Overkill

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

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 haven't seen the Assembly - and only know about it from reports on this Thread that have their origin in that media itself, and experience of some of the reporting from such sources leads me to question the relationship between what is being told to readers and what is actually happening. But the purpose (or certainly one of them) of Assemblies is to allow a communal act of reflection between, if not the whole school, then certainly between three or four different year groups. They can frequently involve ideas thrown up in news stories that the children will have probably heard about from news reports - I don't think that this is "motivated by the media" in any particularly sinister or worrying way. It seems to me to be entirely appropriate to devote such school time to explaining who Bowie was, why he is important, and why there has been so much coverage on telly about him. (Otherwise, of course, it might end up that his work would just be known about only by people in their 50s and 60s! )

I hope your mushroom chopping was appreciated.

Thank you, yes - a garlic clove received my attentions, too.

[Lat-Literal]

It isn't possible to come up with a definitive statement for this thread but it does prompt several observations.

Some comparatively trivial points:

1. There is generational significance. Many who make decisions on news and media output are in their fifties and consequently Bowie had resonance for many. Also, I think when it is the Ann Widdecombes who lead the critique of perceived overkill, what is clear is that for certain types of people of certain ages the issues - musical, cultural, appearance - that arose in the early 1970s never went away. See also many viewpoints on Corbyn which being economic rather than cultural have also been passed to all the younger generations.

And then there is the point about young people now being oblivious. That is at the other end of the age scale but is a similar "what is all the fuss about?". I am reminded of falling asleep on the way home from the office shortly after Joe Strummer's death and leaving the train at Ashtead. I said to some youths who were reluctant to give me details of how to find a taxi rank that Strummer had been educated there, hadn't he. "Who is he?" they asked, displaying the same petulance that Strummer at that age would have shown himself.

2. Beyond that, I think we probably do have to see the earlier generations of pop and rock stars - 60s/70s - as the equivalent to the Hollywood film stars of the 1930s and 1940s. Bowie was at least a Charlie Chaplin or Elizabeth Taylor in his field, not least because he was arguably the most filmic of them all. It wouldn't happen with those from the 1990s onwards. The Gallaghers and so on although the demise of Morrissey, Geldof and several others from the late 1970s and 1980s would get a fair amount of coverage. When one considers who is still alive from those earlier times - McCartney, Dylan, Morrison, Baez, Mitchell, John, Ross, Wonder, Clapton, Plant, Streisand and very many more - people are probably going to have to get used to this sort of thing. But there may be a question about who will be covered more than Bowie. The answer? Some but not the majority of them.

Most importantly, all news and large sections of broadcasting and advertising are overkill. This is the information age in which there is considerable evidence that knowledge is no substitute for awe and mystery. Maybe that is what the coverage of Bowie inadvertently reveals for in being atmospherically creative he permitted imagination in a way that just couldn't happen now. The point is a broad one. Constant references to terrorism as money-making entertainment do not constitute a more sophisticated or indeed realistic form of communication than the late 20th Century way of talking such things down. Only the latter ensured that any threat was reduced to its proper size. In fact, the bombardment harks back to Palmerston's gunboat diplomacy and other nation state initiatives before and afterwards which have diverted attention from strategies promoting domestic inequality.

On illness leading to death, I can guarantee that no one on this forum is aware of how most of their deceased relatives died but now we are told at every turn what precisely took every celebrity. At root, there is a cost-cutting agenda to much of it as well as the hard sell which requires naive populations to be controlled by fear albeit presented as learning.

Even with sport, I don't think any child is likely to go to a football match these days and be largely unaware of what it entails before arriving at the ground. There is very little scope for any impressionistic or artistic appreciation or surprise. The media ensures that he or she has a means of thinking that is effectively the equivalent to what takes place on a sports desk at one of the tabloids. And that is without even turning to music which we oldies may enjoy more with access via new technology. But for those who are younger there is no soul to it given its flick-of-a-switch accessibility. Everything in the ultra-capitalist world we now inhabit is reminiscent of a Soviet style all-emphasis on functioning.

As a footnote, I avoided most of it. Some of it was too painful - the same would be true of several musicians who span five decades - and in a down to earth way I don't enjoy having others' angles on it unless those people too are meaningful to me. But I do sense there is a small c cultural conservatism in the fact that critique is attached to this news story. There are aspects of that conservatism that 21st century society could benefit from more - eg loyalty - but in my humble opinion art and creativity are not a part of them.

[P. G. Tipps]

Though I disagree largely with kernelbogey ... his idea of 'stunning' physical beauty is obviously rather 'different' from my own ... his points about sexual ambiguity, cross-dressing, raising two fingers to convention etc, are rather pertinent, I think. For some Mr Bowie's music was only secondary, it was his appearance, social statements which were important to them. He was considered a rebel performer who defied what was considered the stuffy old conservative norms, and he may well have been one of the first to do so, though there were others less talented around at the same time. The irony is that he ceased being a rebel a long time ago as what was previously frowned upon has now become the New Conservatism. If anyone doubts that they have obviously not heard or read some of the comments on such subjects from our present PM, Mr David Cameron, or a very recent Tory Cabinet Minister, Ms Maria Miller.

It seems to me to be a sort of liberal/new conservative orthodoxy that everyone should 'embrace' such things and that 'difference' should be celebrated. Well, 'difference' surely includes not wishing to embrace certain ideas as well? Anna's 'slight whiff of moral superiority and cultural snobbism' (I'm not referring to Anna herself, of course!) can often be found in places where such common human "odours" are self-righteously claimed to be absent.

If tolerance of 'difference' is to be genuine, one surely doesn't have to agree that Mr David Bowie was 'so important' any more that one should have to agree with the views and behaviour of Mr Jeremy Clarkson, who is a statement-maker/idol and no doubt important to others, and is also talented in his own quite different way. Before the predictable onslaught arrives from some quarters let me make it clear that I am not a Jeremy Clarkson fan.

However, on topic again, our clearly differing personal opinions on the late Mr David Bowie's importance to the world are not actually the main issue here ...

[french frank]

I agree with most of what's been written since I last posted - ferney, Lat and Mr Tipps (as at the moment I take up my pen) but some thoughts occur:

On the school assembly story, ferney says this it is indeed appropriate to explain why there has been so much coverage of DB's death. But will there also be an explanation as to why there has also been a question about 'too much coverage' (and not just here!) or will it be the one-sided view of someone (in [his] 50s or 60s ) for whom Bowie was a hero? Will there be any consideration of the aspects of society in which so many people invest to much of themselves in popular music, style &c. and make them question their own absorbtion in Bieber, Adele et al?

Lat's 1) is relevant: do their own 'popular heroes' (for want of a better phrase) play the same role in their lives as Bowie played to older generations? Why are they so important to them? Should they be so important? And in 2) Yes, the media do play a part in focusing attention on what the media have selected and how they choose to present it: that's its role in society. It isn't 'wrong', but strong, repeated messages do influence public thinking.

Mr Tipps makes the point about Bowie representing a message that being 'different' is okay. But 'being different' changes from generation to generation. As do musical tastes. If one were to list all the ways in which Bowie was considered to be important, would these still be the kind of issues that are, in absolute terms (i.e. for ever), 'important'? Or can you not question why they're important and say 'they just are'?

[Beef Oven!]

I wonder how widespread the perception of "overkill" really is.

The only place I've come across such a perception to alleged overkill, speaking for myself as it were, is on these boards.

[Stanfordian]

I wonder how widespread the perception of "overkill" really is.

The only place I've come across such a perception to alleged overkill, speaking for myself as it were, is on these boards.

Hiya Beefy,

There has been discussion even editorials about DB on BBC Radio 4.

[french frank]

I wonder how widespread the perception of "overkill" really is.

The only place I've come across such a perception to alleged overkill, speaking for myself as it were, is on these boards.

Google:

Bowie news coverage too much

PS It doesn't mention this forum, as far as I can see.

[Bryn]

I wonder how widespread the perception of "overkill" really is.

The only place I've come across such a perception to alleged overkill, speaking for myself as it were, is on these boards.

Horror of Horrors, The Man Who Fell to Earth is on the Horror Channel from 00:35 Tuesday morning. Timer set.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Google:

Bowie news coverage too much

PS It doesn't mention this forum, as far as I can see.

Actually, this thread was envisaged to be a discussion of the general issue of the over-inflation of multiple aspects of recently deceased persons by the media, fan-clubs and hero-worshipping individuals, rather than further discussion of Mr Bowie.

[french frank]

Actually, this thread was envisaged to be a discussion of the general issue of the over-inflation of multiple aspects of recently deceased persons by the media, fan-clubs and hero-worshipping individuals, rather than further discussion of Mr Bowie.

So perhaps "Why are such stories considered worth the amount of coverage?" is a better direction.

[Anna]

So perhaps "Why are such stories considered worth the amount of coverage?" is a better direction.

Because they sell newspapers. Personally I usually have no idea of who these so called celebs are (a while back I also had to google Kim Kardashian to see what she was famous for but I've never watched reality tv)

Just returning briefly to David Bowie. In the interests of research I phoned an elderly family member (born 1938) to ask what she thought about DB and her instant reply was "fascinating, absolutely fascinating" She didn't care for his music but his face, make up, clothes, style, she could look forever at such "a beautiful man" Her children, b. 1965 and '67 came to DB during his commercial phase of Let's Dance in 1983. She enjoyed the coverage because she could look at him again.

[Beef Oven!]

Google:

Bowie news coverage too much

PS It doesn't mention this forum, as far as I can see.

I think that illustrates my point.

Edit: The Whitby Gazette comes up first, with a photograph of a highly representative citizen!

[Beef Oven!]

Horror of Horrors, The Man Who Fell to Earth is on the Horror Channel from 00:35 Tuesday morning. Timer set.

A great film. I will try and watch it.

[Beef Oven!]

Actually, this thread was envisaged to be a discussion of the general issue of the over-inflation of multiple aspects of recently deceased persons by the media, fan-clubs and hero-worshipping individuals, rather than further discussion of Mr Bowie.

A double blow, then?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Google:
Bowie news coverage too much
PS It doesn't mention this forum, as far as I can see.

Aha! So, if the people who appreciate Bowie are all currently in their 50s & 60s - all those who don't see the point are in their 70s & 80s?