memories of the deceased, so, inevitably a sense of the importance of the "rememberer" comes forward, giving a sense that the "remembered" have only been important for being known by lots of other people.

The Primary School Assembly - as described - does seem bizarre. But I gave what might have been described as "memorial assemblies" for Olivier and Karajan in the late '80s. There was no sense of (secular or religious) "worship" involved - just a member of staff talking about people whose work had inspired him and explaining why he thought younger people (and some of his colleagues) should be aware of that work. Had I still been a teacher, I would have done the same at the beginning of this new term for Boulez and I would have listened intently to any of my colleagues had they chosen to talk similarly about Bowie.

[cloughie]

Plenty of things get undue attention in the media.

The footise 100 for a start.

The Premier League, for another - you would think there's nothing below it.

[P. G. Tipps]

Plenty of things get undue attention in the media.

The footise 100 for a start.

Well that affects everyone's pension, including presumably your own ... maybe worth a couple of mentions or so every day? ... but if you're not that bothered, fair enough.

Anyway, Gordon Ramsey you were saying........

Never watched him.
Heard about him, obviously.

What 'ignorance and prejudice'! ...

[teamsaint]

Well that affects everyone's pension, including presumably your own ... maybe worth a couple of mentions or so every day? ... but if you're not that bothered, fair enough.



What 'ignorance and prejudice'! ...

loads of people don't have a pension or one worthy of the name.

too many more urgent calls on their disposable.

anyway, the index goes up, it goes down. you pay through the nose for an annuity at whatever rate it is at the time......if you are fortunate enough to have a pot......

[Beef Oven!]

The Premier League, for another - you would think there's nothing below it.

Huh? What are you on about?

[french frank]

But that didn't happen

I didn't say it happened, merely that I'd never before seen a white-on-black headline for anyone on the BBC website, and in the global scheme of things, how important was Bowie to the generality of human beings in the UK who weren't around during his heyday? Yes, I know he had brought out albums recently, but I'd guess it was mainly his fans of the earlier generation who were interested.

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?

This was probably a spoof then (I don't watch television so wouldn't know, nor do I read newspapers, though I heard the Guardian had a lot of coverage. And, of course, it reached Radio 3. So Radio 2 cleared its evening schedules - its Controller is aged 53).

It seems fairly simple: for some people, mainly identified by their generation, he meant a great deal for a lot of reasons: a fact that cannot be disputed. Other people barely noticed him. Very few wouldn't know who he was and what he looked like, but the things that made him important to some were not important to others. Why should that not be so?

If anyone suggests there is some incumbency upon me to at least listen to his music-fer-gods-sake - I feel it's like when people enthuse about a book they're reading and ask if I'd like to borrow it. No, because I have so many books I want to read and don't have time for - why should I give precedence to a book that someone else likes? I'm still trying to find time to listen to last Sunday's Drama on 3, and I just have time for it this evening.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I know the feeling - but you/we wouldn't then criticise that book, which is frequently what can appear to be the case with some contributions (he knows who he is!) to this thread. The presumption seems to being made that, as Bowie emerged at the same time as the Glam & Glitter Rock performers, his own work must be on the same level as Gary Glitter! For those who have the time and inclination to listen to it, there are rich rewards to be found uniquely in Bowie's work - and I rather wish I'd been using the time between 9:30 and 10:20 this morning to do precisely that rather than what R3 had on offer!

[visualnickmos]

If anyone suggests there is some incumbency upon me to at least listen to his music-fer-gods-sake - I feel it's like when people enthuse about a book they're reading and ask if I'd like to borrow it. No, because I have so many books I want to read and don't have time for - why should I give precedence to a book that someone else likes? I'm still trying to find time to listen to last Sunday's Drama on 3, and I just have time for it this evening.

Good summation.

Same thing when someone enthuses about a film they saw, then as you're leaving they say "I have it on DVD, here borrow it" (even though I have no intention of watching the damn thing) then "No rush, give it back when you want." One is then stuck with this thing lying around for months, then on next seeing the 'lender' you think "Better give the DVD back" to which you have to then blag the answer to the question "What did you think of it? Did you like it?" Best I can usually come up with is, "OK, but not totally my cup of tea, but thanks......" This hopefully negates any further discussion of the film, of which I have not one iota of knowledge about.

I'm not awful, I promise!

[Flosshilde]

I feel it's like when people enthuse about a book they're reading and ask if I'd like to borrow it. No, because I have so many books I want to read and don't have time for - why should I give precedence to a book that someone else likes? I'm still trying to find time to listen to last Sunday's Drama on 3, and I just have time for it this evening.

But perhaps you might discover a book, or an author, you wouldn't have read but find that you really like? Why shut yourself off from discovery?

Presumably you think that book groups are the devil's invention.

[doversoul1]

dovers - I haven't been ignoring your #186: a mushroom-chopping commitment prevented me from extending my reply to frenchie. I think that there is grounds for criticism of wider media coverage of the Arts - and this applies to references to Solti and Dutilleux, too: I don't think that the coverage of Bowie was overdone, but that other important figures are ignored is something I do feel annoyed about. In other words, my own criticism would be of "underkill" for other figures rather than suggesting that Bowie was given undue treatment. As for the "ME" aspect - again, whilst I quite agree that there was too much "personal reminiscence" and too little serious discussion of the work itself, I would point out that this is how "obits" are treated - and have been treated for many years: people who knew him are asked for their memories of the deceased, so, inevitably a sense of the importance of the "rememberer" comes forward, giving a sense that the "remembered" have only been important for being known by lots of other people.

The Primary School Assembly - as described - does seem bizarre. But I gave what might have been described as "memorial assemblies" for Olivier and Karajan in the late '80s. There was no sense of (secular or religious) "worship" involved - just a member of staff talking about people whose work had inspired him and explaining why he thought younger people (and some of his colleagues) should be aware of that work. Had I still been a teacher, I would have done the same at the beginning of this new term for Boulez and I would have listened intently to any of my colleagues had they chosen to talk similarly about Bowie.

Many thanks for your thoughtful post.

But that didn’t happen (#191).

But the headline did happen. That was enough to tell the world (well, maybe not quite but almost) the death of this person was hugely significant, although I guess the sight of the headline gave the news editors a bit of a shock and they sobered up quickly.

Contributors to obituaries aim to tell the readers about the deceased and the writer’s personal memory is a way of telling the personal side of the subject of the obituary who was usually known by his/her professional contributions to the world. By reading an obituary, we can learn quite a bit about the deceased even if we didn’t know the person when s/he was alive. Whereas the articles about Bowie, so far I have read, seem to be almost all about the contributors themselves than about Bowie. I have learned a lot about his music by reading the posts on the forum than any articles on the media.

The Primary School Assembly. If teaches can find relevance of Bowie’s music to what the children are learning, then by all means celebrate or have a memorial service. Or if the school has a tradition of holding a memorial service once a month (or whatever) of a public figure, that’s fine too. But imposing (sorry, this isn’t quite the right word where your thoughts are concerned) a teacher’s personal interest on children needs to be handled very carefully. If the event was motivated by the media, I find it deeply worrying.

I hope your mushroom chopping was appreciated.

[french frank]

But perhaps you might discover a book, or an author, you wouldn't have read but find that you really like? Why shut yourself off from discovery?

Presumably you think that book groups are the devil's invention.

But I don't feel that I have 'discovered' the books I buy until I've read them. I hear about them and they interest me. It is possible that someone enthusing about a book might grab my interest but the only time it happened recently I bought the book and only read a couple of chapters.

Book groups aren't for me. I did try one a couple of times and wasn't interested (or only mildly) in the books that were chosen, so I begrudged the time I'd spent reading them. I haven't read a contemporary novel for several years. Again, this is all just taste.