Nope, you're wrong.
He's got a good voice, he sings in unusual styles sometimes, but he can still sing. And his songwriting is also superb.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 13:53, 2 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

also, he is a very good producer

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 13:53, Reply)

And he's a great saxophonist too.

(Bazongaloid, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 13:56, Reply)

His 'good production'
on Raw Power by the Stooges is fucking terrible.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 13:56, Reply)

The stooges are massively overrated

(Bazongaloid, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 13:58, Reply)

Iggy Pop's solo stuff is fucking awful without a doubt
THIS IS BECAUSE HE HUNG AROUND WITH DAVID BOWIE

who radiated shitness so strongly he managed to ruin the bloke who wrote 'Down on the Street'.

Reasons to hate Bowie no.2, that is...
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:01, Reply)

Without Bowie covering China Girl
Iggy would have been penniless and dead. Bowies cover of China Girl is much better than Iggys original.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:02, Reply)

From a musical perspective
Iggy Pop would have been better off dying in about 1973
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:04, Reply)

and from a TV advertising perspective

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:06, Reply)

from
any perspective
(bamboozled Can hear you getting fatter, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:24, Reply)

Sorry,
I disagree with every point you've made there. Particularly with regard to the songwriting.
(LongJohnBaldry, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 13:54, Reply)

Well, when was the last time you shifted millions of albums?
Especially back in the 70s and 80s when an album wasn't hyped by the telly, it was bought because people liked it and because it was good.

He's not perfect, personally I don't really like the Low, Heroes, Lodger trilogy, but Ziggy Stardust, Diamond Dogs, Scary Monsters and Let's Dance and first rate albums.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 13:56, Reply)

Well, I've never tried
I don't deny he's been very successful - I think it's much like the Beatles, the Clash and T.Rex: all have been hugely popular, but I really fail to see why their material is so popular.
(LongJohnBaldry, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 13:57, Reply)

The Beatles were groundbreaking in the stuff they did.
Now days some of it may sound twee, but at the time it was really breathtaking. Personally I like the Beatles, they wrote good tunes with memorable hooks and they were very well produced. Hence people bought them.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:00, Reply)

But what ground did they actually break?
They weren't the first Merseybeat band.
They weren't the first psychedelic band.
They certainly weren't the first blues band.
Granted, they probably helped to make these styles more popular with more mainstream audiences, but does that really make them groundbreaking?
(LongJohnBaldry, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:04, Reply)

I'd say it does

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:05, Reply)

Suit yourself.

(LongJohnBaldry, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:06, Reply)

I'm not a huge fan of the beatles either
I really rate a few of their songs, Come Together for instance, but I would have to say that popularising a style of music to an insanely massive audience is pretty ground breaking
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:07, Reply)

Maybe I'm just splitting hairs
But I would have said the very first Merseybeat bands, the very first psychedelic bands, etc., were the people who broke that ground in that they invented that style. Kudos to a band that can pick up those styles and point out their existence to a wider audience, but I don't think the Beatles deserve as much credit as they seem to get for that. (I think I'm probably just irked, though, by the people who are convinced that the Beatles invented those styles.)
(LongJohnBaldry, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:11, Reply)

I see where you are coming from
and I don't think they deserve quite as much credit as they get.

I'm not totally disagreeing with you here.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:19, Reply)

The Beatles
Were, and are, overrated. So there.
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:08, Reply)

Agreed.
Their music is bland and they are twee.

Look, let's face it people - MY FAV BAND IS BETTER THAN YOURS, NYAH.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:19, Reply)

Yes!
And my wife's better than yours, etc.
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:21, Reply)

Well that is true

(Bazongaloid, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:22, Reply)

Bunch of bandwaggoners
with an ear for a good pop song. The end.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:10, Reply)

It's easy to say
they had an "ear for a good pop song" but you really are forgetting just what a unique partnership lennon and Mcartney had, they wrote so many good catchy songs they were practically an industry unto themselves. It's incredibly difficult to write good songs, you can't just dismiss it that easily.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:14, Reply)

Yes you can
And Paul Mcartney's output of the last 20+ plus years has been nothing short of abominably turgid shite. In fact, I've produced shites that made a better sound on their way out.

Their songs were catchy but that doesn't make them good. Most advertising jingles are catchy; that doesn't make them a contender for an Ivor Novello award. Take That are catchy. But they're still shite.

I don't think the Beatles are shite, btw. just massively overrated.
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:20, Reply)

"Washing machines live longer with Calgon!"
(That's just to back up your point, DG.)
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:22, Reply)

Phil Collins
has shifted millions of albums - this does not make him good.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:04, Reply)

This.
Although i do quite like a lot of Bowie stuff. not to the point where I'd want to write a hugely sycophantic newspaper article about a 40 year old song though.
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:09, Reply)

I love the Low album.
I played it to death when I was a depressed 18 year old. It will always remind me of that special time in my life when I thought there was nothing worth living for : )
( girlinthehole, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 13:58, Reply)

music for miserable teenagers
You've summed it up. Like Radiohead and The Smiths ie shite
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:02, Reply)

Oh dear
I'll give you Radiohead, but the Smiths really are very good.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:03, Reply)

I have to disagree

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:05, Reply)

the first 30 seconds
of How Soon is Now are excellent - but then that god-awful tosser starts moaning on and it's all over for me. He really is a monumental twat. I had the misfortune of seeing him on Jonathon Ross's (another cunt) show and even in his 50s he was trying to be a 'difficult' interviewee, being contrary and generally annoying like a stroppy 15 year old. Cock.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:07, Reply)

Yes, he's a cock
but that doesn't stop The Smiths being good musically. I think Dave Mustaine is one of the all time most unbelievably massive twats ever to have been born. But Megadeth still produced one of the all time great thrash metal albums in "Rust In Peace".
(Bazongaloid, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:08, Reply)

equally
metallica is made up of cocks, but they are awesome
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:09, Reply)

I'm torn now
I like Bowie, but I equally hate the Smiths and numerous other artists mentioned on this thread
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:09, Reply)