{"id":57090,"date":"2016-01-11T11:08:25","date_gmt":"2016-01-11T17:08:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=57090"},"modified":"2016-01-11T17:15:14","modified_gmt":"2016-01-11T23:15:14","slug":"rip-david-bowie","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=57090","title":{"rendered":"RIP David Bowie"},"content":{"rendered":"

David Jones – who had to change his surname to “Bowie” after the Monkees debuted in the UK, almost fifty years ago – passed away yesterday, way too early, at age 69.<\/p>\n

He’s been a longtime\u00a0candidate for one of my “Things I’m Supposed To Love<\/a>…” bits. \u00a0I have always been ambivalent about Bowie’s music – and like a lot of music I started out as ambivalent about, it’s probably something I should look into further.<\/p>\n

Historically? \u00a0It probably doesn’t help that I first encountered Bowie at at time when he was at his most pretentious – and I was, personally, at my most pretentious in my disdain for pretense. \u00a0And even some of his biggest fans will cop to the fact that, especially earlier in his career, a lot of style had to cover for not all that much substance; he started out as a pretty rudimentary lyricist. \u00a0And, duh – rock and roll\u00a0is\u00a0<\/em>more about style than substance; never let anyone tell you rock and roll is “poetry set to music”; it’s doggerel set to music slathered in style!<\/p>\n

But it wasn’t\u00a0my\u00a0<\/em>style.<\/p>\n

So one way or another, Bowie had very little music that really, truly grabbed me where I lived, at least initially.<\/p>\n

But it’s not quite that simple. \u00a0It never is with music, is it?<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Even back when I was a serious un-fan of Bowie’s,\u00a0I loved “Fame”:<\/p>\n