Is Ziggy Stardust really that good?

A good documentary from the BBC. Gives a sense of the times and the new ground Bowie was breaking:
Ziggy Stardust

 

Claiming that generally-understood great albums don't reach you as much as those immediately following or preceding them is the new hotness.

 

I love it from start to finish! I think it deserves the historical esteem which it usually recieves. Great music for its time and IMO it holds up well as a "classic rocker".

 

Neither would I, although I've long thought that Aladdin Sane could have been Bowie's greatest album of all if only he had dropped "The Prettiest Star" (I like the original better) and "Let's Spend The Night Together" (this would have made more sense being on Pinups) in favor of "All The Young Dudes" and "John, I'm Only Dancing" respectively.

As it stands, Aladdin Sane is still a mighty fine album, but Ziggy truly is Bowie's "gold standard" if you will, even if it could also have benefited from a song swap or two (I'd have dropped "It Ain't Easy" in favor of "Velvet Goldmine"), and to answer the OP, "yes" it truly is "that good" musically (thank you, Mick Ronson!), culturally (a sizable footprint whether calculated or not!), historically (hey, we're still talking about it!), etc.

 

A great album, would not change it one bit, one of my top five Rock records of all time.

 

I've never quite been as blown away by Ziggy Stardust as some fans--I prefer Aladdin Sane, Station To Station, Low and Scary Monsters, maybe even Diamond Dogs--but it's still a very strong, consistent statement, so I'm not surprised that it was his breakthrough album. There's a certain youthful naivete about Ziggy that's part of its charm, but I guess I prefer my Bowie more decadent and jaded.

 

Yes, of course Ziggy is that good. Definitely a Top-10 of all time.

As an aside, I've often wondered why so many early 70s bands (Bowie, Grand Funk, Johnny Winter) covered Stones songs, when obviously the Stones were still very much active?

I can understand why unknown bands like Josefus might have done so, but not star-level groups...

 

Yes, it's that good.

 

It's a very good album all these years later. It ranks about number 10 in my Bowie album list. Hunky Dory and Diamond Dogs are my favourite early albums.

 

In response to your question: Yes!

An additional commentary: To me is an iconic album, easily in the 50 best rock albums of all the times...

 

It is a great rock album. Perhaps its reputation has gotten a bit inflated over time for a variety of reasons, but regardless, it is one of those special albums in rock history that continues to be inspiring and exciting decades later. Bowie made better albums before and after, but Ziggy is a great one.

 

yes, it is that good. Like when Elton made his turn from the folkie stuff to the pop stuff, there's that breakthrough album that conveys an almost breathless sense of discovery and joy in making and hearing new music played enthusiastically. Here, Bowie went from the folk era to hard edge pop stuff. Don't forget, pop was pop in the early 70's--lite, airy stuff (like the glory of the Zombies' O&O); now we have catchy songs played by grungy (for the time) pedal to the metal rockers. It didn't break down walls, but it was this huge breath of fresh air.

 

The intro to Ziggy Stardust is one of my favorite intros of all time. If you listen to the demo of it, the final note of the sus 4 riff is a G instead of a D as is on the studio version. I wondered who had the idea of making that small change...Bowie or Mick Ronson. I had never heard a guitar tone like that before. Mick Ronson really evelvated the songs to another level IMO. The acoustic guitar almost as high in the mix really highlights the mean sound of the electric guitar.

 

For me it's the one Bowie to own however for some maybe not the best...

 

Yes! And the acoustic guitar is often almost a percussion instrument the way it is recorded. I love Mick Ronson. He was such a good thing for Bowie. Maybe he even made Bowie in a lot of ways.

 

I have not read a lot about that era but I always wondered how much Mick Ronson was involved in getting to the final versions of the songs.
Bowie wrote the songs and was the center of attention but Mick Ronson's guitar sound and style was one of the main reasons why I listened and still listen to that era of Bowie. In some ways, he did raise the album to another level. His guitar tone added to the strangeness of Bowie's character Ziggy.

 

It's his best album and a stone-cold classic from beginning to end. I've played it hundreds of times and it never fails to amaze me. It's perfect and my favourite album of all time. There's nothing else like it, except maybe a couple of other Bowie albums.

 

I think it's fantastic. I just wanted to know what the other people on this board thought.

 

Same with me. On top of all of the great things about the album, Bowie's vocals are down right amazing IMO on this album.

 

It was the first album of his that I heard and I was transfixed. I'd never heard anything like it and I pretty much played it at least once a day for a year. The voice, the lyrics, the production, the other-worldliness of it all really struck a chord with me. I played it again the other day and I sang along from front to back. Thankfully, no one else was home.

 

This is one of those records that I can still sing along to the whole thing after all these years. There aren't many of those. Who cares if anyone else is home? I sound freaking GREAT! Just ask me.

 

I think it's popular for a reason: the songs were good and the whole concept of creating a mythical rock idol complete with his own backing band was brilliant. I would never think of myself as a big Bowie fan, but this album captured imaginations. In a sense, the album was larger than life and remains so do to the hype and conjured mystery behind its creation.

Tons of bands took a page from this album, whether it be Bauhaus or a young Randy Rhoads (later of Ozzy fame). Trevor Bolder and Woody Woodmansey were a terrific rhythm section and Mick Ronson might be one the most overlooked guitarists to ever pick up the instrument.

 

I'm listening to the 2015 (2013) vinyl reissue right now. Yeah....it's an absolute classic.

Here's a great site with a lot of great info

http://www.5years.com/FIVE.htm

 

All elements are aligned on this album- the concept, the character, the era, the songs, the band, the performances, the engineering, the production, the mixing. Every little thing perfect. The persona and the songs get a lot of attention, but the sonics are immaculate - a little encapsulated world. Thematically and lyrically unconventional as well. Lady Stardust always gets me.

 

Ronson was certainly musical director at that point. The band was essentially Mick's guys (they had played together as the Rats). Mick also had quite a bit of musical input especially on The Man Who Sold The World although he went uncredited as a writer.

His work as both a guitarist and an arranger was used extensively by Bowie in the Ziggy period and is evident on Lou Reed's Transformer. The guy was amazing. But he couldn't really stand on his own as a solo artist (not that he even wanted to).

To me on Diamond Dogs you can really feel his absense. Great album but not quite what it could have been. Bowie needed to move on as an artist maybe... But personally I feel like he could have used a little Ronson magic again earlier than he went back to him.