Ziggy Stardust 30th Anniversary

jonerik writes "Any short list of influential rock albums of the '70s is likely to include David Bowie's 'The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars,' the story of a futuristic alien rock star and his demise during the Earth's final years. Originally released in June 1972, Ziggy is celebrating his 30th anniversary this year in fine style. First of all, the album is being reissued today in a limited edition 2-CD set. Secondly, the 1983 documentary, 'Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars,' directed by filmmaker D.A. Pennebaker ('Don't Look Back,' 'Monterey Pop') is being re-released this month and John Cameron Mitchell has an interesting interview with Pennebaker about the re-release in this week's Village Voice."

Comments

Double CD versions of classics considered harmful

[bartash]

Why are influential albums reissued as double CDs? Could it be anything to do with money? We just had 'The Velvet Underground and Nico' released as a double CD so that you can listen to the mono version of the album, or the stereo. Also annoying was the 'Live at Leeds' debacle: First there was a version for CD, then a version with extra tracks (the remaster), then a deluxe double CD version.

Having said that ZSatSFM is a great album. And actually the single version CD seems to be still available.

My other favorite Bowie album: Low.

-Andrew

Re:Double CD versions of classics considered harmf

[Monkey Angst]

We just had 'The Velvet Underground and Nico' released as a double CD so that you can listen to the mono version of the album, or the stereo.

Ack! That has got to be the WORST excuse for a double album I've ever heard. But I must admit, if the second disc had anything to recommend it (B-sides, demos, etc) I'd pick it up, as I probably would for any band I really dig. For instance, Rhino's reissues of Elvis Costello's entire catalog as double CD's -- that's cool.

But a mono version? I think I can make my stereo do that, right? :)

Re:Who?

[glwtta]

if you consider /.'s 7-8 year old readers "everyone"

Its great but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you are 40 or 50, this shouldnt mean much to you.

Imagine that in the 60's and 70's the 20 year olds were getting exited about the music from the 1930's or the 1940's. What kind of music do you think that we would be listening to now if that were the case? The Beach Boys, Velvets, 13th Floor Elevators, Mamas & Papas and Beatles would never have happened.

The truth is, the 20 year olds of today should not be listening to Ziggy Stardust. Its as relevant to them as Fats Waller was to listeners of the Velvet Underground in the 1960's.

This generation is pathetic and lost. They are without a distinct identity, the the garbage that is made by them (Linkin Park for example) is base beyond measure.

It is a sad indication of how pathetic these 20 somethings are, that they have to look back to music made ten years before they were born.

I despise and heap scorn on you all.

Re:Woohoo!!

[John_Booty]

It might be worth downloading one or two of these songs to a.) find out what all this is about (I never heard of Ziggy Stardust) and b.) see if the album is worthwhile to the younger generation.

Disclamer: I love mp3's, and spend about 10 hours a day or more listening to them.

But let me be frank - your post underscores everything that's wrong about mp3's. A lot of the great albums (particularly those from the 70's) are albums, things best listened to as a musical whole. Especially with Bowie, who had a fantastic visual aspect, the album cover and artwork is an important part of what makes these albums special.

I'm not saying there aren't some great singles on those albums - the "Ziggy Stardust" song itself is a great single - but with a lot of classic albums, "downloading a couple of singles" to see if you'll like it is like watching a couple of scenes from a movie to see if it's good. You're missing a big part of the experience!

If it's a good album, the songs WILL stand on their own because the music is of course the most important part... just saying that you'd be missing some of the magic that separates a couple of catchy songs from an actual cohesive whole that's greater than the some of its parts.

And don't paint me as an old fart. I'm only 26, and I think some of the best music ever has been produced in the past ten years, though much of it is underground... thanks to the radio sucking so badly. :)

Whatever

[topher71]

Music for mass consumption has always sucked. Once in a great while this is untrue (U2, Beatles, Elvis, Duke Ellington, Nirvana, etc), but for 95% of the time, most everything on the charts is shite because it's generalized for mass consumption. For example, in the 70s you had Leif Garrett, The Osmonds, David Cassidy, and the like. Artists like David Bowie (and Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath and The Pixies and New Order and The Cure ...) were ignored by the mainstream media. This happened in the 60s as well, just take a look at the productized crap that was filling the charts along with the Beatles.

People seeking substance ususally have to dig a little to find music with real feeling.

Your problem is that you're judging the current music crop soley based on the mainstream outlets. That's like judging the late 60s by Lawerence Welk or Dick Clark's show.

Go to a non-chain local music store and talk to some of the people who work there. They will help you find better music...and in a few years when one of these mostly unknown but great bands is considered an influencial legend someone will complain that 'nobody makes music like that anymore.'

There is so much great music out there right now it's scarey. The productized music crap should be largely ignored. Find the real artists...and BTW, hiphop is alive and well, just check out The Roots.

PS: There's nothing wrong with listening to old music. When I was in high school in the mid-80s, I was listening from everything from Depeche Mode to Jaco Pastorius to Bach to AC/DC to Linton Kwesi Johnson.

My only regret is not finding the Pixies until after they'd broken up:(

Re:Woohoo!!

[thales]

Well I am the old fart who remembers the music of the late 60s and early 70s when it was new.

The best albums of the era were Concept Albums, a unified product, each track set up the next song. Some of the Albums were a Musical story, with each song as a chapter of the story. You could buy singles that had a hit song from the album, but few people wanted the single, because the rest of the album enhanced that song making it part of the experance.

One area that CDs can't compete with those old LPs is the cover art. The covers were huge compared to the size of a jewel case and the graphic artists took advantage of size creating covers that were works of art capable of standing on their own, apart from the album.

This is something the idiots at the RIAA need to get through their thick skulls. It is possible to create Albums (or CDs) that are so good that people won't give a shit about a pale imitation like a single in 1972 or a couple of MP3 tracks in 2002.

Before about 1967 albums were just a collection of songs of assorted quality. Then the Bands introduced the concept album, and these albums damn near destroyed the market for Rock singles.

Now we have returned to the style that existed prior to 1967. Most CDs are just a collection of songs with no unifiying theme, and often the quality is so spotty that there is only a track or two worth listening to. Now that the concept albums of the late 60s early 70s are dead the market for the singles that they killed has revived, this time in the form of MP3s.

Ziggy is one of the better concept albums from that era. Try it and you'll see how the the RIAA could cut into their "Piracy" problem, by releasing an album that is so damn good that it's still worth buying 30 years after it was recorded.