Thom Yorke = David Bowie?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Bear with me here.

The two artists are plainly very different; Yorke can sing better, for one thing (I mean that in the classical sense: he can hit more notes, stay on key, etc. Bowie's voice is certainly no less "interesting," than Yorke's - his delivery is smart and slightly skewed, he plays with consonants in similar ways). Bowie has by now established himself as a canonical figure, with a extensive (if uneven) catalogue. Yorke is still relatively small change (OK Computer aside), enveloped in Radiohead. Thom: grunge; Bowie: glam.

But go listen to "Five Years," off Ziggy Stardust. I'm struck over the head by how much of a through-line there is to "Wolf in the Door," "National Anthem," or the general (mid-late) Radiohead aesthetic. It's not that I think that "Wolf in the Door" is modelled on "Five Years," but that Yorke and Bowie seem to be playing with very similar music tropes, eyes fixed on the same destination.

see:
slow piano build; voice shoving through on top; accusatory dissatisfaction; pattering of drums chasing after the songs' shirt-tails; fairytale-dystopia lyrics ("A soldier with a broken arm fastened his star to the wheels of a Cadillac" vs "I'm walking out in a force ten gale / Birds thrown around, bullets for hail"); screeching strings breakdown; sucking on a lemon vs brain hurting "so much"; milk, pigs, children, hands, television sets; screaming to be let out; hermaphroditism?; weeping choirboy; apocalypse. And there's much more, isn't there?

― Sean M (Sean M), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 13:15 (twenty-two years ago)

You're comparing a man to a boy.

Though Im sure Kate would love to see Thom suck someones blood on the big screen.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 13:22 (twenty-two years ago)

You're absolutely right that David Bowie : Thom Yorke :: man : boy.

But what about early Bowie [Ziggy Stardust] : current Thom [tchocky]? And does this allow us to speculate about where Yorke is headed?

― Sean M (Sean M), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 13:26 (twenty-two years ago)

If you want to go back to the early seventies, I'd say Radiohead have much more in common with Dark Side Of The Moon-era Pink Floyd than David Bowie. I sort of see what you're saying with Five Years, but dystopian alienation is only one side of Bowie - the other side is the glam theatrics and the Walker-esque crooner. Radiohead have none of that, they are very un-glam. They don't camp it up. They don't do anything like When You Rock 'n' Roll With Me.

― Susan (Susan), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 13:32 (twenty-two years ago)

As for the man/boy comparison, Radiohead have actually been at it a fairly long time. By the time Bowie was Yorke's age, he'd probably just finished Scary Monsters, i.e. he'd already completed his most important work. He'd got through an awful lot of different styles and experiemnts, whereas Radiohead have really only had two periods: up to OK Computer, and after OK Computer.

― Susan (Susan), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 13:36 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm trying to split apart Thom Yorke and Radiohead, though. I'm not convinced that Yorke's impulses run that deeply into prog (see: his large number of skewed-and-strange acoustic guitar/piano ballads). A larger group of people (ie, a band) isn't going to be as dynamic, creatively, as a solo artist can be. See: Justin Timberlake, David Bowie (vs Spiders from Mars). Like you say, Susan, I don't think it's very useful to compare Radiohead and David Bowie, but listening to "Five Years," there seems an interesting link between Yorke and Bowie, that I had never considered before. Imagining Thom post-Radiohead (or in a Radiohead over which he has total control), I would have probably pointed to Peter Gabriel, but the Bowie connection makes me imagine more fertile possibilities...

― Sean M (Sean M), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 13:44 (twenty-two years ago)

I would claim that Bowie has had a farther displacement from his original genre(folky-type tunes).

interesting tho that they both have something fucked up with their eyes--thom's hoodie vs bowie's discoloration.

and i agree with the Pink Floyd connection.

― Kingfish (Kingfish), Thursday, 7 August 2003 12:01 (twenty-two years ago)

two years pass...

So, what now?

― Andrew (enneff), Sunday, 9 July 2006 04:53 (nineteen years ago)

What now? Let me tell you what now. I'ma call a coupla hard, pipe-hittin' niggers, who'll go to work on the homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch. You hear me talkin', hillbilly boy? I ain't through with you by a damn sight. I'ma get medieval on your ass.

― Marmot 4-Tay: You are beautiful, and you are alone. (marmotwolof), Sunday, 9 July 2006 05:11 (nineteen years ago)

I mean what now, between me and you?

― cosmo vitelli (cosmo vitelli), Sunday, 9 July 2006 08:14 (nineteen years ago)

Oh, that what now. I tell you what now between me and you. There is no me and you. Not no more.

― Marmot 4-Tay: You are beautiful, and you are alone. (marmotwolof), Sunday, 9 July 2006 19:30 (nineteen years ago)

two weeks pass...

Thom Yorke = the guy from yes

― a.b. (alanbanana), Sunday, 23 July 2006 21:15 (nineteen years ago)

yorke = david gilmour

― yetimike (McGonigal), Monday, 24 July 2006 06:18 (nineteen years ago)

Yorke = the Brit James Taylor with a few more books and a laptop

― Grey, Ian (IanBrooklyn), Monday, 24 July 2006 23:36 (nineteen years ago)

And a poor mans' Matt Bellamy

― Grey, Ian (IanBrooklyn), Monday, 24 July 2006 23:37 (nineteen years ago)

radiohead is pretty tight.

― M@tt He1geson: Real Name, No Gimmicks (Matt Helgeson), Monday, 24 July 2006 23:45 (nineteen years ago)

Yorke = Dave Wakeling... w/o the songs though :(

― Steve Shasta (Steve Shasta), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 00:33 (nineteen years ago)

David Bowie = Dave Mirra

― M@tt He1geson: Real Name, No Gimmicks (Matt Helgeson), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 00:34 (nineteen years ago)

Bowie - Sex = Yorke

― Bobby Peru (Bobby Peru), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 00:56 (nineteen years ago)

new math is so confusing.

― M@tt He1geson: Real Name, No Gimmicks (Matt Helgeson), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 00:57 (nineteen years ago)

Yorke is pretty damn sexy. I think I'd definitely rather have sex with him than Bowie, any day.

― Silver Machine Manor (kate), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 10:11 (nineteen years ago)

Yorke=total badass. You haters out there just don't get it, I suppose.

― smartypants (smartypants), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 12:11 (nineteen years ago)

yeh that must be it

― Konal Doddz (blueski), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 12:13 (nineteen years ago)

Admit it, the Yorke and Bowie thing was actually just based on them each having troubles with one eye.

― mike h. (mike h.), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 13:07 (nineteen years ago)

I agree that there are similarities between Yorke's work and certain aspects of Bowie's artistic persona. Disaffection, nihilism, androgynous ethereality, apocalyptic daydreaming, solopsism, science-fiction, loneliness, "stranger in a strange land" vibe, angelic naivete, etc.

But, as others have pointed out, there are crucial differences, too. The most obvious being that the above traits are just a tiny corner of David Bowie's stylistic palette, while Yorke almost never ventures beyond them.

This is because Bowie stood at a remove from his art. He operated out of a theatrical, self-consciously artificial, singer/songwriter tradition. He adopted, indulged, mutated and discarded musical styles as quickly as his artistic identities. Bowie always seemed to choose and play with his themes in a very stylish, intentional manner.

Yorke, meanwhile, does not seem to stand at a remove from his themes. Yorke presents his artistic choices as his own, true self. He never suggests that he is articulating a fashionable, merely interesting point of view -- instead, he seems to inhabit his art in a "pure", unselfconscious sense.

That's the primary difference that I can see. Bowie presented himself as a master craftsman, indulgently playing with all the fascinating toys the world offered him. Yorke presents himself as a boyish idiot-savant, expressing his inner wounds in the only way he knows how.

― fuckfuckingfuckedfucker (fuckfuckingfuckedfucker), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 13:14 (nineteen years ago)

Plus, Bowie wasn't afraid to be seen enjoying himself, asserting himself, or admitting that other people actually exist.

Yorke clings steadfastly to a despairing, self-centered asexuality.

― fuckfuckingfuckedfucker (fuckfuckingfuckedfucker), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 13:16 (nineteen years ago)

Finally, Yorke does not = Floyd.

Yorke = Waters (Barret only if we're being delusional/charitiable).

― fuckfuckingfuckedfucker (fuckfuckingfuckedfucker), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 13:34 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.