[kj] OT: Jane's WAS: New October File vid

[B. Oliver Sheppard]

T.B. wrote:

> I don't know if I'd call solo era Johnny Thunders "glam."  Being a 

> junkie doesn't make someone "glam."

 
Of course it doesn't. I used the single phrase "heroin-thin" among a 
string of other adjectives to paint an overall pictur. I did not paint 
it as the salient characteristic. Others were kind enough to do that for 
me here. Now the heroin part has been focused on laserlike as if it's 
all I mentioned, or as if I said it was the major pillar of the 
phenomenon. I didn't.


TB wrote:

"Bowie definately went through a period that could be legitimately 
labeled "glam," especially considering he helped define much of what the 
label/genre would represent.  Iggy Pop, not so much.  If anything, Iggy 
Pop was the prototypical punk."


Well, for me one of the definitive documents of glam is Mick Rock's 
_Blood and Glitter_.  From the publisher's description of the book: "If 
Mick Rock had taken only two photos in his entire life- the 1972 shot of 
Iggy Pop as a burnished statue of sinew and make-up, used for The 
Stooges' Raw Power cover, and the hazy, ethereal 1972 portrait of David 
Bowie, which made it onto the sleeve of Space Oddity - he'd still have 
been a living God amongst anyone who grew up through the 70s. As Blood 
And Glitter demonstrates with relentless panache, Rock did not stop at a 
pair of zeitgeist-freezing images.[...] What becomes clear, as the 
lipstick-smeared pages of Blood And Glitter turn, is that Rock was far 
more than a 'glam photographer.' His engorged gallery of studio, live 
and hanging-out depictions of the 'Unholy Trinity' - Iggy Pop, Bowie and 
Lou reed.." blah blah. (And it is a great book.)

There is no clear line between much proto-punk and much glam. New York 
Dolls -- case in point. Some of Bowie's stuff,  and a lot of Iggy's 
stuff. There are areas of overlap, as with anything like this. And some 
was much more on one side than the other. Nothing hard and fast.

-Oliver