David Bowie vs. Roxy Music success in the USA - major discrepancy

Just like the store featured in the movie That Thing You Do! And not unlike the family shop where Brian Epstein worked -- or more precisely, the appliance store across the street that sold records, where Brian learned how to actually sell music.

It really wasn't unlike buying magazines. You can buy magazines at a lot of different kinds of stores today too, and each of them will have some slightly different selections. It was WORK to track down the albums I wanted. Forget about special orders, and when they were gone, they were gone, baby. Hence the absolutely critical role played by re-releases. The Man Who was first released in late 1970 in most of the US (early 71 for the rest of the world), but I didn't actually lay eyes on it until 1973 , which never would have happened had not RCA pushed it back into distribution.

Ditto Space Oddity from 1969, originally released as David Bowie. The song "Space Oddity" was getting regular enough radio play to merit the album being re-released under that name, but even if I'd wanted to, I couldn't have bought the album before the re-release (late 72 but I'm all but certain I never saw it until early 73), because there was no way to get my hands on it. Not that I'd wanted to! There were too few records available to waste my money on a dud with a couple of good tracks, which is why I held out for Aladdin Sane. That, and the fact that we were leaving messiahs for sex.

That said:

Boy is THAT true!

This all sounds ridiculous as I say it aloud, but it's true. And that's even though our house always had music playing, all day and night, whether records or pianos, or my father's drum kit. It's just that buying records was actual work. Even though my little town actually shared a border with Dallas, it was a good half hour or more to a real record store, and who'd want to take a kid to one of THOSE dens of iniquity when you could buy high-quality music like The Beatles "Red" and "Blue" albums, Aladdin Sane, and Houses of The Holy two aisles over from the Pop Tarts.

And to bring it back on topic, album covers for Bowie vs. Roxy played a role, as did Bowie's successful tours of the US (did Roxy Music tour much here?), plus THIS thing on the Midnight Special on NBC: an hour-long show in 1973 with mimes, strange dancers, and David looking like THIS. It was the first time that those of us in the sticks saw David, and to my mind, one of the first times since The Beatles that TV music sent a shockwave down my spine. If you're looking for "Jean Genie" with a horn section and Mick Ronson at his screamingest, you're in luck. Good thing Mom and Dad were already asleep!



Which I think was the difference-maker. David WANTED it, and he wanted it bad. He had the good fortune to have a record company who backed every weird thing he was up to (or appeared to -- what do you think they said "not" to re: David's antics?), and David simply didn't take his foot off the gas -- and he was driving a Sherman tank, dressed in fishnets and feathers, with the glittery arm of a blond guitar god draped across his shoulders. He was simply not going to be denied -- not even when showed up in 74 wearing a dog's actual balls.

There were obviously bands like The Who, Zeppelin, The Stones, Alice Cooper, and Elton John who were every bit as ambitious around then, with the benefit of being huge stars with nearly infinite budgets, but I don't know that anyone demanded it more than David, grinding his way up from small to mid sized halls for years before becoming an arena act in 74-75 as Diamond Dogs transitioned to Young Americans -- exactly when Roxy Music decided to shut itself down for four years. No albums, no tours, nothing.

So the more I think about it, music is one thing, but the social forces were all lined up for David, lined up BY David. Roxy Music was too cool for that sort of thing, and from 75-79, simply not in the game.

 

Interesting point and I see where you're coming from. I didn't mean consistent as in unchanging. I meant that I usually enjoy wherever Bowie takes me on his journey, whereas sometimes Roxy stuff seems more uneven to me - or just flat-out a snoozer ("Avalon")

 

But the one in my town was really small... the whole display area was maybe 16' x 18' and there were just a few TV's along with one brand of kitchen and laundry appliances to choose from. Simmons Appliance & Repair... he was an unsmiling old man just like in That Thing You Do! but the rack-jobbers and the high school kids who worked there kept the bins and the singles rack filled with the latest and greatest. God it was exciting to go in there with me and my sister's combined allowance money on Saturday to chose one single between us! Old Mr. Simmon's watching everyone like a hawk to make sure nobody shoplifted a 45... the rack was right next to the door for some reason.

It's funny too because I remember being overwhelmed by the selection in that place, but I doubt if there were more than 800 or 1000 albums. I have more than ten times that many in my LP and CD collection today.

 

Of course, most Bowie fans will say that I'm missing the point of what made him so great, and I would have agreed in the '70's.

My wife adores David Bowie, but somehow I don't think the years have been kind to most of his catalog. His vocal mannerisms really annoy me for some reason.

 

I disagree with your catalog comment but understand about the voice. I'm also a fan of The Smiths & Morrissey and Robert Smith & The Cure and I know a lot of people don't care for their voices either.

 

I love vocal music, but the human voice is a very personal thing. I hated Neil Young when I was younger and he was a superstar, but eventually came to love his voice. It's a strange thing. Morrissey was lucky to have Marr's great music, IMO. I like Robert Smith when the songs are good.

Bryan Ferry's voice/style is definitely one of the reasons they had a hard time in America, but I like him for whatever reasons. To me it's all about working within one's limitations; when performers try to push themselves beyond their natural limits (later Elvis Costello, Ian McCullough) it gets painful.

 

I think the Euro-centric comment is bang on. There are always bands and artists that are huge in Europe or even in the entire world except the USA. I remember when I was traveling in the 90's. I came across this phenomenon called 'Kylie'. Better looking, better singer, better songs than Madonna but Kylie Minogue couldn't get arrested in the States. Just one of many examples. Roxy were also a very progressive band and didn't hand down the singles the way Bowie did. I'd love to live in a world where 'The Bogus Man' or 'In Every Dream Home a Heartache' were top ten singles but it just doesn't happen. Plus, Bowie established himself early so, even when his music got a bit more challenging later, he had that US audience at the ready.

 

And the vocal award goes to......Zimmerman...

 

Duran Duran were imitating Japan imitating Roxy Music.

 

... whose voice I love. I clearly remember hearing Positively 4th Street on the radio for the first time and immediately thinking he was the coolest guy on the planet.

 

Love Bobby's music...i was just goofing around. Slow day at work.

 

yes, but that's only true for one for sure, perhaps two LP's. Duran Duran for the most part of changed their sound every album and get nil credit for it.

 

It's interesting to compare the careers of each artist. As some have said when Bowie was becoming more adventurous Roxy were smoothing off the experimental edges around Siren - and even further with Manifesto etc. But at the same time an album like Manifesto had some new and interesting sounds and was still just a little bit odd. And they became also a huge singles act around this time with their new dance/new wave sound. Roxy's new direction led eventually to Avalon - an initially poor selling masterpiece while Bowie's led to Let's Dance - a monster seller but not a great album compared to his earlier output.

 

Musical Interlude:



D.D.

 

You should have seen the cover they wanted to do. It wasn't a glove, believe me!

 

When I listen to any of the Roxy albums up through Siren, I hear a band that sounds about five years ahead of its time. It's almost like Roxy Music was the first New Wave band. I can definitely their influence in bands such as The Cars and Duran Duran. Maybe America would have been more receptive to them had they debuted in 1977 instead of 1972.

 

I'll never forget a high school English professor pointing out the joke in a Shakespeare play where someone asks (in response to what I forget) "are you speaking of country matters?" and saying it's meant to be a dirty double-entedre. I can't imagine Ferry didn't have that in mind when naming the LP/designing the jacket.

 

I think you Roxy fans are correct in your "euro" theory. That definitely is part of it. And the first five albums are mostly great.

There is something about the artistry that gives Bowie the edge, though. Granted, Roxy were influential. But if it's true that groups were able to copy the Roxy blueprint to greater success - well, who copied Bowie to greater success than Bowie?

 

Hamlet says it to Ophelia when she refuses his offer to lie his head in her lap.

Yes, I'm sure Ferry was aware of this quote.

Of course, none of this was in my mind when I first came across the cover of Country Life, in my early teens.

 

You lost me a bit with your last couple of examples, but your point remains: history is littered with artists who were bigger in the UK than they were in the U.S. You mention Oasis, but even though they were successful Stateside, it was nothing compared to what they enjoyed back home.

 

I think my observation about Bowie and Roxy Music applies here too. When you look at the two artistically, it might seem a close call. Maybe even a coin toss. In practice, socially speaking, the two couldn't be more different. When David was reaching his first peak, Roxy Music went on hiatus for four years. The next time Roxy had a sniff around a hit with "More Than This," they were up against the Bowie of "Let's Dance."

In fact, Roxy's hiatus began almost the moment that Bowie left the UK to, for all practical purposes, live in the US full time, while he continued to also tour like a demon and make his first inroads to American prime time TV.

I don't know enough about the artistic merits of each of your examples to speak to artistic merits, drbryant, but I do think that the same principle applies: the ones who WANTED to be more popular here BECAME more popular here.

Let's start with US concert dates as a sign of their commitment to success here, courtesy setlist.fm. That's a pretty good sign of how badly they want it, right? I know that the pairings of these were somewhat general, but the differences could be more stark, ESPECIALLY for Elton vs. T. Rex. I narrowed it to 1970-1975, adn got....

• 264 US shows for Elton John
• 44 for T. Rex
• 55 for Mott the Hoople

Not a fair fight, really. And that's leaving aside the 11 albums Elton put out in that period. Whatever it was he wanted, he wanted it a lot.

Here's what struck me about Elton and the US: apart from 1973, when he also spent a lot of time in the rest of the world, he toured far more in the US in these years than in the UK. The obvious observation to add is that you can cover a lot of ground in 20 shows in the UK, but the point is the same regardless. Elton wanted to be big here, so he toured a LOT.

1971, 37 US vs. 24 UK
1972 63 vs 20
1973 41 vs 42
1974 42 vs 10
1975 23 vs 3

A couple of others, focusing on their primes

The Police: 289 US shows
The Jam: 20 US shows

Oasis vs. Blur is a much closer call than I recall: 209 vs. 160 (counting only through the time that Oasis was also on the road).

I think if we compared the size of the venues, though, the gap between them would become a gulf. But for all that the English press and the bands themselves might have gotten caught up in the Battle of Britpop thing, my impression is that here in the US, it just didn't translate. From here, it appeared to be mixed up with class and regional conflicts. An update of mods vs. rockers --- "wait, The Who were mods? How can that be? They rock so hard!" Didn't make any sense at all.

1D had going for them a massive push in the US by Simon Cowell, a guy I kind of like, and whose influence on American music is wider than is generally acknowledged. Carrie Underwood, Kelly Clarkson, Jennifer Hudson, Daughtry: take a bow. There's also the platform that his shows provided as live performance venues for artists trying to reach American audiences....like One Dimension. There's actually a long-ish list of major artists whose first high-profile US appearances were on his shows. Plus deals he was able to make for 1D with Pepsi and the NFL, and another with Office Depot that may have been even more visible in practice....

Welp, I was gonna try to make this short, but there you go.

In review, as I try to get back on topic:

-- Evaluated musically, these questions can seem tricky. Several folks on this thread strongly prefer Roxy to Bowie, Blur to Oasis or what have you. All good.

-- Evaluated socially, they don't seem that hard. The groups mentioned above who became successful in the US did so as part of a concerted effort that included lots and lots of concerts.

-- And indeed, going all the way back to Bowie and Roxy Music, the years when David was at his most active, Roxy Music was in retirement. They came back just in time for David to be one of the biggest acts in the entire world.

The question this leaves me with is -- is there anyone from the UK who was big in the UK and WANTED to be big in the US, but just couldn't crack it? I was going to say Robbie Williams, but I just checked -- 18 shows in the US in his entire career. So at the very least, he only wanted it badly enough to actually show up here for a month, combined.

So, acknowledging Notebookwriter's point that some of these groups, including Oasis (and I think) 1D, didn't reach a similar scale here, is there anyone who wanted to be big in the US, took the steps to try, and then failed? I can't think of any...

....and again coming back, other than Elton John, I can't think of another UK artist who hustled harder to be big in the US than Bowie. And at least for me, Bowie more than earns it artistically, too.

 

I'm going with the opposite as my vote.

 

One thing that is not hard to understand is that it is not true.

 

I agree. Album for album, Roxy was waaaay more consistent than Bowie. To be fair, Bowie put out a lot more albums over a much longer period and props to him for that, but I consider the majority of his 80's output (and much of his recent output) unlistenable. I know it's all a matter of personal taste but for me, Roxy never put out an unlistenable album. Their weakest for me, Manifesto, still has some terrific songs on it. Bowie definitely delivered more hits in the US though, to be sure. I will give him that.

 

That really is my point, along with the difficulty of identifying the reasons why one act is more successful than another.

I think that effort and desire might be part of it, although the concert statistics might be more the result of their popularity rather than the cause. You kind of wonder why Robbie Williams, who is the best selling British artist of all time in the UK, hasn't made a bit more effort in the US, but part of it might be the legacy of the success of Take That in the UK (13 top 10, 8 #1 singles) vs. the US (0 charting singles) while he was in the group. I was at Live 8, and he drew the largest cheers of a night that included McCartney, The Who and the reunited Pink Floyd.