She is in the same tier as bowie,
Every fiber of my being wanted to stop reading here tbh, 'cos this is all kinds of mental mate, seriously. However....
Bowie is great really great but he's not James Brown,Miles Davis, Hendrix or John Coltrane Quartet great.
I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, but it wasn't the discussion. The discussion was which British solo artist would be our best representative at a table with that ilk. And according to you, it should be Winehouse!? Or at least that she has as much reason to be there as Bowie? Aside from everything else, it's an argument that lacks even internal consistency, as you're throwing up artists whose legacy lies in their influence and innovation, to claim one of music's most famous cultural arbiters is no more significant than a Motown throwback soul singer.
Look, I'm a huge fan of Back to Black, and have frequently argued it's an all time classic, but Bowie is a cultural behemoth, with multiple classic albums, spanning 5 decades and multiple genres*, who has influenced countless arenas of art in his time. Winehouse was a very talented girl who tragically died just as she was getting started, but who spanned merely one genre, which while novel at the time, was ultimately a retro Ronson infused throwback, rather than anything genuinely new. So even if you c
ould argue that Back to Black is a better album than Hunky Dory, Ziggy Stardust or Low, you still couldn't argue it had anything like the influence in it's time, or beyond. An argument that would presumably be the very backbone of any argument for the GOAT status of Brown, Hendrix, Davis et al? None of which I'm attempting to disparage, because I'm not arguing Bowie is better than them. I'm arguing he's better than Amy Winehouse. And comfortably.
As I said earlier, Kate Bush is a much closer female peer for Bowie, and above Winehouse in the pantheon of British female solo artists for all the same "innovative" reasons as your namcheck posse. And tbh, I'm surprised that anyone who can casually throw their appreciation of Miles Davis and John Coltrane into a music discussion, would overlook something like that.
Which brings us to...
I've watched Bowie live(Although sadly never in person)and thought this is one of best performer of all time but with the others it's like watching something from other planet.
What does "I've watched Bowie live, but not in person" mean? You've watched footage of a Bowie concert? You don't mean that, do you? 'Cos we've all done that. By that rationale, I saw Queen at Live Aid. What "live" Bowie did you see? Space Oddity era Bowie? Ziggy era Bowie? Thin Duke era Bowie? Middle aged and slightly cringey haired 90s Bowie? 'Cos all were markedly different, and much of the older footage is clearly bad and unrepresentative. Which is all without mentioning that if you're using "live presence" as a barometer, I've seen Winehouse live too (Although sadly never in person) and she was frequently a fecking shambles.
And trust, I really like Winehouse. I've written rambly paragraphs like this arguing in her favour before, often on here (or
@MikeUpNorth) But this debate is a hiding to nothing mate, honestly. It's like comparing Jeff Buckley to Leonard Cohen. Or Dylan.
Anyway, Glasto: I finally watched Radiohead's set. Pretty great, and especially well paced. You were never 2 songs away from a classic and the mix of upbeat and downbeat was just right. Though tbh, the idea of "encores" that essentially make up half the set is lost on me completely. To me an encore is when you pretend to leave the stage, then come back on 3 minutes later for one more crowd pleaser, no? When did it become "the last 6 or so tunes of the set, or something"? Why is that a thing?
* It's also worth noting that Iggy Pop's biggest albums - The Idiot and Lust For Life - were both co-written, co-produced and sung on by Bowie. Influence.
